~(~Negative)

Let's Blow This Pop Stand

2010-07-11T17:20:00.003-05:00

I never liked that phrase, but it'll do for now. I'm abandoning this blog. In the past I did this in order to mark a transition, and I suppose this is similar. This is the last time I'm doing this, though. The explanation's at the new place: Sisyphus Tripped.

Come check it out. I promise to update this new one.

Free at Last! Free at Last!

2010-05-19T08:17:00.003-05:00

The semester is over and most of the grading is done. I still have a few students who need to pull themselves out of self-inflicted trouble, so I'm waiting on some messages before I enter grades tomorrow, but I'm done otherwise.

This was a hard semester, for a lot of reasons. I taught seven sections with five new preps. Michele's research intensified and will result in her presentation at a conference next week in Miami. But the most significant reason is the impending move.

Yes. Moving. Again. Most of you already know that we're relocating to Minnesota in a month, and we're doing so without much of a plan in place. We have short-term housing arranged, but no jobs lined up. I haven't allowed myself to spend much time thinking about the situation, because I haven't had the spare brain-space, but now that school is done, and my hands will be busy packing and cleaning, my brain is sure to turn to that subject.

I say that I haven't let myself think about the move, and that's true, though I've done less well in keeping it from affecting me. I've been tense for months, more tense than my workload can justify. Maybe I can address that now that my mind can work with it directly.

Now that I have the time to post here, I'll have more to say about all of this in the next few days. For now, I'm going to get started on the packing and such.

Not Much to Report

2010-02-05T14:37:00.003-06:00

This semester is going like most others. Plan, grade, plan, grade. I have a lot of classes, but they're enjoyable--especially Intro to Ethics. It's new to me and it's quite a change from the usual.

But today in my ten o'clock Comp II class I completely lost my mind. Today was the day to discuss "The Things They Carried," which is always a great day. It's a great story, and the students are engaged with the material enough to really bear down and learn about how to explore themes in fiction. It's one of my favorite days of the semester.

But two thirds of my ten o'clock students didn't do the reading. I chewed them out. Then I haltingly taught them about theme for a few minutes. Then I chewed them out again. Then I told them about all of the other things that I'd be able to teach them if they'd read the assignment. Then I chewed them out again. And then I sent them away, twenty minutes early, because I was disgusted with them.

They messed up my favorite day.

I'm Doing Something Weird

2010-01-10T18:41:00.000-06:00

Check it out here.

Food Blogging

2009-11-16T17:52:00.008-06:00

According to the Washington Post, the number of people in America who are undernourished has risen sharply. Not terribly surprising, given the way the economy has gone, and unemployment with it. Still--it's kind of jarring to think that in this country

nearly 17 million children -- more than one in five across the United States -- were living in households in which food at times ran short, up from slightly more than 12 million youngsters the year before. And the number of children who sometimes were outright hungry rose from nearly 700,000 to almost 1.1 million.

I hate that they always focus on children for these things (the children! the children!) but this problem has a direct impact on how children develop and how healthy they can be as adults, so it's not purely pathos.

As Thanksgiving approaches we can expect to see any number of appeals for people to stop eating meat, and most of those appeals will be in the interests of the animals killed for food. James E. McWilliams has an op-ed piece at the WaPo that discusses the inherent political nature of our food choices, and rather than focusing on the treatment of the animals, he points out the number of ways in which factory farming is destroying the planet. That's where the discussion usually ends because of the tendency of people to answer with, "Yeah, but I like eating meat," and leaving the issue unexamined beyond that.

In a related point, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations claims that by the year 2050 there will be more than nine billion people on the planet, necessitating a food production increase of seventy percent. One way to increase food production? Stop feeding crops to animals and start feeding them to people.

Sometimes, People Suck

2009-11-07T07:52:00.008-06:00

Seems like a week where all of the news, even when it's good, comes from bad roots. The stories from this week make me want to find a cave to live in, far from the selfish, the deluded, and the stupid.

Topping the list of this week's assholes is Major Nidal M. Hasan, who decided that his best option in the face of frustration was to shoot a few dozen people at Fort Hood on Thursday. The mind boggles. The people he shot didn't start the wars he opposed, and they were no more involved in it than he was. The people he shot didn't deny him his release from his commission. The people he shot didn't determine his deployment to Afghanistan (if that's what pushed him over the edge). Get ready for a bunch of yahoos who lament "those people," the foreigners who cause so much trouble--even though Hasan was born in Virginia. Prepare for the religious bigots who will undoubtedly decry "those people," the Muslims whose religion provokes them to violence--even though millions of Muslims live violence-free lives in America and around the world. (UPDATE: No need to wait--it looks like vile conservative shit-spewer Michele Malkin has already stepped up for that faction.)
Overshadowed by the actions of Major Hasan is Jason Rodriguez, a disgruntled Floridian who decided that his best option in the face of frustration was to shoot a half-dozen people at the company from which he was fired two years ago. The people he shot didn't fire him. The people he shot didn't deny him unemployment benefits. Again, the mind boggles.
The saga of Louisiana Judge Keith Bardwell has finally come to a close--except for the civil suit he still faces for his idiocy. You may recall that Bardwell came to the public's attention for refusing to marry an interracial couple, the fourth time in the last two-and-a-half years he's done that, and the who-knows-how-manyth time he's done it in thirty-four years as a judge. Now he's resigned, and that's at least a positive development, even though it doesn't go far enough. Religious figures get to determine who they will and will not perform services for based on their interpretations of their various mythologies, but civil servants don't get to defy US law based on some whacked-out perception of "suffering" the possible children of such a union would experience.
Maine voters, or at least 53% of them, who voted to reject gay marriage. I'm confident that eventually common sense will win out, but for now it looks like the assholes are still numerous enough to block this simple measure of equality.
Michele Bachmann and her merry band of morons, who congregated to chant Faux News talking points and compare Health Care reform to the Holocaust. In addition to the idiotic signs, the crowd consisted of people like Judith Garloch, who traveled from Ohio to display her ignorance. She was enthusiastic, but like all of the other reform opponents, "Ms. Garloch, like many in the crowd who while visibly angry, could not articulate the main problems in the health care system or how they should be solved." That's because they don't have a fucking clue--they just hear "socialism" and "communism" and "death panel" and they don't want their taxes to go up (an unfounded fear) and they don't want their health care to change (another unfounded fear), so they froth at the mouth and repeat the nonsense they've heard.

The mind truly boggles. This planet is doomed.

Okay, Now He's Awesome

2009-11-01T10:58:00.031-06:00

For a while now I've considered the Schwarzenegger phenomenon underwhelming. He's unimpressive as an actor. He's been in a small collection of good movies (consider Terminator, Total Recall, Kindergarten Cop) and a whole bunch of kickass--but ultimately inane--movies (Commando, Terminator II and III (I admit I have never watched the fourth one)) and some bad movies (Twins (not a good film), Junior, Jingle All the Way). Not great work, overall.

Circumstances have allowed him, though, to redeem himself. He opposed a proposal recently, and--this is cool--down the left margin of his veto letter Arnie spelled out "Fuck You." Now, what is the likelihood of that? I don't even care--that is pure awesomeness.

Here's what his veto letter looks like.

Have I Mentioned That John Scalzi Is a Smart Man?

2009-10-27T19:39:00.002-05:00

This is a pretty good assessment of the White House-Faux Noise feud.

This is Amusing . . .

2009-10-27T06:01:00.002-05:00

. . . but it seems like a strange article to appear on the website of a Catholic newspaper. It amuses me. I am amused.

Just Link-Surfing

2009-10-18T16:45:00.004-05:00

Some time ago I read somewhere an explanation about how one can choose beliefs that struck me as extremely silly. The author claimed that since "believe" is a verb, and since verbs are actions, and since we have to choose to act, that it just stands to reason that we can choose to believe things. I've been writing about that argument as I remember it, but since I can't find it I don't feel comfortable sharing my argument yet. It could be that I misremember, or that I've invented a memory. I don't know. I thought it was in Paul E. Little's Know Why You Believe, but a quick flip-through hasn't even revealed a sensible section of the book for that to appear in.

So I was tooling around the internet trying to find some references to that argument when I came across another at a site called 1 in Faith: A Christian Bible Study. The sentence I liked about this argument was this:

In English the verb for faith is "to believe," as faith does not have its own verb.

The author's right of course. If I have a belief about something, I believe it, but if I have faith in something I don't faithe it. This contributes to the confusion in our discourse about belief. There's more to their argument that I don't appreciate as much--such as trying to completely separate faith in something from the belief that the something exists--but this is a useful nugget.

Now I just need to find that original bit I was looking for.

Excuse Me While I Nerd This Out

2009-10-15T21:07:00.011-05:00

I've been reading The Atoms of Language by Mark C. Baker for the last month or so, and it's fascinating. He's approaching Chomsky's Cartesian Linguistic position in a way that can classify language syntax into a system analogous to Mendeleyev's early versions of the Periodic Table of the Elements. He has only identified eight "parameters" that would correspond to elements in the periodic table, but this is just the beginning of a line of thought. Maybe it won't yield any useful ideas, but the construct is interesting.

Anyway, the book is about syntax--sentence structure and word order--and draws on languages across the globe. Baker discusses polysynthetic languages such as Mohawk, which don't express ideas in sentences so much as they do in elaborately modified words. He also describes the differences between subject-verb-object languages (like English) and subject-object-verb languages (like Japanese). The entire book is about how communication in each language determines the order in which words appear in sentences.

And that's why I started laughing uncontrollably when I read this sentence on page 204:

A contemporary of [Franz] Boaz, [Ferdinand de] Saussure is famous (among other things) for emphasizing the arbitrary relationship between the sound of a word and its meaning.

Just think about how that sentence is put together for a second.

Ready? Do you see it? Of course you do, but let me blather on about it anyway. The problem is in the placement of the parenthetical "(among other things)." It's clear that Baker means to say that Saussure is famous for "emphasizing the arbitrary . . ." among other things. But the way this is printed it says that "emphasizing the arbitrary relationship between the sound of a word and its meaning" has made Saussure famous and other things. What other things? Nefarious? Athletic? Immortal? A hat? A brooch? A pterodactyl?

This isn't to diminish the work Baker has done--it's interesting, approachable*, and has potential--but despite the amazing amount of attention paid to word order in this book, the garbled word order in this sentence managed to escape an author, who knows how many reviewers and proofreaders, at least one editor, and maybe several more people. I have to giggle.

This is an illustration of the fallibility of even the most intelligent, the most qualified, and the most vigilant people in their respected fields. What chance do the rest of us have for living error-free?

*I say "approachable" because I had only one semester of linguistics and the jargon here didn't throw me. Even the numerous models were interesting.

Another Interesting Article

2009-10-13T19:15:00.005-05:00

Karen Armstrong has an article at WaPo discussing the differences between faith and belief. She seems to suffer from a healthy dose of the genetic fallacy, and also seems to put a bit too much stock into vocabulary dictating reality, but it's a pretty interesting read.

Even more interesting is Paula Kirby's skeptical response.

Been a While

2009-10-10T18:58:00.003-05:00

It's been too long since I've written here, and I have a silly reason to write tonight. Today Michele was browsing in a store and I felt the need to wait outside, as the lone employee's casual attitude toward cashiering was becoming tiresome--to me and, I'm sure, to the other six people in line.

So while I was outside, I looked at the stores to either side of the one Michele was in. On the left was a women's clothing store called the Dress Barn. I can't imagine how that ever seemed like a good idea to anyone involved in the naming of that store.

For one thing, when one thinks of desirable fashion, one rarely thinks of farm life, or a barnyard context. This alone would keep most people away, I would think. Overalls, straw hats, checkered shirts, gingham dresses, clunky brown boots--at WalMart, sure, but not outside of goonville.

For another thing, the "barn" concept applied to people in general isn't flattering. When you call someone a pig, that person is generally going to be displeased. The same with "chicken" or "sheep." And that's just when you're talking about people in general. The farm-animal references to women specifically are even less flattering: chick, mother hen, hen-pecked, sow, cow, heifer, mare. These are just not ideas one attaches to a woman with whom one wishes to maintain good relations.

So, I'm back. How relieved are you?

Interesting Article

2009-08-30T14:51:00.002-05:00

Something else that's interesting to only a few people, but I'm going to mark it here so I can return to it if I get the chance: A professor of sociology at Berkeley makes a distinction between belief and theory. There's a lot of sloppy language in the middle, where he's making his main points, but I want to dissect them.

The Marxists are Coming! The Marxists are Coming!

2009-08-29T16:02:00.003-05:00

Seems that conservatives are content to toss buzzwords around when they're not upping their dosage of crazy. Sometimes, the two get blended. Not only are "Socialism" and "Communism" applied to the Democratic side of the Health Care Reform debate, I've been informed that

[t]he pile we are in did not start because of capitalism it began with FDR - even before that as the Marxist movement began to purposefully and openly (at least in Provda[sic]) target our schools and our media as early as 1900.

Where the hell do they come up with this shit?

Symbolic Belief

2009-08-28T06:35:00.001-05:00

An interesting idea here. No time to deal with it this morning, but I wanted to link to it so I'll remember to do something with it later.

First week of classes are almost over. This is tiring.

File Under: Duh

2009-08-21T19:27:00.004-05:00

This just in: Catholics want Jews to be Catholics.

This also just in: Jews are pissed that Catholics want Jews to be Catholics, and are determined to try to convince Jews to be Catholics, even though there has apparently been an agreement that Catholics who want Jews to be Catholics don't try to convince Jews to be Catholics.

Got that?

Not That I Don't Think Dogs Are Important, But . . .

2009-08-15T11:05:00.002-05:00

This is a pretty good point:

Why does Michael Vick have to go through a series of mea culpas and tearful apologies (not to mention a prison sentence) for torturing dogs, and Dick Cheney does not even face an investigation for torturing people?

Shouldn't we be putting Chain-me in prison, too?

Health Care or Death Care?

2009-08-03T09:11:00.001-05:00

The other morning I read an E.J. Dionne article in the Washington Post about the roadblocks the current Health Care bill is seeing in congress, and part of the problem seems to be that some people are afraid that doctors will be pushing euthanasia on old people.

I wonder how much of the fear the Rethugs are creating relies on unsophisticated readers being uncomfortable with the phrase "end-of-life"--that it's too close to "life-ending." Are these people just careless readers, or are they that stupid? I'm sure there are a few who understand exactly what it says, but are pushing the fear for political gain.

A Hail of Bullet-Points

2009-08-02T07:52:00.004-05:00

Even though I'm committed to trying to keep up my blogging pace of the last few days, I have a lot of grading to do today, so I'll just list some bullet points for now.

One way to get people to believe crazy things is to lie. Steve Benen has posted about how Republican senator Mike Pence is so successful in spreading his lies about the Health Care bill. (via Matthew Yglesias)
The Texas Board of Education is trying to promote the teaching of "the biblical motivations of America's settlers and founders" in public schools--and they have so much clout in the textbook industry, it could affect the whole country.
Dale Neumann, lethally stupid Wisconsin father, has been convicted of reckless homicide in the diabetes death of his daughter Madeline, and faces up to twenty-five years in jail.
According to John Tantillo of Fox News, President Obama's tendency to explain is a bad thing. Right. Give me the good old days, when we had the Decider . . .
"Hell is a morally repugnant doctrine. People wonder why God would send people to eternal punishment." Nevertheless, 59% of Americans believe in it, according to one poll.
Jefferson County, Alabama is going bankrupt. Why? Because the Republicans in power there lowered taxes and put public services in the hands of private enterprise. Thank you, capitalism.

I really need to get my brain under control. I'm still going in too many directions. Maybe once I get all of this out of my system, and once I've finished my grading, I'll be able to focus.

Climate Change Deniers: Still Deluded

2009-08-01T13:50:00.003-05:00

It doesn't take much for a belief to spread--all it requires is that someone convincing present it and someone willing to accept it be exposed to it. When these two things meet in a situation where the stakes are high, even profitable, it can be difficult to fight against misinformation.

Regardless of the evidence presented, the "birthers" still insist Barack Obama was born outside of the United States, and is ineligible to serve as president. Likewise, regardless of the fact that there is no serious scientific debate about global climate change and humankind's contributions to it, the denialists continue to gain support through their mass media megaphones.

Anthony Watts is a California radio meteorologist whose appearances on Glenn Beck's show have bolstered the climate change deniers, but here's a video that does a good job of neutralizing Watts's claims:

(via Pharyngula)

He's Right, You Know

2009-08-01T10:06:00.003-05:00

John Scalzi is a smart man. When asked what one has to give up in order to write, he responded thusly:

What you really need to do is cut an hour of TV watching out of your day. Seriously, now: Keep your job, keep your marriage, keep your friends, keep the kids. Just drop an hour of TV.

It's that easy. He's right. Of course, there's more to it, but without committing a little time, no writing gets done, and if one is spending one's time watching reruns of South Park, one has nobody to blame but oneself for one's lack of writerly output. I'd recommend reading the whole post, but here's a little more:

Because, look: If you’ve got an hour a day to write uninterrupted, you can probably manage between 250 and 500 words a day. Do that five days a week, and in the course of a year that’s between 65,250 and 130,500 words; i.e., hey, you’ve gone and written a novel. All while keeping your day job and not turning into a hermit. This is not complicated.

I think the whole “you must be willing to suffer for your art” thing is overrated and is generally bruited about by people who want to make writing look like some amazing, holy process or whatever. My response to this is, sure, writing can be a wild, transcendent thing, but at the end of the day it’s also about putting your ass into a chair and typing. Writing is a process, and like most processes, if you do it on a regular basis, you generally increase your facility for it.

I have a good amount of grading to do this weekend, but I'm going to make sure I spend an hour a day with my ass in my chair, writing on those projects I keep obsessing about.

Challenging The Litmus Test

2009-08-01T08:56:00.003-05:00

Emily Breder, a writer for Examiner.com, has posted an interview with Erik Curren, a candidate for Virginia's General Assembly, and a Democrat who's running against Republican Dickie Bell for retiring Republican Chris Saxman's seat. The situation is interesting, because while Curren describes himself as Christian, he also engages in some dharma practice--mostly sitting and walking meditation. The reason that is notable, I think is that he's willing to challenge the unofficial religious litmus test in a presumed Republican district, and in Virginia. His adherence to Buddhist practices has the potential to alienate voters in a decidedly Christian community.

It's common knowledge that atheists and agnostics have met with no success in pursuing public office when open about their propositional attitudes. We haven't seen Wiccans or Satanists or Jains in American government. We finally have a Muslim senator in Minnesota's Keith Ellison, and Jewish people in congress are nothing new, but the attitude that a candidate must be Christian to even be considered still holds strong. Curren may not win his district, but I think it's important that he campaigns as he is.

Curren's closing comment for the interview expresses some nice thoughts:

I would call on all people of faith, whether Buddhist or otherwise, to stand up for freedom of conscience and freedom of religion, wherever they are. Whether it’s in the United States, where sometimes people are sold short or where there’s such a pressure to hide your faith. To other countries, where there may be… stronger consequences for practicing your faith. I would ask all people of good faith, even people who are not believers, to stand up for religious freedom or the freedom not to have any religion. This is an issue for everyone today. And for us to have the kind of world we want for our kids and our grandkids, a world where we can live with each other, the first thing we need to do is not just respect other people’s faith, but value it and encourage it.

A little bit of excess pathos, but still important ideas.

Curren goes into more detail on his campaign site, if you're interested.

(via The Buddhist Channel)

On Organic Food

2009-07-31T12:23:00.004-05:00

A Reuters article from yesterday (h/t Nathan) discusses the organic food research of the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (er . . . what?)--particularly a study in which they determine that "[o]rganic food has no nutritional or health benefits over conventionally produced food." As with any study, though, the situation is more complex than that.

First of all, the article misrepresents the study's scope. Maybe the distortion has no significance in the end, but it doesn't inspire confidence in me. The article states:

A systematic review of 162 scientific papers published in the scientific literature over the last 50 years, however, found there was no significant difference.

The study's abstract, on the other hand, says something slightly different:

From a total of 52,471 articles, we identified 162 studies (137 crops and 25 livestock products); 55 were of satisfactory quality. In an analysis that included only satisfactory quality studies, conventionally produced crops had a significantly higher content of nitrogen, and organically produced crops had a significantly higher content of phosphorus and higher titratable acidity.

In other words, the study didn't include 162 papers, but fifty-five. Again, maybe that doesn't change anything in the study, but it inflates the scope of the study as presented to Reuters readers.

The study's conclusion is that "there is no evidence of a difference in nutrient quality between organically and conventionally produced foodstuffs. The small differences in nutrient content detected are biologically plausible and mostly relate to differences in production methods." I'm not sure what the distinction is between "nutrient quality" and "nutrient content" is, but my guess is that these differing levels of nitrogen, phosphorus, and "titratable acidity" (whatever that is) don't provide the consumer with significant health benefits. I couldn't say--I'm not a nutritionist.

It's worth noting that this study is criticized by those we'd expect to see criticism from, such as the Soil Association, a British organization that promotes organic farming. The Soil Association's response to the study is interesting, because they include some of the study's findings (and I can't access the study itself because I'm not a member of the American Society of Clinical Nutrition or any other Nutritiony organization). The Soil Association claims that the researchers found higher levels of several nutrients in organic produce, including protien, flavonoids, copper, magnesium, phosphorus, potassium, sodium, sulphur, zinc, and phenolic compounds. They also cite a beta-carotene level 53.6% higher in organic produce. They also found "higher levels of beneficial polyunsaturated fatty acids in organic meat and dairy products (between 2.1% - 27.8% higher) compared to non-organic meat and dairy." Again, I'm no nutritionist, but I'd be curious just how significant those differences are.

The Soil Association has other complaints about the study, but most of those are outside of the intended scope of the study, like the lack of information on "the long-term effects of pesticides on human health." That may be true, but that's a criticism of the general dialogue about organic food rather than of this study specifically.

The debate about the benefits of organic food involves more than just its nutritional component. Actually, the nutritional aspect of organic farming doesn't carry much weight at all. In their book The Ethics of What We Eat , Peter Singer and Jim Mason acknowledge that studies in Europe had already been finding little difference in nutritional values when they published in 2006. They focus their attention on other benefits to organic farming, such as better maintenance of soil quality, biodiversity among incidental plants and animals, pollution reduction, and the significant reduction of pesticides and herbicides. They cite a study in their "Going Organic" chapter that struck me as important:

Scientists at the University of Washington tested the urine of children eating a conventional diet and children eating predominantly organic produce and found that . . . differences in pesticide levels are detectable in our bodies. Some of the children on a conventional diet had pesticide byproducts in their urine that indicated an intake of pesticides above the "negligible risk" level recommended by the Environmental Protection Agency's guidelines. The children who ate organic foods had a median level of pesticide byproducts only one-sixth that of children eating conventionally farmed foods, suggesting that their intake of pesticides was well within EPA recommended limits.

Now, I'm no scientist, but at first blush those findings are pretty shocking. There are, of course, possible problems with this study, or maybe with the way the findings are presented here. The peak number for the "conventional" kids is presented here, but the peak for the "organics" is not. The median numbers are directly compared, so that part seems legit--at least as presented.

What's the point to all of this? I don't know. I think that it's difficult enough to sort through all of the information available to us without distortions in articles and misrepresentations by special interest groups. It seems to me that organic is better in many important ways, and if a person has the resources to buy organic they'd be silly not to.

I'm Disappointed in My President

2009-07-30T17:51:00.003-05:00

According to this article on CNN.com, the drink menu for Obama's meeting with Skip Gates and Officer James Crowley has been announced by White House Spokesman Robert Gibbs:

The president will drink Bud Light, Gates will have Red Stripe, and Crowley will drink Blue Moon, Gibbs said.

I thought they were going to get together and drink beer.

When Jungle Monkeys Act Stupidly

2009-07-30T13:55:00.004-05:00

Have you heard the latest in the Massachusetts Law Enforcement Idiots vs. Dark-Skinned People conflagration? Apparently Boston Police Officer Justin Barrett, a 36-year-old infant, was so offended by the actions of Henry Louis Gates, jr. and an article in support of Gates written by Boston Globe writer Yvonne Abraham, that he had to send an email to the Globe and some of his buddies in the National Guard (way to soil the soldiers with this garbage, Barrett) in which he said the following:

[I]f I was the officer [Gates] assaulted like a banana-eating jungle monkey, I would have sprayed him in the face with OC deserving of his belligerent non-compliance.

Yes, he wrote that. He actually thought that was a coherent sentence.He also wrote:

That paragraph was as pathetic as jungle monkey gibberish - I might as well ax you the question, "Is this your first test at reporting?"

Get it? All black people--every one of them--pronounce "ask" as "ax," and even though Abraham is white, Barrett is still talking about Gates, who is black. Ha ha ha. Here's some more:

[Gates] has indeed transcended back to a bumbling jungle monkey, thus he forever tremains [sic] amid this nation's great social/racial divide that makes it a free and great nation mixed with crazy and awkward differences.

Okay, other than Barrett's love of calling Gates a "jungle monkey," I don't know what's going on in that "sentence." And here's his parting shot:

Your article title should read CONDUCT UNBECOMING A JUNGLE MONKEY-BACK TO ONE'S ROOTS.

Freedom of speech is a great thing. If it weren't for freedom of speech, Mr. Barrett may have gone through life without ever feeling free enough to say these things, and we'd never know what a fly-speck of a human being he is. Among the more offensive things he said was that he's a former English teacher. On what planet do they teach English as a Broken Language?

But everything's okay now, I guess. Barrett has apologized. And he assures us that he's not a racist. Whew.

More seriously, both the BPD and the National Guard have suspended this sack of shit. His employers are holding him accountable for what he did, thus satsifying the Jay Smooth Priority and leaving the rest of us free to address the rest:

Yes, Justin Barrett, you are a racist. People who are not racists don't go out of their way to send correspondence that repeatedly denigrates another person using well-worn racist references. People who are not racist think of relevant attributes of those who have triggered their anger, rather than the individual's ethnicity. Yes, Justin Barrett, you are a racist. And an unskilled racist at that. "Jungle monkey?" Are you kidding me?

Oh, and you're a misogynist, too. Die in a fire.

A New (To Me) Concept: Bounded Rationality

2009-07-29T10:34:00.003-05:00

I was reading the most recent issue of Adbusters while on break at Book Store the other night and I came across an article on economics that mentioned "bounded rationality." I'd never heard of it before, even though it's been around for a few decades. According to the Mighty Wikipedia,

bounded rationality is a concept based on the fact that rationality of individuals is limited by the information they have, the cognitive limitations of their minds, and the finite amount of time they have to make decisions.

This looks to me like "reality." Why it's interesting to me is that we don't like to acknowledge that our beliefs have flaws. All of them. When we're correct, it's mostly by accident. We never have all of the information, we aren't all omniscient geniuses, and we don't have enough time--even when we use what time we have well. This is a useful idea to me.

The problems I see with our discourse about belief (and this is what drives me to keep bringing it up) is that it's rarely discourse. It's not people coming together to consider what might be true. It's usually people aiming to convince everyone else that we're right and everyone else is wrong.

Well, that doesn't work for me. It doesn't work in a democracy, or a culture like ours, or in any meaningful dialogue. I'm here mostly to correct my own ignorance, my own prejudices, and my own hostilities.

We're all just satisficers. The only way we'll make better decisions and have truer beliefs is by acknowledging that and using reason properly, in the spirits of fairness and charity.

The Limits of Faith

2009-07-25T09:54:00.003-05:00

People living closer to the action have probably already heard about this case, in which a Wisconsin family failed to get their daughter medical care--opting instead to pray--and watched her die of untreated diabetes. Let's let the family explain:

Leilani Neumann said during videotaped testimony that the family believes the Bible says healing comes from God and that she never expected her daughter to die. The Neumanns said the girl had not been to a doctor since she was 3.

A criminal complaint said Dale Neumann told police he believed God would heal his daughter right up until she stopped breathing. He also "professed to believe God was going to bring Madeline back to life."

This case is a good example of why Richard Dawkins and Cristopher Hitchens (and to a lesser extent Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett) write against religious faith in such polarizing terms. Dawkins even calls religious indoctrination child abuse in his book The God Delusion. I don't know about indoctrination, but this kind of nonsense certainly can't be explained away with vague pronouncements of freedom of religion.

To give some idea of how avoidable this death was, here's the testimony of medical experts:

Madeline's gradually declining health would have gotten acute three or four days before she died as her body began shutting down. But despite being unresponsive and in a coma, the girl could have been saved very late into the day of her death with the proper treatment.

Even people who don't wield the First Amendment in a case like this can have variations of this disorder. "It's what I believe," they say. "My belief's as valid as yours." I've even heard people talking about their own "subjective truth," as if that made any sense. But not all beliefs are valid, and there are times when the evidence has to overrule conviction. That's why actual thinkers get so frustrated with Holocaust deniers and Young Earth Creationists and people who believe God will cure diabetes or raise children from the dead because somebody wrote something 1900 years ago about a guy who lived forty years before that who is alleged to have done those things.

Oversight

2009-07-19T09:50:00.001-05:00

Yesterday I wanted to link to a great post about abortion that dana over at EoTAW put up about a month ago, but I couldn't find it. Now I can, and here it is.

Talk About Single Issue

2009-07-18T08:29:00.002-05:00

President Obama has identified the woman he would like as the next Surgeon General, an office that directs the government's efforts on the entire range of medical issues. The Washington Posts's Cheryl W. Thompson takes this opportunity to say, "But she's Catholic! She'd have conflict about abortion!"

Abortion is only one out of thousands of issues the SG will face, and sure it's a contentious issue in American society and in political marketing--but it's not contentious as a legal issue or in the medical field. We have thirty-six years of legal decisions establishing a woman's right to an abortion, and as I understand it the SG has no input there.

This is a non-issue, except to the point of whether Dr. Regina Benjamin feels she can do the job or not. If legal abortion is a problem for her, then she shouldn't take the job. If she can work in that atmosphere (even if she'd make different decisions for herself in a pregnant patient's position), then she should.

Faith in Science

2009-07-18T08:14:00.002-05:00

An interesting issue brought forth by Michael Gerson at the Washington Post the other day (not to say that it's a terribly interesting editorial) about religious scientists. He identifies two competing schools of thought regarding scientists (whose jobs require that they work with empirical data exclusively) who believe in supernatural beings.

On the side that is uneasy about this relationship:

For some scientists, this combination of scientific excellence and religious faith is contradictory -- like being a geneticist and believing in unicorns or astrology. "You clearly can be a scientist and have religious beliefs," says Peter Atkins of Oxford University. "But I don't think you can be a real scientist in the deepest sense of the word because [religion and science] are such alien categories of knowledge." Behind this assertion lies the assumption that the scientific category of knowledge has superseded the religious one.

The problem I have with Atkins's position is that I don't understand what he means by being "a real scientist in the deepest sense of the word." To be a scientist is to be employed as one who does science, isn't it? Can't you believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster and work in a lab? Maybe Atkins is making some kind of essentialist claim--I don't know. Also, I think his use of the word "knowledge" is problematic here. Certainly science and religion are competing systems of truth claims, but "knowledge" implies truth, not just truth claims. It seems he's asserting two categories of truth, and I don't see that.

Gerson goes on to explain the views of another scientist, Francis Collins, who is also an evangelical Christian, who insists "that there are two categories of knowledge, two ways of knowing. And though they are different, they are not 'alien' to one another, or contradictory." Eventually he stakes the position that

[f]or Collins, modern science and Christianity are not competing answers to the same question; they are ways of thinking about two very different sets of questions, both of which should be taken seriously.

I don't know that Christianity has ever given good reason why its truth-claims should be taken seriously. I guess I'll have to read Collins's book myself.

Aside from all of that, I have to accept Gerson's final premise: "that anti-supernaturalism is not a litmus test at the highest levels of science." Now if we could just get the religionists to apply that principle to religious tests for public office.

Multiculture Saturday

2009-07-12T13:59:00.002-05:00

Yesterday was a pretty good day. It didn't start well, though, as we had to take two of the cats to the vet for shots. Boo. Then we came home and I graded a few essays. So far the day wasn't much to like.

Then we hopped in the car with a couple of Michele's colleagues and drove to downtown Oklahoma City. We ate at a really great Mediterranean cafe called The Olive Branch, where I had a veggie pita (incredible) and some of the best hummus and babaganouj that I've ever had. They also had something called "Jerusalem salad" that they claim as their own invention that was really good. Reports of other great food included the falafel and the kufta sandwiches. Everyone but me loved the grape leaves stuffed with rice. I didn't dislike them, but they're not really my thing. The baklava was amazing.

Then we went to the Oklahoma City Museum of Art presentation of "Turner to Cézanne," which had some great Impressionist and post-Impressionist paintings. I think my favorite painting was Anton Mauve's "The Shepherdess." (For whatever reason that link shows an image of the painting that's backward--but I can't find a better link).

Later we went to Bobby and Allison's place and ate burritos. By the end of the night I was suffering from sensory overload and slept like the dead.

Today I'm grading again.

I'll post better soon.

Midnight is Dead.

2009-07-09T14:29:00.003-05:00

Yeah, I know that title doesn't make any sense, unless you know about the band Crimson Glory, and know that their singer called himself "Midnight." And you probably won't make the connection even then unless you've had reason to think of the band lately. But there it is.

Crimson Glory was one of my favorite prog-metal bands in the late 1980s. The instrumentation was technical, the themes were the kind of cheesy I really appreciated in my late adolescence, and the singer had a hell of a voice.

But Midnight died yesterday. His real name was John Patrick McDonald, Jr. He was 47 years old, and he died of liver and kidney failure. That's pretty sad, even if he was a plumber or a mechanic.

Actually, his life would have been sad to witness if he'd been a plumber who called himself "Midnight," but that's beside the point.

One Less Worry

2009-07-03T09:33:00.002-05:00

Last Friday we bought a new car, so I should be a little less concerned about possible catastrophe from that direction. The Buick served us well, but it was getting old. Michele has a picture of the new car at her place.

This Year's Project

2009-06-13T08:52:00.007-05:00

I started writing this post more than two weeks ago, so forgive me if it's a bit disjointed.

In summers past I've been able to take on significant personal-improvement projects intended to simplify my life and eliminate internal conflicts. For instance, the switch to vegetarianism was remarkably easy once I was able to take it seriously and focus on it. The unfortunate part of this process is that summer is the only time I have the presence of mind to take on these issues. When school is in session I don't have the mental resources to do more than tread water, in a personal-development sense. Even during times like now, when I'm teaching a smaller course-load, and teaching familiar classes where I have routines, I devote much of my time at home to preparing and grading. Add to that the usual complications of imperfect lives (and our complications this year were significant, if not epic), and it feels like an accomplishment just to not fail every day.

Part of the reason for this instability is just natural to me: I'm interested in everything. I've always had trouble focusing because I stick my nose in every subject, have a comment for every conversation, and generally want to know everything about everything. As a result, I flit from book to article to essay to discussion, each move taking me further away from a productive place in my mind. I sacrifice--without even considering it--my agency as a person in order to indulge my thirst for information.

It's not just input, either. I also have this deep-seated drive to try to make life better--or at the very least, not let efforts to make life worse go unchallenged. Because of this, I'm driven to argue with people even when I know I won't change their minds using reason. Because of this, I'm driven to point out articles on the internet where people advance stupid ideas, or even lies. Because I want to keep things from getting worse I dive into every controversy and throw ideas around and then dive into the next one.

This has to stop.

The end result of all of this snooping and swooping is that I add to the noise but not to the substance. It brings on pangs of self-loathing, which is another distraction I don't need. Who cares what I think about Michael Gerson's editorials? There are people who deal with that nonsense professionally, they're good at it, and they make it their life's work. There's nothing I can say in the ten minutes I consider him that they can't say in the time they devote to his nonsense. Is it really worth my time to post about a twenty-year old debate during which John McCain stood on a box to ameliorate his insecurity about his height? And should I bother ranting about some old lady having interpersonal communications trouble at a Target store eight hundred miles away? No. No, no, and no.

Every one of those things distracts me from the substance of my life. If I commit my attention to that nonsense I have less mindspace for being a good teacher, a good husband, and a good person. Oh, and writing. Even if I eliminate all of these distractions I still have enough going on in my writing life to simulate ADD. Every day I don't write on my novel my brain erodes a bit. I have essays piled up in drafts and more ideas coming every day. One of my screenplays feels about one draft away from being ready for mailing, and I just got an email announcing the opening of Zoetrope's annual screenplay contest. I'm like a dog with eight bones.

A while ago I was paging through the latest issue of Tricycle magazine, and I paused on an article by Gaylon Ferguson entitled "Fruitless Labor." One passage stood out in my quick reading:

In this wider sense, our entire life has been training. The question is: training in what? This question means: training in which direction? If we train ourselves to reach for a snack or pick up the phone to text-message whenever we feel frightened or bored, this is definitely training. The next time we feel uncomfortable we will also tend to reach for some comfort outside of ourselves, eventually establishing a deeply ingrained habit, another brick in the wall of our mental prison. Are we training in how to distract ourselves from inner discomfort or anxiety? Are we training in numbing ourselves in the face of fear, or training in waking up?

The last two sentences woke me up a little. It feels like the distractions I allow myself are, at least to some degree, intentional. When I put down the papers I'm grading to check my email, it's because I don't want to face the rest of the pile of essays. And when I'm dissatisfied with myself for that poor choice, I want to change something, but I'm still reluctant to face the essays, so I check a few blogs instead. After a few dozen rounds of this I'm so aggravated with myself I jump into discussions and start lashing out. And then I'm even angrier at myself and I start to break down.

Again--this needs to stop.

I have to disengage from most everything for a little while in order to get a grip on the foundations of my life. That's going to be my project for this year. I need to get healthier. I don't exercise at all--I move from one chair to another. Yesterday the Wii Fit told me I'm Way Fat. It's right, you know. I've been sick more often in the last year than I have in the past decade, and I know that's because I don't exercise. I'm tired all the time for the same reason. And I haven't been blogging. That bugs me, too. Time to get it together.

Whaaaaaaaaat?

2009-06-11T19:12:00.004-05:00

We've all been reading stories lately about right-wing knuckleheads breaking out their (rightfully-held but woefully-employed) firearms and killing them some freaking lefties. First there was the George Tiller murder. Then there's the cop-killer Richard "Pop" Poplawski. And now there's James W. von Brunn. I thought that Michael Gerson would have something interesting to say about this, since he's a Reich-winger and I figured this would challenge his worldview. I was wrong.

In the course of his screetardation, here's a puzzling bit:

The anti-Semitic community is varied in background and ideology. It includes both Internet Nazis and campus leftists carrying signs that read, "Jews = Nazis."

Really? Who are these "leftists"? Are they represented by Jeremiah Wright, who Gerson mentions in his next sentence? Here's Gerson's Wright quote:

Oh, wait. He doesn't have a quote. But he will put a couple of words in quotation marks. Here's what Gerson has to say:

The Rev. Jeremiah Wright recently blamed "them Jews" for blocking his access to President Obama.

Really? That's what Gerson has for "leftist" antagonism for the Jews? Does Gerson think that more than a hundred people in America take Jeremiah Wright seriously? But that is it. Then Gerson goes on to document other instances of anti-Semitism. Leftist? No. But that's the last brush he used, so the next painting must have been done with the same implement, right?

Er, no.

This article is just another example of Michael Gerson's incompetence. But given that he got started as Dubya's speech-writer, we shouldn't expect much. Oy.

Summary

2009-06-09T15:49:00.002-05:00

Not a new post of my own, but here are some interesting bits:

Some interesting perspective about Supreme Court Nominee Sonia Sotomayor from eric at EoTAW.

A note on Reich-wing whackjobs by Matthew Yglesias.

Another good post on the George Tiller murder and its implications for abortion rights at Bitch Ph.D.

John Scalzi tells conservative fuckwits to STFU.

That will have to do for now. I'll post in greater detail given time, space, food, water, oxygen, and other things.

Yes, I know.

2009-06-04T09:50:00.002-05:00

The header looks terrible. I just got tired of looking at that same picture, and I'm messing around with some things.

I'll have an actual post soon, I hope.

Coming Soon to a Minnesota Near You

2009-05-19T10:24:00.004-05:00

The courses are done, the tests are taken, the essays are marked, and the grades are submitted. We have survived Spring Semester 2009. My summer classes don't start until June 1, and Michele has some flexibility in her research schedule, so we're going to spend some time with friends and family up nort'. So here's what we know so far:

We leave Oklahoma tomorrow morning, and should arrive in Eagan in the early evening.
We'll be staying mostly with Skiffy and the Cat Whisperer while we're there.
Apparently there's some sort of plan to gather at Carbone's in Lakeville at sevenish on Friday night--no invitations necessary--all are welcome. (The Bone tends to get loud and crowded on Fridays, so we'll see how that goes.
We want to visit the Local at some point so we can meet up with our north-suburbs peeps (haha I can use slang). We're open to suggestions regarding day and time.
A day trip to Mankato isn't out of the question. It would be fun to have lunch with people (read: Diana et al).
We have to leave MN on Sunday morning, May 31, so I can be back in Norman to teach on Monday morning.

So that's all we know so far. I'll be a much smaller internet presence for the next week and a half, but my summer teaching schedule is less taxing than what I've experienced for the last eight months, so I hope to resume regular blogging when we return. I hope we hear from several of you (no--ALL of you) before/while we're in the (currently un-)Frozen Tundra.

I'm Still Standing

2009-04-14T08:47:00.002-05:00

Just thought I'd pop in and say "Boo!"

Boo!

Hopefully I'll have time to post something significant this weekend, but between classes, book store, the flu, unexpected car trouble, a ridiculous tax bill, and general laziness, I haven't had the time or the mental clarity to say even this much.

But I have stuff to say. Honest.

Boo!

Jon Stewart Is Out for Blood

2009-03-13T15:31:00.003-05:00

Okay, so I saw a video at PostBourgie with Jon Stewart taking CNBC to task:

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

CNBC Gives Financial Advice

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things w/ Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Jim Cramer

And then after that, Jim Cramer went on the Daily Show to answer (In three parts) :

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Jim Cramer Unedited Interview Pt. 1

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things w/ Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Jim Cramer

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Jim Cramer Unedited Interview Pt. 2

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things w/ Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Jim Cramer

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Jim Cramer Unedited Interview Pt. 3

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things w/ Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Jim Cramer

This is amazing. Cramer gets excoriated. Nobody, apparently, gives a shit that the little people are getting screwed. Stewart is looking out for us. But here's the problem: JON STEWART ISN'T A JOURNALIST!

Kudos to Jon Stewart. Fuck the capitalists.

Plus an update: I'm tired. Busy and tired. That's not going to change anytime soon. I'm looking forward to my mom and Michele's parents getting here tomorrow night. That is all.

Busy Busy Busy

2009-02-26T14:46:00.002-06:00

Sorry I haven't been blogging (not that the absence of posts here has diminished your quality of life, but still . . .), but we've been jumping here in Oklahoma. Michele's classes, teaching, and research are keeping her busy, and my teaching seems to involve a whole lot more preparation this time around.

Still, the world continues to change. CHANGE! We have a new president! He gave a speech the other night, and hopefully sometime soon I'll have the time to watch it. His speech was followed by another by Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal. That one didn't get good reviews--even from conservatives--but I want to watch it, too.

I just wanted to remind everyone that I'm alive. Why? I don't know. My mom and Michele's parents are coming down for Spring Break. That will be good. That will be fun.

Other than that, I'm just looking forward to the end of the semester. That's the next time I imagine I'll feel caught up.

The Evolution of Belief

2009-02-03T08:59:00.004-06:00

I've mentioned before that one of my current writing projects is a humor book about belief. I want to write this book because I get frustrated by people's tendencies to talk past each other when belief comes up in conversation. It's not always religious belief that causes problems--sometimes it's the more mundane stuff, and sometimes it's brought up as knowledge rather than belief. It's problematic and it's irritating.

I just finished reading Michael Shermer's book Why People Believe Weird Things, and while it was interesting, I finished the book thinking something was left undone. First of all, the book assumes that everyone uses the word "belief" in the same way--and that's not the case. Then it goes on to construct reasoned arguments about how people misuse reason in order to believe in notions like alien abduction, creationism, and even Holocaust denial. This is all valuable work, and I think Shermer's book is an important one, but the problems in communicating about belief in 21st-century America begin with the fact that not everyone means the same thing when they say they "believe" something, and very few people understand (or even recognize) the significance of a sound argument.

In yesterday's On Faith page at the Washington Post, Rabbi Brad Hirschfield addresses some of this confusion about "belief" in either creationism or evolution:

For now, I would settle for finding language that helps us end a needless 200-year-old cultural struggle, which helps nobody but the most strident ideologues. Rather than fighting against each other to determine which side is Right, we should find ways to learn from each other, precisely because we do not address these issues in the exact same ways. And to those ideologues whose vision of either science or religion is so narrow as to assume that no such learning is possible, we should say a pox on both your houses!
We can start with the phrase "believe in evolution," commonly used by so many including those reporting about the recent survey in England. Using the same word to describe faith in God and support for a scientific theory strikes me as foolish and
pernicious. It's bad for both science and faith, creating a false dichotomy between the two positions - one which serves nobody but a small group of culture warriors dedicated to making our public culture as stupid and ugly as possible.
How can one use identical language to describe the decision to follow a particular spiritual path which is necessarily beyond scientific testing, and the decision to rely on a theory which is the product of such ongoing testing? We may use the same word, but are they really the same kind of belief?

I don't think there's any serious doubt that they're not the same kind of belief, and Hirschfield is right to draw attention to this. In fact, the focus of my project is to do exactly that with the entire range of belief concepts--to highlight the nonsense embedded in our belief vocabularies. Including Hirshfield's use of the word "decision" regarding scientific beliefs.

Philosophers have done a good job of exploring knowledge, and those explorations have made it, to a certain extent, to the general public. Significantly less work about belief is as widely known. One of my struggles while writing this book is that I want it to acknowledge the serious philosophical work, but I don't want it to be serious philosophy itself. Also, I always start my work on this project by drawing an outline, and outlining is not humorous, so my zeal for the project wanes while I'm working on it.

Plus, I have several other stories and screenplays and essays to work on, and I'm busy, and I'm good at convincing myself that I'm busier than I really am, and I can be self-pitying and lazy. I guess I know what I need to work on.

Sometimes I Wonder About Myself

2009-01-29T12:03:00.003-06:00

While we were in Minnesota over winter break we stopped into a couple of book stores to pick up cheap books. I grabbed a two-dollar copy of George Carlin's When Will Jesus Bring the Pork Chops?, and it's been paying dividends ever since. Here's a passage that really resonated with me:

The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey said that changing the name of Newark Airport to Liberty International Airport would be a way of honoring "the more than 3,000 heroes who died for their country in the World Trade Center." Pardon me for pointing this out, folks, but stock traders, clerks, receptionists, cooks, waiters, and building maintenance people in the World Trade Center didn't die for their country. They died because they went to work. Not one of them would have shown up for work that day if you had told them that they would have died as a result. Try to get your heroes straight.

I was asked recently to explain Kunderan kitsch. This is a prime example of the sentimentalism that leads to totalitarian kitsch, and the kind of meme conservative America barfs out to distract people from the fact that they're being screwed. This isn't kitsch itself, but it has been employed in that way. The attempt to romanticize things rather than to look at them as they are--sad, but otherwise not notable--is the root of kitsch.

And then I wonder about myself. Why do I care how people hold these memories? Why do I care how they express their sentiments? And then I answer: because as these shithead sentiments take hold they veneer reality with a sugary coating that keeps us from looking at reality--we'd rather have the sugar coating. And who wouldn't? Why wouldn't we rather talk about how the soldiers in Iraq are "defending our freedom" rather than how the president sent them into an uninvolved country, deployed them to destroy that country, and still can't justify our presence there? Why wouldn't frightened heterosexual Christians fall back on the nonsense of using the definition of a word to determine how other people can conduct their romantic lives, when no dictionary anywhere pretends to be prescriptive? Why wouldn't we want to identify "those people," whoever they are (immigrants, minorities, poor people, lazy people, etc.) as unworthy of getting my money (My Money!)?

Comfort is nice. Reality is better.

Michael Gerson Hasn't Changed

2009-01-23T06:17:00.004-06:00

I've called him names in the past, and I'm not proud of that, but it seems Michael Gerson's still worthy of name-calling. He identifies two strains of Obama support--one that is proud of the racial component of Obama's situation and the other that's proud of his intellect--and pronounces the one good and the other bad.

Gerson's anger comes from a Michael Hirsh, a Newsweek writer, who claims, "there's something else that I'm even happier about -- positively giddy. . . . What Obama's election means, above all, is that brains are back." Geron goes on to write, "Hirsh declared that the Obama era means the defeat of 'yahooism' and 'jingoism' and 'flag-pin shallowness' and 'religious zealotry' and 'anti-intellectualism.' Obama is a "guy who keeps religion in its proper place -- in the pew." Seems to me that Hirsh is spot on.

The funniest part of Gerson's piece is that he claims this attitude is an exercise of "contempt instead of argument," and that it's displayed by college kids or those who haven't outgrown the behavior. The reason this is funny is that Gerson's article displays plenty of contempt and no argument. Plus, he employs something we in the "teaching argument" trade like to call the "false dilemma" fallacy. He asserts that one can use contempt or one can use argument. The option he neglects is that one might use both contempt and argument--and that seems the only reasonable way to treat conservatives.

The wingnuts are going to be at a loss for a while, especially the ones who never had much to say to begin with.

Oh, yeah . . . the Poll

2009-01-22T19:12:00.002-06:00

The poll results came in overwhelmingly for Michele to tell me what to do. Other votes were for keeping the beard for various reasons. Others have commented since the poll closed that I should keep it. One woman at OCCC said, "You should never be without a beard. Very handsome." I'm guessing "handsome" is a Romanian word for "it hides that face of yours."

Michele told me to do what I want with it.

So the thing is, I still haven't decided what to do. I don't have to shave, which is nice, but I'm more conscious now of how it looks. You know how when you have really short hair you don't have to do anything with it? And how when you have really long hair all you can do is gather it up? But when it's in between you have to decide what to do with it, when to cut it, how to style it, and such? That's a beard, unless you're a frigging mountain man, and I'm not that--yet. So I have to keep it trimmed and unscraggly and out of my mouth. But since I'm so undecisive by nature I may always have a beard just by virtue of putting off the decision.

Oh, well.

It's Been Too Long

2009-01-22T15:51:00.010-06:00

Here's a new version of an old taunt:

So what if this was a few weeks ago, when everyone else was complaining of subzero temps? There are some benefits to living in Oklahoma. This is one of them.

Much has happened since my last post, and I'll maybe say some things about most of them soon, but first:

President Barack Hussein Obama!

I can't say it enough. And I was worried that this would be just a symbolic switch--that things would just keep going as they had been. But then BHO gets into the Oval Office and starts kicking ass and taking names. First he requests that the prosecutors in Gitmo knock it off, and then he says "Close it down." It seems the rule of law means something to Mr. Obama.

Needless to say, I'm happy.

Also, the new semester has started, and I'm neck-deep in new courses again. The one that's really challenging me this time is Modern Humanities--only because I've never taught such a lecture-intensive course before. Usually it's a free-flowing give-and-take between the students and me. This time it's a give-and-give from me to the students. It will take some getting used to.

I'm also applying to jobs again, because I'm too old to be a part-time employee. The only openings I've found (that would be feasible) are in the Twin Cities area, so I'm throwing my hat back north. Michele encouraged this, so don't worry about that.

Winter break was good, but too long (in a number of ways). It seems like we dragged the cold weather back with us, except for a few days, like today, when it's 71 degrees.

I'll say more when I have some time. I need to get back to work.

Well, sure . . .

2008-12-27T10:45:00.003-06:00

. . . sometimes it occurs to me that violence is appropriate when dealing with people who won't shut up during a movie, but I'd never shoot them.

I hope everyone's holidays are going well. And I hope to see some of you tonight at Jam's place.

This Is a Compromise

2008-12-18T20:31:00.002-06:00

Grrrrrrr. Hi.

Please Excuse the Temporary Superficiality

2008-12-11T14:46:00.005-06:00

So the weekend we moved I didn't take the time to shave. Seemed pointless. Didn't do it. Then, on a whim that Sunday I announced to Michele that I wasn't going to shave until the end of the semester. She didn't really react, but she has expressed her preference through the years that I go beardless so as to not lacerate her face. She has delicate skin. I have a harsh batch of facial hair that tends to stick straight out long after gravity should have gotten hold of it. All these years I've kept myself clean-shaven when we were together (when she was away, or while I lived in Mankato, that was another story entirely).

It wasn't always this way. When Michele met me I had a beard more often than not. Mostly it was because shaving seems pointless to me. I just don't care enough. That kind of mindset took hold of me in that moment when I made my announcement, and it's kept me hirsute for the last (almost) three weeks.

But now the semester is ending--tomorrow. The question becomes "Do I shave, trim, or leave it as is?" So I'm posting a poll, and you, my numerous readers (well, at least you outnumber my multiple personalities) are invited to take part. To aid your input, I offer pictures:

I was hoping for a nuanced poll, but I don't think Blogger will allow me one. So while the choices in the poll will be limited, I hope you will augment your input with comments in the . . . er, comments section of this post. Also, please ignore how dopey I look in these pictures. I have an excuse--I was conscious when Michele took them.

Here are some answers I've already heard:

Cut that shit off. It makes you look old.
Cut that shit off. It makes you look homeless.
Leave it. It looks awesome.
Trim that stuff. It makes you look old and homeless.
Cut that off. It looks like crop failure.
Do whatever Michele wants.

Okay, so I made most of that up. But the poll is forthcoming.

Feeling Worn Out

2008-12-01T18:23:00.004-06:00

So, after the big move we hightailed it up to Minnesota for Thanksgiving. We didn't even take time to unpack all of the boxes--we just left. The weekend was a good one, though.

On Tuesday we drove. The cats behaved, and we stumbled into Eagan before nine.
On Wednesday we saw family and then met a bunch of friends at Kieran's in Minneapolis. Michele will have to post pictures soon. This event involved vomiting, and I wasn't the culprit.
Also on Wednesday, Chef Jeff* and the Titanic** took custody of Zorro, who will now be known as "Wash." Word has it that the kitten loves baby Kaylee. He also likes the other humans in his new home. I may not live long the next time I get to Minnesota.
On Thursday we had brunch at Michele's parents' house, and then we had dinner and pie at my mom's place. My poor mother is still trying to cope with her formerly-carnivorous son's conversion to veggiedom. On this day I ate too much, and I saw that it was good.
Also on Thursday, Jam and Brigadoon took custody of Gollum, heretofore to be known as "Casey." Casey might be the cutest kitten I've ever seen. Seriously.
On Friday we met more friends at the Bone. An awesome pizza and several Summits entered me. And a small Fat Tire. It was good to see the crew. Again, Michele will have to post pictures.
On Saturday we ate at Noodles & Company. If we did nothing else on this trip, Michele would have been satisfied with this visit. Then we had dinner at the Chef Jeff/Titanic home and I was so beat I was falling asleep while the Demon Nephew climbed on me.
On Sunday we drove again. The three remaining cats behaved themselves, and we got to Norman (after skirting the required accident) a little after eight. Then we collapsed.

On Monday I showed my students a movie. That's what we're doing in class all week.

To change the subject entirely, I'm going to change the subject entirely.

I root for some students more than I do others. I especially appreciate the kids who pay attention, recognize when they cause their own problems, accept criticism as helpful commentary, and keep in mind that they're in a classroom for a reason. I had one of those students this semester, and at one point she missed a deadline. True to her nature, her reflective writing for that day was self-admonishing, but it showed how much she wanted to succeed. Then she started missing class. Then she missed several weeks, and I assumed I'd never see her again.

Over Thanksgiving weekend I recieved an email. Not from the student, but from the college. The email informed me that my student had died in October, and that she was removed from my class roster. I felt sick. Even though she was eighteen years old I couldn't help thinking of her as a "sweet kid." Quiet, shy, attentive. The kind of student I wish I could replicate.

Dead.

I did some digging, and I found a newspaper item about her death. She's the last one listed. Apparently she was driving at 1 a.m. on October 19 when her car left the road and collided with a tree. They misspelled her name.

I feel sick again.
________________________
*He likes to cook. So there.
**I'd feel terrible about giving a woman this name if she wasn't so tiny. There probably has never been a person less titanic than her, but this feeds into an old inside joke. Ha!

A Gulp of Air

2008-11-22T19:12:00.004-06:00

Okay, so we're moved. Mostly. Tomorrow is when we take the last few carloads of stuff to the new place and clean up the old place.

I'm beat. The warning on Michele's punching bag says "Injuries including paralysis or death may result from using this equipment." That's no lie. By the time we got that sucker on the truck, off the truck, and up the stairs, I almost had a stroke.

It took five trips with a ten-foot truck to move this time. We had seven of Michele's classmates helping us and it took eight hours. After that we had chili and beer.

I am getting ready to sleep with a vengeance.

Out of Touch

2008-11-21T19:46:00.003-06:00

We're moving tomorrow, so I'll have to take the computer down tonight. We're supposed to get internet in the new place tomorrow, but I don't know if that will actually happen (as with everything else in my life, it's safer to assume it will go wrong).

So I'll be incommunicado for a bit--at least as long as it takes to move and then clean up the old place. Then a busy day Monday and then Travel Day.

I'll be back.

Thanksgiving Week Itinerary*

2008-11-19T14:24:00.004-06:00

Tuesday:
Drive drive drive drive drive. Michele, me, five cats, one car, thirteen hours. Wheee.

Wednesday:
Hang with the family during the day. That night we're hoping to go someplace in Minneapolis (Kieran's, The Local, or something similar) for social time with friends who are more inclined to that direction.

Thursday:
Family celebration of the giving of thanks. I will eat too much and then be a semicoherent mess for the rest of the day and through the evening.

Friday:
Michele might do a little shopping on this, the day I refuse to shop. More family time. Maybe more celebrating. Either Friday night or Saturday night we're hoping to do another social night for our south-of-the-river friends. Maybe at the Bone or Granite City or something.

Saturday:
Much like Friday, but with no "Black Friday" shopping.

Sunday:
Drive drive drive drive drive. Michele, most of me, one car, three cats, thirteen hours. Ooof.

*Of course, this is tentative. It might all fall apart, but at this point it feels like it will work.

The Funniest Thing I Read Today

2008-11-18T15:46:00.001-06:00

From a student's essay:

As children grow from infants to toddlers they seem to have lots of energy and wine a lot more.

I don't know why that struck me so funny. Probably because I'm certifiable.

So . . . anyone want a cat? Or two?

2008-11-17T12:53:00.002-06:00

Details here.

Update: We seem to have found a home for the black one (currently called "Zorro," but likely to be renamed "Wash"), and maybe for the other one as well. He's called "Gollum," and I think we got him just in time--he was not in good shape yesterday, but now he's as active as his brother.

Sometimes the Angel is in the Details

2008-11-13T19:21:00.004-06:00

I just saw this picture posted to The Rude Pundit:

My first reaction to this was: holy shit, what a cynical attempt at pathos. My next thought was: "Wait . . . that woman has a cane--this hug isn't normal. And it shouldn't be. We like to think of those who have disabilities in the way in which they compensate, but sometimes they define themselves by their limitations. If Tammy Duckworth* leans over, she'll fall. If Obama is going to hug her, he's going to have to do all the leaning.

I feel like he didn't need to be coached on that. That's part of why I'm ecstatic about the election.

*I didn't realize who Ms. Duckworth was. She deserves all kinds of good will from American patriots. Especially those toolboxes who listen to Rush or Sean Hannity or Bill O'Reilly.

Temples of Syrinx

2008-11-11T19:21:00.002-06:00

Here's* a great version** of a classic Rush song performed live this last year. That's just a tease, though. In real life, purple twice hefeweizen. In other words, I've lost it. I can't keep it together. I'll say other things in mid-December, but for now I'm . . . "

*Let me know if that link doesn't work--it's my first try at such a thing.
**Actually, the instrumental part is great, but the vocals are terrible. Like Geddy Lee (no master singer himself) hired his less-talented cousin to sing the hits.

Public Service Announcement

2008-11-07T10:18:00.002-06:00

Attention, Tenth Dimensional Drifter.

Your blog seems to be set to send comments to moderation, and you must not have done that on purpose, because you haven't noticed the comment I left a while ago that is in moderation. I'd post this as a comment on your blog, but . . . well . . . you know.

In other news: President Barack Hussein Obama.

I am a happy man.

Yes We Did

2008-11-05T06:35:00.000-06:00

That is all.

Thank you.

Make Sure You Vote!

2008-11-04T06:32:00.002-06:00

Whoever you're voting for.

Been a While

2008-10-23T15:49:00.005-05:00

I'm still alive. I'm just grading or working all the time. Maybe this weekend I'll have time for a lengthy post--I hope. Right now I'm looking at Comp II essays, Fundamentals Paragraphs, Mythology Discussion Posts, and Philosophy Journal papers. And a bunch of quizzes.

Oh, and did I mention that we're moving next month? Michele did a while ago, but I don't think I did. Yeah, we're moving. We'll save money on rent, we'll be on a bus line, and we'll be a short walk from the grocery store. Win all around, except the moving. I hate moving.

Unless we find another home for her soon, I think we have another cat. I was warned about this. I'll let Michele fill everyone in on the rest of the cat news.

I have my teaching assignments for Rose for Spring. Two sections: a Comp I class and an 8-week, online Mythology class. This one concentrates entirely on Greek and Roman myths. It sucks that I don't have a full time job yet, but I love teaching more every semester. Mythology? Are you kidding me? This is awesome.

My online classes are going well this semester--with some glitches. I suppose that's understandable (and maybe assumable (But you know what happens when things are assumable. You make an ass out of "u" and "Mable.")).

Oh yeah, and just for the confused: I'm voting for Obama. Hehe. I'll call you, Sly. You going to be around on Saturday?

Bonus: a link to one of the coolest songs ever. Oh, and a live version, too. Holy crap! The hair!

Um . . . Yaaaargh!

2008-10-11T20:58:00.002-05:00

Part of the greatness of the intarwebs is that it allows me to reconnect with things long lost. Here's a video by Tyrant--an American metal band that I love--and that I never thought I'd see. The first part is a recitation of all of the song titles on the album, delivered as a biblical passage. Then they start kicking ass. I've seen them described as a "Christian metal" band. I can see that, but at the same time, most metal bands played with "good" and "evil" and most aligned themselves with "good." The press just got out of control.

But here it is. Enjoy.

My Wife Left Me

2008-10-11T00:43:00.006-05:00

But she'll be back on Sunday. What? What did I say? Hehe.

Michele flew to Minnesota this morning so she could visit our new niece, Kaylee (shown here with her brother, the Demon Nephew*):So now I have to get to work on a nickname for this little bean. But I'm backlogged, because I still don't have suitable nicknames for those I've called "Skiffy" and "The Big Polack." And I've never bothered trying to figure out nicknames for Michele, my mom, or Michele's sister. And the only name I have for Michele's sister's husband to this point is "Future Brother In Law." Now that he's an actual brother-in-law I need to try harder. Actually, I need to get my ass in gear on this. Anyone have input for me?

*I almost cried when I saw this picture, and Michele actually said what I was thinking: DN looks more like a person now, and not just like a little kid. Sometimes being far away sucks.

And You Thought Incompetence Was a National Thing for Republicans

2008-10-09T15:34:00.003-05:00

Here's a video taken of Minnesota Senator Norm Coleman's press secretary fielding questions about whether Coleman accepted inappropriate gifts or favors.

Pathetic.

Via Matthew Yglesias.

Tonight's Debate

2008-10-07T21:36:00.001-05:00

A quick thought or two. Obama killed most of the night, but I thought his closing bit was weak. McCain was weak all night, but since his closing wasn't any weaker than Obama's it didn't matter.

The whistling made me crazy.
The "my friends" made me want to stab someone.

And McCain looked like a gimpy T-rex hobbling around the stage.
That's all.

A List of Bullet Points

2008-10-07T18:22:00.004-05:00

There's a joke (one of several thousand) about Chuck Norris that goes like this: Chuck Norris is so fast that he can run around the world and punch himself in the back of the head. I am like this version of Chuck Norris, except that it's not speed we're talking about, but incompetence. As in: Jason is so unable to focus on one task that he can . . . what was I saying?

Anyway, here are some things I thought this week:

Happy birthday, Cat Whisperer! I'd put your head on a gorilla, but I decided long ago not to do that to women. Sexist? Yes. Are you grateful? I'm sure. Your birthday present is pretty cool.
Speaking of which: Happy zeroth birthday, Kaylee! My new niece (and CW's new granddaughter) was born at 1:48 pm today. She was eight pounds, thirteen ounces, and twenty-one inches long. Now we can tease the Demon Nephew for the rest of his life that, at least on the days on which they were born, his sister was bigger than he was. Not that I'd tease a five-year-old.
Speaking of which: Happy fifth birthday, Demon Nephew! I wish we'd been there to celebrate, but at least you're saving us some cupcakes. Right? Right?
Here's a link to Michele's post about our houseguest. Remember last time this happened? It's almost two years to the day later. Weird.
I got a letter this week that was written in International Phonetic Alphabet, and while I was able to read it--slowly--I haven't been able to compose a response.

And on the political front:

Here's a story that explains why Sarah Palin sounds like she's from Minnesota.
Here's a story that tries to make sense of Palin's gibberish.
Here's a thirteen-minute video describing John McCain's involvement in the Keating Five S&L scandal in the 1980s.
And here's a link to the Saturday Night Live spoof of the Vice-Presidential Debate last Thursday. I feel a little dirty linking to SNL--a show that hasn't been significant in about twenty-five years, and hasn't been funny in fifteen.
Oh, yeah. And here's where the Palins may not have been paying their taxes. That's unAmerican, don'tcha know.

But beyond that, we're golden. I think. Whose pants are these?

The VP Debate

2008-10-02T21:34:00.002-05:00

From what I could tell, Biden wiped the floor with Palin. I guress we'll find out if that's a good thing or a bad thing.

But those first fifteen minutes were priceless--Sarah looked like she wanted to swallow her own lungs.

About to Watch the VP Debate

2008-10-02T19:52:00.003-05:00

But here's a funny video to get you started.

In fact, here's a funny slide show to get you started*.

*Via Bitch Ph.D.

Deadblogging the Debate (Part 2)

2008-10-02T18:38:00.003-05:00

Okay, I don't have the stamina for that. After the first half hour the debate turned into a lot of bickering and interruptions and half-delivered talking points. I thought Obama scored better than McCain did, but I'm willing to allow that my bias is speaking there.

Here's one original thought I had:

Much has been made of McCain's reluctance to look at Obama. Some have said it's a respect thing, and others have said it's a race thing (which, I suppose, is also a respect thing, but with broader implications). I'm in no position to discount either, but here's another possibility.

While McCain looks to his right, the camera gets only a flush image of the left side of his face. But if he turns to the left, then the camera can get his jaw in silhouette--and that's one ugly image.

People keep talking about the lump on his face--is it a tumor or a swollen gland? According to WikiAnswers McCain "was diagnosed with melanoma (malignant skin cancer) on his cheek 5 years ago which he says has left his cheek puffy looking." Huh? The diagnosis swelled his cheek? In any case, I'm sure he's not anxious to have it come up in post-debate conversation, because the last thing he needs is people wondering about his health with Sarah Palin on deck.

You know. Sarah Palin?

Sarah Palin: A Terrifying Comparison

2008-09-30T18:25:00.004-05:00

Earlier I posted an interview Katie Couric pulled out of Sarah "Playa Hata" Palin. Here's an interesting look at the Governor's responses to Couric, who I think is the lightest of lightweights among network interviewers.

Also: Here's a picture Michael Bérubé has on his blog that cracks me up*:

I'm adding Bérubé to my sidebar, because he's pretty cool.

*There's no need to choose--both the blog and the picture crack me up.

Random Note in the Interim

2008-09-30T15:13:00.002-05:00

I just found a really cool video of an '80's-era Warlord concert. Enjoy the epic metal awesomeness here. There's a terrible intro (I can't possibly do that notion justice in this context), but the performance is a good indication why Warlord was a seriously underapreciated band. It looks like they're playing in a high-school auditorium, but whatever.

Deadblogging* the Debate (Part One)

2008-09-27T09:40:00.018-05:00

Here are my thoughts as I watch the debate between Senator John McCain and Senator Barack Obama. I'm starting and stopping, sometimes rewinding, and cross-checking with a transcript of the debate posted at this website. I won't pretend to be impartial--I find the conservative platform immoral, and the liberal platform just a bit less so--but I'll try to be as charitable as I can be to McCain.

Hey! McCain isn't standing on a box. Good for him.
Obama looks a little rattled at the beginning, which is strange for him. He struggles to articulate what have been his stump speech points for months. Good work, though, in tying the current crisis to not just McCain, but to the core of conservative fiscal philosophy. Obama also had a broad but explicit outline of what the solution should be.
Not sure what to make of McCain's aside about Senator Kennedy's most recent health problem. Seems opportunistic, a little overt ethos/pathos overkill, but could be heartfelt. I suppose I should give him the benefit of the doubt.
McCain tried a quick joke about either the length of his senate career or his age, and the audience didn't bite. Not a chuckle. McCain smirked for a moment, and then went into his next point like he'd been goosed.
McCain answered the first question by acknowledging (for about a minute and a half) that there is a crisis, and that it is serious. He then told us that he's happy that congresspeople of both major parties are working on solving this crisis. McCain's description of the fix is completely general.
I like that Lehrer is trying to keep the candidates on task and away from posturing.
Obama, even after Lehrer's shepherding, is trying to drag the discussion back to his stump-speech material. Three minutes of talking so far and he's used the word "shredded" twice.
McCain is steering back into his campaign slogans, too. I wish (and I know there's no reality in this wish) politicians could just answer simple questions without trying to score points.
McCain makes some good points about accountability and corruption, and somehow manages to not mention how that has developed under Republican governance, and how it seems to permeate the Republican party--including McCain's own campaign.
Obama again ties the Wall Street crisis to underlying conservatie laissez-faire philosophy. Great move.
McCain responds again with generalities and then some crazy-talk about the "fundamental goodness and strength of the American worker." Not what Lehrer asked, and not a response to what Obama said.
Clever shift by McCain on question two. He decries Big Government, acknowledges that Republicans have contributed to waste--and then shifts to earmarks, and Obama's record on earmarks. This is a solid, debatable point for McCain.
Great parry by Obama. $18bn in earmarks is certainly minor compared to $300bn in tax cuts to the wealthy. McCain's charge could have put him on the defensive, but he did a judo toss. Still--these earmark issues and the specifics of the tax cuts need more investigation.
Both senators dealt with this question well.
McCain's rebuttal to Obama is much less coherent than his original point was. Then Obama interrupts to clarify what he claims are distortions or misrepresentations by McCain. This is the kind of bickering that looks destructive to the process even if it isn't. It would be better if the moderator had the latitude, the information, and the wherewithal to handle these disputes himself, because when it's he said/he said nothing is settled, and it looks pathetic on both sides.
Obama's interruption is also a little tedious. He's reiterating his stump-speech economic points. It would have been better, I think, if he'd hammered McCain on the distortion instead of trying to clarify his own position--which doesn't need more clarifying. But as I write this I wonder how many conservatives have heard these points. Maybe it does need reiteration in this venue.
Obama finished strong on this point. His insistence that the tax policy will hurt more than an elimination of earmarks will help was good. His tying the economic issues to Bush's term was good--tying them to Bush I and Reagan and beyond would have been better.
McCain lost me on this one. A five thousand dollar tax credit to buy health insurance? Is he on crack?
Obama gives a good shot on tax loopholes. It's great how he takes the time to agree with part of what McCain says and then reveal the distortion.
Obama just killed McCain on the health-care credit. McCain changed the subject and didn't even address the issues--he just offered more generalities.
Now we're into the bickering again. I'm tuning them both out. More disputed figures, more accusations. Next question, please.
Obama's answer to Lehrer's next question (As president, as a result of whatever financial rescue plan comes about and the billion, $700 billion, whatever it is it's going to cost, what are you going to have to give up, in terms of the priorities that you would bring as president of the United States, as a result of having to pay for the financial rescue plan?) is both well-structured and direct. Much better delivery than in the beginning of this debate.
I think math and science are both important, but the humanities-geek in me is snarling at Obama's focus on those skills. We need well-rounded humans, not biological computers.
McCain has barely started his answer to this question and he's already talking about Obama. How about if you tell us what you intend to do, Senator McCain? (Good line about reaching across the aisle, though. I chuckled.)
Weird description of the results of McCain's involvement in the Boeing/DoD contract: "We fixed it, and we killed it, and people ended up in federal prison, so I know how to do this." Huh?
I appreciate McCain's approach to examining every agency for efficiency. Nothing wrong with examining them. Does he not realize that will take money, though? Would he support that kind of funding, or when the time comes would he reject it as "typical liberal tax and spend?"
Good point by Lehrer: neither mentioned large-scale changes. Obama's proposals are more specific than McCain's, but they're both pretty general. Maybe we can't expect better in this format.

I'm going to cut this post at the twenty-nine minute mark and pick up again in a second post (and probably a third and a fourth). This debate lasted 97:12 according to the video timer. It will take time, and I'm grading right now, too.

* Since I'm not watching the debate live, and since I'm not posting as I write, I can't consider this "liveblogging," though it is a moment-by-moment response to the debate. Thus I coin the term "deadblogging."

This Just In: Sara Palin. Complete. Fucking. Imbecile.

2008-09-25T00:16:00.003-05:00

Let's roll the tape:

Seriously. If you can get wrecked in an interview by Katie Couric, you're beyond salvageable. This woman couldn't find her ass with both hands. But hey! She likes to shoot at wolves from a helicopter, so she must be . . . well, she must . . . aw screw it. She's a typical conservative dolt.

Via EoTAW

Where the White Women At?

2008-09-24T05:52:00.004-05:00

I was reading about new poll results at the Washington Post this morning when I came across this paragraph:

Two weeks ago, McCain held a substantial advantage among white voters, including newfound strength with white women. In the face of bad economic news, the two candidates now run about evenly among white women, and Obama has narrowed the overall gap among white voters to five percentage points.

Which, of course, made me think of this scene from Blazing Saddles. And I saw that it was good.

More importantly, it made me cast Blazing Saddles with the candidates of this election. America is Rock Ridge, Obama is Sheriff Bart, Joe Biden is Jim (The Waco Kid), John McCain is Hedley Lamar, and Sarah Palin is Lily Von Schtupp. The Republican Party is Taggart and his gang (especially during the campfire scene), and the Democratic Party is the . . . well, okay, so this doesn't fit perfectly. But it amuses me, and that's all I was after.

George Will Piles On

2008-09-23T05:53:00.004-05:00

A Republican has to screw up (in the conservative sense) pretty badly for George Will to write a negative column about him. Judging from his columns, it seems to me Will is totally committed to every position on the GOP platform, and as long as a Republican holds to those ideals Will is in his corner. It even took Dubya several years to get on Will's bad side.

But now that John McCain is supporting the bailouts of several Wall Street companies--and personally attacking those he sees as responsible--Will seems ready to abandon him. Will's column this morning seems to indicate he likes Obama better as a candidate. If you'd told me that ten years ago there's no chance I'd have believed you, but here's the evidence:

Conservatives who insist that electing McCain is crucial usually start, and increasingly end, by saying he would make excellent judicial selections. But the more one sees of his impulsive, intensely personal reactions to people and events, the less confidence one has that he would select judges by calm reflection and clear principles, having neither patience nor aptitude for either.
It is arguable that, because of his inexperience, Obama is not ready for the presidency. It is arguable that McCain, because of his boiling moralism and bottomless reservoir of certitudes, is not suited to the presidency. Unreadiness can be corrected, although perhaps at great cost, by experience. Can a dismaying temperament be fixed?

I am in Bizarro-world. But this time I like what's happening.

Sarah Palin As Brain Surgeon

2008-09-21T11:14:00.005-05:00

There's a pretty good article at Newsweek written by Sam Harris (of Letter to a Christian Nation fame) about Sarah Palin as a Vice Presidential candidate. Harris lays out a good case that Palin is unprepared and generally unsuited to leadership of any kind, but especially at the international level. He uses this portion of the article to illustrate his point:

What is so unnerving about the candidacy of Sarah Palin is the degree to which she represents—and her supporters celebrate—the joyful marriage of confidence and ignorance. Watching her deny to Gibson that she had ever harbored the slightest doubt about her readiness to take command of the world's only superpower, one got the feeling that Palin would gladly assume any responsibility on earth:

"Governor Palin, are you ready at this moment to perform surgery on this child's brain?"
"Of course, Charlie. I have several boys of my own, and I'm an avid hunter."
"But governor, this is neurosurgery, and you have no training as a surgeon of any kind."
"That's just the point, Charlie. The American people want change in how we make medical decisions in this country. And when faced with a challenge, you cannot blink."
The prospects of a Palin administration are far more frightening, in fact, than those of a Palin Institute for Pediatric Neurosurgery. Ask yourself: how has "elitism" become a bad word in American politics? There is simply no other walk of life in which extraordinary talent and rigorous training are denigrated. We want elite pilots to fly our planes, elite troops to undertake our most critical missions, elite athletes to represent us in competition and elite scientists to devote the most productive years of their lives to curing our diseases. And yet, when it comes time to vest people with even greater responsibilities, we consider it a virtue to shun any and all standards of excellence. When it comes to choosing the people whose thoughts and actions will decide the fates of millions, then we suddenly want someone just like us, someone fit to have a beer with, someone down-to-earth—in fact, almost anyone, provided that he or she doesn't seem too intelligent or well educated.

This is the doing of homo moronicus as well. Insecurity about other people being more intelligent, I think, drives regular people to reject exceptional people as leaders. That, if anything, is the real danger posed by the McCain/Palin ticket. Well, at least as far as the election goes. If they were to win the danger would be much worse.

The Idiot-Haunted World

2008-09-16T18:34:00.005-05:00

Yeah, go ahead. Vote for McCain. Or--just as bad--don't vote at all, and leave open the possibility of a McCain victory. Then you could have this whack-job as your VP. From Talk to Action:

Sarah Palin's churches are actively involved in a resurgent movement that was declared heretical by the Assemblies of God in 1949. This is the same 'Spiritual Warfare' movement that was featured in the award winning movie, "Jesus Camp," which showed young children being trained to do battle for the Lord. At least three of four of Palin's churches are involved with major organizations and leaders of this movement, which is referred to as The Third Wave of the Holy Spirit or the New Apostolic Reformation. The movement is training a young "Joel's Army" to take dominion over the United States and the world.

The article goes on to describe this church:

The Third Wave is a revival of the theology of the Latter Rain tent revivals of the 1950s and 1960s led by William Branham and others. It is based on the idea that in the end times there will be an outpouring of supernatural powers on a group of Christians that will take authority over the existing church and the world. The believing Christians of the world will be reorganized under the Fivefold Ministry and the church restructured under the authority of Prophets and Apostles and others anointed by God. The young generation will form "Joel's Army" to rise up and battle evil and retake the earth for God.
While segments of this belief system have been a part of Pentecostalism and charismatic beliefs for decades, the excesses of this movement were declared a heresy in 1949 by the General Council of the Assemblies of God, and again condemned through Resolution 16 in 2000. The beliefs and manifestations of the movement include the use of 'strategic level spiritual warfare' to expel territorial demons from American and world cities. Worship includes excessive charismatic manifestations such as hundreds of people falling, 'slain in the spirit,' and congregations laughing, jerking, and shrieking uncontrollably.

Have I fallen into Bizarro-world? How is it possible that McCain could be anywhere near Obama in the polls? How is it possible that people like these--like Sarah Palin--get into positions of power in twenty-first century America?

We are doomed. Whether Obama wins or not, there are enough of these nitwits to be a serious threat. The human race is done, plowed under by homo moronicus.

Via Making Light

Free Time is for Losers, Anyway

2008-09-15T18:26:00.003-05:00

So, we're starting week five of the semester. All three of my Comp II classes are going well, and my Fundamentals class is going smoothly. I've been getting my materials together for the online Philosophy class I'll be teaching starting in mid-October, and I can't wait to get started on that.

And just last week I was offered another mid-semester online section--this time for Mythology. I took it, because I love mythology and I could use another course for my CV and because the money will be good. And the school is acting like I'm bailing them out by teaching this, even though I feel like they're doing me a huge favor.

And the night job at Book Store is fine. I'm reminded that people are really lazy, and that gets aggravating, but hey--it's books, right?

By mid-November, though, I might be institutionalized.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

On Lipstick and Pigs

2008-09-12T12:28:00.003-05:00

Slate has an article from Wednesday explaining the history of the phrase that the Republicans are all squealing about.

Strange

2008-09-08T19:30:00.004-05:00

I just found a link to a site I've never heard of that has information about my MFA thesis. All indications I had prior to reading the site led me to believe it's German. And that would be weird.
Other links to me online:

A review I wrote of David Bengston's poetry collection Broken Lines. My review is the last on the page. It's from 2004, and I cringe every time I read that last sentence*.

The Corresponder pdf of my review of Mark Nowak's poetry collection Shut Up Shut Down, from Spring 2005. I'm on page four.

The Corresponder pdf of my review of Jon Hassler's novel The New Woman, from Spring 2006. I'm on page nine. Hassler died in March 2008.

Student feedback from OCCC.

Student feedback from MSU.

For whatever reason, nobody at Rose has posted anything about me.

I read MFilly's post about common-name issues earlier today, so in that spirit here is the link to the profile of the Canadian actor who goes by my name. It's my name because I had it first. And he's been in films with the Olsen twins, so he's the devil.

*That sentence makes it sound like I read that sentence a lot. I don't, but I see it from time to time.

The Senator Has Been 'Rackrolled

2008-09-08T12:31:00.003-05:00

Here's a video that made me laugh out loud. This will explain if you don't know what "Rickrolling" is.

Via Edge of the American West.

On Spraining My Brain

2008-09-07T11:00:00.006-05:00

A little while ago I wrote a post about belief that involved a discussion at Crooked Timber. Shortly after that, Dana at Edge of the American West indulged my curiosity with a followup post that was much more thoughtful and productive than my quick request for input. While I was merely looking for other people's ideas about a possible difference between mundane belief and religious belief, Dana provides an overview of ideas, draws some important distinctions, and comes to the conclusion that the CT comment

doesn’t look to me like a debate about different kinds of belief, but a debate about what should count as evidence, and whether personal religious experience gets to count.

The discussion that follows the post covers a pretty broad spectrum, from lay ideas to fairly-well developed specialist views. Some of it, I'm not afraid to admit, is over my head, but it's all interesting to consider.

This consideration of evidence in relation to belief--and, by extension, to knowledge--is at the heart of an article published by Juan Comesaña and Holly Kantin in response to another paper by Timothy Williamson in which Williamson posits that Evidence equals Knowledge. Williamson expresses this in the biconditional relationship (E<-->K). Comesaña and Kantin disagree with this based on the conditional relationship that if something is known then that something is evidence. They find fault with Williamson in this derivation of the original equation:

The proposition that p justifies S in believing that q only if S knows that p.

The evidence they use is twofold: Gettier cases and something called "the closure of justification." Gettier problems have bothered me for years, and I'm happy to think of them more. I need to familiarize myself with the closure of justification, though, because that seems closer to my interests. It has to do with justifying beliefs based on the justification of other beliefs. Man, this is fun stuff.

On a mildly related note, I came across on an article at the Buddhism Channel called "Flesh Made Soul" that boasts the tagline "Can a new theory in neuroscience explain spiritual experience to a non-believer?" I've scanned the article, but I want to go through it a little more carefully, and follow up on some of the source material. The core of the article is this:

A stunning new description of how the human body and brain communicate to produce emotional states -- including our feelings, cravings, and moods -- has all the elements needed to explain how the human brain might give rise to spiritual experiences, without the necessary involvement of a supernatural presence, according to Dr. Martin Paulus, a psychiatrist at the University of California in San Diego who is also a Zen practitioner.

All I need is more time. Then I'll know everything. Or I'll believe I know everything. Or I'll have some evidence to support the belief that I know everything. Or I'll have justification for the evidence that I believe that I know everything.

I think I just sprained something.

I Guess It's Been Long Enough

2008-09-04T19:20:00.002-05:00

All of a sudden I'm enjoying songs by Duran Duran.

I'm sorry.

SOCK

2008-09-02T21:03:00.002-05:00

It occurs to me that this is a strange word. I like it a lot, but it's weird.

Sock.

I think it's funny.

Stop looking at me like that.

Just To Recap: Michael Gerson, Clueless Douche

2008-09-02T20:13:00.009-05:00

Michael Gerson once again proves he's a clueless douche. Here's his take on the media's treatment of Governor Sarah Palin's disclosure that her seventeen-year-old daughter is pregnant:

What does all this say about Palin herself? That she is a hypocrite? Absurd. She seems to have acted in a manner entirely consistent with her religious beliefs. (If she had urged her daughter to get an abortion, that would be hypocrisy.) That Palin is somehow unqualified for office because she couldn't "control" her own family? This is a foolish, cartoon version of Victorianism.

As for Gerson's first question, it seems to me it tells a lot, but not in the way he's stretching this. Hypocrite? No. Blah blah blah religious beliefs.

His next question is whether Bristol's* pregnancy should disqualify the Governor because, to use Gerson's phrase, "she couldn't 'control' her own family." Er, no. Here's the deal.

Sarah Palin supports abstinence-only sex education. She's right in line with the other conservatives on this. No mention of sex acts or the facts of how babies happen or of contraceptives should ever be taught to unwitting children. Because that's the way to prevent unwanted pregnancies God's way.

So let's say the governor really believes this tripe. Let's say she thinks abstinence-only sex education will do, and that will solve our teen-pregnancy "problem." How does that work out?

Well, it seems that a white Alaskan woman between the ages of fifteen and nineteen are slightly less likely than the national average to get pregnant (Check here and here). Mix in that her parents are wealthy and that they're very religious, and you'd like to think that this kid won't be baking buns before sunrise, right? Wrong.

So if a young woman in this situation falls into these circumstances, what chance to poor, uneducated, undereducated, less-well-supported young women have? Honestly?

Almost none. And that's why the conservative position on women's issues are completely fucking wrong. I'm not saying that's the only reason, but it's a big one.

*Okay, WTF? What goddamned anencephalic fuckwit names any child "Bristol?" This alone should raise red flags like a mofo.

UPDATE 9/4/08: I added the links. Probably not in a helpful way, but I added them.

John "Breast Man" McCain

2008-09-02T15:55:00.004-05:00

So, I was clicking from one blog to another and I came across this post at White Noise Insanity. The video is pretty interesting to watch. Is John McCain looking at Palin's notes, or her . . . er . . . notables? The way he's fingering his wedding band makes me wonder if he isn't taking an unhealthy interest in his running mate's (ooooh . . . unfortunate choice of words there) mammaries.

Decide for yourself. But as far as I can tell, even she isn't reading any notes.

Weighty Issues

2008-08-31T17:07:00.002-05:00

This week in one of my Comp II classes we discussed Tim O'Brien's "The Things They Carried." I've read the story I don't know how many dozens of times over the years, but a discussion like that one will always make me think more deeply about it. This time I was captivated by O'Brien's notion of the conditions of our lives adding weight, and a corresponding desire in people (especially the soldiers in the story) to shed that weight--to relieve ourselves of the burdens we take on, whether they're chosen or forced on us.

I'm not sure why this time through it occurred to me, but I wondered if O'Brien was responding to Milan Kundera's The Unbearable Lightness of Being. I've also read this novel a number of times, and I've always gotten carried away with Kundera's treatment of weight--which is almost completely opposite O'Brien's. Instead of the conditions of our lives adding weight to our lives, Kundera posits that since we only live once, everything we do is ephemeral, weightless. Especially the choices we make. It's the fact that our lives are so weightless that causes our real anxiety.

I'm sure someone's already juxtaposed these two, but I'm smitten with this idea now. I'll have to read Kundera next.

The Morons Are Coming! The Morons Are Coming!

2008-08-28T17:13:00.004-05:00

A couple days ago in the Minneapolis Star Tribune some quasi-human pile of snake shit named "Lisa Sisinni" wrote about how, now that Hillary Clinton has been passed over for Vice President, she's going to vote for--get this--John McCain. She even lays out her "reasons" for this fuckwittery thusly:

Now that Obama has captured the Democratic nomination, the choice is clear: John McCain has far more experience and understanding of critical issues -- the war in Iraq, economic prosperity, health-care reform and energy security, to name a few -- than Barack Obama. John McCain has been a member of Congress for 26 years; Obama has yet to finish his first term in the Senate. I may not agree with McCain on every social issue, but he has earned the right to stand where he does after years of making tough decisions as a federal lawmaker.
I know that I can trust McCain, because he was willing to sacrifice his own life in service to his country. That kind of character is hard to find, and that character has guided him throughout his political career. He has held fast to his beliefs even when they made him unpopular and when he faced pressures from his own party. Obama doesn't have a record of character like that; in fact, he doesn't have much of a record at all.

I've written about this kind of idiot previously, and Sisinni's essay on petulant stupidity falls right in line with my earlier post. In short, every criterion she lists as a reason to vote for McCain over Obama also would be a reason to vote for McCain over Clinton.

Can we pass a law or something? Maybe something like, "If someone should demonstrate, in speech or in writing, that he or she is incapable of simple critical thinking, then that person shall be barred from casting a vote in any election." Because really, this is the same kind of stupid shit that put Dubya in the White House and then kept him there.

Dammit, people suck.

8-24-88

2008-08-24T17:01:00.003-05:00

As with everything else on this blog, there has been no revision here. This doesn't even really qualify as a draft--more like a freewrite or a purge. This is only the second time I've tried to write an account of this day, and the first time was twelve years ago. Maybe someday I'll be able to spend some time working with the material to make more of it than this, but I felt it important to exorcise these thoughts today.

Twenty years ago today everything about me changed, but the day started the same as had the six previous: Some loud scary man slammed the door open and shouted while he banged on every surface available to him. We woke in different attitudes. Some slumped from the bunk to wobble on the line, weaving and bobbing while the Company Commanders shouted their displeasure at us. Others sprang from the mattress and quivered at attention, waiting for the words of praise that might fall their way.

I was somewhere in between. In fact, I was usually standing on the line before I was awake. I mean that literally. There were several mornings when I woke up in a standing position with somebody yelling at me. I hovered in place, though, neither willing myself to follow orders nor rebelling against them—just going through the motions as I felt out the situation.

I tell you that’s how the day started because that’s how all the days started. At least for a while. I have no specific memory of that part of that day, even though it’s probably the second most important day of my life. I know that I woke without issues, joined the company in PT (physical training) for a couple of hours before breakfast, I ate like a horse (always have, always will), and then I went to class with my company. I don’t remember what we learned that day—it could have been history or firefighting or shipboard security or a hundred other things. But class ended mid-morning and we returned to the barracks to receive our next set of instructions. We marched as a company, four wide and twenty deep, the guidon (the shortest man in the company, assigned to carry the company flag) in the front right. Since I was among the tallest half-dozen in the company I was on that right side as well, about a foot away from the edge of the cement. I had the rest of the company between me and anyone we might pass, or anything that could approach on the sidewalk.

When we climbed the stairs and entered our compartment we lined up in front of our bunks again, stood at attention and waited. It was early enough in the day that we all had the energy to face whatever came next. Our round, stubbly heads faced directly ahead, so we each had a handful of our peers in view directly across. I faced Fincher, a broad-shouldered man from Jamaica who always smiled slightly. He was smiling then. Our dungarees still crackled with newness and our boondockers shone from a week of nightly polishing.

We didn’t flinch anymore when the CCs came in and shouted. I don’t remember the orders they gave us, but we turned toward the door to head out again. I didn’t get to go, though, because one of the Company Commanders took me out of line. He didn’t shout my name or send a messenger to get me. He approached me himself, spoke in a normal voice, and asked me to follow him to the office. Something had to be very wrong, and I knew what it was.

In the office, both CCs stood casually and explained to me that I needed to see the base chaplain. They handed me a walking chit and told me to go directly to the chaplain’s office. Did I remember where that was? I did. I left the compartment as a handful of others, left behind for housekeeping duties, got to work sweeping and swabbing.

Outside I functioned like a company unto myself. I marched in straight lines and right corners, I kept to the right edge of the sidewalk, and I kept my eyes forward. In my left hand I clutched my walking chit, leaving my right hand free to salute should I pass an officer or Company Commander. I didn’t pass anyone on that trip. The sun glowed hazily in the pale blue sky, less a fiery ball than an off-white smear.

Ten minutes after I left the barracks I arrived at the chaplain’s office and was quickly let in by the receptionist. I don’t remember the exact conversation that took place. I may not have even heard what the chaplain said, and I wouldn’t have had to hear him to know why I was there. I’d known it from the moment I was pulled out of line. I’d known it was coming since the beginning of summer, and I’d feared it for a year. The chaplain, a white-haired, florid-faced man with a Lieutenant Commander’s gold oak leaf on one lapel of his khaki shirt and a dull gold cross on the other, told me the news and hugged me and told me to come to him if I needed help. Again, I don’t remember what words he used. He could have said, “Your father died this morning.” He might have said, “Your father has passed on,” or “Your father has gone home to Jesus.” Probably he said something like, “Your mother called this morning. I’m afraid your father has passed away. I’m sorry.”

I’ve always been a crier. The first time I watched Snoopy, Come Home, when I was about six years old, I had to leave the room while Charlie Brown and his friends looked for Snoopy and the sad music played. I stood in the darkened living room and tried to stop the tears running down my face. When I was ten and my dad told me I couldn’t play basketball because I hadn’t been doing my math homework I stared at the floor while he chastised me. With my face tilted forward my tears fell directly from my eyes to the rug. When I say goodbye to people I tear up. I cried at my wedding and for most of my last day at work before we moved to Oklahoma. In short, I’m an emotional wuss. While the chaplain offered his condolences and his assistance I cried, wiped my eyes, blew my nose, and tried to compose myself.

Over the next couple of hours I was shuttled around the base by a series of personnel. I was taken to the tailor where they measured me for dress whites. I was taken to the travel office where they arranged for a very expensive last-minute flight leaving that afternoon. I was taken to personnel where they arranged for me to take nine days of leave—more time off than I’d served to that point. We returned to the tailor so I could pick up my hastily-hemmed dress uniform. I was taken back to the barracks where I packed a small bag and changed into my whites. Two other guys were in the barracks then, and when they found out why I was leaving they offered platitudes. One said, “God bless you.” He asked if he could pray for me. I said, “Do what you gotta do,” pressed my cover onto my head, and left with my handler.

A year and three days earlier my father had been diagnosed with cancer. After months of seeing doctors about numbness in his hand and arm they’d finally done a CAT scan and found a tumor in his brain. They quickly scheduled surgery, and one day he came home with a square patch shaved from his hair just above the hairline on the right side of his forehead. In the middle of the bare patch lay a cluster of glistening stitches. For months he underwent chemotherapy and radiation treatments. I drove him to some of those appointments, but we never talked much about it. I was afraid to and he may have been, too.

The chemo sickened him and made it difficult for him to eat. At dinner he’d try to force food down, but gagged and retched with almost every bite. I ate with my head down, unwilling to leave the table but unable to face anyone. I chewed with a loose mouth and wiped my mouth and my eyes with my napkin. In May the doctors determined the cancer was too advanced. Terminal. Tumors in his liver and everything else. The situation went from a possible recovery to a countdown.

The night before I left for boot camp my brother and I drove around with Hammer, visited as many friends as we could. We got to Sly’s house at three in the morning—he’d been in California and just got back to town late that night. When we walked into the house our parents were awake, waiting for us. Actually, they waited on the floor in front of Dad’s recliner. The night before he’d tried to stand but fell, dropped to the floor at the foot of his chair. Mom tried to help him back into the chair, but they couldn’t do it. They waited for six hours before we got home to help. Between my shame over that personal failure—why hadn’t I spent that evening with my family?—and anxiety over leaving that day I couldn’t sleep that night. I lay in bed for an hour, then rose, showered, and left with my recruiter.

On August 24, 1988 I flew home again, a skinny kid with a shaved head, dressed in what was more a costume than a uniform at that point. I leaned against the window during the flight and tried to think of anything except the only thing I could think about. I failed. I cried.

The wake and the funeral passed quickly. At the interment, when the honor guard performed the twenty-one gun salute, I took my cover off and put it against my chest, acting like a civilian even though I was in uniform. I managed pretty well that day, but I couldn’t keep my composure when I saw my grandparents standing beside the casket, my grandmother weeping and my grandfather looking like he’d been kicked in the stomach.

I was home for nine days before shipping back to basic training, where I spent the weekend in a holding company before joining a new group one week behind my original company. Boot camp turned out to be both good and bad for my psyche. It was good in that I didn’t have a chance to dwell on my problems. It was bad in that I didn’t have a chance to dwell on my problems. If I had, maybe I would have healed better. Or at all. At times it feels like my whole adult life has been one long, inadequate reaction to that moment when I was pulled out of line.

One of the other images of my father from that last year was devastating at the time, but has mellowed a little with age. After he started radiation and chemo his hair started falling out, of course. He'd always had nice hair--thick and wavy and dark--but the constant drifting of single strands onto his neck, his forehead, his ears drove him crazy. One afternoon he'd had enough. He stood up from his recliner, walked out the back patio door and onto the deck. He stood at the northeast corner of the deck and got rid of that annoying hair. He grabbed little bits at first and tossed them into the wind. Soon he was clutching gobs of it and pulling it away from his head. It came away like dandelion fluff and floated away from us the same way. My mom couldn't take it. She couldn't watch, and she kept telling him to stop it. I was in shock, and I think my brother was, too. But Dad finished his work, stripped his head until there were just wisps trailing and downy patches hugging his scalp. He looked more at peace then than he had in a while. Cancer makes a patient helpless. In pop culture we like to attach the words "battle" and "struggle" to the disease, but there isn't any combat for the patient to wage. There's only endurance and little gestures of stubbornness. Sometimes those gestures, even when small, gain power enough to make the endurance a bit easier. Like Dad pulling his hair out. Like me writing this.

Forget That It Came Out of His Mouth

2008-08-22T16:13:00.001-05:00

I want to be his kind of smart.

From My Fragmented Mind

2008-08-22T12:52:00.010-05:00

Bear witness to the mess who is me:

The first week of classes are over, and I'm having a great time. I suspected it long ago, but it seems the Comp II class was practically built for me. It's sixteen weeks of analyzing literature and argument--the two things that compel me most in the classroom. The discussions in these classes are going to be great. And for the first fiction selection: Tim O'Brien's "The Things They Carried." I can't wait. Then I'll do Raymond Carver's "What We Talk About When We Talk About Love" paired with the satire "What We Talk About When We Talk About Doughnuts."
For the past couple of days a new Metallica song, "The Day That Never Comes," has been streaming at Brave Words and Bloody Knuckles. Metallica has assured listeners (as they have for every album they've released for the past fifteen years) that Death Magnetic will be a return to their older sound. After listening to the song a couple of times I've come to the conclusion that . . . it does and it doesn't. What it sounds like to me is Black-album-era Metallica with some pseudo-Master of Puppets thrashing inserted in an unsubtle way. Like a Microsoft Word document that was written in Times New Roman but has chunks of text pasted in that were written in Courier New. That said, this is the best Metallica has sounded since the Black album (which Uncyclopedia has amusingly called Snakes on a Plain Black Cover).
I'm starting to look like an Edge of the American West whore, but they keep blogging stuff that I like. Plus they tolerate me hanging around and posting stupid comments even though I'm a history moron and a . . . well, a moron in general. Watch a funny video Ari posted of John McCain's inability to keep track of how many houses he* owns here.
Like I said in my last post, I've taken another job. That means that we're being supported by Michele's stipend (which is generous, to be sure) and my three part-time jobs. It sucks that this is the only way I can spend the bulk of my time teaching, but nobody ever said life wouldn't suck sometimes. Well, maybe someone did say that, but I wasn't there, and wouldn't have believed them anyway. But to return to my point--I'm working at Book Store again. This store has its differences from the one in Burnsville, but overall it's the same animal. The downside is that I am once again reminded on a regular basis just how fucking stupid most people are**. I've seen and heard more dumb shit in three and a half shifts at this job than I had in the whole previous year. Honestly, I fear the end is nigh.

I'm planning a rather large post on Sunday, as it's a significant day. More later.

*McCain, not Ari. I'm sure they pay the history profs at UC Davis a reasonable salary, but not enough to maintain ten homes. Besides, why would McCain want to keep track of how many homes Ari owns? Unless he wants more . . .

**Yes, I'm a misanthrope. But I'm a compassionate misanthrope.

Crickets and Tumbleweeds

2008-08-20T18:32:00.002-05:00

Sorry it's been so quiet around here. I took a third job, and time and energy are both in short supply lately. Classes have started, and I think this will be a fun semester once it really gets rolling. Michele took one of her quals today, and she's in a much better mood with that behind her for the moment. She has another on Friday, though . . .

Another Thing George and Osama Have In Common

2008-08-17T15:27:00.007-05:00

I mean--other than being the two people who have done the most to damage America in the last eight years. It turns out they both have terrible approval ratings.We've known about Dubya's public perception problems for some time. The American Research Group, Inc. had this to say a few weeks ago:

Among all Americans, 21% approve of the way Bush is handling his job as president and 72% disapprove. When it comes to Bush's handling of the economy, 17% approve and 77% disapprove.

But it turns out Osama can't get his people behind him anymore, either. Here's Peter Bergen in the Washington Post today:

No matter what bin Laden's fate, Muslims around the world are increasingly taking a dim view of his group and its suicide operations. In the late 1990s, bin Laden was a folk hero to many Muslims. But since 2003, as al-Qaeda and its affiliates have killed Muslim civilians by the thousands from Casablanca to Kabul, support for bin Laden has nose-dived, according to Pew polls taken in key Muslim countries such as Indonesia and Pakistan.

It turns out that whether you're in America or Arabia, if you screw over the people you pretend to help, they don't like it. Huh.

It's almost like they're related.

This photo from Uncyclopedia.

Michael Phelps: Buffet Nightmare

2008-08-16T19:06:00.007-05:00

If Michael Phelps is ahead of you in line at the buffet, you're in trouble. The BBC details the swimmer's daily diet in this article, and it's crazy.

Here's a highlight:

Breakfast: Three fried egg sandwiches; cheese; tomatoes; lettuce; fried onions; mayonnaise; three chocolate-chip pancakes; five-egg omelette; three sugar-coated slices of French toast; bowl of grits; two cups of coffee.

Reading that gives me a stomach ache.

A Video About How McCain Sucks

2008-08-15T21:02:00.007-05:00

As Ari notes on Edge of the American West, this should be shouted from the hilltops. Except it can't be shouted, because it's a video. So it should be . . . shown to lots of people.

I can't believe there are still people willing to vote for this schmuck.

Exposure Path: CartwrightDale, Talking Points Memo, Edge of the American West

Damn, People Are Stupid #3

2008-08-14T11:06:00.012-05:00

Normally I like Nick Coleman's commentaries in the Minneapolis Star Tribune. He tends to take the side of the underdog, usually in a case where that is necessary. Normally he makes sense. This time he doesn't.

Actually, I had overlooked this article until Michele started ranting about it over breakfast (she is her father's daughter--no doubt about it). Once I read it, though, my ranting matched hers.

Apparently a woman named Christina Brown bought some shirts at Target, paid for them with a check, and took them home. She discovered there that the shirts didn't fit and returned to the store the next day to get her money back. Once in the store she was told that--per company policy--she could have her money back immediately in the form of a gift card or she could wait six more days and get cash back. That wasn't good enough for Ms. Brown. She wanted cash and she wanted it now. Evidently her conversation with the manager of the store wasn't well-handled from either end, and Ms. Brown was taken away by stretcher to the hospital.

Here are the relevant points to the episode:

Ms. Brown wanted her money back and, according to Target's return policy, was entitled to it.
Ms. Brown was offered her money back in accord with Target's return policy.
Ms. Brown wanted Target to make an exception to their return policy.
Ms. Brown refused her refund and refused to leave unless an exception was made for her.
Ms. Brown called the police, who apparently decided she needed to go to the hospital.

Here are the irrelevant points to the episode (but Coleman included them anyway):

Ms. Brown is 79 years old.
Ms. Brown is an English-Irish immigrant.
Ms. Brown uses a wheelchair.
Ms. Brown wears a patch over her eye. (Arrrr.)
Ms. Brown's leg ached.

Emotional appeal is used effectively when supporting a conclusion already arrived at by reason, as any of my freshman Comp students have heard more times than they'd like. It doesn't, however, take the place of reason, which Coleman surely knows. He's a better columnist than this. Here's another gem:

Attention shoppers: You won't take a gift certificate? You must be nuts.

Nice distortion, Coleman.

Here are some questions Coleman didn't address, but that I'd find pertinent to the issue:

Why didn't Ms. Brown try on the shirts in the store?
Did Ms. Brown try to exchange the shirts for some that would fit?
Why was Ms. Brown so emphatic about getting cash back? If the shirts had fit she wouldn't have the money, so she clearly wasn't counting on having it. And since she "liked to shop" in that store--did she not think the gift card would be useful to her?

All of this is easy to come up with after the fact, but there's no hiding it: this is a shoddy commentary.

Sure, the manager could have defused the whole situation by just handing thirty dollars to Ms. Brown. And there's no harm in trying, right? I don't think Ms. Brown was out of line going to the store and making the attempt (though it seems that calling instead would have been more sensible since she *boo hoo* uses a wheelchair). But she's deluded if she expects people have an obligation to do her a favor, to make an exception for her.

And we have the usual fallout:

Christina Brown wants an apology, she wants her money (including getting her medical bills from the unexpected hospital trip paid), and she wants this: "I want the staff trained in how to treat customers."

Want, want, want. Wah-fucking-wah. I'm sure she'll get her money--in seven days, like the policy says (Correction--already has her money. This happened on July 31st). But money back for the hospital visit? Talk to the police, who actually made the call to send her there. Good luck with that. An apology? Yeah, here's an apology that Target should send her:

Dear Ms. Brown,
We're sorry you're a self-important, whiny bitch. Thanks for your previous business, but please take it elsewhere from here on out, because we'd rather spend our time and effort on reasonable people.
Thank you,
Target

And as far as I can tell, everyone involved treated her as she should have been treated.

Idiot.

Damn, People Are Smart #2

2008-08-14T08:47:00.004-05:00

I keep returning to my "belief" project--it's something that's occupied at least a little part of my mind for a decade--and I've even gone so far as to request an information packet from OU's philosophy department so I could work on the material more formally (and, let's face it, more competently). The more I wander about the internet, engaging with aspects of my idea, the more I find that really smart people have been touching on elements of it already, and touching on them in a way that could prove really helpful to me.

At EotAW last week there was a discussion of truth and lies in politics, prompted by McCain's pathetic attack ads and the Obama campaign's more dignified response. In the comments, a guy named Matt Weiner, who's an Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Texas Tech University, linked to a post he'd written a few years ago about the practical and ethical implications of lying. It's great stuff, and I'm encouraged by his final paragraph:

The idea of a social epistemic responsibility is a pretty big one that could use some more working out, but I remain somewhat optimistic that we can establish a sense in which someone who tells falsehoods shouldn't be believed.

I'm not terribly interested in the last part--I don't care too much for the notion of "should"--but social epistemic responsibility (as it relates to one's obligations regarding formation, investigation, and expression of beliefs) is a great starting point for me.

Damn, People Are Stupid #2

2008-08-13T15:48:00.004-05:00

The Minneapolis Star Tribune reports the results of a study by FindLaw.com:

. . . 48 percent of drivers between 18 to 24 and 27 percent of drivers 25 to 34 admit to texting while behind the wheel.
Seventeen percent of all adults surveyed say they have sent text messages, instant messages or e-mails while driving.

This doesn't surprise me at all, but it does enrage me. Put down the damned pacifier and drive, you fuckwits. You can go for a few minutes without finding out what Kelsey, Chelsea, Lindsay, and Ashley are doing this weekend. You certainly don't need to instantly communicate that "taht ashol just curt me of!!"

If the only people hurt or killed in accidents resulting from this stupidity were the texters I'd encourage it. Strengthen the gene pool and all that. But the anencephalous specimens engaging in this behavior are more likely to walk away from an accident while some other poor sucker bleeds to death around the steering column embedded in her chest.

Gaaaaah!

He Represents the Lollipop Guild

2008-08-08T18:25:00.008-05:00

I was reading about John McCain’s long and nasty political career in a post at Daily Kos when I found an amusing bit from the Senator’s past. It seems that in 1986 McCain was running against a man named Richard Kimball (not Kimble)—a really tall Democrat—and the race was pretty close. This article from AZ Central picks up the story:

In late 1986, as Kimball gained ground on McCain in the Senate race, the candidates agreed to debate on television.
Because McCain was shorter than the lanky Kimball, he stood on a riser behind the podium. At one point, Kimball called him on it, saying McCain was "standing on a soapbox" to make himself look taller.
McCain was angry but kept his cool. Jay Smith, his political guru, later told a writer that McCain at that moment "wanted to kill" Kimball. The next day, he got mad all over again when he saw himself standing on the riser on the front page of The Republic.
While the debate was mostly a draw, McCain enjoyed a huge fund-raising lead, outspending Kimball nearly 4 to 1. On Election Day, McCain steamrolled Kimball, 60 percent to 40 percent.
"Far from being the marquee race everyone looked forward to when Bruce Babbitt was the presumptive Democratic candidate, my first race for the Senate was pretty close to a foregone conclusion," McCain remembers in Worth the Fighting For. "I led in the polls from start to finish. . . . (Kimball) was not the first-tier candidate that the Democrats had hoped to field."
McCain went to a downtown hotel for his acceptance speech, an event chronicled in Timberg's book.
Smith accommodated McCain with a riser from which to deliver his acceptance speech.
"Arriving at the hotel shortly after McCain, Smith saw reporters and well-wishers huddle together on the stage," Timberg wrote. "From the midst of the throng, he heard a familiar voice floating upward, thanking the voters for sending him to the Senate. Familiar but disembodied. McCain had seen the riser and kicked it aside. (McCain) had become the Invisible Man."

The poor munchkin didn’t want to be seen as small, then didn’t want it pointed out that he was afraid to be seen as small, and then had to rely on his own inadequate stature for his acceptance speech. That’s priceless. And holy crap that's a big box he's standing on. Did he think nobody would notice that he'd grown a foot? Or that his arms were disproportionately short for his newfound height? Kind of like a tyrannosaurus rex?

McCain stands 5’7”, which isn’t that much shorter than the average American man (last I heard that was about 5’9”), but he’s in trouble when he has to stand next to Obama, a strapping 6’1”. That six-inch difference—plus McCain’s resemblance to a leprechaun or a munchkin—won’t help his public image.