I know that teacher

The one who writes funny multiple choice answers:

"What was the Great Awakening?" a question from one of Campbell's most recent tests reads. "(a) Coffee and a bagel, (b) The name given to FDR's evening radio addresses, (c) 'C'mon, Mom! Let me sleep five more minutes!' or (d) A dramatic religious revival in Anglo-American history."

"The answer is D," said Campbell, holding back a wry smile. "Giving them the option of 'Coffee and a bagel.' Get it?"

I had a guy just like him for a college course on Ancient Near Eastern history. One of his distractors for the correct response "Balaak, Son of Beor" was "Balsam, King of Shampoo." I don't remember anything else from his class.

Google forgives your orthographic deficit

Someone looking for debate information found this post by searching for "should the u.s. use militarey force to prevent enemeys to get nukler arms."

Better thank Google, friend.

how about banning anonymity?

If a certain legislator has his way, anonymous posting on a website--in Kentucky, however that works--will be against the law.

The bill would require anyone who contributes to a website to register their real name, address and e-mail address with that site.

Their full name would be used anytime a comment is posted.

If the bill becomes law, the website operator would have to pay if someone was allowed to post anonymously on their site. The fine would be five-hundred dollars for a first offense and one-thousand dollars for each offense after that.

So much for the grand American tradition of pseudonymous rabble-rousing.



[Bill available here. Via Radley Balko]

LD debate podcasts on the current resolution

If you prefer to have your mind expanded while listening, or just need to replace all those Maroon 5 tracks on your iPod with something more constructive, check out the new podcasts offered by Loquitur. They're interviews with academics about LD and public forum resolutions, a nifty idea. Props go to Mahesha Subbaraman and Brandon Sheats.

why Wednesday matters

It's the law.


The Olympia School Board of Directors is comprised of five citizens elected to represent the community in setting District goals and policies, adopting the budget, placing tax levies and bond issues on the ballot, hiring personnel including the Superintendent, and providing the necessary facilities for the education of our community's youth. Members serve in staggered four-year terms. School Board members must be citizens of the United States and qualified voters residing in one of the five geographic "director districts" They are elected, however, by nonpartisan popular vote from the total school district. The state does not limit the numbers of terms a director may serve. Three board members constitute a quorum for transacting business. Official action can only be taken at a regular board meeting or special board meeting for which public notice has been given. Board action has the force of law.

happy birthday, PZ

It's his 51st. As always, this necessitates a poem.




A temper burning hotter than a tower of flaming tires:
Who's that conflagration? PZ Meyers.

His ire directed straight at evolutional deniers:
What's his name again? PZ Miers.

Oh, woe betide the kill-filed that his acrid wit expires,
Their visc'ra disemvoweled with a pair of rusty pliers;
It's only what's expected for a crowd of cranks and liars.

Can you spell it right? PZ Myers.

sample negative cases for the hate crime enhancement resolution

Intrepid reader okiedebater has offered up more shell cases for consideration and critique. They're blockquoted; my comments follow each one. As always, your thoughts are appreciated. (Part I, aff cases, here.)

Possible Observations:
-occasional abuse of hate crime enhancements is insufficient to label them unjust. We must examine hate crime enhancements as a whole, instead of judging a rule by the exceptions.

-Hate crime enhancements are both legal and constitutional (Wisconsin v. Mitchell)

-Not all crimes are hate crimes (this came up several rounds that I've seen)

I like the first; the Aff has to show a systemic or inherent problem. Affs take note about Wisconsin v. Mitchell: it's not entirely settled, since the primary question was 1st amendment rights, and secondarily proportionality; the Court did not address "equal protection" under the 14th amendment. The last observation, you would think, is unnecessary. But some Affs are weasely. My five word rebuttal for any Aff running that silly "all crimes are hate crimes" canard: "Jaywalking isn't a hate crime."

Negative #1
V: Justice
Cr: Retributivism

C1: Hate crimes are worse than parallel crimes
-often brutal and depraved
-cause more harm to the community and overall society

C2: HCE recognize the more dangerous nature of hate crimes and increase punishment accordingly

A solid argument if you can support it. The Aff's potential responses:

1. Hate crime laws are overinclusive, and often punish offenders additionally, without warrant. See here.
2. What counts as a "parallel crime?" For instance, which is more terrifying: a hate crime or a random shooting? Should we include murder-for-hire in this calculus? Which one causes more fear in a community? Are they "parallel?"

Negative #2
V: Justice
Cr: John Locke (the gov't must protect the right of its citizens)

C1: Hate crime enhancements allow government to better protect its citizens
-increases protection for those who most need it (those who are most likely to be targeted because of a characteristic)
-this allows the government to restore a kind of equal playing field among citizens (response to an Affirmative argument about Equality)

C2: Hate crimes are more harmful to rights to than parallel crimes
-increase chances of vengeful violence
-emotional/psychological harm to the community
-->b/c hate crimes are worse, it is only just that the punishment be increased in order to 1) try to prevent them from re-occurring (deterrence), 2) incapacitate the more dangerous offender (due the potential number of victims) for a longer period of time (incapacitation), and 3) hopefully stem any potential vengeful violence from the victimized community

The question for the Lockean: do the added protections of hate crimes, even if they can be proved, avoid giving the government additional unwarranted or arbitrary power?

Negative #3
V: Justice
Cr: Just Punishment (under Constitution, or law, or something that includes that the punishment should fit the crime)

C1: Hate crime enhancements are constitutional
-shown in Wisconsin v. Mitchell

C2: Hate crime enhancements allow the punishment to fit the crime
-hate crimes are worse than parallel crimes
-regular laws can't punish sufficiently given this different
---> HCE allow more punishment, making it fit the crime

Wisconsin v. MItchell primarily deflected a "chilling effect on free speech" argument, and sicondarily reasoned that the added harms of HCEs justified additional punishment. With a criterion of constitutionality, make it two contentions:

1. They're constitutional on 1st amendment grounds.
2. They're constitutionally proportional.

And, of course, the Negative had better be ready to defend constitutionality as a criterion, given its fluid nature.

sample affirmative cases for the hate crime enhancement resolution

Intrepid reader okiedebater has offered up some shell cases for consideration and critique. They're blockquoted; my comments follow each one. As always, your thoughts are appreciated.

(Part II, the negative cases, here.)

Affirmative #1:
V: Justice
Cr: Equal Treatment under the Law ("all men are created equal" and 14th Amendment relates to "in the United States")

C1: Hate crimes are inadequately defined
-no consensus (shown by differing laws between states, federal gov't...)
-would be either too broad or too narrow (either all crimes will qualify, or there will be many unprotected minorities)
-they are vague (leaving a loophole for prosecutorial abuse, shown in C3)

C2: Motive can't be proven sufficiently to support hate crime enhancements
-even if the defendant showed prejudice in the past, that doesn't mean the actual crime was motivated by prejudice
-even if the criminal yelled derogatory words during the crime, even that doesn't necessarily indicate prejudice, just anger

C3: Hate crime enhancements are used unjustly
-as a result of the difficult burden of proof in C2, prosecutors don't always use HCE, even when applicable, thereby violating my Cr. of Equal Treatment
-HCE are used disproportionately against minorities, indicated that they may have become a tool for prejudiced people, rather than a deterrent

I like this case because it has a clear standard for justice that is both universal--equal treatment under the law isn't just an American concept--but also strongly linked to Constitutional rights. Contention 1 can be easily demonstrated, and would be sufficient to affirm.

I see some potential problems, though:
1. C2 can be rebutted by noting that the law requires proof of intent beyond a reasonable doubt, which means that enhancements aren't going to be applied arbitrarily or without warrant.
2. C3 requires access to specific empirical evidence. (As luck would have it, you can find a starting point on this blog.)
3. Is there a higher standard of justice? For example, even an oppressive law can be applied equally. Also, define "equal."

Affirmative #2
V: Justice
Cr: John Locke (government is established to protect the rights of its citizens)

C1: Hate crime enhancements are unnecessary
-regular punishment is sufficient to protect the rights of citizens because punishment, even without HCE, increases to reflect the severity of the crime

C2: Hate crime enhancements are ineffective
-they have not shown any significant deterrent effect
-they are even used to disproportionately to prosecute minorities (which they are apparently made to protect)

C3: Hate crime enhancements are used unjustly
-they are not always applied, even when they are applicable
-they do increase the amount of punishment in an unjust way (Even if a hate crime is worse, does it merit doubling punishment? Also, could we really determine how MUCH worse a hate crime is?)

Some interesting issues here.

1. If we're using Locke, we have to make C3 our strongest point, showing how HCEs give the government arbitrary power, which is anathema to Locke.

2. C1 and C2 could be combined.

3. Subpoint 2 under C2 should go under C3 instead. Subpoint 1 isn't intuitively resolutional--ineffective things aren't unjust, just ineffective. The Aff would have to show that the government is somehow failing in its obligation to protect citizens--which wouldn't square with C1, which purports that our current system is already working. Then what's the harm of C3? Hmm... Gotta square these away.

As an aside, all Affirmatives should look into the evidence that HCEs disproportionately target minorities, since they're drawn up in ways that protect race (or gender, etc.) as a category. The "HCEs protect minorities" argument was quite popular at the last tournament I judged, but could have been defeated quite easily.

who is John Keeffe?

This is the third in a three-part series*, introducing you to the three applicants for the District 2 seat on the Olympia School Board, which was vacated when Rich Nafziger resigned.

The series goes in reverse alphabetical order, wrapping up before March 12, when the candidates will face questions in a "community forum environment."

A longtime Olympia resident, John Keeffe is the only current applicant with previous Board experience, having served from 1991 to 2003. He knows firsthand how difficult the job is, so why would he want to come back, especially when the district faces tough times? In his own words (via email):

I created a job resume recently and I thought a lot about what my passion was in relation to work I wanted to do. I found that the place that would give me the most satisfaction is a job that is at the intersection of government and the public. The 12 years I was on the Board previously, as well as the 30 years I worked for the Post Office, and my work with Parking Services allowed me to be in that intersection in a number of different ways. The School Board was in some ways the most rewarding because it was all about kids. When Rich left the Board and the position became available I thought about whether I could or wanted to do it again. After a lot of internal dialogue, and conversations with family and friends, I felt that this was a place that fit my job goal and where I could have a positive impact in my community.

Among other things, in his remarks to the Board on March 5th, Keeffe lists concerns about graduation requirements: taken individually, the WASL, Culminating Project, and extra math requirements might be worthy, but when taken together, they endanger electives, which Keeffe regards as essential for a well-rounded high school education.

Keeffe sees the current budget crisis as an opportunity to prioritize district spending in line with our strategic plan, and a time to scale back expectations for growth. He also believes that, along with its local obligations, the Board should advocate for change at the state level.

You can listen to Keefe's opening statement starting at 6:05 in [mp3]. His answers to specific questions are interspersed among those of the other applicants.




*A fourth, Kevin Douglas Donahoe, has already been removed from consideration.

McCain praises informed electorate

JIM ANDERSON

CORRUGATED TIMES-DISPATCH

March 7, 2008

New Orleans, LA -- En route to a campaign stop, presidential candidate John McCain made sure to take time out from his withering schedule of lectures and photo-ops to heap accolades on the American people.

Though media elites had accused Americans of crippling political ignorance, McCain wagged his finger at them, describing the intellectual breadth and depth of a nation that waited breathlessly for every honey-dripping word to fall from his lips, passing them down from generation to generation in their folk tales and bedtime stories.

"Everybody knows that I had a private conversation. Everybody knows that, that I had a conversation," McCain told a bevy of citizens and hangers-on standing around his chartered jet. "And you know it, too."

When a meek acolyte humbly demurred, McCain responded, "No. You know it, too. No. You do know. You do know."

McCain added, "I don't know, but it's well-known that I had the conversation. It's absolutely well-known by everyone. Everybody knows it. Everybody knows it in America."

An enraptured adherent begged McCain to share more truisms about the American character that he had reputedly revealed to Senator John Kerry in a private conversation.

McCain's saintly glow faded only slightly as his voice cracked with emotion. "I don't describe private conversations. Why should I? Then there's no such thing as a private conversation."

He then ascended, flying away on the wings of the dawn.

smoking, no. acting, yes!

If only they'd consider that acting is at least six times the health risk:

Dozens of bars are expected to stage "theater nights'' this weekend in which patrons are dubbed actors. The law, which went into effect in October, permits performers to smoke during a theatrical production. "Two weeks ago, we had one bar doing this,'' said Mark Benjamin, a criminal defense attorney who launched the theater-night idea. He estimates 50 to 100 bars could be on tap for theater nights this weekend based on phone calls, e-mails and requests for the how-to-stage-a-theater-night packet that he's devised. And many bar owners are passing on the information quickly among themselves without getting in contact with him.

(The tie, it should be noted, is 100% carcinogen-free.)


[via BoingBoing]

Kevin Douglas Donahoe nixed from applicant list

The current Board has unanimously voted to cut Kevin Douglas Donahoe from its list of applicants, The Olympian reports.

Donahoe wasn't at the meeting; his answers to the questions that were submitted to all of the candidates were shown on a video.

He told the district in an e-mail that he submitted the video to accommodate for a disability....

In his video, Donahoe, a software engineer, emphasized the role of technology in the operation of the school district and said he encouraged the use of Web sites such as YouTube and Second Life in governing and learning experiences.

I have a feeling that Donahoe was already at a distinct disadvantage; read his self-styled job description for the position, and you'll see that his idiosyncratic perspective just doesn't jibe with the status quo. I just don't think we're ready for virtual board members.

I had meant to include Donahoe in my series introducing the applicants. I should note that he was the only one out of the four who never returned my email.

who is Paul Parker?

This is the second in a four-part series, introducing you to the four applicants for the District 2 seat on the Olympia School Board, which was vacated when Rich Nafziger resigned.

The series will go in reverse alphabetical order, and will wrap up before March 12, when the candidates will face questions in a "community forum environment."

I've made care to accurately quote or represent the candidates, and any potential errors are my own.



Paul Parker lives down the street from Jill Johnson, one of my colleagues at Capital. "Paul's hard-working, thoughtful, and smart," she told me over lunch on Tuesday. "Thorough, too." The only applicant with a law degree, Parker has worked in higher education and state government, and currently serves as a senior policy analyst for Washington State's Transportation Commission.

More to the point, Parker is an active PTA and Site Council member, and chaired the district's Budget Advisory Group in 2007. Last June, after examining the district's finances, the group advocated some cuts that, to paraphrase Parker, "washed out" with paired with recommended expenses.

Parker and other advisory group members who attended an Olympia School Board study session Monday said they think the group would need more information about the district’s entire budget to make decisions about how to make additional cuts. Traditionally, the group has strictly focused on potential cuts and additions proposed by district staff.

Parker's role, as the committee title should make clear, was strictly advisory. Should he join the Board, he'll have the unenviable chance to make cuts firsthand, since we still face at least a $1.5 million shortfall in the coming year.

When it comes to policy recommendations, Parker has three specific goals for the district:

• Encourage more students to study world languages such as Spanish and Chinese and be proficient in them by the time of graduation;
• Prepare more students for careers in science and technology, either in college or in the workforce; and
• Provide students more exposure and hands‐on experience with fine arts.

You can read Parker's resume and a brief purpose statement here [pdf].

nativist, pork-laden hypocrisy

Some of the recent hoo-ha over Boeing's contract loss to EADS-Northrop-Grumman-Airbus-les Français is staggeringly stupid.

In Tuesday's speech on the Senate floor, Murray said the $35 billion decision for 179 planes was "a key piece of our national and economic security."

"Instead of securing the American economy and military at a time while we are at war we are creating a European economic stimulus package at the expense of U.S. Workers," she said.

"We cannot trust a foreign company to keep our military's best interest in mind."

Thank goodness our allies don't see things our way. Quick: without resorting to Wikipedia, name just ten of the many countries the U.S. supplies with weaponry. Which two already have a Boeing tanker contract?

no teacher ratings allowed

In France, that is:

Following the example of successful U.S. sites, French entrepreneurs created Note2be.com in January that encouraged students to grade teachers and discuss their ability.

Unions, backed by the education ministry, immediately took the site to court, saying the personal comments represented a breach of privacy and an "incitement to public disorder."

The judges backed their case and said the Web site could no longer identify any teachers by name and told the site's owners they faced a $1,517 (1,000 euro) fine for every infraction.

Ridiculous. This--hopefully--would never occur in the United States, which still has a token affection for the First Amendment.

I'm not worried about ratings, anyway. I get consistently high marks for fashion.


[via Katherine Mangu-Ward]

who is Theresa Tsou?

This is the first in a four-part series, introducing you to the four applicants for the District 2 seat on the Olympia School Board, which was vacated when Rich Nafziger resigned.

The series will go in reverse alphabetical order, and will wrap up before March 12, when the candidates will face questions in a "community forum environment."

I've made care to accurately quote or represent the candidates, and any potential errors are my own.



Parent activist Theresa Tsou is ready to bring her scientific expertise and data-driven approach to the Olympia School Board. A Ph.D. holder and groundfish expert, Dr. Tsou is known in the community for volunteer and committee work, and for her role in the opposing the "Connected Math" curriculum that was adopted last year.

"I don't think the data supports that CMP2 is a better curriculum than Glencoe," said Tsou, who has children in third, fifth and eighth grades.

Tsou also is worried about several drops in math WASL scores this spring among sixth-graders. Of particular concern was a drop among low-income students as a whole, she said.

"Those students are disadvantaged students and usually don't get as much support from their families," Tsou said. "That's a big alarm to me."

Although Tsou was among parents who opposed the district's adoption of Connected Math, she said she wouldn't push district officials to reverse their decision at this point.

But she said she thinks it's important that all teachers supplement the Connected Math curriculum with materials that allow students to hone basic math skills.

Tsou's stated interests include providing "internationally compatible [math and science] education," diversifying the Board, and prioritizing budget cuts in a difficult time. She believes her experience managing Department of Fish and Wildlife budgets makes her particularly apt for the latter.

At this time, Dr. Tsou has declined to clarify or expand upon any items in her introductory letter to the Board, which can be read here [pdf].

WASL expenses set to rise

A week before March madness approaches again, a fun story: some of those classic WASL questions have to go.

The state superintendent's office estimates that the cost of administering the Washington Assessment of Student Learning could jump by $15 million to $25 million in 2009.

That's on top of the $22 million originally budgeted.

The increase is being driven mainly by a higher demand for testing because of the federal No Child Left Behind education law, said Joe Willhoft, an assistant state superintendent of public instruction in Olympia.

Sen. Rosemary McAuliffe, D-Bothell, and chairwoman of the Senate Education Committee, said paying $47 million for one year of testing is not an option.

Instead, state leaders are pressing for changes they say would shave millions off the cost and cut the amount of time spent testing without diminishing the accuracy of the WASL.

The savings would come primarily from chopping the number of open-ended, thought-provoking questions and delaying some extra features. And even then, the tests would still cost an extra $15 million or so.

The WASL takes eight days, and uses four booklets (reading, writing, math, and science). Even at today's lower rates, it costs the state roughly $70 per student to assess the WASL, assuming that student takes all four exams. Meanwhile, the SAT costs a student $43, while the PSAT costs $12. Is either any less valid than a proposed "mini-WASL?" Maybe it really is time to exorcise our Concorde effect demons and scrap the WASL.

Update 3/5: KOMO has more, noting that now, a bill to slice the WASL has passed the House. Meanwhile, the Senate wants to bring back end-of-course exams... Not while Gregoire's in office, methinks.

I learned it at Nat Quals: part II

Extemporaneous speaking: almost as bad as Student Congress, these days. This past Friday, I learned...

• We have to do more to support "academically really high students."
• There was a player who had beaten "Babe Ruth's record for hits." This player did not have a name, nor did he realize he was actually breaking Ty Cobb's record.
• The economy is easy to forget.
• The surface of a river may appear smooth, but "it's a hurricane under there."
• The government should "help out foreign aid."
• We have to do something about "the oil dependence that we rely on."
• "Keyly" is a word.

Part I here.

who is Kevin Douglas Donahoe?

This is the first in a four-part series, introducing you to the four applicants for the District 2 seat on the Olympia School Board, which was vacated when Rich Nafziger resigned.

The series will go in alphabetical order, and will wrap up before March 12, when the candidates will face questions in a "community forum environment."

I've made care to accurately quote or represent the candidates, and any potential errors are my own.

Kevin Douglas Donahoe
Founder and CEO of New Technology Advantage, Donahoe is a "knowledge engineer," with decades of experience in data management.



Kevin Douglas Donahoe links:

His self-styled bio

Olympia School Board applicants ready to face their first test

Four brave souls have answered the call.

Four candidates, including a former school board member, have applied for ex-Olympia School Board member Rich Nafziger's vacated District 2 seat. The application deadline was 5 p.m. Thursday.

The candidates are Kevin Douglas Donahoe, John Keeffe, Paul Parker and Theresa Tsou.

Click through for the brief bios. More interesting to me are the Board's questions for the applicants, available via PDF. A sample:

6) Do you believe there are any issues or questions concerning educational policy (not questions or issues related to identifiable, individual students or employees) and Board operations that should not be discussed publicly; and, if discussed publicly, are there are any issues or questions concerning educational policy and Board operations for which the Board should not make a recording of the discussion available on the OSD website? If you believe there are matters (excluding issues concerning individual students and employees) that should not be discussed publicly or recorded and made available to the public, please give three examples.

Here's a hint, potential applicant: if you want the spot, but don't know which sitting board members are particularly concerned with this issue, you'd better do your homework. And brush up on your state law.

More information available here.