Utah Open Source Planet

UTOSC 2008 abstract submission has ended.  And while that part of the process is over, we now have the task of selecting presenters.  For those of you who have submitted presentations, or those in the community we’ve contacted, feel free to vote for your favorites in our digg style voting system.

As mentioned before, login and click on the “SPEAKERS” link at the UTOSC 2008 website.  Vote for or against the presentations (or don’t vote for a presentation at all).  But hurry, because voting privileges are only good until July 10, 2008.

On July 15, 2008, a tentative presentation schedule will be delivered.  In addition, because UTOSC 2008 has more presenters than we can possibly take, many presenters will be asked to be alternates. This selection date should give you almost 45 days to prepare your presentation.

Don’t forget, registration is open as well, visit http://2008.utosc.com/ to register today.  If you haven’t already, contact your Local User Group for discount codes today.

We hope to see you all at Utah Open Source Conference 2008.

Cheers,

Clint

I took an American History course from an Economics professor, and I remember clearly the sinking feeling in my gut when he discussed two-party politics. I've never much cared for the two-party system, but he had a very convincing argument that the two-party system is pretty much an inevitability. What's more, the two parties are more alike than not. I don't have the knowledge or eloquence to convince you like he did me, but I can say that it all comes down to the normal distribution (you know, bell curves). The two parties differ on a few points, polarizing points that people are passionate about (abortion, gun control, Iraq, etc.), but are otherwise very similar.

I think we're seeing that right now in the presidential race. I think we also see it in technology (I think it's part of the reason Windows is so entrenched). I think it's a blessing and a curse. It's a blessing because the top of the curve is more likely to be kind of right than very wrong. That is the fundamental tenet of democracy, after all. It's a curse because the masses have a whole lot of inertia and better, more perfect policies and candidates often don't stand a chance.

Whether you believe all that statistical mumbo jumbo I'm throwing at you or not, you probably have had that sinking feeling of wondering whether your vote matters. You look at the state where you live that overwhelmingly votes opposite your preference, and wonder why you should even show up to vote since your vote "doesn't count".

Well, you're right and you're wrong. Sure, you may be right on the money that you voting for candidate A won't keep candidate B from winning your state or county or district or nation or whatever. But it's not all about winning. Winning is of course your first hope. But even in losing your vote can make a difference. Statistics are collected. Not just collected, but analyzed. Analyzed by the people who want to be reelected. Analyzed by the media. Analyzed by who knows who else. Isn't there a difference between winning by a slim margin and winning by a landslide? Don't you think the winner in the former case might be more receptive to opposing views, knowing that the scales could easily turn in the next election? If libertarians (for example) make a decent showing in an election, even though it's only 1/4 of the votes, don't you think the elected officials will take a closer look?

Your vote does matter, whether or not it is decisive in the outcome of the election. Also, it's important to vote for who you think is the best candidate. Do you like Ron Paul but don't believe he has a chance at winning? Vote for him anyway. If you live in a place where your vote may indeed be decisive, then you may want to vote strategically if you feel there is a "lesser of two evils" situation. But if you feel, even slightly, that your vote won't be decisive, then vote your conscience. Only when people vote and vote their consciences, can the truth about how America feels about candidates and policies come forth.

Be heard. Be involved. Get over yourself. So your vote isn't decisive. Whoop-de-doo! Your vote does matter.

I'm posting this early because I will be teaching all this next week, and will be unable to post anything of significance until then. So, I just want to remind everyone that Tuesday is Election Day, and therefore it's a good time to do your civic duty and vote. I don't really care what your positions are on the many referendums and propositions out there, just as long as you make your voice heard.

One problem in many races is that so many people feel like their opinions are either so overly outnumbered or heavily represented by the "polls" that they are feel that their voice is not necessary. That's how so called "slam dunk" elections become close. It's all about turnout. So if you want your position to be represented, get out there and make your voice heard. Remember, if something happens that you don't like in an election and you don't vote, you don't have a reason to complain. ^_^

Final Note On Vouchers
I just want to make this final outline of points about the current voucher program that is being represented in Referendum 1:

1. The funding will only support those families that have enough money to make up the rest of the school tuition. This means that it will benefit the upper-middle class and the rich more than it would lower-income families. Jordan Gunderson has made a post on his blog saying that this was caused by those that want to kill the voucher system. That's true, and will be discussed in the next point.

2. The funding comes from the General Tax funds, meaning that the minute a recession hits our State (and it will, if you know anything about Economics), then it will be the first thing to go. Of course, we could take the funding from the "Rainy Day" tax surplus, and then just hope that we will have enough money to pay our law enforcement, emergency services, parks, and so on. It just seems a little concerning to me that we are voting to spend money to fund private entities when we have so many public projects that need attention.

3. There isn't a real documented benefit of private schools over public schools. Instead, it's found that students in the same socioeconomic classes tend to do just as well in either private or public schooling. So, why do people want to have vouchers for private schools if the private schools are not really any better? Is it the stigma that comes with private schools? Is it the illusion of choice? The argument that making a "free market" on education will force the public schools to do better? Is it because of the socioeconomic status that comes from going to a private school that makes it better? That's a position that the parents need to come up for themselves. But the reality is that private schools are no better for students than public schools, as long as the students have the peer support for education.

3. Another reality is that "free markets" in education do not work. Public schools have State requirements that are set by Legislators, requiring debate and accountability to the public. Private schools are just that, private. They are not subject to the requirements of the Legislature. This I have a problem with, because it means sequestering public funds for a non-accountable entity, at least to the Legislature. What would make me think twice about a voucher? Set standard requirements on the curriculum and State Standardized Testing. This will place private and public schools on an even footing.

4. One big way to scare people into voting for Referendum 1 that has been used is the support that the anti-voucher movement has ties to the National Educators Association (NEA), which has been tied in some way to MoveOn.org, Senator Teddy Kennedy, and general Democrats. It's scary because it's a national organization that has been getting into the local debate. So let's set the facts straight.
- The NEA is more conservative than the UEA, and has been getting more praise in Utah by being more flexible in educational policy making on the Hill. It's been a welcome group for the Republican Party, because they seem to be less militant.
- What are the ties to MoveOn.org? The fact that it's a primarily Democrat-supported organization? Is that a problem? They are fighting for improved education, and will continue to do so should the voucher system pass or fail.
- The pro-voucher organization say this funding is bad, but where do they get their funding for commercials? Is it all locally funded? I doubt it, since they manage to have the same resources as the anti-voucher organization.

Frankly, I don't care who supports or opposes a political position, but rather care about the substance of the political agenda. Look at the facts, and decide for yourself which way is the better way for you. Then vote on that conviction! ^_^

5. The funding, if we really feel it needs to be spent, needs to be spent in a better way. Why pay for vouchers when you can pay to create and publish educational materials to be used by parents to augment public education? Or, for that matter, home schooling families? Why not invest on online course materials to start blended courses that are both online and in class? You can have fewer students in class at one time, and still manage to teach the same number of students. Teachers can focus more on delivering the personal learning experience in both areas, instead of having to worry about leaving some students behind to keep up with the material required.

Why not spend the money in ways that have been proven to improve test scores and educational success? Why benefit only a small number of families, when you can provide the same benefit to all families equally? That's what I don't get. It seems that equality doesn't seem to be the issue in this debate, but rather a way to get a few more students into exclusive organizations while fueling the argument that it's the school's fault for failure in education instead of the parents not engaging.

Anyway, that's the end of my soap box on this position. Please read all the available materials on school vouchers, private vs. public schools, and educational theory in general, and then make your own decision. However your vote, please make it an educated one. ^_^

Tuesday is Election day. Over the past month I've gotten some flyers in the mail and the occasional campaigner will stop by. Mind you, this is for the city council race. I'm glad people are taking an interest in local politics enough to actually have some kind of race and present their platforms and whatnot.

But one candidate has really crossed the line. In the past month I've received 4 copies of the same flier urging me to vote for $CANDIDATE, a visit from a pair of campaigning ladies, and now today a letter from someone I've never met telling me how she endorses $CANDIDATE.

When the campaigning ladies came to the door (on a Sunday afternoon), they started to give my wife their speel but decided she wasn't worthy and asked if I was home. She, knowing I had no interest in talking to campaigning ladies, hesitated at which point they made a sorry joke about was I watching a football game or something (I was watching General Conference). So I relucantly came to the door, at which point the insulting campaigning ladies gave me their speel and then started into their manipulation scheme. Did I have any concerns (so that they could tell me how awesome $CANDIDATE would save the day)? Sure I do. "How does $CANDIDATE feel about general aviation? Does he support the local airport?" I was briefly feeling sorry for them so I added, "and the spaceport", because I figured they'd have a canned response about the spaceport. But they didn't know how to answer and they flustered a moment and then said that $CANDIDATE would call or email me to let me know his position on the issue. He never did, but that didn't stop his campaign from sending me 4 fliers and a letter (and who knows what else in the next 3 mailing days until the election).

In contrast, another candidate came campaigning. He came personally, with some other guy. He didn't miss a beat when I asked him about the airport, and when I mentioned the spaceport he was astute to pick up that I was a student at the University and we had a nice little chat about wouldn't it be nice if there were actual jobs to keep smart people like me here in Las Cruces. That, my friends, was successful campaigning.

I might have voted in this election. I'm not aware of any major issues on the table, so I might not have voted (shame on me). But thanks to $CANDIDATE I will definitely be voting in this election. I will go to the polling station and cast my vote for that smart candidate. Even if I didn't have him to vote for, though, I'd go and cast my vote for anyone except $CANDIDATE because the last thing I want is to see this face representing me on the city council.

Now, just to be clear, I am not voting only on emotion here. Someone that annoying probably holds political views I don't agree with. The political views I have been able to glean from his campaign materials (and it hasn't been much) seem to indicate we're at odds politically. But, that only reinforces my position which is primarily a (probably justified) reaction to his overzealous campaign.