To be honest, I’ve been a busy guy recently. Unfortunately, when I get busy, blogging gets pushed to the back of the to-do list. That doesn’t mean I don’t have the early-Sunday time to highlight some of your thoughts. And always, if you’re looking for some daily stuff to read from me, check out my twitter profile or twitter posts imported into the blog (they’re hidden unless you know where to find them).
Here we go.
Save Our School
Michael wrote:
It would seem Dover’s Student Council actually has power in the school, whereas, if Brewster’s Democratic Congres or Student Council, told the Administration to do anything, it would be ignored and the group would likely be disbanded. Actually, there are only 2 Administrators in BHS who wield unquestionable power; the rest are forced to comply or secretly defy their orders. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
I would be hesitant to to vilify your school’s administration so quickly. Many of my friends in Dover would tell you that they’d much prefer an “absolute monarch” of an administrator over a lax one. And, it’s easy to criticize people in power without evaluating their position. I’m not defending your administrators, I just think it’s important not to jump to conclusions.
Dover’s Earth Day
Thank you. 
Beth Dunn wrote:
Ha! I also was given the power of the morning announcements when I was in high school, sometimes to the deep chagrin of the administration. But it sounds like you are using your powers for good, which is an interesting idea, and one I might have considered had it occurred to me.
Good on ya for increasing awareness at your school on your own initiative.
The announcements are a useful privilege to have. It’s like being Rupert Murdoch for a few minutes each day - controlling what information everyone consumes. And always, it’s important to remember that one person can always make a difference.
Objective Decisions or Relationship-Driven Decisions?
Stever Robbins wrote:
Hi, Rick,
I’ve been pondering this question more and more, myself. I also value people very highly. In our culture, though, despite the lip service given to valuing people, people rank pretty low on the totem pole. Business, “the economy,” and money often rank higher, and the environment, international peace, etc. don’t even make it on the charts when you watch people’s actions. (A “Live Green” bumper sticker on your SUV doesn’t count.)
Let’s just consider the case where we agree that people matter most. What about situations where there’s no way to balance the interests of competing groups? How do we decide who wins? Let’s say that people matter more than the economy, so we’re willing to give away our resources to the third world to address the hunger riots currently going on. How much should we give? Who gets to decide?
And now, let’s extend that example through time. If we only have X billion barrels of oil, who chooses how many of those barrels my generation gets, how many barrels your generation gets, and how many barrels (if any) your children get? Right now, consumption is driven by market forces, and market forces only look at today’s production costs. They don’t factor in our children’s need for oil.
So even if people matter most, which people? How do we resolve zero-sum conflicts where one person’s gain is another’s loss? And how do we make decisions taking the interests of the yet-unborn into account?
Tricky stuff. Most of us opt to stop asking and instead we go play on Twitter…
- Stever
I really enjoyed the “economist’s dilemma” presented here with balancing current and future groups of people. It takes a new direction in objective decisions and relationship-based ones - sustainability. Like Stever, I don’t have any answers, but wish I did. A very insightful but depressing post, which isn’t a bad thing.
Kim wrote:
This is kind of a cop-out answer, but I really think it’s a situational thing…there are obviously people I hold dearer than others, and the same goes for values.
But if I had to come down on one side, I think it would be people. Being away at college has made me rethink relationships, because they’ve all changed–my friends from Dover are all long distance now, as are my family, and I had the opportunity to form new relationships here, not to mention Amherst’s constant emphasis on networking (kidding! kinda…). Obviously I’d draw the line at, say, torture or rape or murder, but I’m willing to tolerate a lot more now than I would have.
I like the notion of an internal master scale of values and relationships. “I value John, but I wouldn’t do this for him. But for Christina, yeah, I’d do that.” And, hey, I think networking is important as long as it’s for a purpose other than networking. If the networker delivers value to other people, then it’s a great thing.
Chris wrote:
It’s interesting to see where loyalty and morality cross. For example, betrayal is generally viewed as evil.
That’s a great point. Although, in the (terrible) media I viewed as a child, the main character always found a way to work it all out. He or she stuck with his or her values and saved his or her friend.
I wish it was that easy for us.
Thanks for making it so fun to write! Your feedback keeps me going.
Ricky your awesome I’m glad you care enough about our school and earth to “break the rules” =).
Keep being amazing and great announcement by the way!