Thursday, November 01, 2007
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
学位
Friday, October 05, 2007
Thursday, June 28, 2007
西行
Saturday, June 16, 2007
dark matter
自认不谙天文，所以还是靠庸俗的流行文化近一些。借用电影Dark Matter的标题，一是确实遭遇了类似的校园政治斗争，二来这十多天的心情真是阴多晴少。
人说命运是一张网，现在真的深陷其中。曾经以为自己还比较超脱，什么身份、户口都不太在乎。来了美国，以前那种“在天堂都会哭”的悲观的人生观也改变了不少。现在看来那只是时世不经。短短两个星期，套在身上的圈锁越拉越紧，自己完全不能控制。人为刀俎，我为鱼肉。环环相扣的命运让我手足无措。
无论多少个不眠之夜，无论怎样委屈求全，都不能撬开don的金口。虽然乐观的老板好心安抚，心如悬石，无论如何不想就这样离开athens。无心又把日本使馆的mm弄得不耐烦了，一纸长信也不知道能不能换起一丝怜悯。JH从DC打来电话，告知机票已经翻了一倍，而且奇货可居。而无票不签证，无签证不定票的困局更令人费解。daodao询问回国签证的日期，无奈h1b还在审理中，预约签证还为时过早。想起爱我的人在地球另一端，恨自己不能立刻回到他们身边。空坐在咖啡馆，冷气和咖啡维持着大脑的兴奋，可是心似乎已经奄奄一息了。还好，guaiguai的调皮、新生的朝气勃勃、好友的支持和自己的厚颜让自己还不至于像Dark Matter里一样干出出格的事来。
也许还是悲观一些比较好，感觉自己一但自信满满就有遭遇不幸的趋势。前年的michigan之行和今年的d-day战役就是例子。现在大家都走了，孤单单地在baker里喝咖啡，也比较适合温习那样的心情，温习creep那样的老歌。过两天就要真正离开athens了。离别也增加了新中的暗伤。窗外阳光斜撒在灰色的scripps楼上，希望时间就停止吧。
人说命运是一张网，现在真的深陷其中。曾经以为自己还比较超脱，什么身份、户口都不太在乎。来了美国，以前那种“在天堂都会哭”的悲观的人生观也改变了不少。现在看来那只是时世不经。短短两个星期，套在身上的圈锁越拉越紧，自己完全不能控制。人为刀俎，我为鱼肉。环环相扣的命运让我手足无措。
无论多少个不眠之夜，无论怎样委屈求全，都不能撬开don的金口。虽然乐观的老板好心安抚，心如悬石，无论如何不想就这样离开athens。无心又把日本使馆的mm弄得不耐烦了，一纸长信也不知道能不能换起一丝怜悯。JH从DC打来电话，告知机票已经翻了一倍，而且奇货可居。而无票不签证，无签证不定票的困局更令人费解。daodao询问回国签证的日期，无奈h1b还在审理中，预约签证还为时过早。想起爱我的人在地球另一端，恨自己不能立刻回到他们身边。空坐在咖啡馆，冷气和咖啡维持着大脑的兴奋，可是心似乎已经奄奄一息了。还好，guaiguai的调皮、新生的朝气勃勃、好友的支持和自己的厚颜让自己还不至于像Dark Matter里一样干出出格的事来。
也许还是悲观一些比较好，感觉自己一但自信满满就有遭遇不幸的趋势。前年的michigan之行和今年的d-day战役就是例子。现在大家都走了，孤单单地在baker里喝咖啡，也比较适合温习那样的心情，温习creep那样的老歌。过两天就要真正离开athens了。离别也增加了新中的暗伤。窗外阳光斜撒在灰色的scripps楼上，希望时间就停止吧。
Saturday, May 26, 2007
big friday
刚刚过去的星期五是俺的big Friday。
回来athens两个星期，熬了三四个夜晚，扎扎实实的三四个夜晚，从晚８点到早８点，终于在刚刚过去的最后一个周四的夜晚和周五的早晨完成了论文。１０点钟打印，１１点掂着八九百张纸跑到教育系装订，１２点有掂着装订好的四套论文上山，交给jane和don。
亲眼见了jane，觉得她虽然很nice，但是感觉没有以前的亲切感，是那中很外交性的nice。没有见到don，他办公室门是开着的，等了一会，实在困了，写了张纸条，留下了论文。本来还是很想跟don聊聊的，希望他能理解。
虽然自己随便看一眼就发现了一个错别字，但还是觉得很解脱了。
由于熬了一夜，肚子很空但胃里难受。早就约好了和新闻系几个师弟师妹去china king吃饭，觉得不去不好。于是强打精神去吃了一顿buffet。趁机也炫耀了一吧还带着打印机温度的论文。师弟师妹似乎还是比较安静的那种，吃饭间说话不太积极，也许大家坐的太开，也许也都熬夜了？
吃饭前查了email,anne说２－４点在办公室。俺盘算着吃完午饭回家洗个澡再去见她，不能脏兮兮地，况且昨天晚上见了她，不换衣服不好。回家洗了完澡，感觉很舒服，很清醒，更放松，也许是因为论文写完了。倒在床上，看报纸，一下子睡着了。直到４点半，把anne的办公时间也误了，索性睡到了７点多。
晚上很lj，叨叨一起做饭吃，这是住在一起两个礼拜以来的第一次。过去的两周不是在外边瞎吃就是熬夜了。俺做了麻辣鸡丝，lj做了凉拌土豆丝和红烧排骨，叨叨做了扁豆肉末。
饭罢，上court st.的donkey咖啡屋听传说中的yan唱歌，还有jart乐队。还向guaiguai汇报了工作，希望她能满意。：）
回来athens两个星期，熬了三四个夜晚，扎扎实实的三四个夜晚，从晚８点到早８点，终于在刚刚过去的最后一个周四的夜晚和周五的早晨完成了论文。１０点钟打印，１１点掂着八九百张纸跑到教育系装订，１２点有掂着装订好的四套论文上山，交给jane和don。
亲眼见了jane，觉得她虽然很nice，但是感觉没有以前的亲切感，是那中很外交性的nice。没有见到don，他办公室门是开着的，等了一会，实在困了，写了张纸条，留下了论文。本来还是很想跟don聊聊的，希望他能理解。
虽然自己随便看一眼就发现了一个错别字，但还是觉得很解脱了。
由于熬了一夜，肚子很空但胃里难受。早就约好了和新闻系几个师弟师妹去china king吃饭，觉得不去不好。于是强打精神去吃了一顿buffet。趁机也炫耀了一吧还带着打印机温度的论文。师弟师妹似乎还是比较安静的那种，吃饭间说话不太积极，也许大家坐的太开，也许也都熬夜了？
吃饭前查了email,anne说２－４点在办公室。俺盘算着吃完午饭回家洗个澡再去见她，不能脏兮兮地，况且昨天晚上见了她，不换衣服不好。回家洗了完澡，感觉很舒服，很清醒，更放松，也许是因为论文写完了。倒在床上，看报纸，一下子睡着了。直到４点半，把anne的办公时间也误了，索性睡到了７点多。
晚上很lj，叨叨一起做饭吃，这是住在一起两个礼拜以来的第一次。过去的两周不是在外边瞎吃就是熬夜了。俺做了麻辣鸡丝，lj做了凉拌土豆丝和红烧排骨，叨叨做了扁豆肉末。
饭罢，上court st.的donkey咖啡屋听传说中的yan唱歌，还有jart乐队。还向guaiguai汇报了工作，希望她能满意。：）
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
USF校长信
VT枪击案震惊全国，俺们校长也发email征求加强校园保安的建议。
Dear Students, Faculty and Staff –
Our hearts go out to the students, faculty, and staff of Virginia Tech and the surrounding community who have suffered a terrible loss in the wake of today’s tragic shootings. The loss of life and casualties at this point are unprecedented in U.S. higher education history, we can only begin to imagine the shock and sadness the individuals associated with this event must be experiencing.
College campuses remain vulnerable, despite state-of-the-art security efforts, because they remain free and open places of discourse that preclude total control of movement on campus. We will use this tragic incident as an opportunity to revisit our own practices.
If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact University Police (974-2628) or USF Counseling (974-2831).
Please join me in taking a moment of reflection and extend our deepest sympathy to the Virginia Tech family.
Sincerely,
Judy Genshaft
President
Dear Students, Faculty and Staff –
Our hearts go out to the students, faculty, and staff of Virginia Tech and the surrounding community who have suffered a terrible loss in the wake of today’s tragic shootings. The loss of life and casualties at this point are unprecedented in U.S. higher education history, we can only begin to imagine the shock and sadness the individuals associated with this event must be experiencing.
College campuses remain vulnerable, despite state-of-the-art security efforts, because they remain free and open places of discourse that preclude total control of movement on campus. We will use this tragic incident as an opportunity to revisit our own practices.
If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact University Police (974-2628) or USF Counseling (974-2831).
Please join me in taking a moment of reflection and extend our deepest sympathy to the Virginia Tech family.
Sincerely,
Judy Genshaft
President
Monday, April 16, 2007
Imus
偷懒一把，把系里关于Imus 的讨论发一下算了。
The discussion begins with a question from Professor Fields
Professor Fields: Any thoughts on this? I'm preparing a lecture on law and ethics for my Beginning Reporting class on Thursday, and I think the Imus situation is a good jumping off point.
I wanted to get a few opinions on something I've been thinking. First of all, is this a freedom of speech issue? I mean, should someone be allowed to say anything he wants without repercussion? Isn't freedom of speech really something given to the press and individuals to say what they will about the government without punishment? After all, we have laws against burning the American flag or shouting "fire" in a crowded theater.
If Imus is fired, is that really censorship? I'm torn on the issue. What about these young women? Do they have a legal leg to stand on, or are they considered public figures? I would think they are considered public figures.
I'm no expert, but I want to have a frank discussion about this case in my class Thursday evening. Any thoughts will prove helpful.
From Dr. Black: Monique, good questions. We devoted the entire ethics class to the topic yesterday. Do you want copies of all the clippings, and on-line sources we used in class? I found Eric Deggans' blogs, and the Al Sharpton/Imus interview and Monday night's News Hour interview with Clarence Page and E.J. Dionne to be splendid stimulators of class discussion. (Ain't it amazing that this old prof has used to use some technology in class, and that none of the sources were more than a day old?) And/or, would you like me to join you in class for a bit?
I always try to separate the ethics issues from the legal issues. Not everyone will agree with this particular take, but here's mine (Mike, please cc me if you respond; I don't teach law, obviously!):
Legally, the Rutgers team could certainly find a lawyer eager to take on a defamation case, but I doubt that they'd win in the long run, regardless of the appeal this case would have to a jury. Imus was very very quick to say he had no malice (anticipating a defense he'd use in a pubic figure libel suit?). Were they fighting words? Probably not. Was it unscripted/impromptu protected opinion? Perhaps. What harm was caused?
(One might creatively argue that except for being offended, the basketball team may very well have benefited from the additional exposure). One might even argue that the public sphere has benefited from the discussion of racism.
In the ethics class, we explored a variety of issues. I couldn't have scheduled the controversy any more perfectly for the semester, as we had just discussed media coverage of race and were moving into the ethics of media entertainment and media economics. Students were primed to look at this as an issue of power imbalance (big white guy/mainstream media pick on relatively powerless subjects); to play out this theme, try some role reversal, asking what would happen if Al Sharpton were to make fun of the honky Utah or Brigham Young University basketball team.
Others took the media/business-as-usual track, noting how minor was the penalty doled out to Imus, how little the station and network would be hurt (even in the face of threatened ad boycott) in the long run, how more and more folks will be tuning in to watch Imus when he gets back on the air.
We looked at the idea of an apology or "transparency" or "the cleansing light of publicity" as a moral defense. There was an interesting debate over how genuine Imus was in his contrition, and whether it really can make a difference once people have been hurt.
We looked at "being offended" as the price to pay to live in an open society. There was a good debate. I had them assess how John Milton or John Stuart Mill would have responded to the dilemma. And, we considered who the other stakeholders were, what justifications they would make, and which justifications were morally sound and which were merely moralizing.
(John Rawls and the "Veil of Ignorance" is a helpful model in these
discussions.)
Ultimately (and you can imagine all the reasons this didn't occur at the very outset of our discussion), we got excellent insights about racism from the two Black students in the class. Among the observations: Old folks may not change their long-held prejudices, but we certainly should work harder in media to help younger folks be more thoughtful about our multi-cultural world.
From Dr. Dardenne:
Monique,
I agree pretty much with all that Jay has said, even though I don't teach ethics OR law. Anyone can sue anyone about anything. But in this case, I can't imagine the basketball team winning, in part for all the reasons Jay points out. In fact, as he notes, lawyers could argue that the team benefitted from all the exposure, and surely they'd have trouble proving that they were harmed much. That brings me to my point I don't think Jay mentioned. I don't know it's legal and ethical ramifications, however. I think the environment in which we live could make what he said less an issue. His attorney in a lawsuit, could put lyrics of rap music in front of the jury all day; show parts of movies and television shows; let it listen to some "shock" radio; show the jury "dating" and "model" and "idol" and "talk" show tv clips, and a few web sites, all of which could be argued promote a culture of abuse and debasement and crudeness. hell, throw in some "ultimate fighting" and "most spectacular knockout" clips as well. While what Imus said was stupid and wrong, it's one comment in a sea of such comments. This one was explicity racist and sexist, i agree, but less so that the "bitch" and "whore" flavor of some of our popular music.
I supposed I wouldn't have an airtight defense with this approach (but, of course I wouldn't defend the bastard anyway), but I can't imagine it wouldn't make a jury (and any of us) think about the cultural context of those remarks.
Is it free speech. Pretty much anything is that isn't illegal. I don't think that's illegal. Nor is it equivalent to "fire in a crowded theater," or advocating overthrow of the government. Actually, in the case, the system sort of worked. The remarks were at least tasteless and wrong, and while there may be no legal option, there are certainly other options. Suspension, public disfavor, having to go on al sharpton's radio show, etc. The question has been does the punishment fit the crime? That's a good question. I'd probably argue yes, given today's entertainment enviornment.
I could be wrong on the emphasis on cultural context, certainly in terms of what it means legally to him. If a lot of people were committing murder, it'd certainly not make my committing a murder any more permissible. But it's part of the argument worth bringing out. And, I will say that as we emphasize this kind of entertainment culture, we will have to live with more and more of its influences, whatever they may be. I have no clue if, in the long run, this is good or bad.
Jay and Mike, though, would have the more reasoned (and dependable) answers to this.
From Dr. Killenberg:
Thanks for asking these important questions.
You've received thoughtful and useful responses from Jay and Bob, my fellow tribal elders.
Jay, Bob and I seem in agreement on the law issue. I don't see solid grounds for a successful suit. I'd rather see this debate occur in the open rather than in court documents, depositions and proceedings that are not open for the public to observe much less join in.
The basketball team and its coach appear well quipped to engage Imus and others in a discussion of racism, sexism and even broader issues about our, at times, ugly culture.
Imus reminds us that we live in a society permeated with incivility, crudity, hate, violence and infantile behavior and speech. Imus, at 66, is an embarrassment to our generation. We (our generation) should be at point of moral and cognitive development that we can contribute to dialogue in fruitful ways.
We should not, however, overreact to speech we find offensive or even hurtful. Imus deserves censure. Should he or anyone else who engages in offensive, tasteful even racist speech be punished beyond the power of publicity to punish? My instincts and experience tell me we should use non-punitive means to combat and counteract the Imus's of the world when they exercise their rights to speak freely. I'd rather allow malicious, despicable speech to surface than drive it underground. Only when speech presents a clear and present danger to our society can we justify its suppression.
From Dr. Black:
Bob and Mike--good thoughts. Just to prod Bob a tiny bit, where's the line to be drawn? Fighting words? Actual violence? Clear and present danger?
I'm not going to impose specific standards of speech on folks--we wouldn't want that to happen in a democracy--but shouldn't we have something other than relativism to fall back on? (The relativistic argument is that a lot of folks have made this a crappy communications environment, and this means the status quo is OK.)
From Dr. Silvia:
We also had a conversation regarding the Imus situation in Senior Seminar; it worked nicely into the discussion of their comprehensive exams, which they handed in today (one question dealt with defining a specific issue facing journalists today and arguing both sides of the issue. One aspect of this I feel has been missed is the historical context surrounding how radio and television stations and networks are run and by whom. The original gatekeepers of broadcasting were those who we might describe as “broadcasters;” they were, in a sense, “statesmen” first and businessmen second. They lived in and were answerable to their communities and audiences. They felt an affinity for public service as the quid pro quo for gaining free access to the public’s airwaves. They believed in the spirit, if not the letter, of the 1934 Radio Act (the eventual basis for the development of the FCC) that stated broadcasters had to behave in a manner that served “the public’s interest, convenience, and necessity.” Today the emphasis is on self- interest through convenient (read: “right” demographic) programming and the necessity of making their stockholders richer. They don’t listen to or watch their own “product” and feign surprise when others who do actually take it seriously. So, in my opinion, no discussion of the Imus issue can be close to complete without considering how the supposed “gatekeepers” have changed. They’re not graduates of the Columbia School of Journalism; more often than not, it’s the Wharton School of Business. And lest anyone say “what’s journalism got to do with it,” don’t buy into the “it’s a comedy show” defense. As one of our seniors pointed out, the Imus show is simulcast on MSNBC, giving it at least the veneer of news to some viewers.
Tony
From Dr. Koski: I told my students that the comment Imus made is one more contribution to the increasing coarseness of our society. To make such a comment about some of the top college athletes in the country is both racist and sexist. Would Imus be so readily be able to come up with a crude comment about male college athletes regardless of their race? My sense is that no, he wouldn't.
The discussion begins with a question from Professor Fields
Professor Fields: Any thoughts on this? I'm preparing a lecture on law and ethics for my Beginning Reporting class on Thursday, and I think the Imus situation is a good jumping off point.
I wanted to get a few opinions on something I've been thinking. First of all, is this a freedom of speech issue? I mean, should someone be allowed to say anything he wants without repercussion? Isn't freedom of speech really something given to the press and individuals to say what they will about the government without punishment? After all, we have laws against burning the American flag or shouting "fire" in a crowded theater.
If Imus is fired, is that really censorship? I'm torn on the issue. What about these young women? Do they have a legal leg to stand on, or are they considered public figures? I would think they are considered public figures.
I'm no expert, but I want to have a frank discussion about this case in my class Thursday evening. Any thoughts will prove helpful.
From Dr. Black: Monique, good questions. We devoted the entire ethics class to the topic yesterday. Do you want copies of all the clippings, and on-line sources we used in class? I found Eric Deggans' blogs, and the Al Sharpton/Imus interview and Monday night's News Hour interview with Clarence Page and E.J. Dionne to be splendid stimulators of class discussion. (Ain't it amazing that this old prof has used to use some technology in class, and that none of the sources were more than a day old?) And/or, would you like me to join you in class for a bit?
I always try to separate the ethics issues from the legal issues. Not everyone will agree with this particular take, but here's mine (Mike, please cc me if you respond; I don't teach law, obviously!):
Legally, the Rutgers team could certainly find a lawyer eager to take on a defamation case, but I doubt that they'd win in the long run, regardless of the appeal this case would have to a jury. Imus was very very quick to say he had no malice (anticipating a defense he'd use in a pubic figure libel suit?). Were they fighting words? Probably not. Was it unscripted/impromptu protected opinion? Perhaps. What harm was caused?
(One might creatively argue that except for being offended, the basketball team may very well have benefited from the additional exposure). One might even argue that the public sphere has benefited from the discussion of racism.
In the ethics class, we explored a variety of issues. I couldn't have scheduled the controversy any more perfectly for the semester, as we had just discussed media coverage of race and were moving into the ethics of media entertainment and media economics. Students were primed to look at this as an issue of power imbalance (big white guy/mainstream media pick on relatively powerless subjects); to play out this theme, try some role reversal, asking what would happen if Al Sharpton were to make fun of the honky Utah or Brigham Young University basketball team.
Others took the media/business-as-usual track, noting how minor was the penalty doled out to Imus, how little the station and network would be hurt (even in the face of threatened ad boycott) in the long run, how more and more folks will be tuning in to watch Imus when he gets back on the air.
We looked at the idea of an apology or "transparency" or "the cleansing light of publicity" as a moral defense. There was an interesting debate over how genuine Imus was in his contrition, and whether it really can make a difference once people have been hurt.
We looked at "being offended" as the price to pay to live in an open society. There was a good debate. I had them assess how John Milton or John Stuart Mill would have responded to the dilemma. And, we considered who the other stakeholders were, what justifications they would make, and which justifications were morally sound and which were merely moralizing.
(John Rawls and the "Veil of Ignorance" is a helpful model in these
discussions.)
Ultimately (and you can imagine all the reasons this didn't occur at the very outset of our discussion), we got excellent insights about racism from the two Black students in the class. Among the observations: Old folks may not change their long-held prejudices, but we certainly should work harder in media to help younger folks be more thoughtful about our multi-cultural world.
From Dr. Dardenne:
Monique,
I agree pretty much with all that Jay has said, even though I don't teach ethics OR law. Anyone can sue anyone about anything. But in this case, I can't imagine the basketball team winning, in part for all the reasons Jay points out. In fact, as he notes, lawyers could argue that the team benefitted from all the exposure, and surely they'd have trouble proving that they were harmed much. That brings me to my point I don't think Jay mentioned. I don't know it's legal and ethical ramifications, however. I think the environment in which we live could make what he said less an issue. His attorney in a lawsuit, could put lyrics of rap music in front of the jury all day; show parts of movies and television shows; let it listen to some "shock" radio; show the jury "dating" and "model" and "idol" and "talk" show tv clips, and a few web sites, all of which could be argued promote a culture of abuse and debasement and crudeness. hell, throw in some "ultimate fighting" and "most spectacular knockout" clips as well. While what Imus said was stupid and wrong, it's one comment in a sea of such comments. This one was explicity racist and sexist, i agree, but less so that the "bitch" and "whore" flavor of some of our popular music.
I supposed I wouldn't have an airtight defense with this approach (but, of course I wouldn't defend the bastard anyway), but I can't imagine it wouldn't make a jury (and any of us) think about the cultural context of those remarks.
Is it free speech. Pretty much anything is that isn't illegal. I don't think that's illegal. Nor is it equivalent to "fire in a crowded theater," or advocating overthrow of the government. Actually, in the case, the system sort of worked. The remarks were at least tasteless and wrong, and while there may be no legal option, there are certainly other options. Suspension, public disfavor, having to go on al sharpton's radio show, etc. The question has been does the punishment fit the crime? That's a good question. I'd probably argue yes, given today's entertainment enviornment.
I could be wrong on the emphasis on cultural context, certainly in terms of what it means legally to him. If a lot of people were committing murder, it'd certainly not make my committing a murder any more permissible. But it's part of the argument worth bringing out. And, I will say that as we emphasize this kind of entertainment culture, we will have to live with more and more of its influences, whatever they may be. I have no clue if, in the long run, this is good or bad.
Jay and Mike, though, would have the more reasoned (and dependable) answers to this.
From Dr. Killenberg:
Thanks for asking these important questions.
You've received thoughtful and useful responses from Jay and Bob, my fellow tribal elders.
Jay, Bob and I seem in agreement on the law issue. I don't see solid grounds for a successful suit. I'd rather see this debate occur in the open rather than in court documents, depositions and proceedings that are not open for the public to observe much less join in.
The basketball team and its coach appear well quipped to engage Imus and others in a discussion of racism, sexism and even broader issues about our, at times, ugly culture.
Imus reminds us that we live in a society permeated with incivility, crudity, hate, violence and infantile behavior and speech. Imus, at 66, is an embarrassment to our generation. We (our generation) should be at point of moral and cognitive development that we can contribute to dialogue in fruitful ways.
We should not, however, overreact to speech we find offensive or even hurtful. Imus deserves censure. Should he or anyone else who engages in offensive, tasteful even racist speech be punished beyond the power of publicity to punish? My instincts and experience tell me we should use non-punitive means to combat and counteract the Imus's of the world when they exercise their rights to speak freely. I'd rather allow malicious, despicable speech to surface than drive it underground. Only when speech presents a clear and present danger to our society can we justify its suppression.
From Dr. Black:
Bob and Mike--good thoughts. Just to prod Bob a tiny bit, where's the line to be drawn? Fighting words? Actual violence? Clear and present danger?
I'm not going to impose specific standards of speech on folks--we wouldn't want that to happen in a democracy--but shouldn't we have something other than relativism to fall back on? (The relativistic argument is that a lot of folks have made this a crappy communications environment, and this means the status quo is OK.)
From Dr. Silvia:
We also had a conversation regarding the Imus situation in Senior Seminar; it worked nicely into the discussion of their comprehensive exams, which they handed in today (one question dealt with defining a specific issue facing journalists today and arguing both sides of the issue. One aspect of this I feel has been missed is the historical context surrounding how radio and television stations and networks are run and by whom. The original gatekeepers of broadcasting were those who we might describe as “broadcasters;” they were, in a sense, “statesmen” first and businessmen second. They lived in and were answerable to their communities and audiences. They felt an affinity for public service as the quid pro quo for gaining free access to the public’s airwaves. They believed in the spirit, if not the letter, of the 1934 Radio Act (the eventual basis for the development of the FCC) that stated broadcasters had to behave in a manner that served “the public’s interest, convenience, and necessity.” Today the emphasis is on self- interest through convenient (read: “right” demographic) programming and the necessity of making their stockholders richer. They don’t listen to or watch their own “product” and feign surprise when others who do actually take it seriously. So, in my opinion, no discussion of the Imus issue can be close to complete without considering how the supposed “gatekeepers” have changed. They’re not graduates of the Columbia School of Journalism; more often than not, it’s the Wharton School of Business. And lest anyone say “what’s journalism got to do with it,” don’t buy into the “it’s a comedy show” defense. As one of our seniors pointed out, the Imus show is simulcast on MSNBC, giving it at least the veneer of news to some viewers.
Tony
From Dr. Koski: I told my students that the comment Imus made is one more contribution to the increasing coarseness of our society. To make such a comment about some of the top college athletes in the country is both racist and sexist. Would Imus be so readily be able to come up with a crude comment about male college athletes regardless of their race? My sense is that no, he wouldn't.
Wednesday, April 04, 2007
Sunday, March 25, 2007
酒鬼
spring training临近尾声，上周五终于被人硬拽着去看了一场，braves vs. phillies。 原来比电视上看棒球来劲多了俺们坐在季票席，正好在本垒的后面第三排，所以我们看到的角度也就是主裁的角度。braves拿下第一分的时候，俺就觉得phillies似乎不像主场他的拥趸们吹的那样。午后的阳光开始毒辣起来，便起身去买酒喝。
说是看球，不如说是吃喝，球场跟国内的茶馆一样。不同的是这里更大，多买酒精、热狗，还有太阳晒。对面的站席有一片草坪，许多人都铺开毯子撩开衣衫大晒太阳。场边有俩hooters的女招待，穿着hooters的制服翘腿端坐。一旦有球落在场边，她们就碎步小跑捡来丢给边上的观众。几个得到球的男士，看上去比争抢到球员直接击出的棒球还兴奋。
酒过三循braves已经拿下了比赛，我们移师到看台一边的露天酒吧，没想到球散了酒虫还没散，酒吧被挤得水泄不通。艳阳下喝着冰margarita吹大牛，还挺有意思。由于第一看棒球，还比较谦虚担心看不懂，旁边人指指了举杯豪饮的人群安慰俺说，“别担心，估计这里没几个能说得上网球规则的。来看球，特别是spring training实际更为的是和朋友一起hangout。” 也就是我们说的醉翁之意不在酒。
三大杯margarita下肚，还真有点醉翁一样的飘飘然了。
Thursday, February 15, 2007
V Day
情人节那天感觉特别短。
早上起个大早，乘下午3的才上课的机会，去家门口的政府中心办车牌。来佛州近半年了，俄州的车牌还没有换过来，据说是违法的。8点多赶到换车牌的地方，果然人少，没等几分钟就排到俺了。结果碰上个新手，遇到俺这样复杂的事项，有点应付不过来。见她（Cheryl）翻出一个做了笔记的本子，密密麻麻写了两三页，估计是培训时记的步骤，果然相当复杂。
Cheryl本来有点不耐烦，翻开俺给她的材料很不高兴的样子。旁边走过一个像领导摸样的女人，Cheryl问了她几个问题，还想把俺推给那个人，结果领导叫她能办成啥样子就办成啥样子。俺也不多吭声，有问必答，不问就看着。由于俺是跟银行贷款买的车，所以涉及到好几方的事情，着实把cheryl折腾得够呛。办完了她还不敢确定，把所有文件又拿给总监看，前前后后弄到快 11点才搞定，花了俺200刀。不知道佛州怎么这么会宰人。
由于俺的耐心，Cheryl的态度也转了过来，跟俺有一句，没一句的聊起来。最后临走的时候塞给俺一块巧克力，感谢俺的耐心，祝俺节日快乐。赫赫～～
接着就是跟jy打电话，天气格外的爽朗，俺没直接去办公室，站在办公室外的花园里，吹着小风，欣赏着透过树枝洒在绿叶的斑驳阳光，说着电话：有人说这就是为什么大家搬到佛州的原因。北方正在经历入冬以来最严重的暴风雪。
说完电话，往办公室一坐，来自日本的ayumi找俺聊天，闲聊了一会，她起身要走时，从大包里掏出一个包装精细的巧克力，递给俺。俺没有想到她又要送俺东西，一楞。她怕俺误会，连忙解释说在日本情人节送巧克力是很平常的事，并不仅仅是情侣之间的事。
上完3点半的课已近5点，办公室已经静悄悄了，俺估计大家都有重要约会，俺也收拾收拾回了家：兴冲冲煮了意大利香肠饭，换了新车牌，备了第二天的课。终于情人节安安全全，未被女流氓骚扰。
今天得知泥巴在这一天喜得犬子，可喜可贺，也许他会觉得情人节这天特别长。
早上起个大早，乘下午3的才上课的机会，去家门口的政府中心办车牌。来佛州近半年了，俄州的车牌还没有换过来，据说是违法的。8点多赶到换车牌的地方，果然人少，没等几分钟就排到俺了。结果碰上个新手，遇到俺这样复杂的事项，有点应付不过来。见她（Cheryl）翻出一个做了笔记的本子，密密麻麻写了两三页，估计是培训时记的步骤，果然相当复杂。
Cheryl本来有点不耐烦，翻开俺给她的材料很不高兴的样子。旁边走过一个像领导摸样的女人，Cheryl问了她几个问题，还想把俺推给那个人，结果领导叫她能办成啥样子就办成啥样子。俺也不多吭声，有问必答，不问就看着。由于俺是跟银行贷款买的车，所以涉及到好几方的事情，着实把cheryl折腾得够呛。办完了她还不敢确定，把所有文件又拿给总监看，前前后后弄到快 11点才搞定，花了俺200刀。不知道佛州怎么这么会宰人。
由于俺的耐心，Cheryl的态度也转了过来，跟俺有一句，没一句的聊起来。最后临走的时候塞给俺一块巧克力，感谢俺的耐心，祝俺节日快乐。赫赫～～
接着就是跟jy打电话，天气格外的爽朗，俺没直接去办公室，站在办公室外的花园里，吹着小风，欣赏着透过树枝洒在绿叶的斑驳阳光，说着电话：有人说这就是为什么大家搬到佛州的原因。北方正在经历入冬以来最严重的暴风雪。
说完电话，往办公室一坐，来自日本的ayumi找俺聊天，闲聊了一会，她起身要走时，从大包里掏出一个包装精细的巧克力，递给俺。俺没有想到她又要送俺东西，一楞。她怕俺误会，连忙解释说在日本情人节送巧克力是很平常的事，并不仅仅是情侣之间的事。
上完3点半的课已近5点，办公室已经静悄悄了，俺估计大家都有重要约会，俺也收拾收拾回了家：兴冲冲煮了意大利香肠饭，换了新车牌，备了第二天的课。终于情人节安安全全，未被女流氓骚扰。
今天得知泥巴在这一天喜得犬子，可喜可贺，也许他会觉得情人节这天特别长。
Sunday, January 14, 2007
St Augustine
如果城市有性别，那么St. Augustine, Florida一定是女性，因为在夜色和晨曦中，她像jy一样显出不同的美。驾车从95转到通往St Augustine的小路，暮色已经降临。漆黑的小路，稀疏的车流让我有些怀疑是否又迷路了。直到看见车攘人熙的Ponce de León Blvd和一排排灯火阑珊的饭店酒肆，才放下心来。也多亏问了路，才让自己记住了大街的名字，以及后来了解到它是以西班牙殖民者Juan Ponce de León命名的。
辗转来到预定的酒店Alhambra Inn-Best Value Inn，敞亮的大堂和热情的前台还真让俺有些宾至如归的好感。向前台讨教了晚上可去的地方，小哥指点俺们去市中心去看看，说是街上上了灯，而且好吃好喝的都在那里。后来了解到那小哥是新来的，如此热情周到也难怪。顺便提一句酒店的房间，虽然是标准间，却显然是为住一堆人准备的，宽敞的房间，可放开当床的沙发，还有两个洗脸台，不难想像春假的时候这里会多热闹。房间的电视有专门的频道介绍st. augustine的历史文化和景点，有点意思。
简单洗去驾车的疲惫，来到随着车流来到市中心。果然一片莺歌燕舞。圣诞节过了几天了，新年就在眼前，街上的节日气氛有增无减。街心花园里数人高的圣诞树点上了灯彩，和周围张灯结彩的树梢，房顶融为一体。这样的景色，让俺想起了久违了的国内城市的“灯光工程”。街心花园两边是各色店铺、画廊、饭馆和旅馆。花园的北边是西班牙风格的老城，显然是当年西班牙殖民者落脚北美时的遗迹。现在那些老街老房子已经被改造成了饭馆、酒吧和店铺，据说很像上海鼎鼎大名的新天地。
满城逛来逛去的大多都是游客，因为只要俺一举起相机就有热心人问要不要帮俺们拍照片。跟着人流在街上漫无目的地走，透过画廊橱窗欣赏光怪陆离的玻璃艺术品；穿过重重脑袋和袅袅烟雾探寻喧闹酒吧里深情的歌手；不顾肚皮的抗议俺们楞是看遍了各具特色饭馆的菜单，直到最终狠下决心选了一家法国菜馆，竟然已到了打烊的时间,尴尬地被人请了出门。没办法，弄了两个美式酒吧里的大汉堡。
第二天早上，看着st. augustine安详地睁开眼睛。昨天晚上的斑斓色彩、狂放热情一下变得恬静祥和。松鼠都大摇大摆地在横在马路上空的电线上爬来爬去。再次来到市中心，沿着马路牙子把车停下，就沿着水边走。
由于在修大桥，街面显得有些混乱。以前做过一些研究，有看了酒店的电视介绍，知道st. augustine的一些名胜，比如fountain of youth。但是觉得四处无目的的走走更随意轻松一些。走到flagler college，瞻仰了Leo的塑像和艺术馆，并在leo的目睹下在一喷泉投下了祁福的硬币，收到一个寓意缘分的钱币。在西班牙古城里果断选了家饭店吃了早午餐，遗憾的是没有喝上一杯本地的咖啡，总觉得starbucks此时有些不合时宜；没能吃上一口昨晚看上了的冰激凌，因为那美仑美奂的夜色让人迷失，而日光又都将那梦境中的城市完全带走了。俺们只能带着遗憾，期盼下次再见。
Friday, January 12, 2007
meeting
今天一大早去系里开例会。好在只是一月一次，偶尔起早点也还能忍受。对于俺来说，开会时尽量保持低调，该俺说的时候就说，不该说的就不说，还有那些可说可不说的，像bob提醒的一样俺为节省大伙时间也就不说了。
系不大，事情却还不少。先是tony总结了一下生源情况，喜的是本科生的人数比去年同期大概翻了一番，忧的是研究生的人数似乎很不乐观。tony说下次例会的主要议题将是研究生的问题。说到这里，大家谈起了USF Tampa的人跟俺们的争斗。同一个usf系统，比该互相取长补短，可惜长久以来俩家相似的院系明争暗斗。“丑恶”的案例包括，他们获取申请我们研究生的学生名单，然后给他们发信，鼓励那些学生转申他们。还有就是他们想办多媒体专业，好像跟俺们的有重复，所以就交恶了。看几个老教授都义愤填膺了，俺也就听着先。
后面一个有意思的话题是关于给分。头对系里一个教授给所有学生A或者A+的行为很不满意。虽没点名，但人人心里都清楚他在说谁。他说给注水分是对学生和对教育的不负责任。大家分析给注水分是想讨好学生，获得好的教学评估。俺听到心里也算学了点教训，上学期俺有31个学生，俺给了7个A，还有几个A-，两个C，其他都是B。按头的标准来看，还是松了点。
再有就是下月开战争与新闻研讨会的事宜。俺帮着设计了海报和手册，算尽俺的义务了。至于开会的时间，是在周末，俺应该是花时间写俺的论文的。
会上还汇报了学校方面的一些问题，比如学校近日为有些院系的兼职教授教课比专职教授多的情况很担忧。好在俺们系的专职比兼职的比例还是很合理的，差不多70-80%左右。大家都很高兴。学校还通过了俺们的课程设置修改计划，由于一些电脑统计系统的问题，新课程设置最快也要等到08年秋天才能实施。如果俺刚来这个学校，听到这样的效率也许俺还会感到吃惊，经过了一个学期的磨练，特别是花一个多月的时间才给俺买来电脑的经历，对这样的体制和办事效率俺已经习以为常了。
此后还有什么年度评估之类的琐事，大伙唧唧喳喳就说了一上午。快12点的时候终于散了。回头想想，还是学了不少东西。
Thursday, January 11, 2007
海
来美国之前，只见过两次海。一次是有年大学暑假去小牛家，踩了黄海的泥滩，吃了农家的海鲜，闹了一夜肚子出了洋相。黄海的泥滩全然没有想像中海的样子，没有碧海银沙或是惊涛拍案，只有渔民们开着拖拉机在黑色的泥滩上奔驰，寻捕海货。
第二次看海是研究生二年级国庆的时候在大连。虽然不是很喜欢大连这个城市，觉得太假了，但是还是很兴奋地看到了渤海的美，看到了大海所应有的蓝，浪花所应有的劲。十月的大连已经算不上玩海的季节了，我们还是踩了沙滩，爬了礁石，吃了海鲜，拍了美景。在海之韵，偶遇几对新婚男女，顶着寒风排婚纱照；在旅顺，乘了汽艇窥探了远近闻名的旅顺港。最难忘的莫过于从大连乘海轮回天津。在跳板就要收起来的时候，我们才飞车赶到轮船码头，像电影一样惊险。晚上在海上，看到了壮丽的银河。唯一的遗憾是没有看到巴金笔下的海上日出，因为清晨已经进入了天津港，天空污浊了起来。
跨过太平洋来到美国，跟海更亲近了。2004年的元旦，一行数人冒者严寒，裹着棉袄在virginia beach目睹了04年第一缕阳光铺射在冰冷的大西洋上。冬天，北方大西洋的海边是寂静的，只有像俺这样的海的追逐者和海鸟才会缩手缩脚从热被窝里钻出来，来到海边溜达。倒是一群学空手道还是跆拳道的人打破了寂静地海滩。他们来到海边晨练，还冲到刺骨的海水中打拳，一阵喧腾就把太阳给叫醒了。
以后，在纽约最兴奋的一天是去自由女神岛，为大西洋托起的帝国而惊诧。
在美国西海岸，行驶在“17mile”的海边，不由为之沧桑、冷峻和那么一点点孤寂而动情，觉得自己好像就该是幽幽桑松中的一株，被海风吹得扭过身去却不望回头看看那片太平洋。时间仓促不容俺多逗留，心中盘算着日后一定要去。
06年暑假，俺彻底般到了海边。著名的clearwater的银沙滩离俺也就20分钟的车程。来到了海滨城市，对海也习以为常了。半年里自己守着海却没有多去看看。JY来了，去看了自己喜欢的fort de soto，因为自己似乎属于那样的海，像“17mile”一样。不很喧闹，有时似乎更显冷清，但它一样湛蓝，一样澎湃，一样博大。
第二次看海是研究生二年级国庆的时候在大连。虽然不是很喜欢大连这个城市，觉得太假了，但是还是很兴奋地看到了渤海的美，看到了大海所应有的蓝，浪花所应有的劲。十月的大连已经算不上玩海的季节了，我们还是踩了沙滩，爬了礁石，吃了海鲜，拍了美景。在海之韵，偶遇几对新婚男女，顶着寒风排婚纱照；在旅顺，乘了汽艇窥探了远近闻名的旅顺港。最难忘的莫过于从大连乘海轮回天津。在跳板就要收起来的时候，我们才飞车赶到轮船码头，像电影一样惊险。晚上在海上，看到了壮丽的银河。唯一的遗憾是没有看到巴金笔下的海上日出，因为清晨已经进入了天津港，天空污浊了起来。
跨过太平洋来到美国，跟海更亲近了。2004年的元旦，一行数人冒者严寒，裹着棉袄在virginia beach目睹了04年第一缕阳光铺射在冰冷的大西洋上。冬天，北方大西洋的海边是寂静的，只有像俺这样的海的追逐者和海鸟才会缩手缩脚从热被窝里钻出来，来到海边溜达。倒是一群学空手道还是跆拳道的人打破了寂静地海滩。他们来到海边晨练，还冲到刺骨的海水中打拳，一阵喧腾就把太阳给叫醒了。
以后，在纽约最兴奋的一天是去自由女神岛，为大西洋托起的帝国而惊诧。
在美国西海岸，行驶在“17mile”的海边，不由为之沧桑、冷峻和那么一点点孤寂而动情，觉得自己好像就该是幽幽桑松中的一株，被海风吹得扭过身去却不望回头看看那片太平洋。时间仓促不容俺多逗留，心中盘算着日后一定要去。
06年暑假，俺彻底般到了海边。著名的clearwater的银沙滩离俺也就20分钟的车程。来到了海滨城市，对海也习以为常了。半年里自己守着海却没有多去看看。JY来了，去看了自己喜欢的fort de soto，因为自己似乎属于那样的海，像“17mile”一样。不很喧闹，有时似乎更显冷清，但它一样湛蓝，一样澎湃，一样博大。
Saturday, January 06, 2007
2006-2007
2006年的最后一天，我在美国的最南端。虽然怎么也想不起来2006年元旦的情景，但可以肯定的是当时绝对想不到自己将跟谁，在哪里步入2007。应该承认自己是怕过节的，像元旦，生日等等。一方面像孩子一样对节日总是充满期望和幻想。期望高了，有落空的失落；期望低了，虽然能过得很高兴，不过极度激动之后心里终究还是空荡荡的。另一方面，这些日子总是有象征意义的。一年一年地过，一岁一岁地长，总觉得自己还是一无是处。
这一次除旧迎新是和JY一起，加上miami金色的阳光，翠绿的芭蕉，湛蓝的天空，斑斓的海水，感觉是无比的幸福了。当我们在墨西哥湾和大西洋的交界处送走了2006最后一抹夕阳，当JY在街头接住楼上准备彻夜mardi gras的人们扔下的珠子时，当驾车徘徊于灯红酒绿的miami海滩，穿梭在把酒欢庆的车流和人流中的时候，当回到酒店意识到饭馆和超市都已关门，饥饿的我们只能从MCVS的垃圾食品里淘出几样垫饥的时候，心头的那股子失落又回来了。跟家里打电话拜问新年的时候，回应的是忙于麻将的亲人；母亲虚弱的声音让俺想赶紧回家挽着她，陪着多说说话。未等她再次唠叨一遍刚刚说完的话，俺赶紧挂断电话，不想让积淀在心底的坏心情在电话里爆发。怀抱着JY，这样的心情终于还是释放出来了。那种释怀的感觉好像只有大学的时候才有过。
这就是俺怎么从2006走到2007的，记下来，不应该忘记。
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
