I don't believe in our justice system.
that is, I think if it is any semblance of consistent or organized,
it is systematically unjust.
I don't believe that non-violent individuals, particularly those imprisoned for drug related offenses, ought to be punished in the manner utilized currently.
I don't like any part of our system, who is arrested, how, and what for. But I see that people who I consider upstanding, being imprisoned, and this I think is ridiculous.Nearly 1 in 4 of the inmates in federal and state prisons are there because of drug-related offenses, most of them nonviolent.
The grounds on which we do this are seeded in racism and class wars, as far as I understand.
Earlier I saw a few articles which I thought were pretty well done, and at least seem to offer some context.
Monday, November 26, 2007
Saturday, November 10, 2007
Proctor
A friend of mine brought up an interesting idea, that more recently resurfaced while I was looking through my piles of literature. They said that they believe tests are a form of violence. In taking tests, and seeing their effects on people, I'd only considered how unfortunate it is that they must be this way, but I never considered who decided it was ethical to conduct them at all. Thinking of tests in terms of violence, is not that much of a stretch, and it turns out there have been many investigations into the nature of tests. Critics ask do they do more harm than is worth it, how effective are they, who gets to decide what the right answer is.
The questions include whether tests probe improperly into a person's private feelings and beliefs, whether they are based in discriminatory practices against minorities (deliberate or accidental) or are based in non-representative samples.
Some critics regard tests, especially personality measures as 'unethical invasions of privacy', which are dependent on 'coercion and deceit'. Studies of interests and personalities need to be written in such a manner to avoid the halo effect, to prevent some of the tendencies in people responding to questions to provide answers that seem most socially desirable. This means that the way in which the answers will be interpreted has to be hidden from the person responding, so the question would be worded in a way that seems obscure or unrelated. There is an overt conflict in this situation, you are relying on the wisdom and ethics of the person performing the test. Well meaning, but untrained people are just as much of a risk to the wellbeing of respondents.
All tests can serve multiple purposes, evaluation, qualification and learning diagnostics, but there are issues in who you are testing, and what purposes are emphasized. There are tests throughout many aspects of our lives, tests of skills and problem solving, like driver's license, potential for higher learning like admission into graduate schools, evaluation of mental or physical wellbeing, and tests of less gravity, meant as entertainment, like those you see on the internet or in newspapers. It is important to designate for the responder the nature of the test, and how it will be applied, because if tests taken for entertainment purposes are relied upon as valid sources of information, they can be highly misleading and are not evaluated according to any accepted standards.
The "standards" however are highly debatable, as outlined in the above, there is much to ask about what answers, and what interpretations are correct. In direct standardized testing it is usually defined as:
We like to see standardized testing as reliable, easy to evaluate, and readily interpret validly.
Aptitude tests measure potential ability, or ability with proper training. This is predicting how well a student will do in advanced schooling.
Achievement measures how much of some skill or knowledge a student has already acquired.
The idea of fluid ability vs. crystallized ability is dependent on the concept that "when no basic changes in teaching or training methods are expected, achievement- past performance in the same subject-may best predict future success," this means that there is little designation between potential and past success. So people who have performed poorly for whatever reason, are subjected to further disadvantage, when it is assumed that they cannot do any differently than their past performance on a highly fallible evaluation.
Some tests contain culturally biased items, because of efforts to make questions more difficult, obscure words, uncommon objects, and other irrelevant difficulties have found their way into commonly used tests. Such items do discriminate against those from impoverished or ethnically different backgrounds. A failure in a person from an impoverished background to relate to questions with crystal chandeliers is not incomprehensible. So how can we claim to have a standard evaluation when these types of things are prevalent?
This is important as we attempt to be both increasingly productive, and sensitive to human feelings and value, while using tools of placement and identification. It is pretty widely accepted that tests that are applied without informed consent of the person tested is an invasion of privacy, but it is common that tests use answers to vague or misleading questions to satisfy guidelines of a certain category or character in identifying a person within a group. Looking at how tests can be used to discriminate, looking at how damaging they can be if used as absolutes, I see it would be perfectly reasonable that the way we go about testing be reconsidered, and then undone completely.
I say no. That is not good enough. There are too many negatives in testing to address properly here. The literature I was reading is from 1973, and the basis for their prolonging this idea was that we would maintain control of interpretation and bias. We have not adequately done so.
Looking at these few above aspects, and comparing my thoughts to the conclusion of the critic I was focusing on, Mr. Snow, I agree that testing is a form of violence, and because of this I divorce any sense of it as a necessity. Testing in such way stifles growth, narrows value of creativity, and limits and demeans the value in the differences between people. If you can quantify the value of somebody's thoughts, which I am not sure you can, testing is most certainly not the way to go, and serious measures should be taken to reduce its effects on the daily lives of students, job applicants and anyone else affected.
The questions include whether tests probe improperly into a person's private feelings and beliefs, whether they are based in discriminatory practices against minorities (deliberate or accidental) or are based in non-representative samples.
Some critics regard tests, especially personality measures as 'unethical invasions of privacy', which are dependent on 'coercion and deceit'. Studies of interests and personalities need to be written in such a manner to avoid the halo effect, to prevent some of the tendencies in people responding to questions to provide answers that seem most socially desirable. This means that the way in which the answers will be interpreted has to be hidden from the person responding, so the question would be worded in a way that seems obscure or unrelated. There is an overt conflict in this situation, you are relying on the wisdom and ethics of the person performing the test. Well meaning, but untrained people are just as much of a risk to the wellbeing of respondents.
All tests can serve multiple purposes, evaluation, qualification and learning diagnostics, but there are issues in who you are testing, and what purposes are emphasized. There are tests throughout many aspects of our lives, tests of skills and problem solving, like driver's license, potential for higher learning like admission into graduate schools, evaluation of mental or physical wellbeing, and tests of less gravity, meant as entertainment, like those you see on the internet or in newspapers. It is important to designate for the responder the nature of the test, and how it will be applied, because if tests taken for entertainment purposes are relied upon as valid sources of information, they can be highly misleading and are not evaluated according to any accepted standards.
The "standards" however are highly debatable, as outlined in the above, there is much to ask about what answers, and what interpretations are correct. In direct standardized testing it is usually defined as:
1) systematic procedures to observe human behavior
2) describe it in terms of a numerical scale or category system with
3) fixed administration, apparatus and scoring methods so that the same procedures can be reproduced exactly each time they are used
We like to see standardized testing as reliable, easy to evaluate, and readily interpret validly.
"we must not expect absolute precision, even from standardized tests, any more than we would expect it from a bathroom scale used, for example, to measure the weight of precious gems." -Richard E. SnowThe idea of fixed administration is likely part of the failure in tests to be fair, and worthwhile. There are several types of standardized testing, aside from personality and interest inventories, there are special ability, aptitude and achievement tests. Each with their own defined goal and methods.
Aptitude tests measure potential ability, or ability with proper training. This is predicting how well a student will do in advanced schooling.
Achievement measures how much of some skill or knowledge a student has already acquired.
The idea of fluid ability vs. crystallized ability is dependent on the concept that "when no basic changes in teaching or training methods are expected, achievement- past performance in the same subject-may best predict future success," this means that there is little designation between potential and past success. So people who have performed poorly for whatever reason, are subjected to further disadvantage, when it is assumed that they cannot do any differently than their past performance on a highly fallible evaluation.
Some tests contain culturally biased items, because of efforts to make questions more difficult, obscure words, uncommon objects, and other irrelevant difficulties have found their way into commonly used tests. Such items do discriminate against those from impoverished or ethnically different backgrounds. A failure in a person from an impoverished background to relate to questions with crystal chandeliers is not incomprehensible. So how can we claim to have a standard evaluation when these types of things are prevalent?
This is important as we attempt to be both increasingly productive, and sensitive to human feelings and value, while using tools of placement and identification. It is pretty widely accepted that tests that are applied without informed consent of the person tested is an invasion of privacy, but it is common that tests use answers to vague or misleading questions to satisfy guidelines of a certain category or character in identifying a person within a group. Looking at how tests can be used to discriminate, looking at how damaging they can be if used as absolutes, I see it would be perfectly reasonable that the way we go about testing be reconsidered, and then undone completely.
"The consensus seems to be that we are better off with them than without them- as long as we continue to pursue safeguards for the present and improvements for the future."
I say no. That is not good enough. There are too many negatives in testing to address properly here. The literature I was reading is from 1973, and the basis for their prolonging this idea was that we would maintain control of interpretation and bias. We have not adequately done so.
Looking at these few above aspects, and comparing my thoughts to the conclusion of the critic I was focusing on, Mr. Snow, I agree that testing is a form of violence, and because of this I divorce any sense of it as a necessity. Testing in such way stifles growth, narrows value of creativity, and limits and demeans the value in the differences between people. If you can quantify the value of somebody's thoughts, which I am not sure you can, testing is most certainly not the way to go, and serious measures should be taken to reduce its effects on the daily lives of students, job applicants and anyone else affected.
Friday, November 9, 2007
Keeping those Peace Activists Out
recently posted by Silber, op ed:
I love the idea that in our nation, where all of us are supposedly 'endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights', where we value freedom, liberty and justice, that the above can be so typical. We are supposedly a nation founded on Christian principles, which so far as I see involve the "golden rule" which I think is a pretty peaceful concept, but we add the people who advocate this to the same group that we put people who threaten the wellbeing and safety of the greater population.
We see that we are being grouped, and identified, defined as.. criminals by virtue. There ought not to be so much opposition to people who risk their own material wellbeing to try to benefit others. I think this is another reflection of our new-american sensibilities. That is, a lack of. Looking at Axiom and similar profiling systems, categorization of your tendencies and destiny, I see a great danger in who holds the pen, if you could call it that. This grouping of threats by the FBI and Interpol type organizations is not responsible, it can't be, because no matter how well you define a threat, I see no way to effectively categorize people. Humans are too dynamic to define as 1/70, and the social implications of criminality are too complex to define any type of person as having criminal motivation. That's claiming authority of judgment, and that to me seems a stretch of our power even in our narcissistic sub-reality.
The Freedom of Information Act is an interesting thing, especially when considering its powers throughout the time since its development in 1966. As is a common theme, the requirements on government transparency have been limited by the Bush administration, in response to threats upon our national security (or whatever else could justify it) since 2001. One document of the limitations set by the Present administration is Executive Order 13233 (EO13233) which is part of the larger Presidential Records Act, as briefed here:
EXECUTIVE ORDER 13233
1) how Canada can consent to this, who chose to follow our guidelines and list
2) where the balance is, who controls what gets included or expunged
3) who pays for this McCarthy style list making service
"The FBI's placing of peace activists on an international criminal database is blatant political intimidation of US citizens opposed to Bush administration policies," says Colonel Wright, who was also Deputy US Ambassador in four countries. "The Canadian government should certainly not accept this FBI database as the criteria for entering the country." Both Wright and Benjamin plan to request their files from the FBI through the Freedom of Information Act and demand that arrests for peaceful, non-violent actions be expunged from international records. "It's outrageous that Canada is turning away peacemakers protesting a war that does not have the support of either US or Canadian citizens," says Benjamin.
"In the past, Canada has always welcomed peace activists with open arms. This new policy, obviously a creature of the Bush administration, is shocking and we in the US and Canada must insist that it be overturned. Four members of the Canadian Parliament--Peggy Nash, Libby Davies, Paul Dewar and Peter Julian-- expressed outrage that the peace activists were barred from Canada and vow to change this policy.
I love the idea that in our nation, where all of us are supposedly 'endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights', where we value freedom, liberty and justice, that the above can be so typical. We are supposedly a nation founded on Christian principles, which so far as I see involve the "golden rule" which I think is a pretty peaceful concept, but we add the people who advocate this to the same group that we put people who threaten the wellbeing and safety of the greater population.
We see that we are being grouped, and identified, defined as.. criminals by virtue. There ought not to be so much opposition to people who risk their own material wellbeing to try to benefit others. I think this is another reflection of our new-american sensibilities. That is, a lack of. Looking at Axiom and similar profiling systems, categorization of your tendencies and destiny, I see a great danger in who holds the pen, if you could call it that. This grouping of threats by the FBI and Interpol type organizations is not responsible, it can't be, because no matter how well you define a threat, I see no way to effectively categorize people. Humans are too dynamic to define as 1/70, and the social implications of criminality are too complex to define any type of person as having criminal motivation. That's claiming authority of judgment, and that to me seems a stretch of our power even in our narcissistic sub-reality.
The Freedom of Information Act is an interesting thing, especially when considering its powers throughout the time since its development in 1966. As is a common theme, the requirements on government transparency have been limited by the Bush administration, in response to threats upon our national security (or whatever else could justify it) since 2001. One document of the limitations set by the Present administration is Executive Order 13233 (EO13233) which is part of the larger Presidential Records Act, as briefed here:
This is important, not just as an example of expansion of powers in the administration, it shows the method in changing policies based on any grounds possible, without drawing the attention and action on the part of the public, or politicians.. this idea, clearly bolstered by the imperial nature of our leaders, is part of what I believe to be a great threat to our integrity as a society and as a nation. Among things that confuse me,By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to establish policies and procedures implementing section 2204 of title 44 of the United States Code with respect to constitutionally based privileges, including those that apply to Presidential records reflecting military, diplomatic, or national security secrets, Presidential communications, legal advice, legal work, or the deliberative processes of the President and the President's advisors, and to do so in a manner consistent with the Supreme Court's decisions in Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S. 425 (1977) FURTHER IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PRESIDENTIAL RECORDS ACT
1) how Canada can consent to this, who chose to follow our guidelines and list
2) where the balance is, who controls what gets included or expunged
3) who pays for this McCarthy style list making service
Sunday, November 4, 2007
Making fear the American Way
"In the 1960s Kennedy attempted to convince Latin America that Cuba was a security threat to North and South America in general and the United States, in particular. The Mexican ambassador to the U.S. at the time called Kennedy’s bluff by saying, "If we publicly declare that Cuba is a threat to our security, forty million Mexicans will die laughing." Yet Kennedy was able to convince Americans of such a threat and this ultimately led to the brink of a nuclear war during the Cuban Missile Crisis – no laughing matter, that."
Cuba is back in the race for places we will make violent conquest upon, so I guess this stood out to me.
Cuba is back in the race for places we will make violent conquest upon, so I guess this stood out to me.
