Sunday, November 04, 2007

campground管理員的來信



離9/1Labor Day vacation 居然已經兩個月了=.=

那是這學期剛開學一個多禮拜左右的三天假期, 一開學時安琪就提了要去玩水行程, 但大家似乎沒有很認真的安排. 一直到了前兩天吧, 小屏忽然發現, 據說有個什麼藍色紫色很特殊的流星雨, 會在三天假期一開始的那個半夜出現. 我跟Ruby一向就在等著有什麼好機會去Grand Canyon, 一聽之下, 覺得如果可以去那裡看流星, 那就太完美了! 不過, 多數的人原來是打算要去另外一個地方玩水的, 究竟要去哪一個行程, 形成了一種拉鋸戰-.-

沒想到在出發的當天下午, 沒錯就是當天下午, 我竟然以 "為小屏按摩" 的這種條件, 爭取到她開著她的馬呆載著我們這一車的人去Grand Canyon, oh...一點都沒有想到原來這樣的條件會成功, 當然也很高興Judy也要跟我們一起去耶, 而且而且, 我們還決定要露營, 打電話去問露營的費用, 結果發現都只需要幾十元這樣的價格, 真是令人興奮啊:D

於是就開始在門口曬起了據說是兩年以前用過還沒清理的帳棚, 住在隔壁的社區管理員還一直來笑我們說我們是要在家裡露營是嗎, 然後我們又趕緊列了要買的東西查了要怎麼開去, 本來以為要開六個小時, 一查怎麼只要開三個小時, 很開心想說很早就會到了不會弄到半夜, 沒想到這一切的緊緊張張最後居然摸到了十點終於出發了~~~

途中自然發生了很多很好玩的事情, 啊啊, 不過今天沒空寫這麼多. 哈, 放張我們看完流星以後在廁所鏡子前的合照好了~~














oh...在兩個月以後忽然卯起來寫這一段又這樣虎頭蛇尾, 究竟是為什麼呢? 哈, 是因為我們在露營營區認識的管理員, 今天居然寄信來給大家, 裡面有著他幫大家照的合照, 還有他自己在營區照的許多動物的照片. 一時實在太開心了, 忍不住上來胡亂的寫東西. 下面就是管理員為我們大家的合照囉~~~至於為什麼是那樣的手勢, 因為那個手勢代表了我們學校ASU(arizona state university). 好像是年輕人玩的玩意對吧, 沒錯, 那個管理員是university of arizona畢業的校友, 一直嗆聲我們的足球隊, 我們就熱起來地還給他一點顏色看看-.- (ㄟ 為什麼Judy的表情弱掉了啊!)











Friday, October 26, 2007

學生掉下了眼淚

今天早上又把學生的essay看一遍, 用螢光筆標出我覺得可以改進的部分, 再確定一下自己對於這篇essay的想法是否可以表達得清楚, 就出發去辦公室了.

學生來早了幾分鐘, 看起來心情還蠻平靜的, 只是眼中透露一點小小的憂傷和擔心. 我請她先說說她對於評分表上面各項說明的理解, 聽了以後覺得沒什麼大問題. 接著就問她對評分最大的疑惑在哪裡, 她指出她拿最低分的那一欄, 說她沒辦法了解.

我拿出了用螢光筆標記的essay, 開始一點一點跟她說明, 她一路都有跟上, 最後也表示她了解了. 我最後問了她, 是否還有任何不理解的或疑惑的, 都可以提出來討論, 她說沒有, 都了解, 但就在這時, 她的眼框忽然就紅了, 哭了出來. 赫~~~

她說, 她的Scholarship可能會被取消, 不知道自己該怎麼辦.

原來, 她真正擔心的, 是怕這門課最後沒有能夠拿到A, 哪怕是A-也可以, 維持A是獎學金必要的條件.

她講完以後, 我終於恍然大悟為什麼她的情緒在昨天課堂一開始的時候會那麼激動.

這個小孩真的很勇敢, 忍不住哭出來以後馬上就收拾了情緒繼續跟我說話. 我禁不住謝謝她昨天在課堂上, 心裡雖然承受了這樣的壓力, 但跟我約好時間以後, 就回座位還是保持心情平靜並且認真的和小組一起專心的開始討論, 完成課堂上要進行的活動, 這是很困難的事情. 她聽完了我的話心情似乎平靜了許多還露出了一點笑容.

這個學生一向在課堂都很認真, 其他的小作業也都還有不錯的表現, 這次作業會拿到B-我判斷只是她沒抓到重點. 我開始跟她說, 這個作業沒有A不見得最後不會有A, 我們可以在第二個大作業上面, 一起努力做更多的準備工作, 甚至一開始就跟一起確認評分的要求, 最後並提示她如何在第二份作業的時候注意要改進她在第一份作業沒有做到的缺失. 她一路都很認真的聽著, 並且自己很快就體悟了下一份可以在哪裡改進, 也表示自己在第二份草稿寫出來的時候, 希望我可以幫忙調整. 第二份作業是要去觀察課程教學做評析, 我們也談了一下她要去觀察的是怎麼樣的課堂, 做什麼準備或許會讓她的觀察更好.

我的確很希望能夠幫她保住她的獎學金. 我說, 我當然不可能可以直接保證她最後拿到A, 這對她來說也很不公平, 她非常同意且了解的點點頭. 但我告訴她, 我們可以一起很努力的讓這件事情成功, 根據我對她在課堂上的學習觀察, 我有信心我們可以一起克服的.

講完了這些以後, 學生終於看起來比較穩定一些, 對於我的提議還有接下來要做的努力, 有了比較明確的方向. 這個meeting最後就在這樣參雜著可預期的需要的努力以及對成功的期望的氣氛中結束.

我走在回家了路上, 稍微計算了一下她現在的處境, 心理想, 哇, 拿到A不是不可能, 但是真的要很努力的保證第二份作業的品質以及期末考的成績咧! 我得要好好努力才行了~

學生來要成績

本週二發了第一份大作業給學生之後, 心理就在有點緊張的想, 鐵定有學生會跑來說分數不符合她的期待, 果然今天上課就應驗了.

這位女同學在我即將要開始上課的時候, 拿著報告走到我面前, 披頭就說她認為這個分數不合理, 而且那個評分的表她一點都不懂那是在評什麼, 臉色和口氣都很緊繃, 我問她是否要下課的時候討論, 她很快的說不行一定要現在, 她下課要去找媽媽不曉得要幹麻. 我這時真是一驚, 心想難道妳要跟我翻臉嗎? 而且我們兩個站在教室的前面, 所有的人都看到我們在講話.

還好這時候我隨即鎮定了下來, 想到美國人往往就是那麼的直接, 或許她並不是硬要我馬上回答, 只是希望有一個滿意的答覆. 於是我就和緩的說, 我覺得可能是因為我們對於這份作業期待的標準和她的想像之間有了誤會, 這門課又設定了一些跟其他門課不一樣的要求, 我希望可以聽聽她的想法, 這不是幾句話就可以解決的, 所以可不可以找其他時間. 例如明天.

我一說完馬上果然這位小姐的臉就放鬆了下來, 然後說, 要不然下週二要上課之前也可以, 我就說, 我想這對她來說很重要, 明天吧, 後來我們就約定了時間. 她就笑笑的走了, 上課的時候看起來心情也很穩定.

雖然當場的處理挺順利的, 但過了這一關以後, 我一整天都過得揣揣不安, 因為我著時覺得我明天好像得要花很多的力氣去說服一個小孩為什麼她表現不好. 會不會我誤會了她的意思, 她的作文真的寫得不錯呢, 會不會......很多的疑問在我的心理.

到了晚上, 我實在沒辦法繼續這樣想下去了, 覺得要想個辦法讓這件事情比較有建設性一點, 我也不喜歡去一一指出學生到底怎麼樣誤會了我們的評分標準並且判刑一般的說, 嘿, 妳的作文就是只有83分的水準啦. 通常這樣的結果都是學生極力的辯駁並且是直接針對妳當場說的話的弱點加以攻擊, 完全失去了理性的討論.

最後我想到的辦法是, 我決定一開始就跟她說, 我想聽她的想法, 讓她一一的解釋給我聽那些評分表上針對各個不同面向可以得幾分的說明, 然後告訴我她的作文哪些對應到了那些部分. 然後當然我自己也得重新仔細的再讀一下她的作文, 看如果到時候她想要爭取分數的時候, 哪個面向或許是我當時很嚴厲但是或許可以妥協, 或許可以給她加分的.

想到了這樣的策略以後, 我心理就好多了, 終於可以安心一點的去睡覺, 明天, 再看看效果怎麼樣.

Wednesday, October 24, 2007

改作業給成績

擔任助教已經第三個學期了,
還是很不喜歡改作業.
的確, 誰喜歡改作業呢?
本質上就有著讓人不喜歡的一種勞役感.

今天拿起上週學生寫的作文改著改著的時候,
忽然像是想通了一樣的發現,
我這麼不喜歡改作業的原因,
最主要的是, 最後要給分數,
雖然我也會在學生的作文紙上寫上很多的建議,
提供學生下次改進的方向,
但是給分數的這個動作讓我覺得沒趣!
當我從學生的作文裡面發現他沒搞懂課程內容的時候,
其實我很想做的是跟學生有機會討論搞懂, 這是活的正在發展進行的,
打分數卻是對一個死的既定的東西判刑,
為什麼要去評斷一個人還沒有學習得很好準備的很好這件事情呢?

另外一個我覺得或許會讓我不舒服的地方,
是如果學生的作業透露出他的確沒搞懂,
總覺得與老師教得好不好有很大的關聯.
從這個角度來看,
給分數就更加的詭異了.

我的老師有一個理論,
認為如果不給分數,
學生基本上並不會去看妳寫在作業紙上的建議,
因為他們往往會認為自己就是她們想的那樣好.
那個......美國人的確有這樣的傾向....但我還是不喜歡給分數.

Monday, October 01, 2007

2007 Birthday


生日那天吃完飯
跟大寶散完涼爽的步後
很意外的在回家的路上撞見了難得一見的姿憓還有Tom

他們說要去吃晚餐肚子很餓了
正趕他們去吃飯的時候
姿憓忽然說, 有個問題要問我
可是講完這句話以後, 她又記不起她的問題在那兒呆然的想著
思索片刻後 姿憓忽然想起來的說
她跟老師實在處得太差了需要一份新工作
為了問這個問題
她居然整個人擠往旁邊公寓的外牆擋住了我原本往前走的回家的路
我心裡疑惑, 喝, 我一定會停下來的嘛, 動作真大呀.

這時候, 站在旁邊的大寶, 早就往家門口小跑步走去
我跟姿憓兩人聊了一下, 感覺沒甚麼具體建設性的意見
我就趕他們去吃飯了
一個人走回家的時候 心裡弧疑著這些人, 包括吃完飯一直留在家裡的的Judy和Brook可能在搞什麼鬼吧, anyway, 說不定等一下會吃到個生日蛋糕什麼的吧, 我想.

走到家門口, 門一打開, 撇見左斜前方似乎是有看到閃亮的蠟燭插在個蛋糕上,
但我還來不及想什麼的時候,
赫 在那閃亮的桌子以及門中間, 怎麼有三個長得很怪的臉的人在那裡手足舞蹈著
仔細看第一張臉
ㄟ 怎麼是我自己
往左一點再看第二張
嚇 也是我
在左一點看第三張 又是我
三個手腳煞也靈活的動來動去還唱著歌
驚嚇之中不管我從第一個看到第二個看到第三個想要看出這是什麼或是隨意的選定一個來看,
阿, 通通都是我那平面的臉以及僵硬的笑容可掬,
我就站在門口手足無措的聽著三個奇怪的自己唱起了生日歌,
這時候姿憓和Tom也忽然從我身後出現,
加入了鼓掌以及唱歌的行列.

手足舞蹈結束以後, 措手不及的我就帶著驚魂未定的心情走進了家門,
坐在我的蛋糕前開始進行生日的其他正常儀式(例如許願啦 吹蠟燭啦 以及吃蛋糕),
那些臉實在是太驚悚又好笑了.



吃完了以後,
終於大家都比較平靜下來, 講了許多剛剛亂七八糟設計的橋段, 包括我在家裡等三個人說要回來吃飯等太太無聊, 走出去停車場卻撞見三個人不曉得為什麼一齊出現在停車場, 也排排坐的在沙發上照了通通是文婷的合照, 後來吃完蛋糕以後, 不曉得是誰忽然很興奮的說, 要拍那種全家都是文婷的全家福.

於是, 就搬來了兩張椅子, 當成我們去相館照那種或坐或站全家福照, 笑死了,
結果我就一直笑一直笑很難對相機做好表情,
她們其他三個人可得意了,
說因為她們的臉就是我那固定的臉, 要怎麼笑都沒關係,可以盡情的笑很醜也可以-.-



玩了一整個晚上以後, 大家回到自己的書桌前面, 都沒辦法再唸下任何書, 最後只好放棄的早早去睡了.





Monday, July 30, 2007

宣判日

和婉玲芊芊約了要坐著蓋好不久的高鐵去小美小曹高雄家玩
日期定了買了票以後
才發現出遊的第二天週五是蘇案宣判的日子

宣判的前兩天在濟南教會有靜走和音樂會活動
宣判的當天 大家要陪他們從台北濟南教會走到法院聽判決結果
我在出發往高雄的前一天
參加了第一天的靜走

當天集合前
天空還有些小雨滴在滴著
但走著走著雨也就歇了 透些亮亮的天光
我走完騎車回家的時候看到乾淨的月亮那樣晾在天上
涼涼的風
覺得一切都很好
總忍不住感覺 有著好預兆那樣

是那種知道會 go through 但因為大結局的時間未到
還是有點緊張的心情
再次無罪的審判會成為蘇案的一個句點也成為一種開展
大夥甚至說好了週末要開開心心地的來吃吃喝喝聊天

週五早上跟小美小曹吃完早餐以後
小美就出門了
小曹和我兩個人守在電視旁邊等待無罪的宣判
並且很開心等一下要去逛街

等著等著
我看到一個主播的下方
出現了這些字眼: 死刑 褫奪公權 當庭羈押
我當時第一個反應是: 這是在說以前曾經有過的宣判吧
但大概就在一秒鐘之後主播說話了
媽呀 這就是宣判的結果??
完全是在一種不可置信的狀態下持續了不知道多久
然後螢幕出現蘇友辰跟其他律師們反穿著律師袍抗議判決
許文彬律師唸著律師團的聲明
蘇友辰律師悲憤的哭著大喊 : 司法改革 改革個屁!
然後看到建和和秉郎以及建和的媽媽
陪他們走到法院的大家把手中的玫瑰花舖在法院前的階梯
平反大隊宣布要繼續營救
......

.....我跟小曹兩人持續地在客廳大喊大叫


這 實在太扯

( 註: 蘇建和三人當天並未被當庭羈押 新聞應是根據過去慣例 被告罪行成立即會當庭羈押 因而打出當庭羈押四字)

我的2007暑假 序

啊? 我在哪?... 我在照相-.-

每一次睡太晚起床後
往往會感覺那一整天好像已經失掉了一些先機
剩下的時間變得難以再有建設性起來

嚴格說起來
尤其是在台灣家裡
這樣的感覺特別明顯
也常常會不管早起晚起總之下午也再度睡上個欲振乏力的午覺或是晚餐前覺等等

其實真的有那麼想睡嗎
醒著也OK的吧!

這次回台灣
於是變成一隻勤奮的小蜜蜂
總之只要一醒來
就騎著車出發去
出發去哪裡再說
氣勢比較重要

淑美說
我這次回去遇到好多大事
認真想起來
多倒是不至於
但事情大條的也夠大條了
一些子有的沒的家家戶戶都應該要知道的也跟上了
為了論文鋪路的前測匍伏有點混亂的前進了一點
交織著的吃喝玩樂堪稱滿意

Thursday, May 17, 2007

volver by Almodóvar

女性朋友們就那樣不認為自己需要知道誰死掉或發生甚麼事情的
幫她把那個裝了企圖強暴她女兒最後被女兒殺死的老公屍體的冰櫃搬上車
其中一個人甚至接受了酬勞以及這特殊的信任幫忙埋藏了冰櫃在那已死之人最愛的河畔

熟睡在床的一對情人他強暴了自己的女兒她則不是他的老婆
知情了自己女兒被強暴的妻子在這個風狂大的夜裡放火燒了床上的兩人
這不為外人所知的隱情包括了強暴與偷情搭配上終年刮的強風
最後的結局是有人以為死的是自己的父母有人以為自己的母親在那個夜裡離家失蹤

死亡是生命眾相中的一鮮少驚動人們
偶爾會被提及的是男人命短

Monday, April 16, 2007

book review: the public assault on america's children

Polakow, Valerie (Ed.). (2000). The Public Assault on America’s Children: Poverty, Violence and Juvenile Injustice. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.

228 Pp.
$ 54.00 (hardcover)
ISBN 0-8077-2984-7
$ 23.95 (paperback)
ISBN 0-8077-3983-9



In The Public Assault on America’s Children: Poverty, Violence and Juvenile Injustice, the editor and contributors discuss what a violent society against children has been gradually formed through the social policies and political discourses during the 1990s and what this means for children who grows up in such society. Several forms of violence against children– the violence of poverty and homelessness, the violence of environmentally induced childhood diseases, the news media and legislative criminalization of children, and the more and more incarceration of youth offenders or trouble makers – are marked in the book. By examining these violent factors and their implications, the book successfully delineates how the way a society treats people and its consequences could make a vicious circle, and what might be the key to stop it.

The book begins with the editor, Valerie Polakow’s introduction, “Savage Policies: Systemic Violence and the Lives of Children,” which points out how the “welfare reform” starting since 1996 has been deteriorating the lives of poor children. Polakow shows the dilemma a poor parent has after the reform that s/eh has to choose either a job with an incredible low wage below the poverty line (which cannot afford the basic living including the fair quality for child care) or the destiny of being kicked out from the list of welfare subsidy. Such poverty situation makes lots of children – most of them are minorities – marginalized by the whole society due to their deficient developmental environment, and finally, criminalized by the strict attitudes and treatments due to the policy such as Zero-Tolerance after their entering schools. These discussions give readers a simple but clear background for the issues in the following chapters. Polakow then ends the instruction with a description of organization of this book.


The main body of this book includes three parts. Part I, “Poverty, Violence, and the Lived Realities of Children” has four chapters. The contributors here give discussions of what ideologies and philosophies historically inherent in American society and underlying contemporary social policies and discourses regarding poverty, single mother and children make the United States a nation, in which the citizens choose to turn away from “other people’s children.”


In chapter one, “A Crucible of Contradictions: Historical Roots of Violence Against Children in the United States,” the author Barbara Finkelstein discuss those “honored” religious, political, and socioeconomic traditions in the American society regarding the justice of individuals right and the role of a responsible mother have turned to the selfish beliefs of privatization and no necessity to give mothers with difficulties any help. Chapter two, “Poverty and Environmentally Induced Damage to Children,” continues to discuss the relation between poverty and environmentally induced damages which torture poor children’s lives. The author Sue Books points out that the public tends to attribute these children’s miserable destinies to their despicable poor parents who lack morality and are unwilling to take responsibility for the children. However, she argues that making these children to be exposed to those dangerous factors cannot be merely seen as an unfortunate and blamable “fact.” It is the inevitable consequence of the systemic violence within the society, and the unjust social policy of the welfare reform has been deteriorating such situation. In Chapter three,” Poverty and Youth Violence,” Vorrasi and Garbarino further uses the term “social toxin” to describe risk factors existing in the society which would impede children’s development. These factors include perceived economic inequality, exposure to family violence, participation in the illicit economy, and poverty, which the authors regard as the factor “reigns superior to most other individual risk factors with respect to having the ability to catalyze dysfunction.”


After discussing the damages due to physically environment, Chapter four, “Framing Children in the News: The Face and Color of Youth Crime in America” focuses on the violence of news media. The author LynNell Hancock uses a murder case to examine the news media’s role in shaping the public’s fear of children, especially for the minority, black or Latin boys. In July 1998, an 11-year-old girl’s body was found in one of Chicago’s most crime-addled neighborhoods. Two black boys, ages 7 and 8, are accused to murder this girl for her bike. In the beginning, the public was surprised at that the suspects were such two little boys, but then they turned to believe the possibilities. The tone of “anything possible” was filled the air. The Los Angeles Times used “the end of innocence” in the headline of its first-day editorial; the Chicago Sun-Times said that “more and more we are seeing child play replaced with predatory behavior.” The two little suspects are brought to the court, treated as adult criminals. Yet, finally, the truth turned out that it’s NOT these two black little young man killed Ryan. Hancock gives his observations and discussions of how the news Media had been working on “prepare” the whole society to believe such unexpectedly brutal crimes were committed by no longer innocent children or the so-called new breed “superpredator” – especially by black boys coming from a poverty area. Finally, he proposes suggestions of possible changes for the media environment to turn the tide.


Part II, “Schools, Violence, and Zero-Tolerance Policies,” focuses on how the previous discussed social environment and attitudes toward children influence the way schools treat students and its consequences. In chapter five, “America’s Least Wanted: Zero-Tolerance Policies and the Fate of Expelled Students,” Sasha Polakow-Suransky reveals the contradictory value between the old common-law doctrine of parens patriae (which provides the legal foundation for America’s public education system to all children) and the Zoro-Tolerance Policies (which punishes and expels students who bring anything “deemed” dangerous stuff to schools, without any alternative education). The author use statistics and a case study to reveal the difficult position students have after leaving schools. The data also shows that the expulsions of the minority students are disproportionate – the average American population was 39.8%, yet African American students accounted for 64% of the total expulsions. Treated like this, these minorities kids are not only exclude by the schools but by the whole society because it can’t be argued that education is the only way these children can reverse their inferior position in the social structure.


Another chapter in Part II, “Listen First: How student Perspectives on Violence Can Be Used to Create Safer Schools,” Pedro A. Noguera argues that increasing the security guards under the Zero-Tolerance policy which aims to expel violent or “potentially violent” students from schools won’t decrease the fear of other students, parents, and teachers. Because the feeling of safety within the schools or around the community people live needs to be built on human relationships regarding understanding, care and respect. Noguera’s research results suggest that schools appear less feelings of fear when children trusts adults who have the ability to solve problems and protect them actively rather than just move the trouble from schools passively and usually neglect some existing trouble that the children have to resolve for themselves.


The final Part III, “Juvenile Injustice” concludes this book by the discussions of the phenomenon that “more significantly, beneath the rarely occurring but dominant focus on youth homicides, normal youth behavior and misbehavior became further criminalized, all in the name of safety” in chapter seven, “Look out, Kid, It’s Something You Did: The Criminalization of Children” by Bernadine Dohrn. And, in chapter eight, “Throwaway Children: conditions of Confinement and Incarceration,” James Bell points out the confinement and incarceration inflicted on the students who are “demonized” in the United States violates the international convention regarding children’s rights. Moreover, it’s unacceptable that juvenile facilities don’t provide any adequate “individualized and comprehensive interventions that hold young people accountable and help give them the necessary personal, educational, and technical skills designed to help them make the transition to becoming responsible adults.” All we can see is only segregation with punitive, retributive, and distrust attitudes. Bell calls for the changes of the treatment in the juvenile institutions.


If you have seen the documentary “Bowling for Columbine” directed by Michael Moore (2002), the issues discussed in this book wouldn’t be unfamiliar to you because the aspects they reach and the main concern are very similar. However, I think the following two features make this book unique. First, the discussions in all chapters successfully keep children in readers’ mind – how they might suffer and what alternative treatments the society could give them. The depiction of poor families and children’s real lives at home, in schools, and institutions force the readers to see and think beyond the facts. Second, there was some valuable research and case studies done. The study of students’ perspectives on Violence in Chapter six is one good example. Such inquiry not only uncovers children’s view, which was seldom seriously valued and seen, but also provides evidence that the related policies need to be changed.


Who should read the book? If you are a teacher or at a position working with children in the United States, reading this book would help you have an insight into the violent world your students face everyday. Knowing better about how the current policies decelerate a “potentially violent” student’s situation could help you have more thoughts of what situations you have to deal with and what alternative actions you might take. For parents, this book could give you a picture what your children might face in schools and the ability to judge whether teachers and schools are doing the right thing to your children. As for those who have few experiences to get along with children or have the feeling of fear toward children born in our era, this book could help you inspect where the fear from and to gain some ability to examine the structural problems existing in the society. Finally, for all policy makers and politicians, this book gives a clear warning that how the American society are sacrificing its future – the child – due to the decisions made and are going to be made.

Tuesday, April 10, 2007

Book Review: Thinking Points


Lakoff, George. (2006) Thinking Points: Communicating Our American Values and Vision. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

176 pp.
$10 (paperback) ISBN 0-3745-3090-4

In Thinking Points: communicating our American Values and Vision, the author George Lakoff opens with an explicit expression of intention for this book– the book is to call on grassroots Americans to act for re-leading the United States to the way based on its inherently “progressive” values such as common wealth for common good, diversity, and tolerance. In the introduction “why we write,” Lakoff points out that the radial, authoritarian right wing that refers to itself as “conservative” has been dominated the United States for decades. Conservatives act as if they are the ones who are devoted to preserving and promoting American values. However, their values are contradictory to the “traditional” American values which made the United States a respectful and just nation. In this book, Lakoff attributes conservatives’ success of leading the United States to their being good at communicating with the public. By illustrating how language and moral framing can be effectively used to communicate with the public, Lakoff and the Rockridge Institute call upon grassroots progressives to trumpet their values by using good strategies so that they can give progressive politician strong backings to reverse the trend led by conservatives.

As a book aiming to speak to the public, Thinking Points is an easily read handbook. Lakoff uses concrete examples to illustrate his points, and he provides “frames” for readers to have an insight into what progressive and conservative worldviews are. Lakoff also provides “frames” for reformers, strategists and advocators to learn how to frame their issues and use strategies to initiate progressive changes. The contents in this book are well-organized into eight chapters. The author doesn’t group those chapters into different sections. Yet according to its content and structure, it can be viewed as having three main parts.

In the first part – from chapter one to chapter three – Lakoff provides a discussion for the phenomenon of why conservatives keep winning and why progressives keep losing campaigns and failing in leading political discourses. Chapter one, “Winning and Losing,” compares and contrasts the different ways progressives and conservatives communicate to people. Borrowing Richard Wirthlin, chief strategist for former president Ronald Reagan’s discovery, Lakoff concludes that people will vote for the person who tries to communicate them with value (as conservative Reagan did) rather than issues or a laundry of programs and policies (as most progressives do). Lakoff further proposes twelve traps progressives hole which make them lose votes.

In chapter two, “Biconceptualism,” Lakoff argues there is no so-called “center.” By “no center,” Lakoff means that there is no absolutely conservative or progressive voter. Everyone having conservative beliefs in some aspects would hold progressive values in other aspects. The common strategy progressives use to attract voters is shifting from left to a little bit right, or being moderates. By doing so, unfortunately, progressives lose their votes from the left due to lack of authenticity and they won’t get extra votes they expect from the imaginary “center” eventually. Conservatives never shift their positions – they stick to their values so voters can identify them and feel they are trustworthy. Lakoff argues that the only way to win more votes for progressives is to activate those common progressive values hold by both of progressives and conservatives without the sacrifice of moral authenticity.

After emphasizing the necessity of communicating values authentically to the public, in chapter three, “Frames and Brains,” Lafoff further draws on research discoveries regarding how the brain operates to explain how important the use of frames is. He suggests that human beings use frames to facilitate our understanding of this world. Such use of frames is usually implicit so we are not even aware of this. However, the activation of some specific frames rather than others would dominate our understanding and thinking toward one thing. Lakoff points out that “over the past thirty-five years, conservatives have spent more than $4 billion constructing a system of dozens of think thanks and training institutes, staffed by right-wing intellectuals. They have managed to dominate the framing of issues and have profoundly changed American politics in the process.” For example, using “the war on terror,” conservatives successively invoke people’s implicit frame regarding war. Such an implicit activated frame makes people naturally rationalize what happens and serve politicians as a foundation to justify their actions no matter whether it’s adequate to declare war to the terrorists and whether the war can lead to satisfying solutions for protecting the United States.

However, most progressives don’t know the necessity and power of using frames and have no sense of conservatives’ use of frames. Progressives are usually rationalists who believe human beings always be able to judge things by logical reasoning. As a result, Progressives seldom consider framing when communicating their arguments with people, and they don’t know how to re-frame what conservatives articulate. In chapter four, Lakoff explicitly discusses several kinds of frames and gives examples to illustrate how progressives can break conservatives’ frames by replacing the frame embodying progressive values.

In the second part, Lakoff starts to focus on addressing the different moral and political philosophies hold by progressives and conservatives. Chapter four, “the Nation as Family,” presents how Americans’ political beliefs are structured by their idealizations of the family. Conservative morality, like the strict father model, centers on authority and control; progressive morality, like the nurturant model, emphasizes empathy and responsibility. Such differences lead progressives and conservatives to different principles and arguments for all kinds of political issues such as poverty, terrorism, and also the market, which is especially discussed in chapter five, “Morality and the Market.” It’s impressive to see how relevant the personal idealized family model and moral and political philosophies would be. And the amazing thing is that holding so different moral systems, conservatives and progressives would have totally different definitions for the very common terms we use today which might be view as “universal values” – freedom, equality, responsibility, integrity and security. Lakoff calls those concepts above “contested concepts” in the chapter six, “fundamental values.” He gives a discussion of why people can mean different things when they use the same words. Finally, in the last part, Lakoff gives examples of how progressives should use strategic initiatives to lead long-term changes in chapter seven, “Strategic Initiatives” and make their arguments in chapter eight, “the Art of Arguments.”

Although this book is written to speak to Americans, it’s worth reading for anyone who is interested in learning how to act for your faiths and values because Lakoff gives not only the contextual examples regarding American political environment but also the general principles of making good arguments and use of strategies. Besides, the progressive Americans values Layoff discusses are not particularly belonged to the United States. Anyone who has such progressive values can use Thinking Points as a reference to examine her/his underlying value systems and to examine whether her/his actions are consistent with beliefs and intentional goals. Finally, the United States now is an aggressive nation in the world which has power to intervene in international affairs and even enact and call on a war. By reading such a book, “foreigners” who would like to cooperate or negotiate with the conservative-dominant American government would have a better understanding of how those politicians believe and think. Also, as the American “dominant culture” has been constructed in other nations intentionally by the United States or spread more naturally to different places all over the world, Think Points provides people outside the United States who want to “learn” from American a chance to examine what implicit values underlying concepts and policies they would bring into their society, and what consequences their actions might have.

Saturday, January 13, 2007

It smells..

在台灣, 許許多多在雜貨店五金行就可以買到的,便宜又實用的乾貨還有日用品, 在美國要不是很貴就是變了樣貌, 再不然就是看起來有點恐怖(例如不知道從哪裡來的乾貨). 或許是心理作用, 那些錯落在台灣城市鄉村的雜貨、五金行所賣的東西, 是那麼的令人安心而沒有辦法忘懷, 哈.

為了得到一些從台灣來的乾貨食材還有用慣了的一些用品, 於是室友列了一個清單請她媽媽從台灣寄來, 原來室友的估計是, 讓它坐船來, 大約一個月後到, 反正都不是急用的東西, 坐船比較便宜. 電話裡面跟媽媽講好了要去郵局怎麼寄, 並且來來回回又刪掉一些不能入關的食品的名單, 終於包好一整包寄出來.

在這位室友媽媽宣布寄出的隔三、四天後的傍晚, 另外一個室友在信箱裡面發現了一個郵局留下來的小單, 上面說我們有個太大的包裹, 因為塞不進去信箱, 已經被拿去管理員的辦公室了.

室友感到非常的詭異, 左思右想想不出來, 為什麼她在這個時候會接到那麼大的包裹, 難不成是媽媽寄了超級貴的快遞, 那些乾貨用品們迅速的就到了. 那天因為天已經黑了, 辦公室也關門了, 我們決定隔一天找個時間去辦公室看看是甚麼東西.

隔一天我一早就出門去學校了, 室友則在忙碌她的功課, 約好下午再去把大包裹弄回來.

正當室友正在忙碌她的功課的時候, 居然接到了辦公室的電話, 通常辦公室都不會主動打電話來通知人去領郵件, 室友因為正在忙著功課, 就說, 那晚點去拿, 並且確認辦公室會幾點關. 這時候辦公室的人有些揣揣不安而禮貌性的試探說...你的包裹, 它已經開始發出味道了....我們雖然是下午五點關, 但是, 可否早些來拿...

室友一驚, 趕緊馬上穿上衣服, 奔向辦公室去.

我下午回來的時候, 一進門走到書桌旁邊, 就驚見怎麼地上多了一個正在傳出相當相當濃郁的...乾菜脯味道的...大包裹-.-


打開包裹, 媽呀, 雖然都是室友所點的乾貨們, 但是數量超過我們的想像, 雖然整體的體積不至於太過龐大, 不過, 這些乾貨要不是泡了會長大就是鹹的程度一次只能吃一點點, 還有光是乾紫菜就有三種不同的款式!!! 至於那鹹鹹的味道 還不只是乾菜脯, 還有蔭豉, 還寄了中藥補品. 我們一邊讚嘆一邊笑倒在地, 想說美國人大概嚇壞了吧, 他們恐怕懷疑這裡面是甚麼壞掉臭掉的東西, 味道已經飄散在整個辦公室, 因為他們根本就不知道有菜脯這種東西, 沒辦法待在臭掉的辦公室只好破例打電話來給我們....

於是我們就決定為這些驚人的乾貨用品照一張相.


照完了以後很滿意的開始想要怎麼安置他們的時候, 忽然想要確認一下那些中藥的補品是怎麼回事, 因為看起來有盒裝的, 還有拆封放在外面, 於是, 我們就把兩個盒裝的看起來有點縐折的中藥包裝打開, 媽呀..居然裡面不是中藥啦, 是醃貨又一品....榨菜....再打開另外一包中藥包裝, 同樣也是榨菜包擠在裡面. 可是, 其他乾貨用品們都已經照完合照了, 我們只好為這個榨菜還有佯裝的包裝單獨的照一張, 並與室友邊爆笑邊想為什麼她的媽媽不把拿出來的中藥好好放在中藥包裡面, 要把中藥拿出來然後塞進榨菜來, 反正整箱還有很多空間, 不用這樣擠來擠去吧....

總之, 我們得到了完全超出預期數量的乾貨, 讚嘆之後, 開始令人擔心, 他們無法一直保持新鮮到我們可以吃完的那一天.