debating a fool

The best part of the entire book of Proverbs, in this debate coach's opinion, comes in the 26th chapter.

4 Do not answer a fool according to his folly,
or you will be like him yourself.

5 Answer a fool according to his folly,
or he will be wise in his own eyes.

This, in essence, is the perfect answer to the question, "Should you debate an intellectually dishonest opponent?"

Yes and no.

Yes, because you have the chance to demolish the fallacies and point reasonable listeners toward the truth. And if you don't, someone less qualified (or capable) will try--and if they fail, they'll only make things worse.

No, because you'll fail anyway, not only because your opponent will use every trick in the book to "win" the debate (and your audience may not be able to tell the difference between a "win" and a win), but their mere presence on the stage will feed their PR efforts.

Of course, if you refuse to debate them, they'll accuse you of intellectual cowardice. Or you may come across as a bully. (Although that's subjective; I think Barney Frank is entirely appropriate dressing down a disingenuous opponent, but perhaps it's because I admire curmudgeons.)

So we're back to the paradoxical advice. Or, to paraphrase Yoda: Do, or do not. There is no win.

sometimes a noun is just a noun

There's a neurological explanation for why people love to verb nouns.

When people were confronted with verbed nouns (in sentences such as ”I was not supposed to go there alone: You said you would companion me.”) EEGs measured their brains recognizing a syntactic anomaly, but not a semantic one. In other words, the subjects understood--in a time measured in milliseconds--that something cool and new was happening. And they immediately got what it meant.

Coming soon: a neurological explanation for why a bitter few really, really hate it when you verb a noun.

[via pourmecoffee]

half-formed thoughts on cyberbullying

A work in progress. Your comments and suggestions are appreciated.

Sticks and stones
May break my bones
But words will never hurt me.


I'm made of rubber,
You're made of glue.
Everything you say
Bounces off me
And sticks to you.

--children's sayings

Recently a reader sent this email:

I'm a long-time reader of your blog. I was hoping that you would blog about cyberbullying laws sometime since they have been a matter of controversy for a while now. Thanks!

I was somewhat stumped. As a teacher who uses the Internet all throughout the curriculum, and for someone who has established a persistent online presence for seven years, I'm ashamed to admit that my perspective on cyberbullying is, at best, half-formed and ad hoc.

Which it shouldn't be, as cyberbullying challenges traditional notions of education, juvenile law, and parenting.

My thoughts were expanded when another reader, Kevin, sent along one an otherwise unrelated email titled "German Civil Rights Fail." (Any insertions or edits are his.)

"Article Five: Freedom of Expression.

(1) Every person shall have the right freely to express and disseminate his opinions in speech, writing, and pictures and to inform himself without hindrance from generally accessible sources. Freedom of the press and freedom of repor...ting by means of broadcasts and films shall be guaranteed. **There shall be no censorship.** [Sweet! Censorship = un-Constitutional in Germany.]

(2) **These rights shall find their limits** [Wait a minute! You just promised us CONSTITUTIONALLY that censorship will not happen! What happened?] in the provisions of general laws, in provisions for the protection of young persons, and in the right to **personal honor** [What does this even mean?! It's a violation of civil rights to insult somebody?!]."

GERMAN CIVIL RIGHTS?

FAIL

At first I didn't notice the connection, but there it is: the language of the German constitution provides a perfect framework for understanding the current controversy over cyberbullying. After all, it is a form of speech that threatens the mental and emotional wellbeing of young persons, and is an affront to their personal honor.

But should it be a crime? And, if so, what about free speech?

In one sense, the German constitution is superior to its U.S. counterpart; at least it explicitly notes the limitations on free speech, while in the U.S., we have to rely solely on decades of muddled juriprudence to determine where the boundaries of infringement lie. (Eugene Volokh, discussing a related issue, notes that even the word "infringement" isn't simple.  See also his critique of a new cyberbullying statute.  Legislators definitely run the risk of too broadly defining what constitutes cyberbullying.)

Here in the U.S., as the children's sayings imply, we certainly value personal honor and the sensibilities of the young. We don't want a nation of wimps.  A societally coordinated and aggressive approach to bullying, though, is a fairly recent invention. We leave personal honor to the person, creating a razor-thin line between encouraging mental toughness and blaming the victim--because sometimes words will hurt, and arguing otherwise is a form of denial. (If you disagree, imagine what a bully thinks when told that "words will never hurt.")

Throw this kind of thinking into a culture saturated with technology, which creates new dimensions for bullies.  What happens?

• There are new means of public or private aggression.  Blogs. Forums.  YouTube videos. Text messages.
• There seem to be no natural "times out," given the ubiquity of technology.
• The audience is potentially global, multiplying any humiliations--especially when older folks get in on the act. (Children aren't the only ones who cyberbully, as the Jessi Slaughter incident makes obvious. And if you look up Slaughter's experience, be warned: it's disturbing on multiple levels.)
• Anonymity and the removal from a personal context increase aggression.
• Thanks to Google, cyberbullying's evidence can last a lifetime.  How do you heal when the sting never stops?

Humans live out narratives, selves couched in stories and words.  As we migrate further into the digital hemisphere, words take on more and more importance. Maybe the Germans are on to something.

For further reading: Emily Bazelon's excellent series on the subject over at Slate.

template tweaking

Different photo (taken at the Dungeness Spit) heads the blog, which, thanks to Blogger's new template tools, has a completely new look.

stray Victoria observations

1. Headed to Victoria, BC? Be prepared to spend big bucks. It's the world's classiest tourist trap.

2. There are three (three!) shelves of Scotch at the Bard and Banker, Robert Service's honorary pub, including a single malt that must have been distilled by angels, given its price. This led me, otherwise unprovoked, to utter this impromptu Service-esque poem:

Some lads they like to drink a lot
And some drink even more
But now and then a lad requires
A sixty dollar pour.

It is really, really easy to write in Service's lilting meter. You should try it.

3. Here's one for fusion: East African + East Indian = Spice Jammer. Which also equals deliciousness.

4. Also recommended: the mini breakfast and pastries at the Dutch Bakery and Coffee Shop. Just before we entered, a gray-haired matriarch in a periwinkle blue dress opened the door, held it for us, and said, "It's the best place in town." We must have been the only couple under 40 in the place, but if other young folks aren't hip to the pastry scene, fine by us.

5. Was quite happy to find a Nando's, even with the inflated Victoria prices. Peri peri chicken is ridiculously tasty. If someone wants to open a Seattle franchise, you have my blessing.

ten titles in search of an author

(Apologies to Pirandello, and thanks to my brother.)

The Compleat Blogger
Idiot Boxers: The Ever-Dumbening Discourse of Cable News
Don't Bet on Sports
A Theological History of the Coen Brothers
Ethics You Can Actually Live By
Finding Bromance
A Guide to Cheating at Solitaire
Twitter Told Me So
There Ought to be Crying in Baseball
The Social Contract in the Age of the End User License Agreement

things I learned in New Mexico

I spent the last five days in Montezuma, New Mexico, attending an IB conference at UWC-USA. In five days of classes, meals, road trips, and bull sessions, I learned a few things.

1. My students are even more competent than I imagine. When it comes to IB rubrics, I tend to be stingy with 5's, and now I know why: I expect a 5 to be like the writing of an accomplished graduate of a top-tier university English program. After eight sessions focusing on English assessment, I realize that a 5 isn't perfection.

2. Moderating my assessment doesn't mean I'm going to change how I teach. Big, big difference.

3. They call New Mexico "The Land of Enchantment" for a reason. The reason involves scorpions, brown bears, skunks, wildflowers, piny woods, sage, rock outcroppings, mosquitoes, and thunderstorms.

4. Teachers dance. I was not mentally (or spiritually?) prepared for that.

5. Every education workshop should start with a two hour bus ride and should be hosted in a building that necessitates having a roommate. Nothing better for socializing--more on this in a bit.

6. I am a natural introvert, although I've figured out how to overcome my extreme discomfort while mingling, or when scanning a cafeteria for an open seat. On the first day I resolved to sit at a new table each day, introduce myself, and then--and this is key, introverts--let the extroverts take over from there. They tend to draw you in to the conversation and draw you out of yourself.

7. People seem to appreciate it when you do the right thing without making a fuss.

8. I can't write an ode on command.

9. I felt most like a true student when learning the art of the cowboy hat in the Popular Dry Goods on Bridge Street in Las Vegas, New Mexico. (The one featured in No Country for Old Men, as the owner, a lifelong local who, sadly, wasn't featured in the film, was happy to share. Under his guidance, I stood where Josh Brolin stood. Not usually a fanboy, but come on, it's the Coen brothers.) The sales assistant, the owner's daughter, provided the lesson, patiently waiting as I dithered over styles and materials and colors. Hope you like the hat, Dad.

10. I didn't get to say this to everyone I met, but: thanks.

The Obama Victory: How Media, Money, and Message Shaped the 2008 Election

For those of us who survived the most expensive (and expansive) election in American history, and yet are still curious about its inner workings, comes The Obama Victory: How Media, Money, and Message Shaped the 2008 Election, by Kate Kenski, Bruce Hardy, and Kathleen Hall Jamieson. Pitched right between "interested layperson" and "studious academic," the book attempts to outline all the factors that led to the Illinois senator's triumph.

The book is well organized, first establishing the political and economic context, then tackling the campaign's overall themes, then showing the evolving discourse through five stages in the campaign (starting in June of '08), and analyzing the effects of early/absentee voting, microtargeting, and new media influences. There are charts and graphs aplenty, with attendant footnotes. The style is straightforward, peppered in places with folksy images that complement more analytical passages, and even including, at one point, an apology for employing terms of art like "explained variance." The book is at its most technical in the 12th chapter, which covers microtargeting (and features the work of co-author Chris Adasiewicz) and in the Appendix, which quantifies the nonstop nature of the campaign by calculating "delay effects" in media absorption.

Otherwise, when the amount of relevant information threatens to bog down the argument, the text is marked with an asterisk, which signals that the reader can visit the Annenberg Foundation's related blog for more information. (At this moment, it's unavailable; I presume more will be forthcoming when the book is officially released on July 15th.)

The book is evenhanded in its analysis, not shying away from discussing the missteps, deceptions, and evasions on both sides. It also puts to rest the myth that Obama's fundraising represented an unparalleled outpouring of support by individual donors.

While the authors present a compelling explanation for the outcome--within the understanding that, ultimately, the message-makers directly influence only a portion--more interesting to me are the little revelations along the way. How Obama's team used radio, of all things, to shift moderate women's belief about McCain's stance on abortion by 20 percentage points in four and a half months. How Sarah Palin, if the graphs don't lie, singlehandedly made it possible for a solid and stable majority of Republicans to believe that a woman was ready to be president. How the biggest "bounces" for candidates came after the most highly orchestrated moments: Obama's "A More Perfect Union" speech on race, Palin's speech at the Republican National Convention. How "liberal" as an epithet has run its course, at least as a predictor of election outcomes.

Obama's defeat of Hillary Clinton (and the mythic Clinton machine) was more surprising, in my view, than his defeat of McCain--whose own campaign nearly flamed out in the primaries. Though mentioned obliquely or inferred at various points, the primaries' magnitude and key events are given short shrift; they deserve their own chapter in any subsequent edition. I'd also like to see a more thorough treatment of race in the election beyond the analysis of coded messages in campaign ads-- although that likely would've required an entirely different dataset, so I won't count that as a criticism.

It's to the authors' credit that the book spurs all sorts of questions:

• Is there a better way to quantify the effects of factors like race and age?
• How did rhetorical or speaking styles influence voters' perceptions of the candidates?
• At what point does the nonstop campaign produce diminishing returns and trigger voter nausea or a sense of minimal personal impact? In other words, might the increasingly brutal election cycle somehow reduce democratic participation?
• Is the media's sophistication in coverage growing beyond mere 3-D "situation room" wizardry?
• How might the "Comedy Central bloc" swing future elections?
• How can we more accurately assess the impact of social networks?

In the end, voters aren't perfectly rational. The trick, for electioneers, is managing, massaging, and channeling all that unreason into favorable votes.  In its comprehensive analysis, The Obama Victory draws up a template for electoral success in the era of the permanent election cycle.  Students of politics, take heed.



Sidebar: Readers further interested in the people behind the campaign should check out Kathleen Hall Jamieson's earlier companion piece, Electing the President, 2008: The Insiders' View.

Full disclosure: Oxford University Press sent me a free copy of the book for review. If you're interested in doing the same, just send me an email.

the King is dead; long live the Cavs

"I PERSONALLY GUARANTEE THAT THE CLEVELAND CAVALIERS WILL WIN AN NBA CHAMPIONSHIP BEFORE THE SELF-TITLED FORMER ‘KING’ WINS ONE"

Dan Gilbert, in his open letter to Cleveland fans.



[via Slate's Twitter feed]

siphon high!

Have you ever wanted to see a geoduck in action?

Of course you have.

it's not you, it's us: constitutionalizing secession

Second in a series of previews of potential 2010-2011 LD topics.

One third of first marriages end in divorce within the first ten years, yet fewer than 10% of couples will sign a prenuptial agreement. It would seem that young couples are irrationally optimistic. Or are they smart? Perhaps the act of signing a prenup bursts the romance bubble, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy--a marriage more likely to fail. (Looked for, but couldn't find, a statistic to support or refute this.)

When it comes to another of the potential LD resolutions for the 2010-2011 season, you can see that the basic concern is quite similar.

Resolved: The constitutions of democratic governments ought to include procedures for secession.

Would a constitutional procedure for secession empower separatist groups? Would it make violent secessions or rebellions less likely?

Though it isn't often debated in this country--a bloody Civil War, for most, ended the discussion--secession, like a prenuptial agreement, is a great way to examine the nature and purpose of political marriage. It highlights a problem of particulars: certainly we can use the social contract to justify a government's legitimacy. But why this government, over these people, in this location?

A host of other questions surround this resolution, including, but not limited to...

• What is the purpose of a constitution?
• What makes a government legitimate?
• What makes a nation a nation?
• What is "self-determination?" Who gets it?

The SEP has a decent summary of debate regarding the question. Cass Sunstein is the political scientist most associated with opposition to constitutionalized secession, arguing that it undermines democracy as splinter groups use the threat of secession to increase their bargaining power.

Against Sunstein, Jason Sorens, in the introduction to Secession and Democracy, argues that

...governments that have explicitly ruled out military suppression
of democratic secession have suffered far less ethnic rebellion than governments that have declared their eternal indivisibility. On the basis of this evidence, I infer that a constitutional right of secession would substantially decrease ethnic violence around the world without significantly increasing the risks of actual state breakup in most countries. A constitutional right of secession would instead result in widespread devolution of power, allowing minorities to obtain rights of self-government in the areas most important to them.

Wikipedia's quality entry on secession is a nice starting point. Also of interest: its list of countries with limited recognition, and list of "micronations," many of which are tongue-in-cheek. The "Volokh Conspiracy" law blog had a flurry of posts on the topic a little while back; see here and here and here and here and here and here and here.

the Cars liveblog

"It's fun. Fun, fun, fun. It's triple fun." --Older sister, ostensibly referring to the Pixar film Cars.

On a sunny Monday evening, I'm being politely coerced to watch Cars, which, along with Monsters, Inc., I have not yet seen in its entirety.

Because the film is fresh to me, and because the experience of watching a film with family members is usually more entertaining than the film itself, I'm going to liveblog it. If you are still reading, remember: no one has politely coerced you.

6:48 p.m.
The downstairs den is meditatively quiet. Dad and I are the only ones in the den, waiting, with the DVD paused at the outset, waiting for the rest of the gang to tromp downstairs, presumably with Nanaimo bars and coffee.

6:51
Bro-in-law arrives with the Nanaimo bars. Womenfolk still upstairs.

6:55
"Here's your coffee cup, You Are Very Special To Me."

6:57
Why does Mom like the movie? "It's a clean cut movie and it's cute. There's nothing bad in it."

6:59
When I think anthropomorphic cars, I think Chevron. Is this because Chevron coopted the concept from this film, or vice versa?

7:01
Which one will take the Piston Cup? "It's like the LeBron James free agency."

"I love that his grill looks like a mustache."

7:03
Car-on-car violence is still violence.

7:09
Other NASCAR-themed films I haven't yet seen: Talladega Nights, Days of Thunder, and Oh my goodness, I think those cars just flashed Lightning.

7:10
Mom, these adult jokes aren't exactly subtle. Sorry to burst your bubble.

7:14
Rascal Flatts makes roadkill of "Life is a Highway."

7:20
Now I know why we're watching this: because stereotypes are funny when they have radiators.

7:34
"Luigi follow only the Ferraris." I rest my case.

7:42
John Donne meets the Tortoise and the Hare. That's the movie.

7:47
I will say this: the choice of Owen Wilson to play the Supreme Jerkface lead was... inspired. No one else is as easily loathed.

7:50
Sally Carrera, it is revealed, has a lower back tattoo. (I'd use the vernacular, but this is a family blog.)

7:55
"Who knew that cars had so much heart? We've got to name Mom and Dad's Grand Marquis. We could call it Marky Mark... or.... Keister."

8:04

"He won three Piston Cups!"
"He did what in his cup?"

"Mom must've been asleep last time she watched this."

8:11
Interstates are evil.

8:13
"He's drifting. Like Tokyo Drift!"

8:16
Cool Hand Luke, salad dressing, and this.

8:21
It took us an hour and 23 minutes, but we finally got it: a montage, a real live montage, to Chuck Berry's version of "Route 66."

8:25
The cynic in me wants to explain McQueen's love for Radiator Springs as a form of Stockholm Syndrome. And, to go meta, if I'm enjoying the film...

8:38
One lap left. I have a feeling we're going to learn a valuable lesson about reckless individualism.

8:40
"I have actual tears."

8:50
The credits roll. In the end, it's another Pixar win, which means I've sold my soul to the devil. Also, I promise--I really do--that I will never place my desires above the needs of the many.

8:55
Postscript. The sister: "I've seen this movie so many times... and I just got the 'Tow Mater.'" Awkward pause. "I shouldn't have said that out loud."

vectors and victors

Longtime readers of the blog know that every now and then I feature the latest speculation about Toxoplasma gondii and its potential influence on human behavior, and... the World Cup?

Rank the top 25 FIFA team countries by Toxo rate and you get, in order from the top: Brazil (67 percent), Argentina (52 percent), France (45 percent), Spain (44 percent), and Germany (43 percent). Collectively, these are the teams responsible for eight of the last 10 World Cup overall winners. Spain, the only one of the group never to have won a cup, is no subpar outlier—the Spaniards have the most World Cup victories of any perpetual runner-up.

What is going on here? Does Toxo really make people better at soccer?

The relationship is neither linear nor foolproof. Italy managed to win the World Cup in 2006, despite its relatively average infection rate of 33 percent. Certain African countries plagued with public health problems have astronomical Toxo rates. Yet the heavily infected players of Ghana, Gabon (71 percent), and the Ivory Coast (60 percent) have not yet managed to win a single cup. On the other end, England (6 percent), the U.S. (12 percent), and Japan (6 percent) are pretty OK at soccer yet have some of the lowest rates in the world.

Read the whole thing for the rest of the nuances and caveats.

Speculation is speculation, and this one, I'll say, kicks its hypothesis a little too far past the post.

Although something has to explain Bill Simmons' recent unabashed and unabated soccer love.

animal rights for people, too

NOTE: This topic was chosen for Sept. / Oct. 2011. Current comments and thoughts are posted here.


First in a series of previews of potential 2010-2011 LD topics.

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?

These, and other challenging moral questions, are raised by one of the potential LD topics for the 2010-11 season.

Resolved: Justice requires the recognition of animal rights.

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.

the ones that got away

Jeff Sullivan tackles the myth that ex-Mariners inevitably thrive upon exiting Seattle. A sample:

Cha Seung Baek: Traded to San Diego. Made 20 standard Cha Baek starts, got hurt, disappeared. Still has no reason to smile. Not better.

Wladimir Balentien: Traded to Cincinnati. Was okay, then lost his job. Demoted to AAA, where his OPS is under .700. Not better.

Miguel Batista: Signed with Washington, where he has more walks than strikeouts in relief. That the Nationals are rebuilding makes this doubly hilarious. Not better.

Adrian Beltre: Dominating in Boston with 33 extra-base hits and his usual defense, albeit with a few errors thrown in. Becoming popular for hating when Victor Martinez touches his head. Predictably better.

It's a nice reminder that confirmation bias is the enemy of rational fandom--if there is such a thing.

Also, don't bet on sports.

summer LD preview

The NFL has published its list of potential topics for 2010-2011, which I'll repeat below, in order of my personal preferences, favorite first.

Resolved: Justice requires the recognition of animal rights.

Resolved: The constitutions of democratic governments ought to include procedures for secession.

Resolved: When forced to choose, a just government ought to prioritize universal human rights over its national interest. Update: This was chosen as the 2011 national tournament topic.

Resolved: In the United States, juveniles charged with violent felonies ought to be treated as adults in the criminal justice system.

Resolved: the abuse of illegal drugs ought to be treated as a matter of public health, not of criminal justice.

Resolved: The United States is justified in using private military firms abroad to pursue its military objectives.

Resolved: Secular ethics ought to be prioritized over religious ethics in the legislative process.

Resolved: In political campaigns within the United States, corporations ought to be afforded the same First Amendment free speech protections as individuals.

Resolved: Progressive income taxes are just.

Resolved: On balance, Internet neutrality is desirable.

Over the coming days, I'll post some initial thoughts on the various choices, and turn this into a list of links to those posts.

National Forensic League debate finals

Saw the LD and Public Forum finals at the Expo Center today. They were decent rounds, for different reasons.

I thought the LD round was full of missed opportunities. The Aff misconstrued the Neg's anti-discrimination argument, while the Neg missed the chance to point out that the Aff had by definition narrowed the debate to criminal justice concerns, forgetting the breadth of the "any" in the resolution. (What if government has a compelling medical interest in, say, mandating DNA be kept in a database for vaccination purposes?)

The debate showed several interesting contrasts. The Aff was deliberate and generally focused, while the Neg was speedy and line-by-line. The Aff was as moderate and reasonable in tone as the Neg was impassioned. The Aff offered a deontological argument to counter the Neg's utilitarian approach--and the two hinged on a disagreement over the definition of respecting "rights for all individuals," which the Aff viewed aggregately (each individual as an individual) and the Neg viewed conglomerately (each individual as a part of the group).

All in all, an interesting debate, and, in my view, a narrow win for the Aff.

Public Forum was a little chippy at times--artful interruption wasn't either team's strong suit--but at least it wasn't dull. The Pro's case boiled down to partisanship, lobbying, and media bias; nothing terribly original, but well-evidenced. The Con went with the fairly common "technology makes us smarter and more likely to participate," as well as an argument I hadn't heard in elimination rounds: that increasing use of initiatives has given the people more direct control of their lives, through a Brandeis-ian "laboratories of democracy" approach.

In the end, the Con dropped the polarization argument, which was probably enough for many to vote Pro, especially with the strongest Con offense--the initiative contention--only halfheartedly defended in the Final Focus.

Which brings me to my next point: fixing Public Forum. One minute wasn't enough, so the NFL provided two, which is too much. My perfect solution: make it a minute point five, and take the extra minute saved (both FF discounts combined) and add it on to the Grand Crossfire, which always seems too short.

Let's do this, NFL.

If you saw either round, feel free to comment and disagree. I have to be brief because I'm poaching airport wireless, and my battery is about to die. An outlet, an outlet, my kingdom for an outlet.

greetings from NFL Nationals

We're "Jazzin' it up in KC" at the NFL National Tournament, waiting for the second flight of the first round of Public Forum to commence. How'd we get here? By surviving...

* Construction-based traffic delay in Lakewood, WA that nearly made us miss our flight out of SeaTac. Luckily, at 11:15 p.m., you can breeze through security in five minutes.

* Thunderstorms. Like last year's trek to Birmingham, we were greeted with flash flood-bearing fireworks shows. We missed the ones that delayed a few flights on Sunday morning, and then tried, and failed, to sleep through the one that lit up and drowned the city last night. But no floods in our neighborhood, this time, at least.

* Free hotel breakfast. It is, in fact, possible to screw up cranberry juice.

* Google Maps' directions. Exit on the left? Exit on the left!

Flight B starts in 13 minutes. It's gonna be great.

the beard is dead, long live the beard

From To Beard, or not to Beard

It was fun while it lasted--fun for everyone else, at least. Thanks to everyone who gave, and kept giving, and helped the CHS Debate team raise $520. I can promise you, it'll be $520 well spent.

As you can see, shaving off a full beard is a miraculous instant weight loss and age-defying formula. I'm afraid the incredibly coarse hair may have destroyed my clippers, which mowed it down to less than an eighth of an inch before tiring and tagging out. The Gilette Mach 3 Turbo finished the match.

At last, I have my face back.

all hail Jackie Chan

In advance of the opening of another why-are-they-remaking-it, two Jackie Chan appreciations. The first, a compilation of the 10 best Chan films.
Time to load up the Netflix queue.

The next, a defense of the genius of Jackie Chan, an artist on par with Keaton or Lloyd. (If you don't know their first names, it's time you learned.)