The AP journalist Rob Fournier in the article “Measure of a Nation” has it more or less right, but like all journalism, the reality has more depth.

The blue collar people, especially their leadership, WERE connected, and well-connected, especially through that great 19th century invention, the national labor movement. The unions WERE the community of the blue-collar workers, and kept them competitive and advanced their interests.

However, the United States industrial union movement always took a narrow view in general, not a social or public policy view, focusing on wages, benefits, and to a much smaller extent, working conditions. Even in working conditions, instead of taking a European view of joint management with the corporate executives, American unions mainly focused on shorter hours of work (especially the 8-hour day movement from the 1880s to the 1940s, when the 40-hour week became standard) and vacation and sick days.

This was almost always couched as a zero-sum game and opposition with and from corporate owners—what one side gained, the other was seen to lose.

We have and live on those positive legacies to this day. We also inherit the wind (Proverbs 11:29) and reap the whirlwind (Hosea 8:1-10) of those negative legacies and approaches.

The corporate leadership fought the unions ferociously, locally in the plants and especially in the arena of politics and public policy. Essentially the unions have been ground down and largely suppressed as a viable force locally and in national society. From the 1950s peak of a third of the nongovernment workforce, they are down to less than 10%, probably about 8% today.

When was the last time you heard a quote as in the New Deal, with its slogan “The President wants you to organize”? Many people, including some readers of these words, today are ideologically opposed to any unions, any organized workforce. Most corporate managers have that perspective, and politicians who represent narrow-horizon corporate paradigms.

So the decline of organized blue-collar workers led to a decline of standards, for that huge segment of the population. That led inexorably to a decline of regional and national economies that depended on their prosperity and especially their productivity and value-added to their communities. Muncie, Indiana is only one example, but a typical one, “Middletown” to this day.

Most solutions to this decline have focused, as the acting Muncie mayor has, on individual solutions. Somehow mysteriously, individuals and their families are expected to work forward and make progress for themselves against the background of this era of historical structural change.

Obviously that means millions of people. And all you have to do, as we do in software engineering, is trying scaling up a solution. What works for randomized, effective individuals and their immediate family circle is not necessarily scalable at the threshold of millions of people.

Scale up. Structural problems call for structural solutions. Obviously, because I’m in higher education, I see a massive public investment in education, on a mass scale, to be one path to solutions. (And not based mainly on commercialized student loans as a policy.)

Most people will follow paths of opportunity if they see them, and will make significant personal and family sacrifices to do it. Most of you have taken the higher education path for exactly that reason, and it’s paid off for you and for your communities.

On the policy level, the corporate leadership and especially the national government have to discontinue their overt and covert policies of weakening blue-collar institutions, especially the union movements. In Germany today, the boards of directors of corporations are often composed of 1/3 corporate, 1/3 worker, 1/3 public or civic or government representatives. You can see this would change the equation, and refocus everybody’s input and output.

In contrast, it was ground-breaking history when the first member of the United Auto Workers was put on the Chrysler Board in the 1980s, and that was only because Chrysler was in jeopardy and required major sacrifices of its work force, along with the political help of the union for federal assistance.

Finally, we need a structural investment in the people and their communities, as in the New Deal. The prosperity of the 1950s was a direct result of 20 years of New Deal-style investment in the nation—“from the nation, to the nation.” (It wasn’t primarily the impact of World War II. The debt from the war was not paid till 1959 or so.)

Today the investment flow is of “from the nation, to a few centers of wealth,” with hardly any community investment. Only the states individually, if then, are making this kind of investment structurally in their people and their communities. That’s too small, too scattered, too uncoordinated. System problems need system solutions too.

Needless to say, we need to stop draining capital out of the country for private wealth enhancement, corporate tax shelters, and mistaken foreign policy adventures and initiatives (bribing other nations to follow our lead, as in Egypt and Pakistan, and should we speak of foreign wars?—the downfall of great empires of the past).

In conclusion, structural challenges need structural approaches; system problems need system solutions. Individuals must rely on themselves, their families, and their community networks, like churches and local organizations. Yet much larger initiatives, beyond local and state levels, need to be made and coordinated. To scale to the millions, we need national and global knowledge and resources.

Fortunately, this is the era of knowledge societies driven by information economies. We can do it. Yet the truth is, we have to ready and willing. That is, we need to by ready. We need to be willing. Then we can do it.

Dr. Gillette's challenge to me, and to you if you accept, is to address the policy issues at hand. We made the move from an agrarian to an industrial economy, and we can do the same to move into the information age, but at what cost to those who are still stuck in the past? And what policy must we address and enforce to get there? To me, what we see in the election year 2008 encapsulates much of the problem and the solution. In the past 12 months, we have seen an electorate weary of divisiveness. We saw it in Muncie, at the embracing of the idealism and energy of a new, younger candidate, who ultimately became our Mayor (Sharon McShurley). We can see it in the presidential campaign of Barack Obama. We can see it in the bipartisanship in the Indiana statehouse to address taxes. We need more of this... we have to embrace the dualism of sponsoring business AND supporting the employee... protecting individual rights while also allowing corporations to grow and offer services. In the information age, we must walk the tightrope between the conflicting forces, and to do so we need for leaders who recognize that good ideas come from both sides of the aisle. Case in point... Gov. Mitch Daniels. I recall campaigning against Daniels, being fearful of his plans to privatize the state government, during his 2004 run. Yet, today, I look and see some amazing feats that Daniels has accomplished, with a pro-business stance that has helped to bring new business to the Indiana economy... companies like Sallie Mae, IBM, Honda, and so many others. I can still favor Democrats (as anyone who knows me knows my liberal stance on many issues) but also support Republicans who can reach across the aisle to "get it done"... people like Sharon McShurley, Mitch Daniels, Richard Lugar, and so many others...

That's just the political context.... but there any many others. What policy do YOU think needs addressing? Let us all know...

Greetings CICS students, faculty, alumni and friends!

It's been a while since I've had a chance to post here. I thought now was a good time in light of an e-mail I receieved from a colleague this morning:

Ben Shneiderman, one of the most well-known scholars in the field of Human-Computer Interaction will be speaking at Indiana University on December 14 at 3-4pm, at Lindley Hall 102.

Anthony Faiola, MFA, PhD
Associate Professor
Director of Media Informatics and
Human-Computer Interaction
Indiana University - School of Informatics

More on this after the jump...

Friday, December 14
3:00 p.m. — 4:00 p.m.
Lindley Hall 102

Abstract:

Creativity Support Tools is a research topic with high risk but potentially very high payoff. The goal is to develop improved software and user interfaces that empower diverse users in the sciences and arts to go beyond productivity and be more creative. Potential users include a combination of software and other engineers, diverse scientists, product and graphic designers, and architects, as well as writers, poets, musicians, new media artists, and many others. Enhanced interfaces could enable more effective searching of intellectual resources, improved collaboration among teams, and more rapid discovery processes. These advanced interfaces should also provide potent support in goal setting, speedier exploration of alternatives, improved understanding through visualization, and better dissemination of results (demos will be shown). For creative endeavors that require composition of novel artifacts (computer programs, engineering diagrams, symphonies, animations, artwork), enhanced interfaces could facilitate rapid exploration of alternatives, prevent unproductive choices, and enable easy backtracking. This talk provides a framework for systematic study of creativity. Two key issues are (1) Formulation of guidelines for design of creativity support tools (2) Novel research methods to assess creativity support tools. These issues were addressed at the June 2007 Conference on Creativity and Cognition (http://www.cs.umd.edu/hcil/CC2007).

Biography:

Ben Shneiderman (http://www.cs.umd.edu/~ben) is a Professor in the Department of Computer Science and Founding Director (1983-2000) of the Human-Computer Interaction Laboratory (http://www.cs.umd.edu/hcil/) at the University of Maryland. He was elected as a Fellow of the Association for Computing (ACM ) in 1997 and a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in 2001. He received the ACM SIGCHI Lifetime Achievement Award in 2001. Ben is the author of Software Psychology: Human Factors in Computer and Information Systems (1980) and Designing the User Interface: Strategies for Effective Human-Computer Interaction (4th ed. 2004) http://www.awl.com/DTUI/ . He pioneered the highlighted textual link in 1983, and it became part of Hyperties, a precursor to the web. His move into information visualization helped spawn the successful company Spotfire http://www.spotfire.com/ . He is a technical advisor for the HiveGroup and ILOG. With S Card and J. Mackinlay, he co-authored Readings in Information Visualization: Using Vision to Think (1999). His books include Leonardo's Laptop: Human Needs and the New Computing Technologies (MIT Press), which won the IEEE Distinguished Literary Contribution award in 2004.

Colloquium Provided By:
the School of Informatics

When I was a student in the Center, I made a challenge to myself to be the best blogger in the Center. Dr. Gillette and I would constantly try to top the blog roll. I'm not quite as active on the blogs these days, so I will make no claims about my ability to top you "geeks" (although, for one short moment, I'm on top again!!!! HA HA HA).

So, will you challenge yourself... not just to be the best blogger... but, to be the best ____ of the Center. Answer the challenge... fill in your own blank. Being the best at something, anything, will go a long way... so make yourself stand out in your own way! You can do it!

Here's another challenge... one that I personally would appreciate :-)
Cyril, from last year's "mafia" was greatly helpful, but we still never quite got there... by "there", I mean the ability to Cross-blog... see, I post here and on my personal site... Did you click the link? Sure you did... did you notice that the layout is the same? Yep... that's intentional... see, I'm going for some transparency here, but it's a little difficult... I haven't quite gotten the art of the cross-blog down yet, so I'm forced to replicate my postings between the two sites... a bit tedious, wouldn't you say? Is anyone up to the challenge to help me figure out how we can do the cross-blog tango? If so, contact me and let's dance!

At last, once final challenge... the CICSworld RSS feed... can someone take a look at it? I don't think it's refreshed itself in months, and that's frustrating! I had gotten to the point where I was using RSS feeds to read blog postings that interested me, so I didn't have to troll the site so much, but now, I can't do that! Surely there's a "geek" up to a technical challenge here! Again, let me know if you are so inclined.

Cheers!

World-renowned business strategist and author Tom Peters, who is keynoting the InformationWeek 500 Conference Sept. 10-13 at the Westin Mission Hills in Rancho Mirage, California, joins us on Thursday, July 6 for a unique and scintillating Webcast and answers your questions on how all businesses, large and small, can muster the resources and energy to create for themselves a living, breathing embodiment of innovation for growth. Says Peters, “…in uncertain times like ours, innovation is inarguably top management’s Job One.” Using his wealth of knowledge and experience trusted by giants like Ford, BP, and General Electric, Peters provides strategies, tactics, and actual cases that abet creation of an abiding “Culture of Innovation."

https://www.cmpnetseminars.com/BTG/default.asp?K=7AAA1&Q=466

Is Podcasting just a way for the big media players to push out extra content on a pay-for-play basis? Is it a way for people to crank out niche content with sub-par audio quality and low production value? Is it something in the middle? Or, is is something else?

I like to look at the big picture... It is time to look at Podcasting as a serious business tool. I certainly do, and I've made serious efforts to reflect that view. Are you ready?

Meanwhile, some industry news of interest in the ever-changing RFID front, as word comes of RFID viruses. Also, in the not-so-plesant news front, there is some interesting discourse over the suspension of digital rights management in times of critical need, such as life and death situations.

Of course, it's not all bad news. The growing web 2.0 concept continues to revolutinize business processes. And, in the happy-yet-offbeat front, a youth has set a new record in memorizing digits of Pi.

Because you live in Indiana, we thought you might want to know about "Integrity of Science in the 21st Century," a free conference at Purdue University on March 31 and April 1, 2006.

The conference will feature a number of experts discussing the intersection of science and policy, particularly in the life sciences, and student-led workshops on ways that students can make their voices heard on these important issues. While the conference is open to faculty members, teachers, and community members, it is geared towards students and student activism. 

Please forward this message to any students--high school, undergraduate, or graduate--who you think might be interested in attending the conference.

Dr. Arden Bement, director of the National Science Foundation, will present the keynote address. Click here to view the tentative conference agenda.

Students who pre-register will be given free meals and housing (with Purdue students). You can register here.

This is a great opportunity for students who are interested in the use and misuse of science and would like to explore how they can become effective voices for science. The conference is sponsored by Student Pugwash USA, an organization that promotes social responsibility in science and technology. Questions about the conference should be directed to Sharlissa Moore at Student Pugwash USA.
 

Regards,

Michael Halpern
Outreach Coordinator
Scientific Integrity Program
Union of Concerned Scientists

If you received this message from a friend, you can sign up for the Union of Concerned Scientists.

The Union of Concerned Scientists relies on individuals like you
to support our research and advocacy.
Join us to promote practical, science-based environmental and security solutions.

We are committed to protecting your privacy, your email address will NEVER be sold or exchanged.]]> 2006-03-15T05:19:15Z 2006-03-15T00:13:32-05:00 tag:www.cicsworld.org,2006:/blogs/alpiazza//13.1398 2006-03-15T05:13:32Z

Muncie is once again in the news! A few months ago, Saturday Night Live's Chris Parnell and Andy Samberg released "Lazy Sunday", a digital short about spending a lazy weekend day eating cupcakes and watching The Chronicles of Narnia. Not the first time they released a short (in fact, online movie making is what got Samberg onto SNL), but this one caught fire.

A short time later, the "west coast response" initiated a faux-feud reminiscent of the East-West Rap Feud of the 1990s. Rapping about the joys of painting pottery and drinking lattes, "Lazy Monday" added to the humor and post-modern intrigue of online video storytelling of "Lazy Sunday".

And now we have "the middle coast response" (their words, not mine)... "Lazy Muncie", the latest post-modern entry into this carnival atmosphere, debuted only a few weeks ago and is now another popular and well-regarded video. And, in spite of a few vulgarities, the video really does well to capture the sprit of the Midwest in a humorous, tongue-in-cheek manner. References to Muncie icons such as TK Constructors, Prairie-Creek Reservoir, Garfield-creator Jim Davis and McGalliard Road abound. Perhaps you should take a look...

Where just a year ago, we had MCI, Verizon, SBC, AT&T, Qwest and BellSouth, we now have at&t, Verizon and Qwest... it sounds like Ma Bell all over again! (especially if you look at how one-time smallest "Baby Bell" SBC has devoured everything in the past few years: Pacific Telesis, Ameritech, SNET, AT&T and now BellSouth... and those weren't small time acquisitions... each of those was a major company that now operates under the banner of "at&t"... new name, same old company...)

Of course, read up on it. The analysts are saying that the real reason (and I agree) is that at&t wants total control of Cingular Wireless (probably to be renamed at&t wireless). What about #2 Verizon? Word on the street is that effort is under way to increase the 55% ownership in Verizon Wireless to 100%, with a buy-out from partner Vodafone. And Qwest? Who knows... It probably will have to morph to survive. I wouldn't at all be suprised if it is gobbled up by a bigger fish.