The Heinz dilemma...is there a right answer?

"In Europe a woman was near death from cancer. One drug might save her, a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. The druggist was charging $2000, ten times what the drug cost him to make. The sick woman's husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could only get together about half of what it cost. He told the druggist that his wife was dying and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the druggist said "No." The husband got desperate and broke into the man's store to steal the drug for his wife. Should the husband have done that? Why?" [Kohlberg, 1969, p. 376]

The "Heinz" dilemma was created by American psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg (1927-1987), known for his theory of stages of moral development.

What do you think about Heinz's actions?  Items to consider: spousal relationships and obligations, property rights

Reflection on language learning

On February 10, 2009, my teacher gave my class 15 minutes to "reflect" upon language learning.  Now, it's not easy for me to  simply "reflect" on command but, for whatever reason, this time I managed a draft of something. Let me know what you think.
-----------

In language learning, there's a point where everything just "clicks."  Thinking no longer occurs in English but, rather, in the target language (for me, anyway).  When I studied Spanish, it came pretty easily to me.  My last year of college, I took a course on all things Don Quixote, which included reading the 1,000-plus page book.  While I loved reading that book, I struggled with it.  A lot of the language was antiquated and there were so many nuances to get.  Fortunately, because we discussed the book so extensively in class, I believe I was able to absorb most of those nuances (I don't think it would ever be possible to get all of them).  Had I not taken the class, however, I know I would have missed out on a lot of the book's subtleties.

When I studied Arabic, I didn't reach the "clicking point" before I had to put the language aside.  It was difficult and, though I kept working at it, the time that was necessary to devote to it became too great and I had to put it aside.

Guiding principles: It's better to understand a few items really well than to have a satisfactory comprehension of a broad range of material (with respect to language learning), although depending on the concept, that could be arguable. [Note: I'm not sure if this last part is just notes from the class or part of my response.  In either case, I agree with the message.]

-----------

What makes a good teacher?

The other day, as I was cleaning out old graduate work (since, being a Master now, I don't need any of it!), I came across a few items I drafted in class that I thought I would share.

I wrote this first item on October 2, 2008.  I had five minutes to free-write about what makes a good teacher.  This was my response:

A good teacher is someone who not only makes his/her students feel comfortable in the classroom but who also encourages students to participate actively.  Thus, the classroom environment becomes one in which, regardless of outside circumstances, everyone is an equal member of the class and has the opportunity to contribute as much as anyone else.  A good teacher strives to achieve this goal, while at the same time not letting the students forget where they come from.

-----------
What do you think makes a good teacher?  Are there different criteria for a teacher by profession and a teacher by nature?

Maybe the Star-Spangled banner wasn't waving over the U.S. after all

Last week, I attended a D.C. United game, where they beat Kansas City 2-1.  That's not the point of this blog, though.  Neither is the $4 little bottle of water or $4 mini-thing they called a hot dog.  But again, I digress...

D.C. United is a team name -- one that represents, well, a united Washington, D.C. (go figure).  Where I take issue isn't in the optimistic team name but, rather, our national anthem, The Star-Spangled Banner, that played over the loudspeaker in the stadium...an anthem that continuously acknowledges that this land belongs to the free and serves as the home of the brave.  So, tell me, how, in this case, does one define the concept of freedom?  When someone buys land, from whom do they buy it?  When Columbus and his people "discovered" America, they kicked out the Native Americans and claimed the land as their own.  If I take a little trip down to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and try to kick out Mr. President himself, I won't be starting a new country but, rather, extending my trip a little bit down in the Big House!  It's like stealing a bicycle and selling it as from the original owners.  Truth of the matter is, everyone here lives on borrowed land, so to discriminate based on a falsely-defined notion of freedom would simply be elitist.  Is anything or anyone, in fact, free?  Also, such behavior would show the U.S. to be a country that does not practice what it preaches.  Take a look at the unabridged lyrics of the national anthem and then let me know what you think.  If you need another topic upon which to expound, here you go: anthem = an + them. Discuss.

-----
O! say can you see by the dawn's early light,
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming,
Whose broad stripes and bright stars through the perilous fight,
O'er the ramparts we watched, were so gallantly streaming?
And the rockets' red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there;
O! say does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

On the shore, dimly seen through the mists of the deep,
Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam,
In full glory reflected now shines in the stream:
'Tis the star-spangled banner, O! long may it wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion,
A home and a country should leave us no more!
Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps' pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave:
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

O! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved home and the war's desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heav'n rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust."
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

Arizonar: let's conjugate

I think the video speaks for itself. And for all you Spanish learners out there, let me just point out that arizonar is a regular -ar verb, to be conjugated as such:

yo arizono
tu arizonas
el/ella/Ud. arizona
nosotros arizonamos
vosotros arizonais
ellos/ellas/Uds. arizonan

Disclaimer about images, videos, etc.

I just want to acknowledge that I use this blog as a forum for expressing my thoughts and raising issues that I believe are important.  I include images and videos that I think help depict my arguments, but in no way do I wish to claim all of these items as my own.  If you scroll over the images or videos, you will see the URL where I found those items.  The text within my blogs are mine and mine alone, unless I explicitly cite another source.  Since one can never be too sure about one's intentions, especially in this day and age, I wanted to take a moment to convey my purpose in writing this blog, both with the words and other visuals I include.  I copy from no one.

All men are created equal... except, of course, those who aren't

There's been all this talk about the importance of completing Census 2010 and the effect that it will have on how the nation develops with those data in mind.  What I'm wondering is, how it fits in with the status of immigrants.  Especially considering the unconstitutional (not to mention inhumane) legislation recently passed in Arizona, I got to thinking whether the census would include that population in its count.  If not, it wouldn't be an accurate reflection of who is in this country, which would mean the United States would have to wait 10 more years until the next one for there to be a reasonable estimate of the country's demographics.  If so, then shouldn't the government be acting in the best interests of all those represented in the census, regardless of immigration status?  It turns out that immigration status is not a question that appears on the census.  What that means, then, is that everyone is included equally.  On the Census website itself, there is a whole section dedicated to why the census is "so important."  The website states the following:

----

"Census information affects the numbers of seats your state occupies in the U.S. House of Representatives. And people from many walks of life use census data to advocate for causes, rescue disaster victims, prevent diseases, research markets, locate pools of skilled workers and more. When you do the math, it's easy to see what an accurate count of residents can do for your community. Better infrastructure. More services. A brighter tomorrow for everyone. In fact, the information the census collects helps to determine how more than $400 billion dollars of federal funding each year is spent on infrastructure and services like:

• Hospitals
• Job training centers
• Schools
• Senior centers
• Bridges, tunnels and other-public works projects
• Emergency services

Participation isn't just important—it's mandatory.
----- 
So let me see if I have this straight.  The government wants to know exactly who is in the country (and participation is "mandatory") and then they want to use that information to help decide how federal funding should be spent in ways that best cater to the nation's denizens.  But people who fill it out might be those very people who are discriminated against when passing through states like Arizona.  What motivation would they have, then, to oblige the same government that allows such segregation and discrimination to occur? Our nation's system of checks and balances needs to be seriously checked...and balanced.

A couple of months ago, I saw an advertisement on the side of a bus encouraging people to complete the Census.  The ad said, "If we don't know how many people we have, how do we know how many buses we need?"  When I saw that, I actually thought of my personal job hunt.  Since I am applying for a teaching position in a local public school system, it occurred to me that everyone -- whether legally here or not -- is eligible for schooling.  School officials (teachers, administrators, etc.) are not allowed to ask about status, which means that those students are entitled to the same rights as everyone else.  It goes back to that whole equality thing...to Thomas Jefferson's whole, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal" spiel in that little-acknowledged 1776 document called the Declaration of Independence.  It's as if the government uses immigrants productively when it's convenient and discriminates against them when it's not.  Where's the equality in that?

I'm not really sure how much "sensus" the Census makes.  Should the Census ask about immigration status?  If so many people are undocumented, then wouldn't asking the question on this survey give the government an idea of how many immigrants are actually here?  Immigrants, after all, create such a formative part of the United States economy, that perhaps it is time to give credit where credit is due rather than ignore it altogether, and the government should act in every individual's best interests.  I realize that's a lot of interests to target, but people need to get off their high horses and acknowledge that a country made up of immigrants is approaching unchartered territory in the 21st century.  If immigrants declare their status as non-citizens, then the U.S. should consider, rather than condemn, their pursuit of citizenship.