Week 1: Putting It Together

This short video features a variation on the classic story of Rip Van Winkle. In this version, Winkle awakens from his 100-year slumber and explores the surrounding world. He finds that great advances have been made in the business and medical sectors but that the education field has remained largely familiar.

On iTunes U, I selected the video "Introduction to 21st Century Worksheets" from the Nebraska Department of Education. The main purpose of creating these type of worksheets is to get students into the habits of practicing themselves and being able to teach others to reach a higher level of memory retention.

These worksheets were created in Adobe Acrobat Pro. An example in math that taught the concept of borrowing allowed students to make electronic corrections similar to what they would do with pencil and paper. Another example in higher-level classes allowed for embedding audio and video files to supplement the worksheet content. They could also use the comments feature in Acrobat to record audio feedback about the worksheet.

Week 1: Where in the world am I?

The idea from "Did You Know 4.0" that it is easier than ever to reach people but harder to connect really spoke to me. There are so many ways to reach the students of today, but it has become extremely difficult to figure out how best to do that.

When the speaker in "Those Wacky Kids" referenced co-presence, I could immediately relate. I am frequently amused when my students say that they didn't know about a particular assignment or event because they were gone from school, but if there was a piece of gossip floating around or a confrontational incident, they know all about that due to their connectivity. I suppose that one of our challenges as teachers is to bridge the gap toward communicating across space useful, rather than generally useless, information. Communication is a powerful tool if utilized properly, and rather than shutting it down completely, we should harness the influence that it can have upon spreading the proper things.

While I agreed with many points Thomas Friedman made in "The World is Flat," I also feel that it is quite easy to remain isolated in the present world. The introduction of the do-all Smart Phone enables people to go off into their own little world, do only the things they want to do, and not be challenged with new ideas and tastes (all related to the dying art of conversation). Constructivism has its place, but without at least some guidelines I have found that a lot of today's students will generally drift toward what they already know and like. I try to use today's technologies to showcase "old-school" skills or information. While I am not always successful with this, it helps to keep students more focused while also introducing them to things they may not have previously encountered and likely will not if they simply remain with what is familiar to them.

"The Mr. Winkle Wakes" video skewered the fact that schools have not changed recently. I think that in education we do need to keep up with new technologies to maintain student interest but a wholesale revamping of what school is and how it works would not be in the best interests of the students or teachers. There should remain a bifurcation of what we are in our free time versus what we are in our work/professional time. Students can certainly have their "hyperconnectivity" when appropriate, but even today few jobs afford people that kind of freedom while they are at work. That is why I feel we should meet somewhere in the middle with students without completely converting to that style.

The Hell's Kitchen Final Four as U.S. Presidents

Hell's Kitchen is one of my must-see television shows. I have not missed an episode since it's inception. While some seasons have been stronger than others, the show remains almost constantly entertaining, largely due to the presence of Chef Gordon Ramsay. What has fascinated me about this particular season has been the fact that none of the contestants has really stood out head and shoulders above the others. Each chef has strengths that are counterbalanced by glaring weaknesses, whether in technique or character. These particular comparisons were inspired by Jay's frequent justifications, and his may be the strongest, though feel free to judge for yourselves.

Jay: Bill Clinton. Jay never seems to be able to bring himself to admit any wrongdoing, even when evidence to the contrary is shoved in his face. A prime example was when Chef Ramsay cooked a frozen entree for the palate challenge. Jay waxed eloquent about how it was fresh and vibrant. After Ramsay revealed that it had been pre-prepared, Jay switched his tune to the meat tasting old. Throw in his spirited pursuit of Holli, and the only thing for Jay left to do is say, "Well, it depends on what your definition of the word chef is." Is Jay able to keep being more Slick Willie than disgraced Bill?

Holli: John F. Kennedy. As one of the better-looking chefs, Holli has been a victim of the classic HK editing with extended glances, bubbly giggles, and superimposed suggestive music. With all that, some may overlook the fact that she has significant culinary talents and has performed arguably the best of all the chefs in dinner services. Some critics dismissed Kennedy as a prettyboy player until he proved that there was something behind the facade. Where does Holli fall on the plane of style versus substance?

Autumn: John Tyler. After having been put up for elimination by her teammates in seemingly every show in recent memory, it is safe to say that Autumn does not have many friends. John Tyler was so despised in his lifetime that he was rejected by not one, but two political parties (the Whigs refused to nominate him for president in the 1844 election, an ironic reversal of Autumn's similar situation). Late in life, Tyler won election as a representative to the Confederate Congress. Will failure in HK cause renegade Autumn to go back to law school?

Benjamin: Calvin Coolidge. For all his bluster about his experience, creativity, and talents, Benjamin usually comes out a disappointing dud in dinner services. Not only that, he is also the most silent chef I can recall on HK. The man simply does not talk to his teammates, greatly to his detriment as Ramsay threatened to eliminate him on the spot recently if he did not start sharing. Coolidge once famously refused to help a reporter win a contest of getting him to say more than three words at a meal with one of the greatest two-word putdowns in history, "You lose." Will Benjamin's laconic ways also cause him to lose?

I plan to keep watching, as I have always done, to find out. The same I cannot confirm for the new show "Master Chef," but that is something for another time.

Thoughts on Elena Kagan

First, a disclaimer. I likely hold several views ideologically opposite of those held by Elena Kagan, so I approach this issue with that bias. Moreover, it appears that she will sail through the confirmation vote with flying totals due mostly to the Democratic Supermajority Less One. Still, I feel there are a few pertinent reasons why Ms. Kagan is not the ideal candidate for the Supreme Court that some have painted her to be.

First, Ms. Kagan has never been a judge. Her supporters continually skirt this issue by pointing to the fact that she has served in other positions traditionally held by Supreme Court appointees: judicial clerk, academia, and public offices. However, this fails to recognize that none of these positions perform the same task as a judge. A clerk is usually told what to do, where to look, and what to search for. An academic can wield significant influence in presenting personal opinions, through teaching and writing, that sometimes go unchallenged. A public servant must represent the views of the government. Even in her current, and arguably most prestigious, post of Solicitor General, Ms. Kagan is bound to always argue and support the position of the Obama Administration. A judge must fairly and impartially apply existing law and precedent in evaluating the case presently before him or her. While I have no doubt that Ms. Kagan is far more intelligent than I, lacking a clear record of judicial rulings, it is nearly impossible to trace her fair, impartial legal reasoning. I am not sure how the ABA can deem her "well qualified" in this area aside from mere guesswork and supreme optimism. Simply having been a teacher does not make me "well qualified" to be Secretary of Education and run a government department, but perhaps the ABA would endorse me.

Second, even more glaring in the absence of such rulings, Kagan repeatedly declined to answer questions directly in the nomination hearings. Her supporters repeatedly referred to her as intelligent and possessing a sense of humor. Clearly, what the Supreme Court has lacked all these years is a stand-up comedian. Call me crazy, but I would much prefer to know a nominee's legal reasoning than be entertained by her sense of humor, but if I was a senator I would have been in the minority on that one apparently.

Third, Kagan marks the second straight judicial nomination for President Obama (after Sonia Sotomayor, of course) who is childless. Now, as a man, I am sure I will be barking up the wrong tree here, but it seems to me that it is much easier for a woman who has never been through the birth process to rule that abortion should remain legal. One such nominee is merely interesting, but two in a row suggests a pattern that Obama may continue if given the chance.

Finally, haven't we dealt with such a nominee before? Flash back to 2005, when President Bush nominated Harriet Miers. There were howls of how she was unqualified, how she was a political flunky that would do whatever Bush wanted, and how it was so outrageous. Kagan shares many parallels with Miers (aside from graduating and working in the Ivy League, which is becoming basically a prerequisite for becoming a SC justice, however irrelevant that may be). The response this time? Very few mainstream media outlets have said any of those things about Kagan. I think a major reason that Obama picked Kagan is so that he could have someone on the Court who thinks very similarly to him.

Where is the outrage? Apparently, it was almost entirely spent on the Bush Administration. Though Obama has done several questionable things as well, fewer people are holding his feet to the fire. Sadly, the country will not improve significantly until more people start holding this president accountable for his decisions.

Nothing and Everything

To say John Adams was disappointed in being the nation's first vice president, instead of president, would be a slight understatement. Adams railed against his position as being "the most insignificant office that ever the invention of man contrived or his imagination conceived." However, in the midst of his discouragement and perceived unimportance, Adams also saw an opportunity. He stated, "In this I am nothing, but I may be everything."

As a young adult in the Adventist Church, I frequently identify with Adams' view of the Vice Presidency of the United States. Church leaders endlessly talk about how young people are the future of the body, but when push comes to shove, many of them bar the ability of young people to participate in or exert influence in church operations.

In some churches I have visited, it is interesting to see how much of the service shows off the work or research that a pastor, an adult Sabbath School group, an elder, or church staff may be doing. However, accomplishments of younger people are often minimized or completely ignored.

The solution to this is not an elegant one. The proliferation of many church plants or separate worship services geared toward younger people have arisen in recent years partly as a response to the fact that this demographic group feels largely neglected by the church. My activities have been mostly to serve as a deacon, fill-in Sabbath School teacher, and usher. While these duties are important, the fact remains that this is often the most involved a young person may hope to become in church as long as older individuals continue to maintain a monopoly on church operations.

I was afforded the opportunity several months ago to give a sermon. What I regret now is that I did not use that forum to give voice to how my current generation feels about church and why so many of us have made the decision to avoid it. It may be some time before I get another chance to take a platform with similar freedom of speech, but I hope that when it does come around I will be able to say something that makes a difference. It may be nothing, but it could be everything.