by cameron | Mar 21, 2007 | Podcast, science, TPN
With the success of The Napoleon Podcast on TPN, I’d really like to develop a whole catalogue of educational podcasts. It strikes me that there are probably tens of thousands of retired educators around the world who have knowledge, educational skills, and time. With podcasting they can each continue to make a significant contribution to the world by taking their educational skills and producing a series of podcasts (video or audio) to convey that knowledge to the rest of us.
Personally I would love to listen to a series of podcasts on mathematics, science, history, language, philosophy, literature – you name it. I’m an information junkie. I think there would be a big market for educational podcasts. Most podcasts are still news and reviews of the week but there is a growing list of shows like our Napoleon show – linear format, educational shows.
If you’re an educator and you are interested in sharing your knowledge with the world, please shoot me an email.
by cameron | Mar 21, 2007 | TPN
Today we’re launching The Wii Show on TPN! Charlie George and Brian Ibbott will be taking a weekly look at Nintendo’s Wii console with news, review and interviews to make sure you get the most out of your Wii investment!
by cameron | Mar 20, 2007 | censorship, climate change, environment, freedom of speech, US politics
From the LA Times’ coverage of the Hansen case:
James Hansen, director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies in the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, took particular issue with the administration’s rule that a government information officer listen in on his interviews with reporters and its refusal to allow him to be interviewed by National Public Radio.
“This is the United States,” Hansen told the House Oversight and Government Affairs Committee. “We do have freedom of speech here.”
But Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Vista) said it was reasonable for Hansen’s employer to ask him not to state views publicly that contradicted administration policy.
Of course, the most shocking suggestion here is that the Bush administration has a policy? Who knew!?
The suggestion that a senior scientist on the government payroll should not be able to talk openly about his scientific views because they might contradict administration policy is absurd. The dangerous theory here that Issa wants to sell is that the Government is a regular employer who should be able to determine what is said publicly by their “employees”. This theory fails to recognize that ALL Government employees and actually employees of the PEOPLE, paid for by THE PEOPLE, and their first (and only) duty is to fulfill their public responsibility, not to toe the line.
By the way, know where the term “toe the line” comes from?
According to the Grammar Tips site:
The phrase “toe the line” is equivalent to “toe the mark,” both of which mean to conform to a rule or a standard. The Oxford Dictionary of Word Histories (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2002; ed. by Glynnis Chantrell) says, “The idiom toe the line from an athletics analogy originated in the early 19th century”.
The specific sport referred to is foot-racing, where the competitors must keep their feet behind a “line” or on a “mark” at the start of the race–as in “On your mark, get set,
go!”
So one who “toes the line” is one who does not allow his foot to stray over the line. In other words, one who does not stray beyond a rigidly defined boundary.
by cameron | Mar 20, 2007 | Podcast
My guest today is Elizabeth Godo, a media studies student from Toronto, who has written
an excellent analysis of the US media’s treatment of
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.
Elizabeth recently went through all of the New York Times’ coverage of Chavez over several years and picked out the recurring labels used to describe him: “ex-coup leader”, “leftist”, which, as she says, “repeatedly establishes the context within which the American audience is lead to evaluate President Chavez.”
Other Links:
Video of Jon Stewart on “CROSSFIRE”
by cameron | Mar 20, 2007 | freedom of speech
Scenario: A student stands out the front of a high school with a banner reading “Bong Hits 4 Jesusâ€.
Question: Should he be allowed to? Can the school expel him on the grounds that his message is “pro-drug”? Or is that a violation of his freedom of speech? Can the student sue the Principal of the school for violating his free speech?
This is a real case going on in Alaska at the moment. Education Week has great coverage here. The U.S. Supreme Court is hearing the case and the justices are split.
For my money, this should be clear-cut – this is about speech, not drugs. Our public institutions, such as schools, may have anti-drug policies, but TALKING about drugs isn’t DOING drugs. It’s back to my argument about Nitschke. Our freedom to talk about subjects, as offensive as those subjects might be considered by certain members of society, is fundamental to a free society. As soon as we relax our stance on this issue, we’re on a slippery slope.
Your thoughts?
