4521 and done

If you hadn't already heard via Twitter, this is the official announcement: I'm getting out of blogging. Thus endeth decorabilia.

I started blogging seven years ago largely for my own benefit. Over time, the landscape changed: I began debate-blogging, which drew my time away from other topics, and turned me into a national expert in LD. Along with that honor came a gigantic obligation, an obligation I can no longer fulfill. I simply don't have the time to blog consistently anymore, and I don't want to keep readers hanging on in expectation of posts that will likely never arrive.

Life changed in even greater ways: in those seven years, among all the other events both amazing and banal, I got married and was divorced (there the passive voice is intended), living out a life lesson in failure that I might have taught my students. In these seven years at CHS, I took on more and more responsibilities, and am now English department chair, debate coach, APEX online coordinator, Powerful Teaching and Learning facilitator, unofficial tech support guy, and... I can't remember what else.

Most important, my life has radically and profoundly changed for the better. In the last six months, I met an amazing woman, Stefanie, with two lovely daughters, Keira and Miranda. Now, married again and a father for the first time, life is more exciting and busy and rewarding than I could ever hope or imagine.

I don't bemoan the loss of blogging. Instead, I'll celebrate the time I'll have to share with my wife and kids, and to explore the personal pursuits I had largely abandoned, including reading and writing for fun. It's been a while.

Thanks to my readers, especially debaters, who've made it fun and intellectually stimulating. For current and future readers, I won't erase anything. The archives are still there, with all kinds of advice--just click the labels. I'll someday string together all my LD thoughts into one gigantic post for your information. That someday will be soon, when I can finally catch my breath.

4,521 posts. This is the last.

Thanks and good night.

robopocalypse delayed

Robot apocalypticists often presume that artificially intelligent beings will be all-too-eager to cooperate to destroy humanity. Which is why this video is so reassuring.

[via Mark Frauenfelder]

not for the squeamish

Though it gets flippant when discussing the philosophical implications, Jesse Bering's piece is a nice (nice? not the right word at all) introduction to the many and diverse kinds of parasitic twins.

thoughts about animal rights

The first post about the animal rights resolution has sparked a lot of great questions. Rather than try to answer them in the comments, I'll tackle them here, all at once, and see what other thoughts I can add.

First, a reader writes,

[If] we were to affirm, would major corporations such as McDonalds and Burger King be in violation of these rights, and if they were, would they be shut down by the government, costing thousands of people their jobs and adding to the country's unemployment rate?

This is one of the most critical points in this resolution: it doesn't define the nature or scope of animal rights. For all we know, animals could only have negative rights of a fairly limited extent, such as the right not to suffer cruel and unusual treatment. (It may seem morally strange to allow a person to kill and eat something, provided it doesn't suffer while alive, but that's just one of the morally strange things about trying to blend carnivorous and animal rights.)

So, unless animal rights include a "right not to be killed," we simply can't answer the question.

Next, reader nesh asks, "Didn't we as humans create this system of justice that the resolution speaks of?"

That's a great question that won't find an easy answer. In this view, rights are socially constructed. They're invented by humans, for humans--but this also makes rights a matter of human whim, changing with times and cultures. This gets tricky quickly, leading to cultural / moral relativism, and slippery grounds for disapproving of moral horrors like murder or rape.

Even if rights are human constructs, does it follow that animals are excluded from rights-talk? Not necessarily. There may be a good reason--a utilitarian or pragmatic reason--to extend rights to animals so that all humans benefit. More on this later.

A less constructivist approach is to argue that rights exist independent of human thought, but are discovered by rational actors, much as mathematical concepts exist on their own plane, waiting to be plucked out by mathematicians. Humans might disagree on the nature of rights, but they can't merely construct them. Animal rights could exist in a like manner, waiting for the first John Locke of the dolphins to squeak out a treatise. Even if such an event never occurs, however, a creature that can articulate animal rights--a human being--already exists, and can potentially assign those rights to animals.

An anonymous reader writes,

I do not like anything on the aff side... people will say that there are animals with "near human intelligence" and like arguments. This is not a good argument on several levels... First, that only occurs in certain cases. Not a true reason to affirm, and secondly if they were so smart they would protect their own rights

Giving animals rights for inherent reasons--they're intelligent, they can suffer, they're cute and fuzzy--is only one approach. Another is utilitarian, as I mentioned above: when we assign rights to animals, we protect their welfare, which not only improves their lives (and the environment), but may make us more moral as human beings. To wit, a person who treats animals with respect is more likely to treat humans with respect. (The opposite may be true as well; stereotypically, it's the psychopathic serial killer who's cruel to animals at a young age.)

Furthermore, an ethicist like Peter Singer will argue that the same reasons we defend the rights of defenseless, pre-rational human babies can be extended to the defense of non-rational animals.

As a different anonymous reader writes later on,

As for the justice approach, you're gonna have to be specific about the definition of justice, or what justice really is and what it applies to. Is justice a human-only concept? If we talk about justice and its benefits, is it utility for humans only? and if it is or isn't, why?

Amen and amen.

I'm running out of time at the moment, so I'll stop there for now. More questions, and concomitant answers, coming soon.

Resolved: Justice requires the recognition of animal rights.

The September / October 2011 Lincoln-Douglas debate topic has been released:

Resolved: Justice requires the recognition of animal rights.

It's a fairly straightforward sentence with a lot of deep philosophical implications, and is a great way to start the season.

To get started, here's a thought-experiment.

An alien spaceship descends on your hometown, bug-eyed spindly-legged creatures emerging from its bowels. "Great," you think. "This is gonna be great." You've always wondered whether there was intelligent life elsewhere in the universe--and here it is, practically knocking down your door.

Actually, it is knocking down your door, and vaporizing your furniture, and corralling you and your family into cages, until you're whisked off to some distant galaxy, ostensibly to serve as entertainment for Emperor Garthron of Planet X.

You try to reason with your captors. Their eyes are blank with apathy, however; they cannot hear, nor can they understand your rudimentary bleating. They ignore your gestures and are unfazed by your scribblings. Your actions are meaningless to them, beyond the detached interest of idle alien curiosity.

How would you convince one of these aliens that their behavior is unjust, and that they've violated your rights?

Or would you even bother to try?

Clearly, your rights exist regardless of your ability to articulate them to an outsider. But what if the situation were reversed, a la District 9? Would intelligent aliens have rights?

Or, more to the point, what if animals find themselves in the same position regarding their human neighbors?

How wide is the circuit of our moral concern? Should it include organisms of different species?

Why do we care about animals?
Suppose you feel anger or sadness about recent reports about whales' susceptibility to industrial toxins. Your sentiments could arise from many sources: appreciation of the whales' beauty and power and intelligence; pity for their helplessness; respect for their unique place in nature, or for divine mandates for environmental stewardship. You could also take a different tack, highlighting their instrumental value--for instance, their essential role in the oceanic ecosystem, or their utility as a food source.

The last makes the problem particularly acute. It's tough to concede rights to something you might grill on the barbecue. Here the culturally arbitrary nature of our attachments becomes evident: some folks dress up their dogs in funny clothes, while other folks eat them. (And if dogs have a right not to suffer, why not whales?)

How do we define "animal?"
Dictionary.com (based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary) gives us at least three workable definitions.

1.any member of the kingdom Animalia, comprising multicellular organisms that have a well-defined shape and usually limited growth, can move voluntarily, actively acquire food and digest it internally, and have sensory and nervous systems that allow them to respond rapidly to stimuli: some classification schemes also include protozoa and certain other single-celled eukaryotes that have motility and animallike nutritional modes.

This scientific definition would set up an interesting affirmative:

All humans have rights.
All humans are animals.
Therefore, some animals have rights.
Thus, we affirm the resolution.

The second and third definition are much narrower:

2. any such living thing other than a human being.
3. a mammal, as opposed to a fish, bird, etc.

The former sets up a distinction between human rights and animal rights, which is the traditional manner of thinking about such things. The latter is even more restrictive, making it so the affirmative would have to defend rights for whales and grizzlies and gibbons, but not for lobsters, snakes, or chickens. (Serious efforts to grant rights to apes and to cetaceans already exist.)

Which animals would have rights?
The definition chosen points to a potential answer; other arguments might revolve around distinctions based on sentience or intelligence.

Which rights would these animals have?
Hard to say. In Spain, for instance, non-human apes have rights of life and freedom from suffering.

Where do rights come from?
If they come from God, we may have to turn to some kind of scripture to answer the question.
If they're inherent, we have to figure out whether they're inherent in animals.
If they're social constructions, we have to decide whether our society admits nonhumans.
If they're contractual, we have to wonder whether non-signatories are covered by the contract.
If they're legal constructs, we have to determine whether the law assigning rights to animals is wise.
If they're a matter of utility, we need to know whether a life with animal rights increases utility.

Recommended Reading
The SEP's entry on the moral status of animals.
Lawrence Hinman's list of relevant links and resources.

As always, your ideas and questions are critical. Fire away in the comments.

Note: this is a slightly modified repost of the topic preview from last year, since, following custom, the Sept/Oct topic is the least popular top choice from the 2010-2011 list.

barbecue tour photos: part deux

[first installment here]

the fast and the furious

Johnette Howard of ESPN has written a fascinating summary of the triumph and travails of Oscar Pistorius, the path-blazing runner who might get a shot at the Olympics, as well as the controversy created by his technologically facilitated racing. Even the scientists disagree as to whether Pistorius' prosthetics give him an unfair advantage. Quite the paradox.

is your car winking at me?

Problem: your car isn't flirtatious enough.


Solution: eyelashes!

Linnenkohl gets his shot

Congratulations to Capital grad Alex Linnenkohl, who was signed by the Chicago Bears to a 3-year contract, getting a shot at center. The Olympian reports:

Linnenkohl, who finished his college career last season as one of Oregon State’s all-time best centers, signed a rookie free agent contract with the Chicago Bears on Tuesday afternoon, fulfilling his longtime dream of getting a chance to play in the NFL. He was one of two undrafted centers signed by Chicago, joining Mississippi State’s J.C. Brignone.

“This is all I’ve ever wanted,” Linnenkohl said Tuesday from Olivet Nazarene University in Bourbonnais, Ill., where the Bears will begin training camp Saturday. “It’s pretty surreal right now. It hasn’t really hit me yet.”

What follows is one of those I-knew-him-when's: Back in 2006, I appeared on the same stage as Linnenkohl in an improv comedy show. The papers always report his work ethic (second-to-none) and his determination (at only 303 pounds, he's small for a center), but what they miss is his quick wit and killer sense of humor.

Best of luck, Alex. Strike that: do what brought you here, and keep working hard. If you get a Superbowl ring before the Seahawks do, I won't even complain.

"wear it humbly"

In my time, I have twice grown a full beard, once for a competition, and once for a fundraiser. My barbaric exploits are nothing, though, compared to those of young Burke Kenny, beard champion at 26:

The 26-year-old Olympia resident recently returned from the World Beard and Mustache Championships in Trondheim, Norway, where he took first place in the "full beard with styled mustache" category. He won the same title four years ago in England, when he became the youngest international facial-hair champion....

The international competition featured about 20 categories. The Americans brought home six gold medals, and four of those were grown by men from Washington state, Kenny said. Besides Kenny, they were Bruce Roe of Bremerton, who won for Hungarian mustache; Craig "Rooty" Lundvall of the Everett area, who won for full beard natural; and Keith "Ghandi Jones" Haubrich of Seattle, who won the freestyle mustache category.

What is it that makes the Evergreen State such a haven for bearded folk? Could it be the 58-degree rainy weather in July?

the barbecue tour

Things have been awful quiet around here, and for good reason: I've been on the road, enjoying the best barbecue the country has to offer--and some outstanding natural beauty along the way.  Since the state figuring most prominently in my plans has more in the way of smoked meats than scenery, I'm focusing on the culinary experience, calling it my Barbecue Tour.

Why a gastronomic excursion through the heartland? Because I love smoked meats, and because I need to gain weight.

I'll add more photos as I take 'em.



Added: More photos from the new Nikon.

the LED bulb has arrived

As Farhad Manjoo explains, a company called Switch Lighting will soon ramp up production on an LED bulb that looks as warm and inviting as an incandescent--at a fifth of the energy costs.

On average, an incandescent bulb lasts about 1,000 hours—that's about a year, if you keep it on for about three hours a day. Electricity in America also costs about 11 cents per kilowatt hour (that's the average; it varies widely by region). In other words, a 50-cent, 60-watt incandescent bulb will use about $6.60 in electricity every year. Switch's 60-watt-equivalent LED, meanwhile, uses only 13 watts of power, so it will cost only $1.43 per year. The Switch bulb also has an average lifespan of 20,000 hours--20 years. If you count the price of replacing the incandescent bulb every year, the Switch bulb will have saved you money by its fourth year. Over 20 years, you'll have spent a total of about $142 for the incandescent bulbs (for electricity and replacement bulbs) and less than $50 for Switch's 60-watt bulb.

Getting Americans to give up incandescents won't be easy, even with their 2014 phase-out. Migraine sufferers have a reason to be concerned: up until now, the least expensive viable option, compact fluorescents, were a known migraine trigger. As far as we know, though, LEDs are a safer alternative.

Now, if only they could find a way to salvage the Easy-Bake Oven.

Guerilla Running's 4K Moon Run / Walk, Saturday, July 9th

On what promises to be a completely awesome evening, Guerilla Running is hosting the first ever 4K Moon Run / Walk this Saturday, July 9th, at Capital High School, to benefit CHS's Debate Team. I hear that 200 women have signed up to race, earning custom-designed sterling silver necklaces and post-race pampering.

There will be a raffle with great prizes from Olympia businesses, including The Alpine Experience, 510 Interiors, BeHive Massage Therapy, and Nathan's Performance Gear. Swing Wine Bar Cafe will provide desserts for the runners, served by volunteers including Debate team members.

Saturday night at 8 p.m., come watch, hang out, buy raffle tickets, and enjoy the race. If you'd like to donate prizes, cash, or time, feel free to contact me.

See you at the race!



Need more info? Check it the Facebook page.

survey says: fast food stinks

A recent fast food survey reveals nothing new: the food stinks, and the service isn't much better. Nobody orders healthy fare. Sbarro is the worst restaurant in America, if not the world.

I'd like to see a followup, ranking fast food joints with added geographical nuance. For instance, which fast food restaurants are most likely to abuse your palate?

1. Standalone
2. Shopping mall food court
3. Airport
4. Tourist trap
5. Grocery store-attached
6. Freeway overpass / rest stop

America needs to know!

summertime blogging blues

With summer commencing, if not weatherly, at least calendrically and vocationally, I was ready to write a series of blog posts on some tidbits I'd gathered from around the Web and stored in my Chrome bookmarks. Then, without warning, Chrome's "sync" feature devoured them all, and apparently has regurgitated them into a parallel universe.

So, more blogging to come, just not quite yet.

While I'm on the subject of summer: it's summer, so I have a series of backburner projects that are moving to the front burner. I won't say too much because I don't want to jinx myself, but it'll be great to have a couple months of serious writing time.

Creative chickens. That's all I'll say for now.

nobody likes a whiner

Whining is more annoying than a buzz saw, says a recent study...

In raw numbers, people made more mistakes per math problems completed when listening to the whines than any of the other speech patterns or noises (though the only statistically significant differences were between whining, the table saw and motherese).

And people completed fewer subtraction problems when listening to the whining, crying and baby talk than when it was completely quiet.

...that will soon be posted on refrigerators and in teacher's lounges all across the country.

you are not your genes

You aren't.  (And yet you are.)

But you aren't.

LD topics for 2011-2012

Whitman U's Jim Hanson sends along word that the NFL has released its slate of potential topics for 2011-12:

1. Resolved: The United States ought to extend to non-citizens accused of terrorism the same constitutional due process protections it grants to citizens.

2. Resolved: It is morally permissible for victims to use deadly force as a deliberate response to repeated domestic violence.

3. Resolved: In the United States, possession of handguns ought not be an individual right.

4. Resolved: The use of eminent domain for private economic development is just.

5. Resolved: Estate taxes are just.

6. Resolved: A government has the obligation to lessen the economic gap between its rich and poor citizens.

7. Resolved: A just society ought to prioritize environmental concerns over the production of energy.

8. Resolved: In the United States, law enforcement ought to be required to have probable cause to search data an individual has stored on remote servers.

9. Resolved: Targeted killing is a morally permissible foreign policy tool.

10. Resolved: Individuals have a moral obligation to assist people in need.

The "targeted killing" resolution is my initial favorite, not only because of its timeliness, but because it's focused without seeming too specific. (#8, for instance, seems too narrow for my tastes.)

What's your favorite?

the GPS had murder on its mind

This wasn't the first time, and it won't be the last:

Three women from out of the country drove their car into Mercer Slough in Bellevue early Wednesday while trying to follow directions from their GPS.

The women, from Mexico, told police they had been following the device about midnight but obviously took a wrong turn.

The women went into the water with the rental car but were able to get out safely, said Carla Iafrate, spokeswoman for the Bellevue Police Department.

OEA ratifies contract; RIF defunct

The Olympia School District will be able to return all its RIFed teachers this year, thanks to the new contract overwhelmingly ratified by the Olympia Education Association last night.

Some of the major changes for the next contract year include...

* A reduction from 30 staff development (optional training) building, District, and teacher-directed hours to 12 teacher-directed hours.

* Reduction to 177 student days; 3 days out of the 180 in the school year are now non-student training days.

* A cap on overload payments at $866,0760

* 3 additional "optional day" hours (to mitigate a portion of the pay cut)

* School's out June 15, 2012, absent any snow days

The three non-student days are at least a little closer to the furlough the state didn't provide.

All in all, this is good news. Not great news--cuts are cuts--but good news.