Friday, July 13, 2007

NEXT POST
Media Implies "Cameras are Cool." Liberties Are Lost Michael Moore v. Wolf Blitzer (7/9/07) copyright © 2007 Betsy L. Angert. BeThink.org Michael Moore is not the topic of this treatise. "Sicko" is not the source of my pain. While I long for Universal Health Care in America, in this missive I am discussing as Mister Moore does in the above interview, the media. The manipulation, or the "objectivity" within a message concerns me. The mainstream media delivers a message and often the public accepts what they see or hear as truth. I believe an open mind questions all information. However, people easily trust what seems credible. Discerning the nuances can be challenging. We have faith. Those with resources will do the research. However, that is not always so. Granted those on the Right have long claimed journalists are liberal Left leaning masters of the message. In my estimation, the press is not necessarily Left or "right"; nor do they deliver with mastery. While I might offer this story or that, I will refer to only one recent report. Cameras lessen the likelihood of crime, or do they. Late in June 2007, the world witnessed another possible terrorist attack in the Haymarket District not far from Piccadilly Circus. Local citizens saw what they thought strange, and immediately, contacted the authorities. Throughout the day, America's mainstream media spoke of the situation in London. Journalist and the public alike marveled at the magnificence. Britain is covered with cameras. One reporter stated, "There is no hiding from cameras on this piece of London real estate." Everywhere people go, photographic devices probe and prod. Privacy in England refers to the past.According to the latest studies, Britain has a staggering 4.2million CCTV cameras - one for every 14 people in the country - and 20 per cent of cameras globally. It has been calculated...
PREVIOUS POST
School Diversity Segregates Some. Divided Neighborhoods Isolate All copyright © 2007 Betsy L. Angert. BeThink.org Today, I was reminded of how deeply divided this nation is. I read School Diversity Based on Income Segregates Some. I discovered in an attempt to offer equal opportunities, indeed, schools discovered discrimination remained a dominant force. School Boards, Administrators, and the community-at-large concluded educational institutions would be more diverse if learners were assigned to schools based on family incomes. A plan was introduced and implemented. The outcome was mixed; however, the pupil populations were less so. Some races, colors, and creeds were abundant within a given institution; others were not well represented. This findings were contrary to the expected and desired intent of educators. School Districts were determined to establish a sense of unity in their local schools. They did not wish to register or reject students on the basis of race. Family earnings were used to ascertain eligibility. Enrollment numbers were controlled; however the outcome was not as predicted. In a recent New York Times article Journalists Jonathan D. Glater and Alan Finder reported.San Francisco - When San Francisco started trying to promote socioeconomic diversity in its public schools, officials hoped racial diversity would result as well. It has not worked out that way. Abraham Lincoln High School, for example, with its stellar reputation and Advanced Placement courses, has drawn a mix of rich and poor students. More than 50 percent of those students are of Chinese descent. “If you look at diversity based on race, the school hasn’t been as integrated,” Lincoln’s principal, Ronald J. K. Pang, said. “If you don’t look at race, the school has become much more diverse.” San Francisco began considering factors like family income, instead of race, in school assignments when it modified a court-ordered desegregation plan in response to a lawsuit. But school officials...

A being that believes . . . "thinking is the best way to travel!" [Mike Pinder, Moody Blues]

Recent Comments