is a "blog"?
other archived entries
or questions to: firstname.lastname@example.org
frequently mentioned institutions
for Philosophy & Public Policy
on a Fence
threads (collected entries on recurrent themes)
high school civics class
and democratic theory
Internet and civic life
for civic education
This is the archived blog for July 2003.
To see current entries, please click
Thursday, July 31
far as I can tell, there are only two other full-fledged faculty bloggers at the
University of Maryland. However, maybe others will come forward, since a Google
search for "University Maryland faculty blog" should now turn up my
site. The others are:
G. Kirschenbaum's blog, which comes from an English professor whose dissertation
(in 1999) was one of the first in any English department to be completely electronic.
He "specializes in digital studies, applied humanities computing, visual
culture, and postmodern literature." His blog is a sophisticated source of
news and ideas at the intersection of aesthetics, cultural studies, and digital
Hutchens' blog, the work of a Business School professor who specializes in
Chinese security markets and related laws (a huge issue, once you think about
it). His blog was blocked in China when he hosted it at blogspot.com, so he moved
it to the University's server.
Wednesday, July 30
several meetings that I have attended recently, I've heard about young people
or poor people who have "documented" some asset, problem, or activity.
It occurs to me that academics and other professional researchers "document"
things only as a first stage in research (if they do it at all). Their real interests
are comparing, assessing, and explaining phenomena, not merely listing or portraying
them. I understand why disdavantaged people stick to documentation; it requires
fewer skills and resources. But much more power comes with assessment and explanation.
I'm starting to think that the rich do research while the poor get "documentation."
The solution is to try to involve young people, poor people, and other disadvantaged
folks in real research, whenever possible.
In this connection: a colleague
of mine has Palm Pilots with database software installed. We're going to lend
them to high school kids, whom we'll train to walk around the neighborhood conducting
surveys of physical assets. The data they collect can then be used to generate
maps, which we will post for public use on the Prince
Georges Information Commons site. Later, we'll help the kids use the data
they collect for genuine research.
The topic that we're planning to study
is "healthy living," which includes:
1. exercise and "walkability"
security from crime, and
All of these factors can be placed
on the same maps, so that it's possible to see, for example, where there are sources
of healthy food that are also safe and walkable.
We're going to start with walkability and crime. Walkability is relatively
easy because there is a standard survey instrument that kids can easily
use to determine whether each street segment is walkable. It's very
straightforward for the kids to create a map with the walkable streets
colored in and the unwalkable ones left white (or something like that).
They just walk down a street and fill out a checklist on a Palm Pilot.
We can simultaneously work on crime. One idea would be to try to get
actual crime statistics from the police and add them to the map. Apparently,
police departments do not like to release these dataalthough maybe
we could overcome that problem. Another option would look like this:
The kids would take digital photos of places that they consider very
dangerous, and very safe. They would compare and discuss their pictures.
They would then show their collected pictures of safe and unsafe places
to experts, such as police officers and criminologists, who would offer
their opinions. Once the kids had reflected on their choices, they would
declare certain areas to be relatively safe and unsafe, and mark the
Tuesday, July 29
David Rieff wrote an important article in Sunday's New York
Times Magazine entitled, "Were Sanctions Right?" Rieff quotes
Gen. Brent Scowcroft, who says that the sanctions "worked in the sense that
[Saddam] was never able to rebuild his conventional army. When the war started,
the Iraqi Army had no more than one-third of the strength it had possessed at
the beginning of the first gulf war. But imagine that there had been no sanctions.
Is it reasonable to suppose that the weakened Iraqi Army we just faced would have
been so weak? I doubt it."
If you want to put the worst possible spin
on this statement, you could say that we starved the Iraqi people for ten years
in order to prepare for an easy invasion, with few US casualties. I don't know
whether the Unicef estimate of 500,000 dead children is plausible, but killing
even 5,000 kids is not exactly what valiant warriors do to prepare for battle.
Furthermore, starving the population for ten years was not a good way to create
a grateful and pliant citizenry for after the invasion. Iraqis blame Saddam, but
they also blame the US, according to Rieff; and this is very understandable.
the other hand, the question of sanctions cuts both ways. It was doves who said
in 1990 and 1991 that we should "give sanctions a chance" before attacking
Iraq militarily. Doves criticized sanctions in the mid-199os, but they proposed
no alternative way of removing Saddam. And then the French and Germans wanted
to toughen sanctions in 2002 and 2003, rather than invade. Arguably, sanctions
were a way for the West to confront Saddam at no cost to usbut at terrible
cost to Iraqis. If that's right, then an invasion was far preferable. We doves
should ask ourselves whether our preferred policy was crueler than war.
I'm just back from Chestertown, MD (a really nice colonial town
where George Washington slept a lot). I was there to teach some elementary-through-high-school
teachers about classical liberalism versus civic republicanism. The teachers are
folks who use the "We the People Program" produced by the Center
for Civic Education; this is their state summer institute. They seemed to
be pretty interested in the subject, although like all Americans they find it
easier to grasp liberalism than civic republicanism. This is interesting (to them
as well as me), since many of the motivations behind public education are civic
republican rather than liberal. That is: a pure liberal may worry that making
children into good citizens is "mind control" and represents illicit
state support for a particular form of life, whereas a civic republican says that
good government rests on active, engaged citizensand civic engagement is
inherently good. Social studies teachers are in the business of making good citizens,
yet they are instinctively philosophical liberals. The tension or irony is not
lost on them.
Friday, July 25
Steve Culbertson of Youth
Service America is circulating this message:
If you can
only make one call today, call the White House (202-456-1414) and inform them
what the supplemental funding to avoid drastic cuts to AmeriCorps this
year means to you, your program, and your community.
The House and Senate
have only until tomorrow (Friday) to compromise on the details of the supplemental
legislation before the House leaves for its August recess.
If the House
and Senate conferees do not meet to iron out the details of the FY03 emergency
supplemental (where the Senate included $100 million for AmeriCorps), before they
leave for recess, hundreds of programs will be forced to close their doors.
and nonprofits in every state will lose their ability to serve hundreds of thousands
of individuals in communities across the country. Programs will lose their private
sector support and community relationships that they have built over the past
decade. Thousands of AmeriCorps recruits will turned away from serving their country.
attended a forum today on the same issue, in the Dirksen Senate Office Building.
Many of the nation's leaders in service-learning attended. Some believe that the
financial crisis of AmeriCorps has a silver lining: the service movement is organizing,
recruiting allies (including friends among conservatives and business leaders),
and learning that it has clout.
Incidentally, I thought that Rep. Chris
Shays (Republican of Connecticut) chose to make a fairly sharp and explicit attack
on Rep. Dick Armey (R-TX), in defending AmeriCorps. (Armey, he said, "simply
hasn't walked in someone else's moccasins.") He also argued for more diverse
congressional districts, as a way to increase Republicans' sensitivity to minorities.
I was in New York City today, meeting with people who help young
people play serious roles in HUD's HOPE VI program. This is the program
that tears down very troubled federal housing projectsusually dense clusters
of crime-ridden high-risesand replaces them with more dispersed, small-scale,
economically diverse housing. In quite a few HOPE VI sites across the country,
young people from "the projects" are participating in planning, mapping
assets, or starting "social entrepreneurship programs" such as micro-businesses
and farmers markets. These are powerful stories and there's a lot of potential
for more good work in HOPE VI sites.
Wednesday, July 23
still in Indianapolis at the Kettering Foundation
retreat. Meanwhile, here's something I've been thinking about lately:
moral philosophers appeal to intuitions as the test of an argument's validity.
At the same time, they presume that our moral judgments should conform to clear,
general rules or principles. An important function of modern moral philosophy
is to improve our intuitions by making them more clear, general, and consistent.
methodology can be attacked on two fronts. From one side, those who admire the
rich, complex, and ambiguous vocabulary that has evolved within our culture over
time may resist the effort to reform traditional moral reasoning in this particular
As J.L. Austin wrote: "Our common stock of words embodies all
the distinctions men have found worth drawing, and all the connexions they have
found worth marking, in the lifetime of many generations." Thus there is
a lot of wisdom contained in the vague and morally indeterminate vocabulary that
ordinary language gives us. Words like "love" introduce complex and
not entirely predictable penumbra of allusions, implications, and connotations.
Barely conscious images of concrete events from history, literature, and our personal
lives may flit through our heads when someone uses words. Everyone may recall
a somewhat different set of such images, sometimes with contrary moral implications.
This array of sometimes inconsistent references is problematic if we prize clarity.
Hence moral theorists attempt to excise overly vague terms or to stipulate clear
meanings. But the complexity and vagueness of words is beneficial (rather than
problematic) if human beings have embodied in their language real family resemblances
and real ambiguities. There really are curries, and it would reduce our understanding
of food to ban the word "curry" for vagueness or to define it arbitrarily.
Likewise, there really is "love," and it would impoverish our grasp
of moral issues to try to reason without this concept or to define it in such
a way that it shed its complex and ambiguous connotations, some of which derive
from profound works of poetry, drama, and fiction.
The methods of modern
philosophy can be attacked on another flank, too. Instead of saying that philosophers
are too eager to improve our intuitions, we could say that they respect intuitions
too much. For classical pagans and medieval Christians alike, the test
of a moral judgment was not intuition; it was whether the judgment was consistent
with the end or purpose of human life. However, modern moral philosophers deny
that there is a knowable telos for human beings. Philosophers (as Alasdair
MacIntyre argues) are therefore thrown back on intuition as the test of truth.
Even moral realists, who believe that there is a moral truth independent of human
knowledge, must still rely on our intuitions as the best evidence of truth. But
this is something of a scandal, because no one thinks that intuitions are reliable.
It is unlikely that we were built with internal meters that accurately measure
Tuesday, July 22
I'm en route to Indianapolis for
the summer retreat of the Kettering Foundation.
is a completely unrelated and pedantic issue, but I have to get it off my chest.
There is (or should be) no such word as "syllabi." "Syllabus"
is a fourth declension Latin noun, so its plural is not "syllabi" but
"syllabûs" (pronounced "syllaboos"). Since handing out
the "syllaboos" on the first day of class would make anyone look like
the world's most extreme nerd, I use "syllabuses"perfectly good
For exactly the same reason, there are no "octopi." "Agendae"
is another Latin-sounding word that isn't grammatically valid. The word "agenda"
is already plural, meaning "the things that need to be done." If we
want to make it plural, then "agendas" will do. I haven't heard "agendae"
much, but Google finds 2,760 uses of it.
While we're at it, "hoi
polloi" means "the people," so "the hoi polloi"
means "the the people." Which is kind of like saying "the La Brea
tar pits" (literally translated as "the The Tar tar pits.")
I've said my piece.
Monday, July 21
This is from the National
Coalition for History (NCH)
We now have some additional information
and some troubling news ... The Senate appropriations committee recommends a program
increase of $15 million specifically for the President Bush's "We the
People" initiative [to promote the teaching of history and civics in
schools]. While at first the increase might appear to be a cause for celebration,
the committee failed to embrace the administration's recommendation of $25 million
and it made it clear that it wants the final design of the NEH's "We the
People" initiative to reflect "congressional priorities" -- meaning
pending legislation (S. 504) sponsored by Senator Lamar Alexander -- the "American
History and Civics Education Act of 2003" -- that recently passed the
Senate 90-0 and is currently pending in the House.
little it's worth, I have endorsed the
Alexander bill, which would mainly create summer academies for teachers and students.
However, it would be troubling if the necessary money came straight out of the
According to the NCH, some in the "history community ...
point out that the Alexander bill is heavily loaded with what is characterized
as 'value-laden concepts,' thus raising concerns about 'the politicization of
the teaching of history.'" The ideal of value-free history is dubious, for
both epistemological and moral reasons. However, I can see the historians' point
that it is dangerous for Congress to mandate particular values in the teaching
of history. At least, this should be done carefully and with public debate. I
also think that there is a difference between "civics" (which ought
to be heavily value-laden) and history (which needs to be more "objective").
This difference makes it problematic to lump history and civics together in the
same federal program with the same authorizing language.
It's looking increasingly likely that I will write a short,
commissioned book between now and mid-September: an introduction to issues and
ideologies for first-time voters. Getting it done by then will be a sprint, but
I think it will be worthwhile. We may give away some of the content on a free
public websiteboth as a modest public service and also as a way to generate
interest in the book.
Thursday, July 17
In the past, I couldn't
blog about an activity that's taken a lot of my time over the last six months:
namely, fundraising for CIRCLE.
Now that the grants have been approved and announced, I'm happy to say that The
Pew Charitable Trusts and Carnegie Corporation
of New York have come through for us, generously giving CIRCLE a budget of
almost $4 million for the 2003-5 period.
Meanwhile, for those who are doing
civic work with youth and the Internet, here's a great
discussion forum on the ContentBank website.
Wednesday, July 16
new book is causing quite a stir among people who work for in civic and democratic
reform. John R. Hibbing and Elizabeth Theiss-Morse argue that the public doesnt
want a bigger role in government and politics. In fact, people would like to have
a smaller role, but they suspect that elites are corrupt, so they believe that
citizens must periodically intervene just to prevent sleaze. These are some of
the themes of Stealth Democracy: Americans Beliefs about How Government
Should Work (Cambridge University Press, 2002).
I've posted a full review
of Stealth Democracy here.
According to CIRCLE's new fact
sheet on media use, this is the trend in newspaper readership since 1972:
We know that newspaper reading correlates with many forms of civic engagement,
so this trend is worrisome. (It is also very bad news for the newspaper industry.
Why don't they do something aggressive to reverse the decline, like giving millions
of free newspapers to schools?) I think one piece of the problem is that young
people don't learn how to read a newspaper. My own experience as a volunteer
high school teacher has taught me that the "inverted pyramid" style
of journalistic writing assumes a lot of background knowledge, and thus makes
news stories baffling to inexperienced teenagers. They can learn to read newspapers,
but they don't pick up this skill by osmosis.
Monday, July 14
believe in asset-based development, which means
that I am loath to itemize deficits and problems without putting at least as much
emphasis on the assets that any human community or nation possesses as
the basis for its own development. I am certain that Africa has tremendous assets:
cultural, social, and natural. Unfortunately, I lack the detailed knowledge necessary
to list the main ones. In lieu of an asset inventory, we ought to pay attention
to the following gaps or problems on the occasion of President Bush's African
- life expectancy at birth: Sierra Leone = 34.5 years; USA = 77.1
- adult literacy rate: Niger = 16.5%; Estonia = 98.8%
earning less than $1/day: Ethiopia = 81.9%; USA = 0% (reported)
at birth of not surviving to age 40: Mozambique, 56%; Japan = 7.5%
without access to improved water source: Ethiopia, 76%; USA = 0%
people: Mali = 1; Italy = 567
- health spending/capita: Guinea-Bissau =
$12; USA = $4,499
- undernourished people: Burundi = 69% of population;
USA = 0% (reported)
- percent of adults with HIV/AIDS: Zambia = 21.52%;
- official development aid received, per capita: Dem. Rep. of
Congo = $5; Israel = $172.4 (The new European Union members get more aid than
Israel, but their assistance comes with club membership in the EU.)
these statistics come from the "Human
Development Indicators" section of the United Nations Development Programme's
Human Development Report 2003.
President Bush said in his January State of the Union Address
that Iraq was trying to buy uranium in Africaan extraordinarily important
charge that could justify a preemptive war (on the assumption that Iraq would
only need uranium for nuclear weapons). According to today's Washington
Post, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice "said Secretary
of State Colin L. Powell did not include the uranium allegation in the speech
he gave to the United Nations on Feb. 5, eight days after the president spoke.
She said that was because [the State Department] had questioned the matter."
This suggests to me that top Administration officials realized before Feb. 5 that
the State of the Union speech had included a dubious, but extremely significant,
assertion. Why then did they not issue a statement casting at least partial doubt
on the uranium story? Failure to withdraw a false claim of such enormous magnitude
seems to me deeply unethical. It was not nearly enough to refrain from repeating
Thursday, July 10
I have been approached
by a publisher about the idea of writing a popular guide to politics for new voters,
in time for the 2004 campaign season. I don't know if this idea will come to pass,
but it's interesting.
Perhaps the "ideal citizen" would make an
independent and informed judgment about each issue and also each candidate, and
then vote accordingly. But none of us has the time or energy to do this. Instead,
we use shortcuts to make our voting choices. The most common shortcut, I believe,
is to choose a political identity for oneself: for example, "liberal"
or "conservative," or something somewhat more complicated, like "pro-choice
conservative" or "social liberal/fiscal conservative." We then
learn how to identify the candidates who fit this label, based on clues in their
rhetoric and a few issues that serve as proxies. If we are better-than-average
citizens, then we choose an ideology in a provisional way, trying to stay open-minded
and to understand the merits of alternative views. But we still use ideology as
a cue. CIRCLE surveys show that people
who cannot place themselves on an ideological scale or identify the differences
between Democrats and Republicans also do not vote.
Thus I may propose
to write a book that begins with a quiz, designed to identify the reader's starting
ideology or political identity. If a reader chooses "don't know" as
an answer to any question, he or she will be sent to pages in the book that introduce
the relevant issue. Once the reader has completed the quiz and identified a provisional
ideology, the rest of the book will help him or her to (a) think critically about
the pros and cons of this ideology and (b) learn how to identify candidates who
Wednesday, July 9
I'm reading all the back issues
of the Higher
Education Exchange, in order to write a mini-report for the editors about
their future strategy for the journal. One generally excellent article is Edward
Royce's "The Practice of the Public Intellectual" (1999). In passing,
Royce makes a point that I consider very important. He writes: "public intellectuals
can work with those subject to power as well as against those who
exercise power." Working with ordinary people (or with especially
oppressed people) is an entirely different form of engagement from "speaking
truth to power." It requires more listening, more quiet work within institutions
and communities, more development of personal relationships and trust, more building
on local assetsand less dramatic rhetoric. Working against the powerful
is an important role for intellectuals to play. But working "with those
subject to power" seems equally valuable (and interesting).
I was in Boston today, for the International
Society for Political Psychology's annual conference. I went to give a presentation
on The Civic Mission of Schools.
While there, I heard interesting papers on civic education and on the effects
of public deliberation. I've summarized the latter papers on the DD-Net
blog. Regarding civic education:
- Jon Miller of Northwestern
University Medical School presented a very important study that has followed 3,000
young Americans from 1987 to the present. Based on the data that his group has
collected, they are able to show what factors predict political engagement in
early adulthood. The courses taken in high school and students' performance in
these courses do not seem to matter at all. This finding is somewhat at odds with
the Civic Mission of Schools, which claims that school-based civic education
works, at least when done well.
There's a lot more to be said on this topic.
For example, Miller's work doesn't distinguish between the kind of civic education
that we would recommend and ordinary civic education. Furthermore, ordinary civic
education does seem to increase students' knowledge, which can itself be
considered a good. Still, it should give us pause to note that there was no observed
connection between taking a government/civics class in high school and voting
- Arthur "Skip" Lupia of Michigan is writing a very
interesting book that applies insights from cognitive science to the question
of civic education. There are obstacles to learning about civics that are hard-wired,
he believes; and good teaching must address these obstacles. For example, when
two equally respectable people say opposite thingswhich often happens in
politicswe tend not to put either view into our long-term memories. I think
it is undeniable that biological constraints are relevant. But I would have to
be persuaded that the findings of cognitive science were very solid before I would
want them to influence policy.
Monday, July 7
Senate has passed a bill that would represent a very important experiment in
public deliberation. It is the Wyden-Hatch
bill, now section 620 of S. 1, the Prescription Drug and Medicare Improvement
Act of 2003. If this provision survives the rest of the legislative process, it
will "provide for a nationwide public debate about improving the health care
system to provide every American with the ability to obtain quality, affordable
health care coverage; and .... provide for a vote by Congress on the recommendations
that result from the debate."
A large and diverse commission of stakeholders,
experts, and citizens would be appointed that would hold hearings; issue a public
"Health Report to the American People"; hold facilitated public deliberations
across the country (based on the Report); and then generate final recommendations.
The President would be required to comment formally on the results, and Congress
would have to hold formal hearings. The bill embodies the most advanced thinking
about how to organize public deliberations, and it would be a wonderful showcase.
Apparently, Gov. Howard Dean's extraordinary fundraising success
is due to the Internet. In a broadcast email (read
full text here), Mike Weiksner, Chairman of e-thePeople,
writes, "It started out last December when a small cabal of online pundits
started posting supportive commentary about a relatively unknown candidate, Dr.
Howard Dean. These pundits posted their commentary on 'blogs'." The next
step was Dean's launch of a campaign website,
which described his positions and requested donations. "Then, www.meetup.com
got involved. Meetup.com hosts informal get-togethers for like-minded individuals,
and offered to help Dean to link supporters together." Finally, MoveOn
held its unofficial online Democratic "primary," which Dean won. Mainly
as a result of these events, he is first in fundraising, having raised $10.1 million
in 2003. He is a leading candidate instead of a protest vote.
someone scores a political success by using an unconventional tactic, it is natural
to ask whether the change will last and whether it will benefit or harm the political
system overall. But it is important not to generalize hastily from the first candidate
who uses the new methods. For instance, an insurgent leftist candidate could invent
a tactic that is ultimately used most effectively by mainstream conservatives.
Furthermore, novel tactics may play out very differently once they've become routine.
Thus I think we should be cautious about predicting the effects of a new tactic
or technology on the political system over the long haul. But I'll risk some guesses:
- Campaigns that successfully exploit peer-to-peer networks and advanced technology
will have highly educated, youthful, reasonably affluent constituencies. I do
not know the demographics of Dean supporters, but it stands to reason that young
urban techies would gravitate to a politician who is socially liberal, fiscally
conservative, anti-war, and conspicuously educated. ("Dr. Dean," the
newspapers call him.) It wasn't Al Sharpton who won the "blog primary."
these tactics work, they will benefit independent candidates who have little or
no institutional base but who take unconventional positionsto the disadvantage
of organized movements such as unions, churches, and parties. Dean is a quirky
guy from a small and quirky state; his success contrasts starkly with the troubles
now facing Rep. Dick Gephardt, an urban midwesterner who gradually built support
in unions, his state and national party, and Congress. As a general matter, I
think that average people (those without special skills or capital) desperately
need such organized institutions to represent them. Therefore, it may not be a
good thing if someone like Howard Dean can easily beat someone like Dick Gephardt
by using new technologies. (And I say this as someone who would probably vote
for Dean over Gephardt on the issues.)
- These tactics will work best in
multi-person competitions with small numbers of voters. In such races, a candidate
can stake out an unusual position, capture a small but energetic constituency,
and come in first. In contrast, two-person races, especially at the national level,
require mass mobilization. Blogs and peer-to-peer networks don't have the necessary
reach. Imagine that Dean won the Democratic nomination on the strength of the
Internet. I believe he would be crushed by George Bush, who has a party and other
organized political movements behind him. In fact, Bush has raised three times
more than Dean this year, relying on just a few fundraisers. One could argue that
blogs and peer-to-peer networks will grow until they are truly mass phenomena.
I doubt it. Their growth will be limited by shortages of education, background
knowledge, and motivation.
Thursday, July 3
colleagues at the Program on International Policy
Attitudes (PIPA) recently released a national survey concerning Americans'
attitudes toward Iraq. I thought these were the highlights:
percent of Americans think that the US government was at least somewhat misleading
about weapons of mass destruction. But 58 percent still believe that Saddam had
wmd's before we invaded.
- 71 percent think that before the war, the US
government implied that Saddam was involved in the 9/11 attacks.
- 52 percent
think that we have found evidence of an Iraq-al Qaeda link, and 23 percent believe
that we have found wmd's in Iraq. The latter figure has fallen, however, since
- 53 percent think that the post-war process is not going well.
percent think we have a responsibility to stay in Iraq and reconstruct the country.
seems to me that if no wmd's are found, no link to al Qaeda is discovered, and
the postwar reconstruction process remains troubled, then public support for the
war will likely erode.
Wednesday, July 2
As I've noted before,
people in the civic education world are now seriously discussing a national
campaign to revive "civic ed" in schools. But there are interesting
debates about strategy. It seems to me that people variously believe:
All the action is at the state level, where standards, assessment methods, and
textbooks are chosen. So we have to intervene there, and right away. Any federal
legislation that actually passes will be small potatoes.
2) A new campaign
should focus at the federal level, since others are advocating in the states.
Federal legislation is significant because it can generate national interest and
leverage resources, and it needs to be good.
3) We need a public relations
campaign to get people concerned about civic education and to raise the public
salience of the issue.
4) Public relations is irrelevant, because policymakers
are going to make decisions about standards and assessment too soon to be influenced
by popular opinion. Besides, it would be far too expensive to raise public concern
5) We need to develop grassroots-level campaigns in favor of
civic education, involving various local stakeholders and young people themselves.
6) We should tailor messages for select decision-makers, especially officials
in state departments of education, stressing ways that they can improve civics
without huge financial costs and without risking lower test scores in reading,
writing, and math.
I have views on these matters (leaning toward 1 and 4,
and 5 and/or 6), but I'm by no means sure that I'm right.
It's been a bad day for bloggingmany long meetings. One meeting
concerned the possibility of creating a blog for the geographical community of
Prince George's County, with many hand-picked regular contributors who would generate
frequent postings about the local arts scene. In the process of investigating
this idea, a colleague discovered the DC
Metro Blog Map.
Click here for archived blog entries for
January, 2003, February, 2003, March,
2003, April 2003, May
2003, or June 2003.