Right prioritizing of skills for online reporting

Article Feedback
Posted by Jane Abao 11/2/2006 11:47:21 PM

I should say that the prioritizing of skills or qualities is right and just – that the most important are not related to technology or... I should say that the prioritizing of skills or qualities is right and just – that the most important are not related to technology or the Web. I would shudder to learn that people expert in Photoshop but weak in communication skills, grammar and style, and news judgment dog the days of reporting online. In fact, we should let writing be the business of writers and artwork be the business of artists.

Reporting original stories should also be encouraged. This is very important. In some writers’ sites, about 77% of members are only linkers (posting stories already published by other writers) and don’t even have an inkling of what makes for a good title. In the summary portion of the story where they are required to post, they merely mimic the first paragraph of the published story. There is then no brainwork involved, and yet they believe they are reporters already.

Traditional Skills Most Important in Online Newsrooms
Rich Gordon
(Read the Article)

Man arrested for criticizing policies on Iraq

Original link for the story

Writers are in a better state of affairs than people who directly speak out their minds before the very person they are criticizing. At least with writing, some readers can back you up or go along with your idea while you are at least safe to be writing for more - from a distance. In speaking, you alone, have to handle it and suffer the insecurities of being physically present in the area.

Why Annie Laurie Gaylor cannot understand the Bible

Original link for the story

Gaylor wrote >>>>> There is no other book in which life is so cheap! Killing in the "Good Book" is of biblical proportions.

Many cannot understand the Bible because it has been sealed and the wicked do not understand (Dan 11:33). The words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end (Dan 12:9). But God reveals his secrets to this servants (Amos 3:7). If you stand ready to attack truth at all costs, you cannot understand God’s ways. To be Co-president of a Freedom From Religion Foundation as Gaylor is, already implies a direction towards opposing the Bible and its teachings.

Gaylor wrote>>>>> It takes eight pages in Ruth Hurmence Green's book, "The Born Again Skeptic's Guide to the Bible," just to list the mass killings ordered, committed or approved by the biblical deity. These range from drowning all but eight of the world's human inhabitants to merciless scorched-earth commandments to "utterly destroy" other nations (Deut. 7:1-2). There are countless biblical edicts to kill the innocent.

When the blind leads the blind, both shall fall into the pit. There is the curse of being misled. It is important really to consider whatever we read. It is important yet to preserve the mind – to keep it clean and unpolluted from information that would threaten or direct it away from the truth. Therefore, it is best to go straight to the Bible as authority for truth rather than depend on man’s interpretation of it. In the case of Gaylor, she had used a skeptic’s guide. A skeptic is ready to oppose; there is no spirit of readiness to follow truth and therefore the mind is closed.

The Great Flood of Noah’s time was ridding the earth of wicked people. The earth was filled then with evil of untold proportions. Have you considered the nihilism involved there that God had wanted to eliminate? Man’s race needed to be preserved. God had wanted to conserve the creation he had started. And while your eyes were fixed on the drowning, the great God’s mind was fixed on healing the earth. He alone is maker and knows His own plans for mankind. Who are we then to oppose – when these are even for the best interests of man?

In the first place, even without the drowning, evil people that cannot be reformed are already considered spiritually dead. In the eyes of God, they are already dead – no matter how physically healthy they look. In other words, there is not just one way of looking at death or “mass killing ordered, committed or approved by the biblical deity” as Gaylor said. These all have to be viewed in the context of the designs and intention of the maker.

Lord Krishna idol in jeans and T-shirts

Original link for the story

The priest had just proven that the image he had dressed up is not a god. Otherwise, if the Lord Krishna were a real god, he himself would not allow anyone to be dressing him up - in a way he doesn't like. But now that he cannot even speak for himself, what's all the fuss about?

Citizen Journalism Network Surviving on Donations

QuickLink this item: A110717

Feedback to: Reuters Gives CitJ Venture $100K
Posted by Jane Abao 9/21/2006 1:06:09 AM

And for $100K from Reuters, what does it expect from NewAssignment.net? What are the terms? Does Reuters get a voice in NewAssignment.net’s decision-making? If NewAssignment.net has a board of directors or its equivalent, is there a Reuter’s man in it? Has Reuters suddenly realized it has to be student again to new things it is paying $100K for tuition fee?

With NewAssignment.net, how does it expect to survive out of charity (Is it forever?) without it being subject to the wiles of donors? Forgive me, but I happen to believe there’s no such thing as free lunch.

Would you think of buying this?

Price: $19,999.99
This MP3 player was built for every millionaire who loves digital music.

World's most expensive MP3 player
[What the heck! Won't display it here!]

With the kind of life we lead now where there is crisis in almost everything, spending just for this kind of item, which is not even a basic need, is plain foolishness.

In my country, this amount could buy 1,000 sacks of rice, which can feed a good 22 people for 11 months to 1 year.

Satan, a Non-Devil, a Misunderstood Prince?

Original link for the story

Oh, come on! The next thing Henry Ansgar Kelly would do is call Satan, “Love,” and name him the proper God. Writing a biography for Satan is nobody’s fare but a fool’s – perhaps trying to recapture a glory gone like mist – or else catch attention with fiction, and yet make money at the expense of misleading many.

But this kind of joke has earned zillions already. We have had one too many about “re-writes” on Jesus Christ and Judas. Such rewrites are merely twists of facts flavored here and there with convoluted imaginations. Now Kelly comes out with Satan.

How Kelly was able to transform Satan’s lore into a positive biography of a misunderstood hero is a puzzle – or may be not. He has tried to cosmeticize every bad name applied to Satan and is now trying to redirect meanings from negative to positive. Repeat them, Kelly, and as the evil one recommends, a lie now becomes truth.

At 72, one is at a geriatric stage supposedly conscious of meeting one's destiny and counting one's days. But no, Kelly is yet to fire a fresh salvo for one of his neoacts. True, the Bible has prophesied that God allows the good to continue and the evil to continue. However, what is there to come will come and nobody can stop it.

Are You Still Like This?

Time ticks slowly . . . but surely.

NaduraH

A friend of mine was saying languages seem to bring out certain characteristics. He said in his discussions with his friends, they seemed to come up with these traits associated with the language -

Tagalog - respect (because of "po")
French - romance
Italian - expressive
Greek - precision
Latin - mystery

Beyond languages, one can find out so many things. For example, they have so many characteristics and one of that was how they carried concepts in them like "respect" and the amount of it or the concern for it.

I asked in my Language Forum why in German "Sie" [you] is always capitalized even in the middle of the sentence and I was told about a spelling reform for this language. Apparently, all their pronouns are capitalized wherever you find them in the sentence.

There are languages that capitalize all pronouns and I was saying that there would be no difference then when "He" is capitalized in the middle of a sentence when it refers to God.

In other words, some languages take care to make a difference, like the Maltese.
For example, I adore God = naduraH.

Take note that it is even the last letter!

Remarkable how they go to that length to express respect for the creator!

Loneliness Packaged in Poems

Many young people today package their loneliness in poems.

For example, a loved one may have been separated for miles and miles away, and would that the poet could reach out to his or her beloved. A loved one may have left and there is no saying if he or she would come back - especially if in the eyes of the one left behind, there is no substitute ever. A loved one may have left permanently for another world, whether gently or suddenly. In all of these, there is nothing but loneliness for the one left behind – the poet. For her or for him, misery is now the company – and it is now expressed in the form of poems.

Usually seen in this kind of poems are words invariably used as “missed,” “sleepless,” “gone,” “die,” “end,” “regret,” “alone,” “forsaken,” “depressed,” “hopeless,” “end,” and “longing.”

Nothing is wrong here if the poet considers that in the process, he, too, is sending out messages of gloom and despair. If he doesn’t do it right, the world of communication has every right to complain.

Writing poems can be therapeutic, but this depends on how the poet uses the avenue. Registering one’s loneliness appears harmless. However, registering is not all there is to writing poems. One can see in poetry writing his progress in some situation – from hurting to acceptance to adjustment. It’s another story, however, if one uses poetry to sustain one’s feelings - of being miserable all the way and loving it. In this regard, one does not seem geared to get up and go from the woeful situation.

If the person is making adjustments, that can be seen in his or her expressions in the poem. The poem rings with words that manifest hope and healing, having some positive ring to it, like “waiting,” “counting,” and “time.” The person has finally made up his or her mind that there is an end to the vacuum created, and that soon everything will be fine – whether by the appearance of the person longed for, or by the acceptance of the situation by the longing writer. In this case, there is clearly more sunshine seeping through one’s life than in the earlier case with a cloudy cap. In other words, poetry writing is working benefits with this kind of poet.

Should a poet understand this side of poetry-writing, one could take advantage of its many therapeutic effects. One can go back to the experience and express oneself – as in full blast, living as though in real time. After that, however, the poet is faced with an impending responsibility. He does not close his doors or windows yet.

This means a poet does not merely register his emotions in a poem and leave them there. The poet must be confronted with the issue: Now, what? Poetry writing does not make the adjustments itself. Conscious effort for change is lodged in the poet who must respond.

The impending responsibility of every poet being mentioned here is taking care of the poem’s denouement. After the freedom of letting go in the earlier part of the poem, the poet should manifest some change towards the end. Why? The poem is not for the poet alone. A great part of it belongs to the community that reads it. As such, the writing should by way of suggestion be positive as it denoues with hope. The other end should be exemplary as in teaching something for a sunny day.

This is where a poem has boundaries. A poem is a form of communication and as such, it is not any different from an essay, a dissertation, or a book. It then has to respect universal conventions in what is right and proper. It has to recognize truth. One example, therefore, that it should not do as it closes is send a message of threat – valid or not.

© Copyright 2006 janeabao (UN: kota at Writing.Com). All rights reserved.

"Anyways" is Dialectic

In a forum for editors, language experts, and linguists, I asked this question:

Is it proper to say "anyways" for anyway?
I look at it as part of evolved Internet language like Aolese.
It is said the Irish say "anyways" - even before Internet came in.

About a week of discussions on the word followed but in between, some five repartees were deleted. Discussions suddenly sidetracked when “molly-wooly” worded a repartee that appeared flaming to Foxfirebrand after he tried to go academic. He had touched a sensitive cord among culture creatures and heaven knows what the postee meant. Foxfirebrand took it badly.

“What an acrimonious thread,” he was saying. “And the moon is yet to come in distant time…..” You understand about foxes? Foxfirebrand, being true to his name, was lamenting, yet as a comic. He referred to the moon that was his hope for comfort, and his hole where he was thinking of heading to, to leak his wounds. He he!

I can not exactly capture how Foxfirebrand put it. It was beautiful poetry my “anyways” had churned out. I was looking to the day I would write a story and I smiled to myself. Let the thread hatch first until it would be pregnant enough. But, holy cow! The moderator named something like drum came in and axed them off. I cannot now remember what the fox wrote.

This was Drum’s work:

mgarizona This message has been deleted. Reason: a somewhat off-topic conversation that slipped into personal and patronising comment.

foxfirebrand This message has been deleted. Reason: a somewhat off-topic conversation that slipped into personal and patronising comment.

mgarizona This message has been deleted. Reason: a somewhat off-topic conversation that slipped into personal and patronising comment.

foxfirebrand This message has been deleted. Reason: a somewhat off-topic conversation that slipped into personal and patronising comment.

kota This message has been deleted. Reason: a somewhat off-topic conversation that slipped into personal and patronising comment.

This happens often when a word or phrase is being examined in the Forum and culture becomes tangent to the discussion.

Fox’s self pity was soon forgotten but the Irish remembered themselves at every turn.

So, what about “anyways”? The exchanges were as follows –

……………

Ed the Editor (US – American English) came first -

Hi Kota,

Almost everywhere in the U.S., "anyways" is considered sub-standard and ungrammatical. You will never see it in writing, unless someone is trying to reproduce ungrammatical language or is trying to be funny. You will hear it in uneducated speech in some areas of the country.

kota (Philippines)

I thought so. I needed an answer to show someone insisting on it - so I quoted you.

mgarizona (US – American English)
Careful to distinguish between 'anyways' as a conjunction, which is sub-standard, and 'anyways' as an adverb--- meaning "in any way," "in any respect"--- which is slightly archaic, but is by no means incorrect.

foxfirebrand (Native of various farflung regions)

"Anyways" is dialectic, and common in vast areas of the American Southeast-- which is to say Appalachia. Calling it "sub-standard" is hard to defend as anything but judgmental, and "uneducated" is inexcusable. Believe it or not, speakers of some variants "of no prestige" have excellent educations, even Doctorates-- even advanced degrees in English language and literature.

Some dialects (languages?) in Europe get the same treatment-- Catalan and Napulitan come to mind.

kota (Philippines)

You know, this came about when I went to a supposed writers’ site. Then I read of “anyways” used by a writer and I questioned it. To my consternation, the writers were introduced as Irish. I have nothing against them personally, but I would not like to be recommending writers’ sites to budding writers where the English employed is dialectic.

[Five exchanges deleted here.]

DavyBCN (UK – English)

Could a mild-mannered British English speaker (and teacher of English) borrow an American phrase? Chill out guys!

Two points. "Anyways" is commonly used by Irish speakers of English as a change of subject word - maybe in the same way United States speakers of English use "whatever"? I have no idea what standards either of these words may break.

On the subject of standards. Whose standards? And the standards of when - now or last year? It really does a huge disservice to learners of English to claim that there is any one standard by which the quality of a person's language is judged. While the majority of grammar structures in English are fixed, their use is not always. As a teacher, I explain the differences between British and US English almost every week, and usually try not to say how unnatural some US uses are to me, such as "have gotten". But I would be a very poor teacher if I didn't explain the different usages - or if I complained about usages that I find non-standard. I use non-standard deliberately, because "have gotten" is non-standard to me. Why should I insult people from the USA by saying it is sub-standard?

If there was one standard of English we would all be speaking and writing like Chaucer or Shakespeare, But I imagine some of their contemporaries complained as well!

panjandrum (Ireland: English-speaking)

Anyways is used as a conjunction by a number of well-educated and fastidious people around here. It is the dialect of their part of the country, as they are well aware. They would not write it in a formal communication as they consider it to be NON-standard.

.,,(Australia: Australian)

[Note: Name is Robert, he said, in his private message.]

I have read anyways and I have heard anyways and I have not made an assumption of negativity about the speaker or writer because they used a word that I do not.

The meaning is always contextually clear to me.

I am quite certain that I use idiomatic words and phrases and I slip into dialect when it pleases me yet I consider myself to be quite educated and cultured.

The use of anyways will reveal something of the geographical origins of the user and perhaps a penchant to cock a snoot at someone telling them how to talk proper.

We have a very colourful and varied language and not much of it is sub-standard.

foxfirebrand (Native of various farflung regions)

Quote:

Originally Posted by .,,

The use of anyways will reveal something of the geographical origins of the user and perhaps a penchant to cock a snoot at someone telling them how to talk proper.

We have a very colourful and varied language and not much of it is sub-standard.

Agreed.

And about "sub-standard"-- to criticize it as judgmental in no way hints at the abandonment of standards. Being judgmental is not the same as exercising judgment-- it means exercising judgment in a narrow-minded or inflexible way, and approaches bigotry in connotation.

The deleted argument against "non-standard" of course equivocated on the term "judgmental," treating it as a neutral or even positive term.

.,, (Australia: Australian)

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavyBCN

If there was one standard of English we would all be speaking and writing like Chaucer or Shakespeare, But I imagine some of their contemporaries complained as well!

It seems quite appropriate that you mention the language of Shakespeare as I have read in a number of different publications that The Appalacian Mountains region retains one of the closest living links to the language of The Bard.

I suspect that William Shakespeare would not have criticised the use of anyways in any form.

maxiogee (Invisible Ink City, Chatland, Location: Dublin, Ireland)

Quote:

Originally Posted by .,,

I suspect that William Shakespeare would not have criticised the use of anyways in any form.

Neither anyway nor anyways are in his works.

I hear "anywho" as an American version of the Irish use of anyways.

Collins English Dictionary says anyways is US and Canadian, the Oxford Concise calls it N Amer, and Chambers refers to it as dialect and especially US.

I'm quite familiar with it as a topic changing gambit, and with its twin brother anyways up used as a cut to the chase expression.

Rozax (USA)

May I put in that the use of 'anyways' in the US sounds odd to me?

panjandrum (Ireland: English-speaking)

As a conjunction, Dickens used it - as direct speech:

Quote:

'Anyways,' said the damsel, 'I am glad punishment followed, and I say so.

Our Mutual Friend

That's the earliest reference given by the OED.

.,, (Australia: Australian)

Quote:

Originally posted by maxiogee

Neither anyway nor anyways is in his works.

You missed my point.
Shakespeare was quite adept at inventing new words to fit his requirements and that is why I suspect that he would not have criticised the use of anyways or psychobabble or human resources manager even though he used none of these terms himself.

Shakespeare was interested in function and form.

mgarizona (US – American English)

Quote:

Originally Posted by .,,

You missed my point.
Shakespeare was quite adept at inventing new words to fit his requirements and that is why I suspect that he would not have criticised the use of anyways or psychobabble or human resources manager even though he used none of these terms himself.

Shakespeare was interested in function and form.

Well said.

Actually, Shakespeare might have used the adverb 'anyways.' There's a play called Edward III, which is often attributed to Shakespeare. (Peter Ackroyd makes a good case for it in his Shakespeare biography.) In it, King Edward orders:

Go to thy daughter; and in my behalf
Command her, woo her, win her any ways ...

Note that in Shakespeare (and generally until about 1800) 'any thing,' 'any body' and 'any where' are always written as two words.

In any event, of course Shakespeare would have embraced anyways (conj), just as Dickens does. Because it's colorful, and because the use of the word tells us something about the user. By being non-standard (YAWN!!) it becomes narratively salient. I have to imagine though that Shakespeare would have made it part of Toby Belch's vocabulary, and not Viola's.

My only real argument here has always been this: if someone from Japan or Saudi Arabia or Timbuktu who is trying to learn English--- no mean feat--- writes to this forum to ask about a word like 'anyways,' do you really think they're interested in the vagaries of dialectical geography? (And when I say dialectics, I mean just that, not broad-strokes BE, AE, IE, OzE usage.)

I just have to imagine that they're better served being instructed in the standard language--- I know, I'm a snob!--- and then if one day they end up in Appalachia they'll figure out soon enough that the paradigm has shifted.

foxfirebrand (Native of various farflung regions)

Quote:

Originally posted by mgarizona

I just have to imagine that they're better served being instructed in the standard language--- I know, I'm a snob!--- and then if one day they end up in Appalachia they'll figure out soon enough that the paradigm has shifted.

There we go again-- "instructed in the standard language," you say. And exactly which variant is that? The largest bloc of English speakers in the world are Asians-- with more speakers of (basically American) English in China than in the U.S., and English growing in influence, not diminishing, ever since the end of the Raj in India. I have cyber relationships with people my age in India who decry the AE their children and grandchildren are speaking-- that variant has supplanted the one they learned, and the global corporate "outsourcing" of telemarketing and other phone-bank work to workers in the Asian Subcontinent is "exacerbating" this tendency.

If this sounds like AE chauvinism, I only offer it in counterpart to your apparent assumption that BE is the "standard"-- mayhap that paradigm you mentioned has shifted so abruptly it passed your notice.

Finally, the query that started this thread was about "anyways," and it turns out that's a more complicated subject than you perhaps consider it to be. "It's wrong, don't use it" is not the whole story. In fact, wasn't the original thread-starter here because he "needed an answer to show someone insisting on it (i.e., the valid use of anyways)?

It turns out the person "insisting on it" had a point-- and it might well have been one of the teachers this learner of English has to satisfy.

I've found it useful to tell learners that the complexities we sometimes (often) get into here are one area of interest, and the needs of putting a correct answer on an exam, or meeting the limited expectations of a teacher-- are another. Supplying those simple guidelines is one function of this forum, but it is the adjunct to a web-based dictionary, and it delves into nuances of usage not covered in the entries-- some of which are complex indeed, going into detail about idiomatic usage and differences among registers and variants.

Expanding on all this is part of the raison d'être of these forums-- your objections notwithstanding.

kota (Philippines)

Quote:

Originally posted by panjandrum

As a conjunction, Dickens used it - as direct speech:
Our Mutual Friend

'Anyways,' said the damsel, 'I am glad punishment followed, and I say so.
That's the earliest reference given by the OED.

Meaning, "anyways" was only being used to characterize the damsel - to show her level of education.

panjandrum (Ireland: English-speaking)

As I said earlier, there are places where anyways is a natural part of everyday vocabulary. Its use says nothing about the level of education of the speaker.

kota (Philippines)

“Anyways,” therefore, is dialectic as somebody already said.

As dialectic, my friend said, as others had said, it is –

…something many writers use in order to establish period or to authenticate a character's background. For instance, a writer trying to depict the 1950s south would use words and phrases that were common in the 50s as well as in the south. That's often called dialect. It creates the 'atmosphere' of the piece.

Thank you all for the discussions.

[DESPITE MY SAYING “THANKS,” SOME HAD WANTED TO GO ON AND SEEK AFFIRMATION THAT…..]

maxiogee (Invisible Ink City, Chatland, Location: Dublin, Ireland)

Quote:

Originally posted by mgarizona

Well said.

Actually, Shakespeare might have used the adverb 'anyways.' There's a play called Edward III, which is often attributed to Shakespeare. (Peter Ackroyd makes a good case for it in his Shakespeare biography.) In it, King Edward orders:

Go to thy daughter; and in my behalf
Command her, woo her, win her any ways...

The rest of the quote shows though that he meant, "Win her by any means" and not the conversation ending "anyways"

Command her, woo her, win her any ways,
To be my mistress and my secret love.
I will not stand to hear thee make reply:
Thy oath break hers, or let thy sovereign die.

mgarizona (US – American English)

Quote:

Originally posted by maxiogee

The rest of the quote shows though that he meant, "win her by any means" and not the conversation ending "anyways"

Yes, that's what the adverb 'anyways' always means, which is not dialectical or other-than-standard but a perfectly ordinary English-language word.

(No offense intended to words, which are out-of-the-ordinary or any user thereof!)

It's the use of 'anyways' as a conjunction (an adverbial conjunction to be precise) that's the question here.

Actually, let me ask you this since the prevalence of this usage in IE has been mentioned many times:

If to end a conversation--- conjunction as segue--- someone said simply Anyway ... in lieu of Anyways ..., what would that invoke? Would it be considered wrong? Does it peg someone as an outsider?

maxiogee (Native of: Invisible Ink City, Chatland!, Location: Dublin, Ireland)

Quote:

Originally posted by mgarizona

Actually, let me ask you this since the prevalence of this usage in IE has been mentioned many times:

If to end a conversation--- conjunction as segue--- someone said simply Anyway ... in lieu of Anyways ..., what would that invoke? Would it be considered wrong? Does it peg someone as an outsider?

Just wondering.

Good question. Both are used here, and those who favour "anyway" would probably insist that the others are ignorant!

mgarizona (US – American English)

Quote:

Originally posted by maxiogee

Good question. Both are used here, and those who favour "anyway" would probably insist that the others are ignorant!

Et voilà! Same difference in the States, outside the occasional holler at least. Thanks!

kota (Philippines)

Quote:

Originally posted by maxiogee

... those who favour "anyway" would probably insist that the others are ignorant!

They may not insist but they would think so. I had been educated under Americans and so to me, it is not proper.

Some Irish writers I know admit of using the word in making comments - but not in their writing. The exception is when they have to characterize a persona in their story.

Armani (Native of: d)

I'm Irish and anyways is certainly used sometimes. I have a very high standard of English and I am not aware that the word anyways as an adverb is in any way incorrect.

maxiogee (Invisible Ink City, Chatland, Location: Dublin, Ireland)

Quote:

Originally posted by Armani

I'm Irish and anyways is certainly used sometimes. I have a very high standard of English and I am not aware that the word anyways as an adverb is in any way incorrect.

Welcome Armani (nice suit!)
No one has called it "incorrect" or "wrong".
It has been stated that it is dialect, or regional.

……………

This is me, kota, again. Let me continue –

Despite my saying “thanks” midway in the discussions, some had wanted to go on and seek affirmation…...

….. AFFIRMATION THAT “anyways” IS NOT TO BE CALLED WRONG OR INCORRECT BUT DIALECT.

In other words? Take your pick.

Would you go for dialect?

Globalization and Its Discontents

Stiglitz, Joseph E. (2003, May). Globalization and Its Discontents.
ISBN: 0393324397. W. W. Norton & Company. 304 pp.

BOOK REVIEW

In 2001, John E. Stiglitz shared the Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences with two others for augmenting in the 1970s the theory of markets with asymmetric information (Bank of Sweden prize, 2001). Markets with asymmetric information is Stiglitz’s main topic in his Globalization book.

In Globalization and Its Discontents, Stiglitz referred to larger players than mere agents of the market, landowners, and tenants – and these are the multilateral institutions and their principal shareholders in pressing developing countries – supposedly to liberalize their economies. In this controversial book, Stiglitz argues that although globalization should be a powerful force for good, it has been badly mishandled by the West, especially with its lead institutions, the World Bank and the IMF. As Stiglitz contends, those concerned with economic development have seen economic openness and liberalization as panaceas. Instead of progress however, he argues, the result has all too often been devastation.

What happens, according to him, is that developing countries open themselves to trade, deregulate their financial markets, and abruptly privatize national enterprise but then experience more economic and social disruption than growth.

Stiglitz then proposes better management, a greater degree of transparency and a wider debate on issues in which its social dimensions are given their proper emphasis, and then “the world can come closer together and become more prosperous.”

Overall, this book is a daring expose on what is happening in the corridors of the IMF and the World Bank. For someone whose heart is with the plight of the developing countries, this was expected of Stiglitz. To be sure, however, the book did not just come out of the blue like that of a journalist who had to report on an expose.

Stiglitz was reared in a home where politics occupied family discussions. (Stiglitz. Autobiography, 2002). His critical attitude and questioning skills had been honed by professors who cared about their student learning. While young, Stiglitz’s mind was filled with questions about the whys of inequality and practices like segregation. As part of the globalization debate, this book may be said to be one-sided in that it criticizes markets too often while sparing government. He is accurate though for his calls to proper sequencing of alternatives to help bring about a more gradual transformation of society.

We do not Walk ....... the Earth Forever

Site Can be Addictive

Writing.com is a complete school for any budding (and more than budding) writer. The site offers many, many opportunities for growth in reading, writing, or reviewing. One can register free for the first time and pay one’s way by reviewing works posted – yet under premium membership!

From the looks of it, every little detail has been accounted for. Yet each little feature is subject to review by the members – a sure way to ensure relevance, responsiveness, and timeliness.

The site declares that it does not normally censor or restrict content posted to the site, but that it requires that content posted be rated properly according to their proprietary guidelines as follows. This way, preference of readers is respected. One’s choice of reading or reviewing contents can be guided by the following ratings -

E: Everyone
ASR: Adult Supervision Recommended
13+: Recommended for Readers 13 Years and Older Only
18+: Recommended for Readers 18 Years and Older Only
GC: May Contain Graphic Content
XGC: May Contain Extreme Graphic Content
NPL: Not Publicly Listed

The more mature writers contribute much to the site with their scholarly write-ups, which through time get refined with reviews. For some writers, they develop their own blog corners at the same time build their portfolio. They have thought up folders for themselves that they use for group building, discussion forums, reviewing, writing, art contests and the like. These activities make the site ever vibrant and never boring. In fact, it can become habitual for a new member to be clicking to this site many times in a day – ensured by having to win gift points while one enjoys free premium membership for 30 days.

What makes this gift-points idea very meaningful is that it encourages giving among the members – for welcome, for appreciation, for encouragement, for help – even for crusading health projects of member groups. The benefactors are either named or anonymous. The support group of the site itself gives out gift points as awards for writing, reviewing and responding to messages. In short, the system has found a way of encouraging every good act towards a writer’s development through the gift-points concept.

By comparison, the gift points look like the Japanese yen – thick, thick wads just to a dollar. But they go a long way, enabling every writer to learn giving – as well as receiving. There are greater awards for higher levels like writing and art contests of every kind. These also make use of gift points as alternative currency.

Membership in the site is generally paid membership from basic, to upgraded, to premium, to professional, to enterprise. The last one is “For small businesses who host more than one client web site in their portfolio.” The higher the level, the more amenities. A large community of writers of all ages thrive there - by renewing their membership from year to year.

The site is particularly attractive with its well-defined forum rule for clean and friendly postings. Many sites have this rule but actually do not impose it.

What comes in the way, however, is the sprucing up of write-ups with art. They occupy much space and to an academic, they appear like fruits of pink-minded juveniles. Other than this, the site makes great company for a writer - all the way.

Writing.com

Habermas: Communicative Action in the Classrooms

The discussions are somewhat lengthy and historical in Teaching as communicative action: Habermas and Education as discussed by David Coulter. However, we can find a deeper appreciation for what teaching should be, especially as ‘communicative action’ is explained as attempts at two-way understanding, it must be democratic, and ruled by what is valid. Fresh in my mind is the old hypodermic model of teaching where the teacher lectures and where the students patiently listen [to perfect a quiz] with no interaction encouraged. Next, the teacher gives a quiz to try to withdraw what she has deposited. I remember this philosophy of teaching was credited to John Dewey and referred to by some educators hilariously as "Banking system of education." Amusing but true.

Communicative action as a theory appeals, in that whatever must be done is resorted through democratic consensus, not power [or money]. To understand power, we see that in the teacher-student relationship, clearly one holds the pharaoh’s whip by way of being the one who gives grades. If the teacher takes advantage of that, then she is not being democratic. Understanding this in a positive way, I think that in some colleges they have what are called "negotiated syllabus" where the syllabus becomes flexible eventually, depending on the needs of the class - if something comes up, requiring a necessary change. In the lower grades or in high school, however, I don’t see much application for democratic consensus except when students are old enough to claim rights more than, that the teacher be understandable in her teaching.

Again, the essence of this theory is that people will make claims that must be valid, not because of an accepted norm, but on universal definitions within the lifeworld. In teaching, therefore, we find that although the teacher takes center stage, she does not have absolute power to transmit what she personally believes in, but that her teachings should be tempered by what is true. Through Habermas' ideas of how communicative action should theoretically operate, one is able to see examples of the undemocratic way in which communication - even in the classrooms and the schools - is currently used. Perhaps some of us have encountered teachers who do not expect to be questioned, teachers who only lecture in the fill-in-the-blanks mode, and yet have only one answer to each blank – no synonyms allowed.

Needless to say, in making experiences as material for changes, on the level of study teams, teachers may collaborate for systematic writing of these syndromes in professional journals. There is much teachers can do in this regard.

Coulter, D. (2001). Teaching as communicative action: Habermas and education. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 90–98). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

Eat this Bread in Silence

Bread of Rulers by Gaijin de Moscu

Critique follows:

Bread of Rulers is about an Indian chief expected by the people to solve the famine in his land. Unfortunately, the man lives at a time where fate is often connected to the gods. Every time man suffers, it is because the gods are hungry and angry.

The premise is that the gods had sacrificed their lives so that the sun could continue burning bright and by that, people could continue living on. Consequently, the people owed it to the gods to feed them – constantly with blood. If not, there would be no rain; there would be no food.

One by one, this leader’s people were dying, and there was nothing to hunt. Plants had dried up, too. War as some source of blood to appease the gods was out of the question. The men were too weak to walk even. Hunger had been too long in the land.

As mothers began selling their daughters to slavery for food, the chief makes a decision. Solving the problem of hunger came to a point where he had to take a good long look at his own home – now led to some perversion: having his two wives choked to death and sacrificing his own children to the gods – for rain. However, the problem persisted. It did not seem to rain as prayed for.

The themes that kept arising from the text were:
1)Fate of man - good or bad – depended on the gods.
2)Knowledge that those statues were motionless, therefore powerless, yet attributing some power to them.
3)Solving problems only through blood sacrifice.

The author wrote -
"The last years brought me a new understanding. The supply of blood had to be constant. Every time it stopped, the Gods intervened. Strong winds threw trees at us; earthquakes crushed us; rains buried villages in landslides. Droughts taught us how hungry the Gods were."

This belief is still prevalent among people of today as is making offerings to non-living gods. The chief knew the gods he was dealing with were motionless, therefore powerless. Yet he seemed to want the statues to come to life by brushing some blood on their lips.

This story maybe of a setting many eons ago, but the story is happening in our midst. All of these themes stand true today despite the advance of science. Man, today, is a material man who does not know well the true God.

This story may read as strange and hateful for its display of middle ages ignorance, of its paganistic rituals, suicide, and its morbid solutions to problems of hunger. The author has succeeded in communicating reality, however. The story is powerfully written with its detailed capture of culture.

There were just these six discrepancies noted along these following lines:

1) The author wrote -
"You must be tired, My Lord," he said in a brooding, velvety voice that struggled to articulate words through his tongue and lips, stabbed beyond repair in daily self-sacrifice to the Gods. "This is your home, take rest."

"Brooding, velvety" voice does not seem to jibe with "struggling to articulate words." If a voice is velvety, it must not struggle to articulate. Perhaps another word in the direction of "struggling" would do. "Velvety" sounds much too positive.

2) The author wrote -
"I’ve done everything to please the Gods," he muttered with his mutilated tongue. Suddenly, his face cracked into a smile, and a few dry flakes of soot rained onto his cloak.

Does "a few dry flakes of soot" intend to show the lack of bath water for a long while? Then a smile is not enough for "flakes to rain onto his cloak." Perhaps if the action were much broader – like a loud laugh (Yes, a hungry man can still laugh), then it would do.

3) The author had consistently used the past tense from the beginning but suddenly shifts to the present tense in the ending chapter. It is best to be consistent throughout.

4) The author also had made the reader understand at the beginning that the chief had a much larger jurisdiction because there was famine. In the last chapter, however, he declares just a "town." When one talks of famine, the area is much, much extensive than just a town.

5) Towards the end, the author wrote -
Smiling, I jump from my stool into the darkness. Distant cracking reaches my ears. Is it the thumping of the falling stool... or, perhaps, thunder?

The chief was portrayed as a thoughtful, resolute leader in the beginning. He was a respectful man. By the time the story was about to end, however, the chief appeared like a fool – by "smiling as he jumped" to his death.

The author at best should maintain whatever dignity was left of the man – by "not smiling" to his suicide. Remember that his last thoughts before this were those of his children who were dying slowly of poison-laced drinks, his second wife whom he had ordered choked to death.

6) Another thing that makes the ending paragraph weak is that the mind of the character was still doing some unnecessary wondering despite already executing his death as in –

"[Smiling, I jump from my stool into the darkness.] Distant cracking reaches my ears. Is it the thumping of the falling stool... or, perhaps, thunder?"

A better ending paragraph would have been one that is simple, short, and ending at the proper time. This is where it could gather strength.

Consider this one -
"I jumped from my stool into the darkness." END.

http://www.italknews.com/view_story.php?sid=6990

Social Consciousness for iTalkNews

iTalkNews practices Citizen Journalism and the output ranges from small-town news to intriguing photographs to commentary on world events. As expected in CJ, professional journalists mix with unschooled journalists in this site. It is easy to spot the untrained writer just by the way he frames his titles. The titles then are a give away for evaluating writer levels.

The contributions are mainly unedited as the members can edit each other's work, but which editing have to be accepted by the writer. The question of quality then in output as seen by traditional media is expected.

If most writings in this site are of the journal type, it is because apparently the writers have never been weaned from the habit of writing in the first person, making it one's trend: news in the first person, editorial in the first person.

The more intelligent members lament the fact that there is no intelligent discussion going on. In other words, there is no member-to-member forum except for the comments' section of the news or link. Therefore, should there be a hot item for discussion, they are usually drawn to that part as though thirsting for interaction. Some members detest a pure forum type, however.

A fortunate fact for media work in this site is that some of the members have deep social consciousness, foremost of whom are writers from India who try to project social implications in their output. Some, however, merely post links and make recommendations or decommendations of others' links and stories, seemingly not understanding what writing is all about. In fact, 64% of the members are writers but a good 36% are merely linkers and recommenders, and their numbers are growing. Still, they are there for what democracy in CJ can offer them.

With this set-up, no one has control over proportions. If linking exceeded writing, then there's much to say about intellectual laziness that some of the members lamented about. Therefore, although there is quantity in the postings, quality is not automatically assured.

Speaking of democracy in CJ in this site, for those members who find constraints in writing news in their own home country, iTalkNews easily provides the venue. Admittedly, there are countries where structures do not permit the voice of some sectors. Moreover, as readily recognized by the members, formal journalism has its straitjacket becoming too tight for modern journalism. This is the reason Citizen Journalism comes in handy - and where iTalkNews is thriving. In the meantime however, there are criticisms.

OhMyNews, for example, negatively featured iTalkNews - as one can make out of the English translation from Korean using Altavista Babel Fish - of the scoring done in the later. The South Koreans had pioneered in CJ and were able to influence the presidential elections in 2002 just with CJ. Therefore, there may be that impulse to want to edit one's concept and use of CJ as though they owned the concept.

In a way, the South Koreans are correct, however. They were looking for citizen input, not contests or scores, if iTalkNews is to use CJ. The way the members press "recommend" and "decommend" is getting to be incredible. It is not reality. The focus seems to be on the person being rated, or on what an added or subtracted score might mean.

Still, some of the members of iTalkNews think they can overlook scoring and get to work as true writers. This can be the redeeming feature of iTalkNews.

iTalknews

Debate with Words Here If You Will

The Language Forum of WordReference.Com is an exciting world for those who want to be clarified on certain words and phrases. Participating in it gives one the benefit of exercising good habits of formal language as moderators police each one that no slang and chatspeak gets in the way.

Notice how closely they pay attention to words and word usage - as though in a clinic working on a specimen. The following is an example of how they work, and it's not simple.
Question: Which is the better expression -
simply put or put simply?

1) Simply put, affirmations are positive statements.
2) Put simply, affirmations are positive statements.

This question garnered some two pages of discussions - lettered here for easy follow up. The discussants, for the purpose here, are identified only by their country or language.

A) An Australian said it's a matter of personal taste, and that he preferred Number 2 or "Put simply."

B) An American said either is fine but yes, she'd go with Number 2 as well. "It's iambic." She explains later that the 'iamb' is the basic foot of most English verse, one short syllable followed by one long syllable. Anytime you get a chain of these together, the effect is 'melodious.' Here, "Put simply, affirmations" flows nicely because it gives you three iambs in a row.

C) A Spaniard said Number 2 sounds more "imperative" to him, if that is the idea.

D) However, an Armenian or Russian said both are correct, but he preferred Number 2. Somehow, "simply" sounds stronger when it follows the verb, which is, actually, what the opening statement aims to stress. It's more melodic, too. IMHO [In my humble opinion], of course, he said.

But why does "Simply put," sound better to others? The author of the thread said she had been used to hearing this.

E) An Englishman who also speaks French and Spanish said he also preferred Number 2 or "Put simply," and after reflexion he thought the reason is the following -

"simply put" is short for "simply putting this" whereas
"put simply" is short for "putting this simply". He explained -

The first is not what you mean - you don't mean "merely putting this" "doing nothing more than putting this" but you mean "putting this in a basic manner".

I think that on hearing "simply put" people would assume the meaning of "put simply," but I think this is why it sounds a slightly false note.

F) Another Englishman argued that -
Simply put = simply expressed. This is an easy and understandable way to put this idea into words.
Put simply = expressed simply. This idea put into words that are easily understood.

Then he said Number 2 or "Put simply" is the one for him, as it suggests the simplified wording rather that the manner by which the simplification was achieved. He, however, told the author to decide which she feels is more appropriate.

G) The Englishman who also speaks French and Spanish came back and suggested that perhaps changing the verb will help highlight the difference -

It was simply sung - it wasn't accompanied by music and drums etc.
It was sung simply - the singing was simple, no trills or jumping of octaves.

I think we can see from that that the first means "it was no more than sung" whereas the second is "the way it was sung was simple", and by analogy sentence 2 of the original choice is the right one.

H) The Australian disagreed and said, "You've changed the structure of the sentence here, so I don't think it really applies. There's a difference between, It was simply sung. And Simply sung ... and the same with It was sung simply and Sung simply..."

I) The Englishman who also speaks French and Spanish admitted his mistake but clarified: Ok - I have changed the structure, but I suppose the link that I forgot to underline was that -
"simply sung,..." is short for "having been simply sung" and "sung simply,..." is short for "having been sung simply" and that the difference between the two can then be examined by comparing "having been sung simply" and "having been simply sung" with "the song was sung simply" and "the song was simply sung" (e.g., the two sentences I talk about above) - or do you disagree with the logic of some of my comparisons there?

J) The Australian agreed with his logic. He said it was actually the first thing that came to His mind when he read the question in Post 1, but he just didn't think that the "simply putting this" meaning of "simply put" comes across loud and clear. It's a bit ambiguous, he said. He thought it could also mean "putting this simply".

K) The Englishman who also spoke in French and Spanish said he did admit earlier that a person could hear one used for the other. It was just that he, like many others, seemed to prefer the second so he was trying to analyse why -

Put simply, I don't think the use of either sentence would have made me stop and think, "Hmmm, I don't think a native speaker wrote that".

L) A Chinese got confused from this remark and asked why. If the Englishman agreed on that these are both commonly used, why was he saying that "as a native, you won't use either"?

M) The Englishman said -
You are missing the double negative.

I don't think the use of either sentence would have made me stop and think, "Hmmm, I don't think a native speaker wrote that." In other words, I can imagine a native speaker saying either. It obviously wasn't put as simply as I thought!

N) At this point, the author of the thread said she tried to scan the Internet. She said she found usage of both Simply put and Put simply. On the average, however, Simply put takes the upper hand. She also found an oft-quoted blogspot, entitled, SIMPLY PUT, but none of Put simply.

O) The Australian said one couldn't rely on the Google listings in this case because a lot of them are not in the context they were speaking of here.

P) The American, however, agreed with what the author of the thread found on the internet. "Simply put" is an idiom that she had always heard in the U.S. rather than "put simply." It means, "To put it simply".

She said, she found the iambic information interesting, but in this case, the most common usage is "Simply put."

END OF DISCUSSION.

The site is great for learning and diversion, too. It is highly recommended for writers and editors, as well as for linguists and language learners.

English To French, Italian And German And Spanish Dictionary - Wordreference.c

GreatReporter for Communication Theorists

GreatReporter is mainly an eNewspaper with a visual approach. Richard Powell tries hard to present news from all quarters, never failing to provide updates on developments in media and media people - in print or in cyberspace. This is an excellent site for those following the trends of communication and media.

The site has a forum that tries to connect people but is not well populated. Judging from statistics however, there are many viewers but not committed posters, who maybe stopping by for news or job opportunities.

The site keeps a fresh list of job offers for writers and editors worldwide.

Greatreporter.com

Exciting – but for the Forest and the Handles

home.unilang.org/
UniLang is very much helpful for language learners especially those interacting with many cultures. The site has many features and has many projects yet laid out for development. It also has many multi-language speakers who list their level of language proficiency in each language, just below their usernames.

The very prominent problem, however, is the lack of proper design for the site. Just to log in takes time due all sorts of repetitive messages identifying one. It is not quite interactive and stops often for you to decipher what next step to take.

A newbie could easily get lost in the forests of its many features, since it is not merely a discussion forum. One does not go straight to the forum, as one is presented with so many doors. In other words, the handles are not very much user-friendly or not simplified, and the colors and design used particularly on the main page not attractive.

There is an announcement welcoming those who could help out, but it appears as though the site is heavily attracting only those who want to talk, talk, and talk.

From what obtains, it may take time for the site to adjust to better handles. However, if one is patient enough just to pay attention to learning and exchanging views, the site is quite useful. From the beauty and intriguing features of the languages of this world, one may learn a lot from them – including history, culture, people, and what man basically is.

There are folders for each language and members may choose where to go. As they discuss language and its usage in specific languages, however, the activity is not as simple as one would think. An example is American English and British English trying to assert itself over the other - until one theorizes, there’s no such thing as “correct English.” Stated in a better way, there’s no such “Standard English.”

Should you want to debate this assertion, go to UniLang. There are debates of this kind in any language and it’s exciting. Now, if you're the sensitive kind, take care. Those who boast of knowing many languages are usually not expected to be one's humble neighbor.

home.unilang.org/

Site Needing Quick Changes for the Sake of Writing

Freelancewriting.com was considered fair before. Despite the spammers who could not be controlled, intelligent writers were able to discuss issues on a high level. Moderators kept some healthy distance.

However, when ND, a moderator, appeared, the good writers eventually left. ND was a very much-involved poster. By the time she was there, writers were fighting against writers, encouraged by her.

Eventually, some members found themselves waiting for other members to come and review their work. They kept posting chapters and chapters hoping for some feedback. However, what they thought was busy-ness on the part of those who did not appear anymore was actually a vacuum created. The more experienced writers had gone away.

A site that uses the words "freelance writing" is smart, but then its choice of moderators is an altogether different thing. Moderators are the key to good maintenance and longevity of a site. For example, they can do something to control spammers. They can always effect balance in the way they handle situations. If they, themselves, however, cannot do it because of their own promotions; if they have no sense of balance because of a wrong sense of heroism, some segments of the membership will not be fairly represented.

In that site, the more mature members kept pleading the spammers to stop. In that site, writers dumped their sob stories against other sites and freely vilified other sites.

Freelancewriting.com does advertise itself at the expense of others - not upon its merits. Names of writers who had deleted their accounts from discouragement are still being used as metadata to that site. Vilifications against other sites stand to its own advantage – like, BEWARE this or that site! To the consternation of some writers who had deleted their accounts, they were described as "banned" by ND in her posts.

If spamming could be controlled, if moderators were more intelligent and more of writers than sellers, who were conscientious and not competitive, and if the Forum were cleaned of its dirty war against other writing forums, then perhaps Freelancewriting.com could be revived as one vibrant site attractive to writers.

For the sake of writing as an art, it should.

Freelance Writing

Jump-gate.com – a Promising Discussion Forum

Jump-gate is said to be a project site for English -reading visitors intending to learn about speaking and reading languages and development through computers.

The forum deals with the following spoken languages: French, English, Spanish, Swedish, Italian, Portuguese, and German where French is the most active.
Anything could be discussed in relation to these languages.

At the moment, it has a little more than 700 registered users with about 2,600 articles. There are three moderator names reflected in these threads.

Except for the French folder, the coast is quite clear for the others and action is so slow, one’s post may be answered after many days, if ever.

However, given just one active “teacher” to respond to you in the folders, this site is excellent for learning language – including for making friendships and learning the culture of others. While membership still has to build up, the benefit clearly is that one gets the feeling the site makes one fine personal teacher and friend.

Jump-gate