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.

Although I stated in my last blog that I am tired of discussing privacy issues, my web search this week has produced one more reason in which I feel compelled to again revisit the issue.  Microsoft is currently engaged in a project called MyLifeBits that will essentially digitalize every single photo, CD, card, book, phone conversation, lecture, website, home video, television show, etc. that a person experiences in his life.  The program will build a virtual memory that will allow users to search by keyword nearly any aspect of their life thus far.  The very first thing I thought of when I read the article was, you guessed it, privacy!  In a society that has some afraid to simply conduct a web search or send an email, I wonder if there would be a market for software capable of digitally recording the most intimate aspects of one’s life?  The MyLifeBits project however, has been going on for five years, thus beginning before the major privacy issues of today were a concern.  Knowing that, I began wondering about the utility of the project if privacy were not an issue.  Do people really desire to save every phone conversation, email, card, website, television show, photograph, etc?  Assuming people want to save all of these things, assumes that there is meaning attached to each of these things, but I don’t think that is necessarily true.  Every year for the last 24 years, I have received a birthday card from my Uncle that says the same thing, “Happy Birthday, Erin.  Have a Great year!”  When it comes in the mail, I barely look at it anymore.  I would have no desire to save it, let alone 24 of them.  The same holds true for television shows or websites.  I can’t count the number of hours in my life that I have spent aimlessly gazing at the TV or browsing the web for no significant reason.  Would I want all of this recorded?  No.  I don’t feel cheated that I don’t know what I watched on TV as a seven year old.  I realize that there are significant moments over my last 24 years that I have forgotten all together or may not remember as well as I used to, but I don’t think a “digital diary” is the answer to that problem.  I am sure that the development of software to handle such a project is very expensive, and I’m not sure that the worth of it is comparable.  I will rely on pen, paper and a scrapbook for the important stuff, and hopefully quickly forget the rest.

A few weeks ago in class, we staged a debate in which the digital divide was disputed.  One student, when comparing the digital divide with pollution, said it is not the goal to provide internet access to every single person in the world, but instead to expand access to a majority of people.  Considering the complexity of providing internet access to the billions of people in the world, at the time of the debate, I agreed with that student.  But upon further researching the subject, I now believe that with the proper players and governmental cooperation, internet access could be provided to the entire world.  I realize that this is a very optimistic thought, but very few pessimists have ever changed the world!  An article at www.cnn.com reported that through a collaboration with the Libyan government and the non-profit agency, One Laptop per Child, all 1.2 million school children in
Libya will receive laptop computers and internet access.  The most shocking aspect of the program is that 1.2 million computers, a server in each school, a team of technical advisors, satellite internet service and other infrastructure can all be provided for only $250 million.  The computers are even equipped with foot pedals and solar energy adaptations in cases of inadequate electricity.  At first $250 million seems like a lot of money, but considering the multitude of products and services it provides, coupled with Western government’s pace of spending (the United States’ Military spending in 2005 was more than $420 Billion!), $250 million is pretty cheap.  So, if it can be done in
Libya, why can’t it be done everywhere?  In my opinion, one of the biggest reasons internet access is not worldwide is the gross distribution of wealth in our world.  I had recently heard that for the first time ever, Forbes Magazine’s annual list of the100 wealthiest people did not contain one millionaire; they were all billionaire’s.  The people on this list have more personal money than some entire nations in the developing world.  When discussing distribution of wealth, it is easy to point fingers at government’s such as our own that spend billions of dollars frivolously or billionaires living in multi-million dollar homes, but the average American often forgets that we too are players in the distribution of wealth game.  The
United States is home to nearly 300 million people.  Imagine if all of us donated just $1 to One Laptop per Child.  More than 1.2 million people could be provided internet access.  Imagine if we all donated $5.  More than 8 million people would be provided internet access.  So next time you stop at Starbucks on your way to work, think about the real difference that $4 you just spent on a small coffee could have really made.  My argument may seem extreme and unrealistic, but I am a firm believer in the power of charitable giving and the desire to help people.  A whole new world will be opened up to those Libyan school children, and hopefully someday, everybody will get that same opportunity.

Laptop provided to Libyan school children

Shortly after the Pope had made remarks about the Muslim religion, and riots had broke out throughout the Middle East, I heard a reporter say that much of the conflict can be blamed on the Internet; stating that in pre-Internet days, only a handful of people would have heard the comments.  But today, with the ability for the speech to be easily accessed and repeatedly played, the comments reached millions and led to violence. This made me think quite a bit about the role the Internet has played in the growing tension between the West and the
Middle East.  Events such as the publication in a Denmark newspaper of a cartoon depicting Mohammed as wearing a “bomb turban” and reports of abuse to the Qur’an atGuantanamo
Bay, are two other incidences which have fueled hatred of the West but may have been avoided if internet access was not what it is.  In terms of terrorism though, the internet is not only a tool used by extremists to receive information, but also to send information.  Each time Al Queada has made a statement, it has not been via a telephone call to George Bush or Tony Blair, but via the internet.  This system of airing statements on the Internet is extremely unique and can be viewed as a positive or negative.  With each statement made by Osama Bin Laden or Ayman al-Zawahri, it is likely that thousands of individuals throughout the
Middle East will view them, allowing the statements to be used as a catalyst for enlisting more individuals in the Jihad.  Similarly, extremists can find information regarding bomb making procedures, watch martyrdom videos and see images of Western hostages taken captive by smaller terrorist groups, all on the web.  On the flip side though, it is also likely that thousands of individuals throughout the West will also see these statements and images, and become privy to information that the Government may not openly share with the public.  And just as the Internet has been utilized to mobilize Muslim extremists, it has been utilized to mobilize Westerners, especially those against the war in
Iraq.  Organizations such as Move On and individuals such as Cindy Sheehan have utilized the Internet to build up a support base, disseminate information and organize events.  The Internet has successfully been utilized to organize rallies and prayer vigils throughout the country.  Considering the numerous ways in which the Internet has been used by all parties involved in the “war on terror,” I can’t help but think how everything would be if the Internet did not exist.  Based on historical events, it is reasonable to believe that there would have always been extremists unhappy with the West (especially the United States) and always been Westerners skeptical of the
Middle East, but I’m not sure that the events of the past 4 years would have played out the same.  Although there is no way of knowing for sure, I do believe that access of images, information, governmental statements, etc. via the Internet has helped to force governments and civilians throughout the world to pay attention to what is going on, and in some cases, fueled individuals to take a definitive stance on the “war on terror.”

I must admit that prior to beginning this course, I had thought bloggers to be little more than unemployed computer geeks who were so impressed with themselves that they believed the world cared about their views, gripes, interests, etc.  I had no idea the actual number of bloggers, the variety of blogs and most importantly, the power of blogs.  Yahoo news has recently reported on a new emerging use of blogs in the corporate world.  Jonathon Schwartz, CEO of Sun Microsystems has become one of the first Fortune 500 Chief Executives to post blogs about their company.  Schwartz, whose blog attracts 50,000 viewers each month, says that his blog has become the most effective vehicle to communicate with all of Sun’s constituencies.  Schwartz’s blog is currently posted in ten different languages and in his opinion is an excellent way to attract new employees throughout the world.  Experts say that blogging by CEOs is extremely beneficial in keeping them in touch with the “real world” (as opposed to purely corporate, numbers, profit, etc.) and gives them an idea of what their customers want.  Blogging is an ideal means of reaching large, very diverse populations from all parts of the world. 

Sun is not the first major corporation to post company blogs, but it is one of the first in which the CEO is the person blogging.  Thirty other Fortune 500 companies are posting blogs.  This is nearly double the number than only 10 months ago!  With statistics like these, it appears that this is only the beginning of a growing trend to reach constituents in a more personal and convenient way…blogging!

I recently had a question regarding social security benefits.  After visiting www.ssa.gov I was unable to find the answer to my problem so I followed the links to email my question.  To my surprise, I received a return email in less than an hour.  Knowing the government and its often slow response to anything, I was expecting the return email to take at least a couple of days.  But after opening the email, I realized why the reply was so quick.  It was not an actual answer to my question sent by another human being, but instead a computerized response that recognized key words in my question, which then generated several responses.  For example, if an email asked, “How old do I have to be to retire and earn social security benefits”; keywords “old,” “retire,” and “benefits” may be recognized, thus initiating facts regarding these words.  In my experience, the computerized email worked well, generating the correct response to my question.  It made me wonder though, how often the computer does generate the right response.  With this new system, has the Social Security Administration been able to eliminate 25% or 50% or even 75% of their call center staff?  Or has this new system just become another step between the consumer and government?

In the future, I intend on being the Director of a non-profit which will provide services to people with disabilities.  One of the biggest concerns of director’s of non-profits is securing funding to provide services to consumers.  Through web searches, the Internet has provided a unique means of fundraising for non-profits.  Non-profits can register at www.goodsearch.com and enroll in a program that deposits one penny in their account each time someone searches the web in their name.  One penny per search seems minimal and inconsequential, but considering the number of web searches performed each day, the program has the potential of raising thousands of dollars for each organization.  If a person searched the web three times a day, at the end of one week, the organization would have made $0.21.  At the end of one year, the organization would have made $10.92.  If 100 people searched the web three times a day, the organization would have made $1,092.00 in one year.  Similarly, if 100 people searched the web five times a day, at the end of the year, the organization would have made $1,820.00.  Although the money generated through www.goodsearch.com is obviously not enough to sustain an organization, it is basically free money.  Unlike other means of funding such as grant writing, raffles, large galas, etc., www.goodsearch.com does not require an effort on behalf of the non-profit.  After registering, the non-profit can relax and watch the money roll in.  This saves time and resources which can then be used to provide services, partake in other fundraising activities, pay staff, etc.

Gambling and placing bets has been part of our culture for many years, but recently, the internet has changed how we gamble and what we gamble on.  Traditionally, if one thinks of gambling, they may think of large casinos, horse races or office sports pools.  But the internet has broadened the way we gamble.  On sites such as www.betCRIS.com and www.wagerweb.com bets are being placed on what celebrity couple will break up first, who will be the winners of countless reality TV shows, Katie Couric’s ratings her first night with CBS news, etc.  At www.betCRIS.com one can even bet on the severity of the 2006 hurricane season!

The ease and variety of Internet gambling has many implications.  More people will probably begin to gamble, as it is no longer necessary to travel long distances to go to casinos or race tracks.  Betting on pop culture and the lives of celebrities will most likely attract a younger crowd, who otherwise would not be interested in traditional black jack or roulette.  Sports pools among co-workers and friends have traditionally been a popular way of gambling.  But sports gambling via the Internet does not require close proximity of betters, allows more people to be involved and drastically increases wagers and winnings.  At face value, these changes in gambling may seem inconsequential, but in reality it could prove to be quite dangerous.  There are already thousands of Americans addicted to gambling.  By increasing the number of gamblers, introducing gambling to a younger crowd, eliminating travel hassles and increasing wagers, it is likely that more people will develop gambling addictions and end up in financial distress.