Erin’s Fluency Blog

In September of 2006, the
U.S. Government awarded Boeing Co. with a $67 million contract to install a “virtual fence” along the Mexican border.  This contract is for the first phase of the government’s Secure Border Initiative Network that is estimated to cost $2 billion.  The contract mandates the use of cameras, sensors and unmanned planes, but exactly how the money is used is left up to the contractor.  This immediately made me think of accountability issues.  Upon further researching the Initiative, I learned that 58 companies had applied for the contract, but when narrowed down to the five finalist, the list was comprised of four companies who were regularly contracted out for defense (Boeing Co, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon and Northrop Grumman) and one newcomer, Ericsson.  Ericsson was the only finalist with specific telecommunications expertise, being a leading wireless infrastructure vendor globally and having built a similar “virtual fence” on the border between Russia and
Norway three years ago.  It makes me wonder why Ericsson was not given the contract.  If the government is going to put billions of dollars in the hands of a contractor and say,” Do whatever you want, so long as you utilize cameras, sensors and unmanned planes,” wouldn’t it make sense to entrust a contractor who has direct experience with such a project?  It is possible that Boeing Co’s proposed plan appeared to be more comprehensive and efficient, but it seems hard to believe.  To me, it seems more believable that considering the long and profitable history of Boeing Co as a defense contractor for the government, they were granted special consideration.  After all, according to the Project on Government Oversight between 1997 and 2004, the four federal contractors making the highest campaign contributions were Lockheed Martin, Boeing Co, Northrop Grumman and Raytheon.  This list sounds pretty similar to the list of the top five finalists to build the “virtual fence.”  There is one name missing however, Ericsson, the company with telecommunication expertise.  Based on this information though, it appears that it may not be expertise that wins contracts, but instead campaign contributions.  In addition, in the past, Boeing has been investigated and found guilty of placing especially “generous” Pentagon officials in high ranking positions within the company, raising further issues in conflicts of interest.   Contracts awarded based on this criteria will likely lead to increased waste of money, decreased accountability and in this case, failure to control illegal immigration at the Mexican border.

A recent article at www.cnn.com reported that New Zealand’s Qualification Authority has announced that high school students will be allowed to use “text-speak” this year on the country’s national exams.  “Text-speak” refers to the language used by cell phone users to send text messages.  As a means of saving time, vowels are often omitted from words (i.e. “text” would be “txt”), acronyms are used (i.e. “laugh out loud” would be “lol”) and letters that can be words in and of themselves are substituted (i.e. “see” would be “c”).  This seems ludicrous.  According to the 2005 United Nations Development Programme Report,
New Zealand is tied for first place with 19 other countries for having the highest literacy rate at 99.9%.  (FYI…the
United States comes in at number 55 with a 97% literacy rate) 
New Zealand could not have made it to the top of this list without a conscious and dedicated effort to teach its children to read and master the English language.  How will allowing “text-speak” in the classroom affect the country’s literacy rate?  If “text-speak” is allowed in schools, should it be allowed on tests of literacy?  It will be interesting to see the affects (if any) this decision has on these high school students as they enter college and the professional world.  Potentially, correct spelling could become a lost art.  If for four years straight a student never had to write the word “probably,” but instead, only “prbly,” I can see that it could become confusing.  Is it “probably” or “probobly” or “probbably?”  I’m having a hard time thinking of any positive effects this decision will have on the students or the country as whole.  It is unlikely that “text-speak” will become acceptable in the collegiate or professional worlds, so why add one more challenge to the students and to the professors/managers who will have to re-teach incoming students of proper English.  I can’t help but wonder the response I would get from Dr. Shulman if my next discussion paper was titled, “Dscssn Ppr 2: Implemntatn Succss Fctrs.”

I am very interested in building my professional career in a way that will promote and enhance the independence of people with disabilities.  One critical aspect of enhancing independence of people with disabilities is access to assistive technology (power wheelchairs, vehicle hand controls, hearing aids, hands-free computer programs, etc).  For a variety of reasons accessing assistive technology is often difficult for people with disabilities.  This is especially true of people with disabilities living in rural areas, where the biggest barrier is lack of professional expertise of assistive technology and lack of facilities providing assistive technology.  However, new technology has created an excellent way to connect rural people with disabilities with urban professionals trained in assistive technology.  TeleRehabilitation is a way of video conferencing that would allow occupational therapists and assistive technology service providers the opportunity to communicate with and evaluate individuals in remote areas in terms of current function and benefit of proper assistive technology.  For many individuals living in rural areas where lack of internet use, unemployment levels, poverty and lack of education are comparatively high, TeleRehabilitation is literally the only way they can communicate with professionals and access assistive technology.  The problem is that Medicare and private insurers are reluctant to pay for this type of care as they feel accuracy will be lost without true “hands-on” evaluation.  Although it is true that TeleRehabilitation has some short falls that “first-hand” care does not (i.e. cannot see minor tremors) I think this is simply an illustration of policy failing to keep pace with the ever evolving technological field.  TeleRehabilitation is the first economically reliable means of increasing independence of people with disabilities living in rural areas, while decreasing medical costs and enhancing employability.  As insurers continue to pay unnecessary medical bills for issues that could have been prevented through assistive technology and the Federal government continues to pay millions of dollars in income maintenance programs to individuals who could be working with access to assistive technology, it is inevitable that policies will eventually change.  This type of teleconferencing has brought many people together and has been very successful in allowing face-to-face contact despite great distance (i.e. GSPIA’s distance learning course in Macedonia, communication’s between federal officials and Army generals in
Iraq, etc.).  It is time the medical profession caught up.