go for it now, Senator Obama, while you still can

Via Josh, this newish Slate feature, The Obama Messiah Watch.

Is Barack Obama—junior U.S. senator from Illinois, best-selling author, Harvard Law Review editor, Men's Vogue cover model, and "exploratory" presidential candidate—the second coming of our Savior and our Redeemer, Prince of Peace and King of Kings, Jesus Christ? His press coverage suggests we can't dismiss this possibility out of hand. I therefore inaugurate the Obama Messiah Watch, which will periodically highlight gratuitously adoring biographical details that appear in newspaper, television, and magazine profiles of this otherworldly presence in our midst.

Eighty percent of joking aside, here's why I fully support an Obama candidacy. Remember John Kerry, anyone? No? He was that one guy, the tall one with the booming monotone, the one that everybody said could never win the election because he was trapped for decades in the linguistic glue of The Compromise Chamber. That's why Obama's got to get out, and get out quick. He needs to run for president before his brain turns to goo.

this one goes out to Helmut

Bananas, balsamic vinegar, and a striped swath of you-fill-in-the-blank.

For the fruit photo god. Cross-posted at the only gallery that matters.

"we eat... Cougar meat"

Some of our area rivals are going to have to revise their cheers.

Raw cougar meat eaten by a deer hunter is the apparent source of Washington state’s first case of trichinosis since 2001, a health official says.

Or maybe not. Maybe vegans have taken over cheer squads, and the sentiments I'm espousing are as passé as hunting for sustenance on the Oregon Trail.

[Link via Goldy.]

mommas, don't let your babies grow up around tree oils

No, really.

Three young boys grew breast tissue after exposure to lotions and shampoos containing lavender or tea tree oil, researchers say.

It is not uncommon for boys to develop breast tissue during puberty or just after, but the boys affected by the plant oils were aged four, seven and 10.

The natural oils may be “gender-bending” chemicals mimicking effects of the female hormone, oestrogen, the findings suggest. The boys were otherwise normal, and lost the breast tissue within months of discontinuing use of the products.

Researchers who identified the oils as the cause of the abnormalities in the three pre-pubertal boys have warned parents and doctors to beware of the effects of any toiletry products containing the oils.

Well-meaning hippies: is there any force of nature more dangerous?

As the Student Press Law Center notes, Hazelwood was the first case ever in which a court found a student newspaper did not constitute a forum for student expression. But the decision does not apply to student publications where student editors have clearly been given final authority over content decisions or where the school has explicitly designated a student publication as a forum.

Brian Schraum defends HB 1307

Brian Schraum has sent word that, along partisan lines, the House Judiciary Committee has approved House Bill 1307, which would give student journalists full responsibility for their publications. In a separate email, Schraum responds to my thoughts, writing,

You are not alone in making the argument that the school is the publisher/owner of the newspaper, and for that reason should be able to determine the content. The analogy you make, about me demanding to publish something in The Olympian, simply does not hold up. Even the federal courts, which have caused so much damage to the rights of students, recognized this: "The university is clearly an arm of the state and this single fact will always distinguish it from the purely private publisher as far as censorship rights are concerned" (Bazaar v. Fortune). The same holds true for any public school.

Things which are produced at school do not automatically become property of school officials. If that were the case, teachers and professors could claim credit for all student work -- slap their name on it and face no penalty. I don't think that's a just outcome. The same holds true for student newspapers; the work is that of students, regardless of the medium that might be used.

The Supreme Court's Hazelwood decision, which we are seeking to curb with this bill, had not so much to do with that as it did with "perception," in my opinion. The Court justified control of student newspapers simply because the public might falsely think the expression reflected that of the school. This is simply not the case; I don't think any reasonable person would look at a student newspaper and think that a principal was responsible for everything in it.

Boil this down to its core components: you have the government (school officials), and journalists (student reporters). I just don't happen to think government control of journalism does anyone any good.

The core of our disagreement seems to be about who "owns" the newspaper. I strongly disagree with the idea that the school "owns" the newspaper... the closest you might be able to come up with is that "the people" own it. Even if that were the case, we have regulations on how government conducts the peoples' business. Censorship rules are among those. We are attempting to strike a much more reasonable balance with this legislation.

I fully agree with you that no school should be required to support a student newspaper. In fact, many student publications are produced outside of class time, largely or entirely with advertising dollars that students themselves collect. The school is free to decide if it wants to provide financial aid to the publication, or offer credit for working on it... but doing so gives them no more right to censor it than I would have to censor The Olympian by paying for a subscription.

I'll have a response to post shortly. I thank Mr. Schraum for his permission to publish his thoughts.

Brian Schraum defends HB 1307; bill passes judiciary committee

Brian Schraum has sent word that, along partisan lines, the House Judiciary Committee has approved House Bill 1307*, which would give student journalists full responsibility for their publications. In a separate email, Schraum responds to my thoughts, writing,

You are not alone in making the argument that the school is the publisher/owner of the newspaper, and for that reason should be able to determine the content. The analogy you make, about me demanding to publish something in The Olympian, simply does not hold up. Even the federal courts, which have caused so much damage to the rights of students, recognized this: "The university is clearly an arm of the state and this single fact will always distinguish it from the purely private publisher as far as censorship rights are concerned" (Bazaar v. Fortune). The same holds true for any public school.

Things which are produced at school do not automatically become property of school officials. If that were the case, teachers and professors could claim credit for all student work -- slap their name on it and face no penalty. I don't think that's a just outcome. The same holds true for student newspapers; the work is that of students, regardless of the medium that might be used.

The Supreme Court's Hazelwood decision, which we are seeking to curb with this bill, had not so much to do with that as it did with "perception," in my opinion. The Court justified control of student newspapers simply because the public might falsely think the expression reflected that of the school. This is simply not the case; I don't think any reasonable person would look at a student newspaper and think that a principal was responsible for everything in it.

Boil this down to its core components: you have the government (school officials), and journalists (student reporters). I just don't happen to think government control of journalism does anyone any good.

The core of our disagreement seems to be about who "owns" the newspaper. I strongly disagree with the idea that the school "owns" the newspaper... the closest you might be able to come up with is that "the people" own it. Even if that were the case, we have regulations on how government conducts the peoples' business. Censorship rules are among those. We are attempting to strike a much more reasonable balance with this legislation.

I fully agree with you that no school should be required to support a student newspaper. In fact, many student publications are produced outside of class time, largely or entirely with advertising dollars that students themselves collect. The school is free to decide if it wants to provide financial aid to the publication, or offer credit for working on it... but doing so gives them no more right to censor it than I would have to censor The Olympian by paying for a subscription.

I'll have a response to post shortly. I thank Mr. Schraum for his permission to publish his thoughts.

*Update: Oh, and if you weren't able to put two and four together, the Dems control the House, so it was all Dems for, and all Republicans against, 7-4.

"Ebay bans virtual booty auctions"

I don't care how sad the article is--sorry, World of Warcraft wizards, no more cash for conquest--that headline is simply outstanding.

our WASL: no longer here to stay?

More interesting than the cursory Olympian article-teaser on a legislative committee's flirtation with dumping the WASL are the comments from area readers.

Anonymous starts the thread:

My son spent time in his freshman and sophomore year at school in a mandatory WASL prep class because his grades were low. Unlike most of his class, he passed all parts of the WASL so he can graduate next year. Unfortunately due to his having to take a WASL prep class all year he is behind in other mandatory credits like P.E. which may cause him not to be able to graduate on time.

Old Faithful fires back:

Anon - You think your son WASTED his time learning enough math to pass the WASL?

I think math, science and language arts should be mandatory - with PE and fine arts for those who can afford school time to do so.

To which Anonymous responds:

You think studying to pass one test is preparing someone for life? As far as I can tell the only thing you get when a kid passes the WASL is a kid who can pass the WASL.

How can someone like me, a product of the 60's and 70's school system have a college degree and a successful career without ever having taken the WASL? Oh the horror! Math and reading were taught just fine thirty or forty years ago ( and we had more than enough time for p.e. and some good old fashion dodge ball games which I am sure are politically incorrect to play now). If the WASL is so damned important why such a controversy about whether to require it or not?

For closing thoughts, though, we turn back to the original comment by Anonymous.

I think what we need to do is throw out the entire education system in Washington, starting with SPI and start from scratch. How people with masters and doctorate degrees can be such a bunch of boneheads is beyond me.

Trust me, my friend: a stamped piece of paper is no guarantee of anything except a fatter paycheck. Usually.

thinking about choices: a quick exercise

Normally, I don't let students think about literary counterfactuals. Macbeth can't ignore the witches. Meursault can't stash the pistol. Arthur Dimmesdale can't confess.

My juniors, though, are reading Chronicle of a Death Foretold, which forces the reader to consider the abundance of choices that are significant only in retrospect--so although counterfactuals still make for bad lit crit, they're a little less obnoxious. Here's what I had my students do to prime their thinking about the text.

First, list ten successive choices you made between waking and coming to class today.
Then, write an alternate history of your day, given that one of those choices was made differently.

Some of my students immediately complained, "I can't think of more than four choices." I'd respond, "Oh, really? What did you have for breakfast? Eggs? No? Well, what if you had--and you picked the unlucky salmonella egg? Where would you be now?"

In fact, when you try to list even ten choices, you start to realize just how many decisions you take for granted, never appreciating their significance because "nothing" happened as a result.

Adam Morrison and J.J. Redick Watch: halfway home

Picking his rookie of the year so far, ESPN's John Hollinger writes,

Adam Morrison? Please. If Bobcats games were nationally televised, his awfulness would be more well-known.

Greg Anthony is a little more optimistic:

Even though he hasn't shot the ball the way some would like (37.7 FG percent), he's been pretty solid playing 33 minutes a night and averaging 13.5 ppg.

I think his confidence is getting better. He's playing a lot of minutes and, unlike Bargnani, was expected to contribute immediately. Overall he has good basketball instincts, so I think he will continue to grow in his game.

Meanwhile, J.J. Redick is still gunning for a shot on the Surreal Life. Not much else he can get at this point.

right for the wrong reasons: giving student journalists greater autonomy

In The Olympian this morning, a report on the student journalists who descended on the Capitol, full of righteous rhetoric:

"The question is simple: 'Are we people?' The Constitution provides that people have fundamental rights of speech," testified Brian Schraum, a Green River Community College graduate now attending Washington State University.

He brought the issue to lawmakers after a federal court ruling in the Midwest said universities could review articles before publication.

"Look into the eyes of students in the audience. We are people," Schraum challenged the lawmakers.

Strong words, but weak logic. It might interest Mr. Schraum to know that he has no First Amendment right to publish in The Olympian, on a bathroom stall at Applebee's, on this blog, or wherever someone else owns the medium. Schools are not even obligated to have student newspapers, never mind fund them or make them part of the course offerings.

Would Schraum support legislation to let a professional journalist sue The Olympian for refusing to run an article, whatever the editor's excuse? I hope not. Yet, analogously, that's what this legislation demands: "injunctive and declaratory relief" whenever a paranoid administrator reaches for the Wite-Out.

Let's examine some of the arguments offered in Schraum's defense by a fellow student journalist (and former student of mine).

Just as local newspapers offer residents a place to voice and vent their concerns and critiques, so too does a student-run newspaper give students a place to voice their opinions.

However, residents can't sue when their letter to the editor isn't published--and, as I mentioned before, neither can reporters when their bosses trash a story that might offend a prominent advertiser. Weasely, sure, but not a rights violation.

When student newspapers are censored, students no longer have a place for their concerns to be heard.

This is simply false. The school newspaper is hardly students' only medium for a message. (This also means that administrators have no business attempting to interfere in student expression outside the classroom.)

Student newspapers, though instituted through the school, are actually run by students. It's not a forum for the school as a whole, but specifically for the students, the primary readership. Thus they, not administration, should be in control of the content.

Maybe in the Workers World the paper runs that way, but every other paper in existence has a chain of command.

Just as a local newspaper can choose what it prints, a student newspaper should be given the same right.

A local paper can choose what it prints--but not really. Editors, reporters, readers, community standards, journalistic ethics, and almighty advertisers all shape content--and, as I've stated before, the owner has the final say.

One thing Schraum, Watts, and everyone else should agree upon: in Watts' words, "Too little faith is put in students' ability to determine appropriateness and to handle controversial topics." I want student journalists to be given greater responsibility to challenge and provoke their peers in the service of learning. My desire, though, arises from practical, not sacred, obligations. It's because I want smarter, savvier journalists, not because of a righteous misreading of the First Amendment.

There are other ways to get administrators to cave, each a potential civics lesson. Protests. (Professional) media coverage. Angry parent phone calls. Reasoned, impassioned argument. And, dare I say it, blogging. Ill-founded, won't-survive-the-appeals-court lawsuits aren't the answer.



(Bill text here [pdf]. Bill history here.)

[cross-posted here.]

right for the wrong reasons: giving student journalists greater autonomy

In The Olympian this morning, a report on the student journalists who descended on the Capitol, full of righteous rhetoric:

"The question is simple: 'Are we people?' The Constitution provides that people have fundamental rights of speech," testified Brian Schraum, a Green River Community College graduate now attending Washington State University.

He brought the issue to lawmakers after a federal court ruling in the Midwest said universities could review articles before publication.

"Look into the eyes of students in the audience. We are people," Schraum challenged the lawmakers.

Strong words, but weak logic. It might interest Mr. Schraum to know that he has no First Amendment right to publish in The Olympian, on a bathroom stall at Applebee's, on this blog, or wherever someone else owns the medium. Schools are not even obligated to have student newspapers, never mind fund them or make them part of the course offerings.

Would Schraum support legislation to let a professional journalist sue The Olympian for refusing to run an article, whatever the editor's excuse? I hope not. Yet, analogously, that's what this legislation demands: "injunctive and declaratory relief" whenever a paranoid administrator reaches for the Wite-Out.

Let's examine some of the arguments offered in Schraum's defense by a fellow student journalist (and former student of mine).

Just as local newspapers offer residents a place to voice and vent their concerns and critiques, so too does a student-run newspaper give students a place to voice their opinions.

However, residents can't sue when their letter to the editor isn't published--and, as I mentioned before, neither can reporters when their bosses trash a story that might offend a prominent advertiser. Weasely, sure, but not a rights violation.

When student newspapers are censored, students no longer have a place for their concerns to be heard.

This is simply false. The school newspaper is hardly students' only medium for a message. (This also means that administrators have no business attempting to interfere in student expression outside the classroom.)

Student newspapers, though instituted through the school, are actually run by students. It's not a forum for the school as a whole, but specifically for the students, the primary readership. Thus they, not administration, should be in control of the content.

Maybe in the Workers World the paper runs that way, but every other paper in existence has a chain of command.

Just as a local newspaper can choose what it prints, a student newspaper should be given the same right.

A local paper can choose what it prints--but not really. Editors, reporters, readers, community standards, journalistic ethics, and almighty advertisers all shape content--and, as I've stated before, the owner has the final say.

One thing Schraum, Watts, and everyone else should agree upon: in Watts' words, "Too little faith is put in students' ability to determine appropriateness and to handle controversial topics." I want student journalists to be given greater responsibility to challenge and provoke their peers in the service of learning. My desire, though, arises from practical, not sacred, obligations. It's because I want smarter, savvier journalists, not because of a righteous misreading of the First Amendment.

There are other ways to get administrators to cave, each a potential civics lesson. Protests. (Professional) media coverage. Angry parent phone calls. Reasoned, impassioned argument. And, dare I say it, blogging. Ill-founded, won't-survive-the-appeals-court lawsuits aren't the answer.



(Bill text here [pdf]. Bill history here.)

all brews in moderation

MSN has a nice rundown of recent coffee research. Guess what: it's not as bad as you've been told, and it's only moderately risky if you're drinking three or more cups per diem--and that's if you're pregnant or have high blood pressure. The benefits--wakefulness, sharpened cognition, potential protection against Parkinson's, the sheer joy of java--definitely outweigh any putative risks.

questions to ask randomly

You might think that "random questions" and "questions to ask randomly" are the same. But then, you probably think that Pepsi and Coke are the same, too, which shows how much you know. (That means you know nothing. This parenthetical is included for your enlightenment.)

Random questions are questions that pop out of nowhere, conversation starters. Questions to ask randomly, though, are purposeful. They are meant to stop, rather than start, conversation, and to invite silent reflection, or at least silence.

Some sample questions to ask randomly are listed below.

1. Which phenomenologist are you aping?
2. What would that mean in a world without verbs?
3. What would it take to convince you otherwise?
4. What's that on your face?
5. What if a libertarian won the presidency?
6. How would that work as a motto for a fledgling nonprofit?
7. Which movie is that from?





[131st in a series]

I learned it in Student Congress: part II

regarding dangerous coworkers
"...because of attacks by the secretary insurgents..."

regarding strategies to avoid drunk drivers
"You could get off the road and not die."

regarding onomatopoeia
"Shoulda woulda coulda. Sound like a little train to you?"

regarding irony
[after describing how to make napalm to a room full of high school students]
"Do you want that kind of information available to high schoolers? I think not."

regarding analogy
"It'd be Columbine times a billion. No, not a billion, unless this is China."

regarding epistemology
[responding to a question about whether medical marijuana works]
"I know my mom says it does."

regarding eminent domain
"Knock knock knock, hey, we want your property. Get off."

regarding moral quandaries
"What is the crackhead going to do when he can't get his usual 60 sack?"

regarding neologism
"I'm going to get a whole oodleload of money offa this."

regarding personal questions
"If this bill were enacted, would you buy drugs?"

regarding one's role as a CIA operative
"I'm not at liberty to say if this is true."

what the world still needs

It's the only thing.

Cross-posted at the apotheosis of affection, Mr. A's world of tacky ties.

communism in the marketplace of ideas

As Federal Way puts a wrap on its controversy over controversy, Mr. Rain notes that the virus has spread eastward to Yakima.

Roll that around your head for a minute. The environmental club might be told that, to show An Inconvenient Truth, they also need to present materials opposed to the movie. The Environmental Club could be put in a position where they have to present the case of the polluters.

While I'm having fun with logical fallacies, let's hop on a slippery slope! Should the Religion Club have to show Saved! right along side The Passion of the Christ? The Young Republicans forced into Fahrenheit 9/11 before they can watch tonight's O'Reilly Factor? Can a school work too hard to achieve a neutral mien, and in the process become irrelevant?

Our school just witnessed a presentation by Craig Scott of Rachel's Challenge. Oddly, no one was there for the rebuttal. Maybe "prejudice is a useful form of intuition" deserves a wider hearing, along with "journaling is for sissies" and "mean people don't suck."

Yahoo! overrun by... yeah, you guessed it

Yahoo's yanking a comments feature on its news stories.

Yahoo quietly pulled a discussion feature from its news site in recent weeks. Before, readers were allowed to post comments on individual news stories. The message boards were suspended, according to a note from Yahoo's general manager for news, Neil Budde, because they allowed "a small number of vocal users to dominate the discussion."

...Yahoo says it is taking comments on news stories offline until it rolls out discussion forums based on news topics, which it hopes, will "foster a better discussion for all of our readers."

By Yahoo!, for yahoos. Or even yahooligans.

Kyle Basler is still a punter's punter

I had lost track of the best leg to come out of Elma, Kyle Basler, punter extraordinaire, who was signed by the Cleveland Browns but never got the playing time his booting skills merited. Good to hear that he's picked up a contract with the Browns again, headed for Europe and another shot at greatness. Best of luck, Mr. Basler.

Update 1/7/2008: Since NFL Europa folded back in August, I'm not sure what's become of Kyle Basler. If you're aware of his present status, please email me at the address at right.

Update 8/8/2008: A reader's question about Basler has prompted me to investigate further. After the Daily World's report of an injury in the waning days of NFL Europa, there's little mention of Basler in the media.

blocking addiction in the insula

Ooh, that's cool implications: someday we may be able to beat a cigarette addiction with a well-placed electrode or implant.

The researchers found that damage to the insula – a brain region that promotes conscious feelings of hunger, pain and cravings – allowed some heavy smokers to quit with ease.

Commenting on the work, Paul Matthews, a clinical neuroscientist at Imperial College in London, UK, said: “The problem people have in 'kicking' smoking is cigarette craving – the urge to smoke. The most remarkable finding in this study is that damage to a particular brain area may block this urge. Now we can ask: could a functional neurosurgeon implant stimulation electrodes to do the same thing? Could there be a surgical 'cure' for smoking?”

The study was inspired by a patient who lost the urge to smoke immediately after a stroke damaged his insula. He had smoked about 40 cigarettes a day.

Ooh, that's creepy implications: someday we may be able to make people permanently painless, hungerless, or desireless with a well-placed electrode or implant.

you aren't what you eat

They tried to replicate Super Size Me, with surprising results. [sub. req.]

By the end of Spurlock's McDonald's binge, the film-maker was a depressed lardball with sagging libido and soaring cholesterol. He had gained 11.1 kilograms, a 13 per cent increase in his body weight, and was on his way to serious liver damage. In contrast, Karimi had no medical problems. In fact, his cholesterol was lower after a month on the fast food than it had been before he started, and while he had gained 4.6 kilos, half of that was muscle.

The brains behind this particular experiment is Fredrik Nyström from Linköping University in Sweden. In the past year he has put 18 volunteers through his supersize regime, and what fascinates him most is the discovery that there was such huge variation in their response to the diet. Some, like Karimi, took it in their stride. Others suffered almost as much as Spurlock, with one volunteer taking barely two weeks to reach the maximum 15 per cent weight gain allowed by the ethics committee that had approved the study. We are used to being told that if we are overweight the problem is simply too much food and too little exercise, but Nyström has been forced to conclude that it isn't so straightforward. "Some people are just more susceptible to obesity than others," he says....

The first batch of seven healthy, lean volunteers began their month-long challenge in February 2006. First Nyström calculated their normal daily calorie intake and then asked them to double it in the form of junk food, while also avoiding physical activity as much as possible. Nyström allowed them to do just 1 hour of upper body weight training per week. "I thought it would help some of the guys to stick to the diet if they believed that some of the extra weight could be in the form of muscle bulk," he says. Aside from that, though, they were encouraged to be as slothful as possible, and were issued with bus passes and pedometers to help.

In another difference from the movie, Nyström didn't order his volunteers to eat only at McDonald's. They were also allowed to eat pizza, fried chicken, chocolate and other high-fat food whenever they could no longer stomach burgers.

During the experiment Nyström's volunteers had weekly safety check-ups to monitor their health. In addition, they were subjected to a barrage of tests and examinations before starting the diet and again afterwards to find out what it had done to their physiology, metabolism and mental health. "We've done almost every test apart from a muscle biopsy," Nyström says.

His team used a state-of-the-art X-ray technique called DEXA (dual energy X-ray absorptiometry) to measure body composition, including muscle, fat and bone density. They subjected the volunteers to glucose tolerance tests to look for early indicators of metabolic syndrome and diabetes, plus a new spectroscopy test to assess the amount of fat in the liver. They measured their basal metabolic rates before, after and during the experiment, using a standard measure of how much oxygen they inhaled and carbon dioxide they exhaled over a period at rest. They took blood samples and measured levels of hormones such as thyroxine that play a role in setting metabolic rate. And in a bid to work out exactly what metabolic changes occur in fat cells during a fatty diet, the researchers even screened mRNA, the molecule that acts as an intermediate between genes and the proteins they code for. "We looked at all proteins - that's around 30,000," says Nyström.

In the end, the results--at least to this lean, always-hungry food fiend--should surprise no one. Different food affects different people differently. You need to tailor your eating to your own needs, not to a government-mandated pyramid or to a restaurant's massive serving suggestions.

Today's lunch: pizza, Pepsi, and a couple Nanaimo bars. Some of us just have all the metabolic luck.

speedcubing: the saddest hobby in the world

What is speedcubing, you ask? Take a Rubik's cube. Fix it up for maximum mobility (yep: lube it, among other things). Then cube away to your nerd brain's content. And remember that pleasure is an elusive asymptote.

Actually, to be more precise, speedcubing itself isn't sad. Posting to speedcubing websites is truly the saddest hobby in the world.

The reason should become clear: people--mostly men--post their unofficial average times to the web. A typical entry:

(08.63) 11.18 11.85 12.17 12.28 10.84 12.15 12.11 13.48 11.20 (14.43) 09.91

PLL skips: 8.63 10.84 9.91
OLL skip: 12.11

I hurt my leg during the average... although I am ok. I had some leg spasms over the excitement and hit a table... ouch. BUT I am uber EXCITED! I never thought I would get a sub 12... Thanks for the people that helped me! Now... I need to work on getting these kinds of times in competition... WITHOUT the panic!

Now, why would anyone in the world...

1. Be interested in an unofficial time?
2. Trust anyone to post an accurate unofficial time?
3. Post their unofficial time for any reason other than pure, unadulterated egotism?
4. Mention leg spasms in a public forum?

Sad.

on the day they were going to kill him

Radley Balko says it's "Life Imitates The Simpsons," in this everyone-is-a-suspect murder case....

Miguel Grima was not a well-liked man. As mayor of a tiny hamlet in the foothills of the Pyrenees in northern Spain he had ruffled a few feathers.

The farmers turned against him when he put a stop to the centuries-old custom of herding livestock through village.

The hunters got annoyed when he refused to issue them with shooting licences and the local drinkers revolted after he prevented the settlement's only bar from setting out tables on the terrace in summer.

He had repeatedly received anonymous threatening letters and reportedly told friends recently that he feared for his life and he was considering standing down as mayor of Fago at the next election.

So last Friday evening when he failed to return home from a late council meeting in a nearby town, his wife took his absence seriously and contacted police.

...but for my English teacher purposes, it's more like life imitating Chronicle of a Death Foretold. Which, incidentally, is our next book of study in the junior classes. How perfect.

existentialism is not a pessimism

Lately our school counselors have been talking a lot about choices, and a new program they're starting to reach at-risk students by having them examine and role-play several metaphorized methods of approaching responsibility and consequences.

It struck me this morning that it's like a stripped down version of Sartre, fun-size existentialism for the masses. Maybe that's not such a bad thing. As Robert C. Solomon writes, it's what our country needs now.

Why does existentialism have so much trouble shaking its nihilistic and gloomy image? To be sure, its leading promoters are rarely pictured with happy faces, but then how many philosophers in history have ever been depicted as smiling?

Yet few philosophers have displayed such unmitigated joy in their writing as Kierkegaard and Nietzsche. The latter wrote: "At long last our ships may venture out again, venture out to face any danger; all the daring of the lover of knowledge is permitted again; the sea, our sea, lies open again. Perhaps there has never been such an 'open sea.'"

Even Sartre, not only in his plays and novels but even in his heaviest philosophy, seems to be thoroughly enjoying himself. But when it comes to understanding the content of what they are doing, interpretations of Kierkegaard and Nietzsche seem utterly wedded to the thinkers' supposedly intimate concern with despair and nihilism. A perennial question (students love it for both term papers and doctoral theses) is whether Nietzsche was a nihilist or not.

The answer is a straightforward no. Nietzsche warned Europe of the encroachment of nihilism, which he associated with the Christian denial of life. Nevertheless, the association of Nietzsche and nihilism lingers, despite the fact that his whole philosophical effort is to provide an alternative to nihilistic thinking.

Kierkegaard — dutifully cited as author of The Concept of Dread — is often considered the modern inventor of the Absurd — a century before Camus. However, the ultimate indeterminacy of human existence and the need to make genuine choices (including the decision to believe in God, Kierkegaard's famous "leap of faith") lay at the heart of his whole philosophy, and those concepts were anything but negative. "Christianity is certainly not melancholy; it is, on the contrary, glad tidings — for the melancholy," he wrote. Furthermore, Kierkegaard never lets us forget that it is only through such acts of choice that we make ourselves into authentic "existing individuals." He even talks of "bliss."

So, too, in celebrating "the open sea" of possibilities that greets us after the death of God, Nietzsche aspires to a mood of unmitigated cheerfulness. Even Heidegger and Sartre, the grand old Mr. Cranky and Mr. Grumpy of German and French existentialism, respectively, aim not at despair but at a kind of rejuvenation. Sartre, in particular, claims, in response to a question about despair, that he has never experienced it in his whole life. (That may throw into question his credibility, but it's nonetheless instructive as to his broad philosophical outlook.)

Perhaps the wartime experiences of Mr. Cranky put him beyond the reach of any celebration of life, but Mr. Grumpy insists that existentialism provides an experience of incredible freedom, a feeling of responsibility that is not so much a "burden" as a matter of finding one's true self-identity. If nihilism and despair play any role in this picture, it is only as background against which existentialism is the ecstatic resistance. Responsibility and choice, picking oneself up by the bootstraps, are what this positive version of existentialism is all about.

We hear so much about "the burden of responsibility" that we forget the basic lesson of existentialism: that responsibilities enhance rather than encumber our existence. Call me naïve, but most people take on responsibilities because responsibility puts them in charge of their lives and defines just who they are. Most people who enter public service, for example, do not do so because of a selfish lust for power and wealth. They usually want to change things for the better, make a contribution, and even the most corrupt and vile politicians will confess a lingering hope that that is how they might be remembered. As Sartre constantly reminds us, we are what we do....

[A]s the proto-existentialist Johann Fichte once said: "What system of philosophy you hold depends wholly upon what manner of man you are." And if I am right that existentialism defines an important stream of American life and thought, especially its individualism and insistence on self-reliance, that means that we should become both aware of and critical regarding what that philosophy is and what it portends.

I agree with Solomon that existentialism isn't as dour and pessimistic as commonly conceived. Sartre's "Existentialism is a Humanism" is combatively optimistic, and refreshing in its tempered idealism.

My students' reaction to existentialism has been both enlightening and troubling: I know that many of them want the responsibility that comes with freedom, to adopt existentialist principles as a sort of virtue ethics. But I don't know if we in the public schools are virtuous enough to lead them to there.

congrats are in order

2,000 posts: that's a milestone (and not just "of sorts") worth celebrating. Congrats, Mr. Pseudo-Polymath. (Double congrats for not using "hesychasm" anywhere in the post.)

Adam Morrison and J.J. Redick Watch: January 23

Adam Morrison returned to streaky form last night, putting up only three against the Flying Dinosaurians in a losing effort. Zone defense! Oh, how it stymies the big boys.

Not appearing to be trade bait, Redick has been inactivated, even though his jersey is one of the three most popular in central Florida. Meanwhile, Orlando is slumping. Coincidence?

raiders of the lost closet

From my dad's collection. Silk paisley, '96 vintage. Better me than him.

(The timely political parallel is largely ignored over at Mr. A's world of tacky ties.)

free speech rights for students: a student's perspective

Guest-blogger and former CHS student journalist (and present WSU staffer) Christina Watts responds to my thoughts on the proposed legislation that would protect free speech rights for high school journalists. She writes,

I work with Brian Schraum, the WSU student who approached Upthegrove about a need for the bill. I'm glad the legislature is finally looking at the issue of student journalists and their rights.

Just as local newspapers offer residents a place to voice and vent their concerns and critiques, so too does a student-run newspaper give students a place to voice their opinions. This is why the bill being introduced by Upthegrove is important.

Not only do students deserve and need a forum to share their voice about school issues, but they need to know that in sharing their ideas, they won't be penalized. Working on the Outlook, even without being under principal review at the time, we ran into several instances where word of our content was released and we were told to remove it. Too little faith is put in students' ability to determine appropriateness and to handle controversial topics. When student newspapers are censored, students no longer have a place for their concerns to be heard.

It is true that many student newspapers are run through public schools and should therefore contribute to the educational process. This doesn't mean, however, that censoring student newspapers, a practice which has been done across the state as well as across the country, is the best course of action to take. In the past, schools have censored articles about birth control, homosexuality, and drug use, all issues students become familiar with merely by going school. To say these issues weren't relevant or important to students at school was ignorant, and yet the articles were still censored.

Student newspapers, though instituted through the school, are actually run by students. It's not a forum for the school as a whole, but specifically for the students, the primary readership. Thus they, not administration, should be in control of the content.

This bill, which would protect students' rights as journalists, would also at the same time make them accountable and responsible as journalists. Just as a local newspaper can choose what it prints, a student newspaper should be given the same right.

a bully pulpit?

Should student journalists have greater freedom within the confines of a school newspaper? I take new legislation--and administrators--to task over there.

Update: A former CHS student responds.

homage to Orwellonia

Now that "framing" and "bullshit" and "truthiness" are part of the lexicon, here comes "unspeak," the latest Orwell homage ripoff. Enter Steven Poole, as described by Slate's Jack Shafer:

He assails the Tories in England who spoke of "bogus asylum seekers" because the phrase destroys any presumption of sincerity, and served as code for "simple racism." When governments speak of a tragedy, they imply that the bloody results of their work were unforeseen—as if visited upon man by the gods—and nobody can be blamed. Surgical strike conveys the benevolent practice of medicine, ridding a target of its disease. Collateral damage redefines the death of innocents as injury. Smart weapons posit the opposite of dumb weapons that kill indiscriminately. Daisy cutter sanitizes the killing power of the daisy-cutter bomb. Weapons of mass destruction, which earlier referred to the horrific mechanized tools of warfare being stockpiled in the 1930s, now applies to biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons when possessed by nonstate actors or regimes in disfavor.

Haven't we heard this before?

all the visual organizers you need

Sometimes you forget how much you know until you see it all in one place. Joe Carter, bless his soul, has a link to a Periodic Table of Visualization Methods (or what teachers often call "visual organizers." Essential for anyone who wants to model cognitive or informational structures, and to expand their thinking by trying new models.

freedom of speech for student journalists

Your local newspaper has no obligation to give you a bully pulpit, and they don't even have to publish your anti-corporate screed in the letters to the editor. You don't have the right because you don't own it.

Local papers know, though, that allowing a diverse array of viewpoints, by stoking controversy, we can smack some sense into Our Great Republic (or, at very least, the city council). The First Amendment protects that function.

It does not, however, give you a right to publish in someone else's forum.

For that reason, this proposed legislation can't match intentions and outcomes.

Rep. Dave Upthegrove, D-Des Moines, has introduced legislation that would allow advisers to review student publications but strip them of any authority to control what is printed. Instead, students would be in charge of writing, editing and publishing — and would be liable for any fallout....

By granting students added freedoms and accountability, Upthegrove hopes to generate an appreciation for constitutional rights and give young people a sense of civic responsibility.

The Supreme Court has already been there, Upthegrove. A school newspaper isn't a public forum. It's taxpayer-funded and beholden to the greater needs of the "educational process." Thou shalt not disrupt it.

However, the disingenuous stance of the Washington Association of School Administrators bothers me, too:

If students want to voice their opinions without restraints, he suggests they turn elsewhere. Between blogs and personal Web sites, Kipp said, "There are lots of opportunities that kids have in school to express whatever they want."

Except that administrators block access to both blogs and personal websites, and have even gone after students for publishing anti-school materials at home.

It's a delicate balance, and administrators usually lean too far on the side of tyranny, afraid that controversy is in itself disruptive. A wise administrator knows when to let students take the fall.

On balance, I'd probably support the bill, even though I'm not sure how well making students liable will work when the first lawsuit rolls in. Accountability, after all, is another word for litigation.

are you ready for the revolution? Google is the new Alexandria

They want to digitize everything, and they're doing it. Books by the thousand, for a new archive of information rivaling that wonder of the ancient world. Bryan Appleyard reports.

The first thing to be said is that Google Book Search, though still in its “beta” or unfinalised form, is an astonishing mechanism. Putting my own name in came up with 626 references and gave me immediate access to passages containing my name in books, most of which were quite unknown to me. Moreover, clicking on one of these references brings up an image of the actual page in question.

But the second thing to be said is that I could read whole passages of my books of which I own the copyright. At once a huge intellectual property issue looms. The Americans are ploughing ahead with this, scanning in material both in and out of copyright. The British — at Oxford’s Bodleian Library and the British Library — are being more cautious, allowing only the scanning of out-of-copyright books. This may, of course, mean nothing, since the big American libraries will, like the Bodleian and the British Library, contain every book published in English, so they will all ultimately be out there on the net.

American publishers are not happy. Before its 2004 announcement, Google had been doing deals with individual publishers to scan their books. But digitising the libraries would seem to render these deals defunct. Furthermore, since Google is acquiring copyright material at no cost, it seems to be treating books quite differently from all other media. It is prepared to pay for video and music, but not, apparently, for books. The Google defence is that their Book Search system is covered by the legal concept of “fair dealing”. No more than 20% of a copyright book will be available, the search is designed to show just relevant passages, and it will provide links to sites where the book can be bought.

Unimpressed, the Authors Guild, supported by the Association of American Publishers, has started a class action suit against Google. A deal may yet be done, but neither side sounds in a compromising mood, and it looks likely that this will go all the way to the Supreme Court, whose ruling on this case may prove momentous.

Largely I try to maintain objectivity when discussing the technological implications, but in this case: go Google. It's an incredible research opportunity. Amazon.com's similar "Search Inside the Book" feature proves it can work, and by limiting access, proves it won't destroy copyright.

are you ready for the revolution? a contract database

Most of my technological revolution-blogging has concerned the increasingly mechanized classroom. But what about unions? We're not all fuddy-duddies. Some of us even blog. And now we can see the intimate details of bargaining agreements from around the country.

Welcome to the National Council on Teacher Quality's groundbreaking online research portal. You can explore the intricacies of collective bargaining agreements, board policies, and teacher handbooks from the nation's 50 largest school districts, educating 16 percent (over 8 million) of all school children, employing nearly 500,000 teachers and operating 11,000 schools. And that's just the beginning.

Districts, watch out: better ideas are out there, lurking in cyberspace, and now we have an easy way to find them.

Hat tip: the ever-useful Dr. Homeslice.

"agent morality" and corporate ethics

Dennis Quinn and Thomas Jones, in "An Agent Morality View of Business Policy," offer a perspective that might work for an Aff on the most recent LD resolution. Applying four "minimalist" moral principles--don't harm others, respect others' autonomy, don't lie, and honor your promises--they note that, unless corporations follow these practices, the market cannot operate efficiently.

In other words, morals come first, both for principals--owners--and, by extension, their agents--managers. Thus, there is a good normative reason to hold the actions of corporations to the same moral standards to which we hold the actions of individuals.

Agents and principals cannot claim that the obligation to maximize profits comes first, because moral rules are "antecedent to the contract between the principal and the agent and cannot be suspended by agreement between them."

So, the next time someone claims that "the purpose of a corporation is to maximize profits," argue that the normative structure of capitalism assumes a basic set of moral principles to which corporations, acting through their agents, must adhere.

Saletan and the Ashley treatment

William Saletan, taking on the "Ashley treatment," explores the wider cultural context. Ultimately, he minimizes the parents' rationale for the radical surgeries doctors have performed on their daughter, instead offering a slippery slope:

But if those are good arguments for shrinking people, or at least for removing some of their tissue, why stop with Ashley? We're facing an epidemic of patients who are physically and cognitively incapacitated, hard to lift, extremely cancer-prone, extremely uncomfortable, and incapable of childbearing. They're called old people.

Would Saletan disapprove of treatment to reduce the ill effects, say, of gigantism and acromegaly? Does treating gigantism lead to a slippery slope, since the risks--"significant morbidity and mortality"--are well-known?

In fact, wouldn't we have slipped down the slope already, since we've been treating gigantism for much longer than we've known about Ashley?

Adam Morrison and J.J. Redick Watch: January 21

The story of Adam Morrison this season: inconsistency. Last night he put up 18 as the 'Cats beat basement-dwelling Atlanta for the second time in a row. However, against better squads, Morrison has been streaky. Versus the Nets and the Bucks he went 9-30 for 10.5 ppg.

Redick, on the other hand, is still waiting for the chance to bust out. He took a good step forward yesterday, scoring a career-high 13 points in an Orlando loss to the Nets.

Saints v. Bears: observations along the way

12:56
I'm feeling pretty good about the Saints, even though they're down 6-0. Reason: three fumbles, and only six points off turnovers. Thank you, Rex Grossman, for overthrowing a wide open receiver in the end zone, for nearly throwing a pick.

No thanks, refs, for ruling "fumble" on an obvious down-by-contact situation.

No thanks, Dodge, for continuing to run that obnoxious-the-first-time Rock-em-Sock-em Robots commercial. I hate you and will never purchase a Dodge. Not ever.

No thanks, Chicago, for your crappy, crappy turf. It caused slipping and injuries last week, and this week it's just as slick.

1:05
If Grossman can get the Bears within field goal range on each drive, and if the Saints can't punt it past the 50, it might be enough, as the Saints offense keeps misfiring. (Brees actually looks stronger on his throws, but a few key slips by his receivers have been crucial.) Grossman's line: 3-11, 37 yards (all on one good pass). 9-0, Bears. Still anyone's game. Grossman hasn't given up a big pick yet, and he's sure to.

1:14
A better series for the Saints, inasmuch as the Bears aren't starting at midfield after taking over. Difference between Brees and Grossman: Brees can run under pressure. If the Saints are gonna win this, McAllister needs more touches.

1:19
Jones, Jones, Jones. Hey Bears: why were you running Cedric Benson? This Jones guy is untouchable, almost. What a stiff-arm on that 33-yard run. Hello, Bears? Don't you remember last week? Go with the guy who got you twelve. Points, that is.

1:22
Cedric Benson on the "Power O": denied. Thomas Jones on the Power O: TD. Maybe it's a brilliant rope-a-dope strategy by Lovie Smith. (It also neutralizes Rex Grossman--he can't hurt his team when he's not throwing the ball.)

1:32
Why I'm still confident in the Saint? Drew Brees. It took him 1:10 to lead New Orleans down the field for a TD. Perfect passes, a perfect hurry-up offense. If this game is close, look for Tom Brady--er, Drew Brees to win it. 16-7, Chicago, :46 to go.

1:36
The Bears wisely play it safe at the end of the first half, protecting a lead that all of a sudden looks pretty svelte. Forget what I said about Deuce McAllister: on their scoring drive, the Saints passed it on every play, spreading the field and exposing the (massive) gaps in the zone. (On the TD, did you notice that the Bear defender nearly fell down? Thank God the Super Bowl is in Florida.)

1:57
Reggie Bush is faster than anyone else on the field, and it's almost embarrassing to watch him gallop 88 yards to the end zone. But the dive, Reggie--why provoke? Thou shalt not excessively celebrate. Saints are down 2, and looking gooooood.

2:13
It's All Saints Quarter, as Drew Brees is stepping up in the pocket and evading the pressure, hitting a few key short screens and passes as snow falls. Couldn't quite finish it, though, so Billy Cundiff gets the call to finish the drive. No good. Saints down two.

2:16
Chicago plays: 1. Rex Grossman miss. 2.Cedric Benson loss. 3. Grossman short, too short, to Berrian. Punt. (Heck of a punt, but remember what happened last time the Saints were pinned deep? Reggie Bush, touchdown. As an aside, I've graded all the vocab quizzes. On to the essays.)

Lovie Smith: rope-a-dope, or just a dope?

2:20
Or a safety. Oops. (Devin Hester, who muffed several punts last week, holds on, but isn't looking like much of a game breaker today.) Saints down by four.

2:23
What is this? 1. Benson short run. 2. Benson loss. 3. Grossman incomplete (hold declined). Tell me Lovie Smith is holding his aces.

2:44
And all of a sudden the sky broke open, a trumpet sounded, and Rex Grossman the Good descended from on high to lead the Bears downfield, to rally the defense, and to give legs to Cedric Benson the Lame. Children flocked to him, women clutched at him, men stared at him in loathsome envy. On the sideline, Drew Brees wept, tears falling like sloppy snowflakes in the Chicago sky. Bears 32, Saints 14.

Turnovers. Three by the Saints, and none by Chicago, and this is where Grossman's play was better than it looked statistically. He might have thrown away a few passes and luckily avoided a couple picks, but them's the breaks. Brees threw it away in the end zone. Brees fumbled in the pocket, leading to the latest TD. It's a three score game, and all of a sudden the Saints look out of gas.

2:54
I'd bet $5 that the Tuesday Morning Quarterback will pencil in the Reggie Bush dive as the point that the football gods decided to smite the Saints. Update: It's the point, but not because of the dive, says TMQ. It was the taunt.

3:08
How quickly the game can turn. The Saints looked splendid in the middle third. of the game--but then only a few miscues later, the Bears turned on the running game, Grossman hit a few key passes, and the Saints offense imploded. When I picked the Saints to win it, I did so ignorant of history--no dome team has ever won in a wintry open-air stadium in the NFC championship--but until late in the third quarter, the weather didn't seem to matter much.

Blame this one on turnovers, sure... but the really decisive factor was the kicking game. The Bears got consistently good field position on offense, and kept the Saints pinned at the other end, especially once Brees started choking. The Saints missed their only field goal attempt and muffed a couple punts and a kickoff. Hester held on to the football, and Lewis couldn't get anywhere for New Orleans.

Meanwhile, grading is almost done. Up next: Patriots and Colts. I called this one for New England, but I won't watch it. That's jinx enough for one day.

3:22
Okay. Looking at the ESPN recap, I notice an amazing statistic: Deuce and Reggie combined for 10 carries. Drew Brees attempted 49 passes. If you're that out of balance, no wonder you get stuffed by Chicago's D.

area entrepreneur has a vision for Griswold's

That burned out hulk that scars the downtown may soon rise Phoenix-Inn-like from the ashes, if Cliff Lee has his way.

Q: What happens next?

A: I need to finalize my choice of architect and engineer, and then we start working on it. I have three or four preliminary plans for the building, and then we'll move forward. I'm not sure how long the permitting process will take. But hopefully this summer we can close the top of the building and change the facade.

Q: What are your preliminary ideas for the building?

A: Condominiums, a club, wine storage, a community meeting place in back. In front, a coffee shop, a restaurant, a beauty shop. I'd like to develop the first story into three businesses and the second story for two businesses. Five businesses in front, and the back side is kind of up in the air right now. I'm a little uncomfortable with apartments, so I prefer a more controlled situation like condos with people living there.

Q: When do you think all of this would be finished?

A: Within a month I want to get a sense of how much it will cost for each option, and I'd like to open within six months to nine months after the permitting process is complete.

I'm not sure how much the downtown needs another restaurant (but they could sure stand another Batdorf and Bronson coffeeshop), but condos... smart move. Right now the downtown is a great place to visit, but there are only a few apartments, and most of the housing near the waterfront is set up for seniors. More permanent residents equals more permanent business opportunities equals thriving downtown.

If you have a suggestion for Mr. Lee, email him at clncl AT yahoo DOT com.

how we spent the afternoon

A brisk walk around a blustery Capitol Lake, with a side trip to the waterfront. We must have seen at least fifteen different breeds of dogs, but only two or three breeds of liberals, mostly of the Kerry-Edwards persuasion. All in all, a fantabulous afternoon.

Olympia: flea-free since 1978

Best letter to the editor of the year so far.

In search of utopia

I was seeking a retirement city which offered ocean views, no fleas, no air conditioning, no heat, no crime, no pollution, no traffic, no nasty people.

Well, I pretty much found it. Thanks, Olympia.

Pretty good newspaper, too!

John Megery, Olympia

Proof that the new Medicare prescription plan works all too well.

the devil's nerds

I'm not going into detail, since this is all hearsay. (If it hits the paper--and when the lawsuits start flying--you'll get more.)

At lunch, someone played a salacious (and "salacious" is probably an understatement) video over the TVs in the commons. Rumor is, the perpetrators planned the stunt online.

On World of Warcraft.

grue in The Economist

Science is trying to pin down the subjective experience of color, and not only whether language in itself conceptually limits that experience, but whether the limitation has a neurological correlate.

Like many debates in psychology, this one pits congenital, fundamentally genetic, explanations against explanations that rely on environmental determinism. Psychologists in the former camp think people are born with ingrained ideas about how hues are grouped. They believe the brain is preconditioned to pick out the six colours on a Rubik's cube whatever tongue it is taught to think in. The other camp, by contrast, thinks that the spectrum can be chopped into categories anywhere along its length. Moreover, they suspect that the language an individual learns from his parents is the main explanation for where that chopping takes place.

As with most nature-versus-nurture debates, compromise seems in order. Two papers published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences suggest where the middle ground lies.

Read it to find out why.

(Never mind the implications.)

precisely

One of the snappiest and pithiest vocabulary quiz sentences I've ever seen, compliments of one of my freshfolks:

"Stop mimicking me," said Sarah. "Stop mimicking me," mimicked her brother.

don't blame Canada

Alas, the insidious Canadian conspiracy to steal defense secrets, pending their invasion, is but a dream within an enigma wrapped in a pita. The Defense Department is backing off the story that tracking devices were hidden in some Canadian currency.

Don't blame Canada.

Yet.

The Wages of Fear

I showed the last forty-five minutes of the French classic to my two junior classes today. Each erupted in shouts and gasps at the ending, which shocks you even if (and as) you see it coming.

It's a nice parallel to The Stranger, since the film's characters face a situation straight out of Camus, risking their necks to transport nitroglycerine over treacherous mountain roads to put out a raging oil fire. Their motivation: pay, desperation, derring-do. Their task: conquer fear.

I don't want to spoil it by overanalysis. Take my word that it's one of the most gripping and tense films ever made. Even after seeing just the last third, one student said, "It's too much! I can't handle the stress!" Mission accomplished.

now when I die, don't think that I'm a nut

My brother and I, among others, were discussing burial rites past and present. Started thinking of mummification. Moved on to Steve Martin's masterpiece. Wore this tie today out of respect. (Where it comes from: find out here.)

how the WASL makes life meaningful

Over there, I consider whether missing eight days of school is such a big deal.

what a difference eight days make

We swear we're not teaching to the test. Oh, do we swear it: and yet do our actions give the lie to our oaths.

The WASL is intended to track a student's learning, to assess her skills at a fixed point in time. The 10th grade high-stakes pass-it-or-do-not-pass-go WASL should represent the culmination of eleven years of education.

We take whole summers off. Thanksgiving, winter break, Dr. King's Day, and a raft of other holidays. What's at stake if we miss a few days?

Apparently, everything to area districts.

Many districts are considering shortening midwinter or spring break as an option to extending the school year. Seattle Public Schools hopes to announce its decision next week, said district spokeswoman Patti Spencer.

Bellevue school officials will meet Tuesday to discuss their options for making up eight days, including scaling back midwinter or spring break. The Federal Way School District, which also has canceled eight days of school this year, is discussing similar options.

"The concern is this is really disruptive to the educational process, especially with the WASL coming up in March, said district spokeswoman Debra Stenberg. "One of the considerations may be to try to replace some of that instructional time prior to the beginning of the WASL."

Highline School District, which anticipates announcing its new school calendar in the next few weeks, is looking into alternatives to prolonging the school year, said district spokeswoman Catherine Carbone Rogers. Adding days at the end of the year doesn't help students prepare for the WASL, she said.

We do teach to the test. We furiously prepare for the WASL in the weeks running up, and every second of seat time counts. Actions don't just speak louder than words. They shout them down.

so much for an objective theory of handsomeness

If you want a woman to think you're more attractive than you really are--and face it, you want to--better get some help.

Ben Jones at the University of Aberdeen in Scotland, and colleagues, showed 28 men and 28 women pairs of male faces and asked them to rate their attractiveness. The photos had been already been rated by 40 women as of about equal attractiveness.
Striking difference

The researchers then showed the same faces alongside a third photo of a female face in profile, positioned so she was looking at one of them, and smiling – or not. The viewers were asked to grade the faces again.

Women found the men who were being smiled at suddenly more attractive, while men who apparently elicited no such smiling approval were pronounced less attractive.

Science!

around and about

If anthropology and archaeology are your thing, why not visit Four Stone Hearth, seventh edition, an anthro-archaeo carnival hosted by the Talented Mr. Rundkvist?

If you're more of a generalist, why not check out the Science Blogging Anthology?

very random questions to ask people

Apparently, random isn't random enough. So, I present to you the Random Question Generator. Simply insert a word from each column, feeling free to double up on the SETUP and insert any necessary objects, modifiers, or articles, and with little rearrangement and a lot of pluck, you've got a very random question to ask someone.

Random Question Generator

SETUP	Noun	Verb
WHO	Monkey(s)	Smite(s)
WHAT	Joy(s)	Usurp(s)
WHEN	Trailer(s)	Pilfer(s)
WHERE	Wisdom	Dunk(s)
WHY	Cheese(s)	Applaud(s)
HOW DO / DOES or HOW IS / ARE	Uzbekistan	Bite(s)
DOES / DO	Attitude(s)	Swoon(s)
CAN	Hexagon(s)	Topple(s)
SHOULD	Pi	Dance(s)
IS / ARE	Moron(s)	Backslide

Sample questions:
Can cheese applaud?
Should monkeys dance?
How does a moron dunk?
Why does Uzbekistan backslide?
Who topples pi?



[130th in a series]

chocolate paisley on a snowy field

What better for a snowy day than swirling hot chocolate? (Whatever other images you see in the tie, I leave to your imagination.)

Also posted at my single greatest contribution to pedagogy, Mr. A's world of tacky ties.

flaky white stuff

Snow in the early morning. Two hour late start again. Lesson plans shot to hell. To paraphrase one Charles Barkley, to miss another hour of school would be uncivilized.

Update: Make that slushy white stuff. Today's trip from east to west took almost a half hour instead of the usual fourteen minutes. If the temperature drops tonight like they're saying, it's gonna be awful tomorrow.

value and criterion structures for the January-February LD topic: the actions of corporations

If you're going to run Aff or Neg on the "actions of corporations" resolution, what should your value and criterion be? Reader Soccerbud points out that most of the things I've written about the topic so far discuss the subject either implicitly, briefly, or obliquely. This post should change all that.

The following are value and criterion structures I've either heard in rounds or thought about. As always, fire away in the comments. Critique these or suggest others. (Updated 1/18/07).

Affirmative Value / Criterion Structures

V: Societal Welfare
C: Utilitarianism
The resolution concerns actions as the focus of moral concern. Thus, a consequentialist framework. Utilitarianism works for any moral agent, since it looks at results rather than focusing on the agent's inherent properties. It's not necessary to show that a corporation is morally on par with an individual, only that the actions of corporations are morally on par. Utility is broad enough to cover both.
Strategy for Success: Be sure to show how Util leads to SW. Watch out for the "50.01% can kill 49.99%" response, an oversimplification of Util. Learn about the nuances and varieties of Utilitarianism.


V:Societal Welfare
C: Morality
Simple: morality is good because it holds society together. (There may be social contract implications lurking beneath the surface of this structure.) If we uphold morality, we have to uphold it for all moral agents, including corporations.
Strategy for Success: Some argue that the resolution doesn't require any particular moral theory. Fine. Be ready to defend all sorts of moral systems, then, if you go with a generic criterion. Also, if you're going to claim a benefit--"societal welfare"--you'd better have a darn good argument why morality is either a necessary or sufficient condition. If the Neg can show that SW can be achieved in the absence of morality (especially when applied to corporations), your V/C is hosed.


V: Morality
C: The Categorical Imperative
According to Kant, moral actions are good in and of themselves. Furthermore, Kantian theory applies to all rational agents, which, it can be argued, corporations are. Thus, corporations and individuals both can adopt the Categorical Imperative as their moral guidepost.
Strategy for Success: Many people misunderstand Kant and the Categorical Imperative, so make sure you do the research first.


V: The Common Good.
C: Deliberative Democracy.
The resolution concerns the moral aim of society, and the balanced or opposed interests of individuals and corporations. If Delib D. is the moral means to the common good, and corporations threaten Delib D. when they are granted different moral standards, then we ought to hold them to the same standards as individuals.
Strategy for Success: Requires quality research and a quality debater. Not for beginners.


Negative Value / Criterion Structures

V: Freedom
C: Capitalism
Let corporations exist free of the fetters of morality. Take the stance of Milton Friedman: The profit motive yields good results. Capitalism makes the world a better place, since it respects and allows for individual and economic (and, some argue, thus political) freedom.
Strategy for Success: Watch out for those liberal judges who get a blister whenever libertarianism enters the room.

Update: Reader Nicole writes,

I think my biggest argument against this would be to take a hard-line Objectivist stance on it: that corporations are still held to individual standards because Capitalism is not a wild card to do what you will, there are still codes of conduct that you must abide by that are inherent in conducting in a fully Capitalist manner. Rand contends that in order for a corporation to fill its goals (profits) and to have the beneficial impacts (individual/economic/political freedom) actions must still be conducted in an ethical manner, because otherwise all you have are a bunch of people running around screwing
other people in the name of gain. Objectivism also contends (and I know this is a fairly common argument at the moment) that all rights of corporations go back to the rights of the individuals. Peikoff esplains it fairly well when he states:

'A corporation is a union of human beings in a voluntary, cooperative endeavor. It exemplifies the principle of free association, which is
an expression of the right to freedom. Any attributes which corporations have are attributes (or rights) which the individuals have - including the right to combine in a certain way, offer products under certain terms, and deal with others according to certain rules, instance, limited liability.

An individual can say to the store keeper, "I would like to have credit, but I put you on notice that if I can't pay, you can't attach my home - take it or leave it." The storekeeper is free to accept these terms, or not. A corporation is a cooperative productive endeavor which gives a similar warning explicitly. It has no mystical attributes, no attributes that don't go back the rights of individuals, including their right of free association.'

To me (being an Objectivist and a libertarian) it's always funny when Objectivism can be used to fight its modern interpretations--that capitalism is a blank slate for action.

To that I would add, this block only works when you're running an Aff compatible with Objectivist morality. If you're running "societal welfare" or another more communitarian standard, no dice.

V: Morality
C: Coherent Moral Standards
For moral standards to be upheld, they must be coherent, otherwise we have no grounds to uphold them--or, on the other side, to be held to them. By showing that corporations and individuals are ontologically different and that it is incoherent to apply individual moral standards to them, we thus show that the resolution threatens the concept of morality itself.
Strategy for Success: Whenever you defend a difference between corporations and individuals, make sure it is a morally significant difference.


V: Morality
C: Moral Agency
For moral standards to be upheld, they must applied to moral agents; in other words, moral agency grounds any notion of morality. By showing that corporations are not moral agents, we show that the resolution simply does not provide for a moral outcome.
Strategy for Success: This is similar to the previous strategy. It requires patient and careful argumentation that there are fundamental differences between corporations and individuals. Don't adopt an "only humans are moral agents" standpoint. It's too restrictive--for example, it's conceivable that Mr. Spock could be a moral agent, even though Vulcans aren't human. (Conceivable to a philosopher-nerd. But that's you, isn't it?)


V: Societal Welfare
C: Nihilism
Recounted here:

Nihilism, as the first of the loss of ideals, may be a state of hideous anarchy, but it is also the necessary transition to health. If, instead of relapsing into the idealistic source of evil, the eyes of mankind are strengthened to look boldly at the facts of existence, then will take place what [Nietzsche] calls the Transvaluation of all Values, and truth will be founded on the naked, imperishable reality.... When a man has faced this truth calmly and bravely and definitely, then the whole system of morality which has been imposed upon society by those who regarded life as subordinate to an eternal ideal outside of the flux and contrary to the stream of human desires and passions -- then the whole law of good and evil which was evolved by the weak to protect themselves against those who were fitted to live masterfully in the flux, crumbles away; that man has passed Beyond Good and Evil.

Strategy for Success: If you don't understand Nietzsche (way to be sure: you can't spell "Nietzsche" without peeking), and if your judge isn't hip, don't run nihilism. And, as a general rule, no Nietzsche before noon.

[Still a work in progress. Your comments are appreciated.]

what do we owe the future?

In a lovely bit of synchronicity...

1. We're studying Camus' version of existentialism in my 11th-grade class, and discussing his assertion that despair doesn't equal hopelessness.
2. I've just seen (and highly recommend) Children of Men, which is based on the premise of a world without children, and have been thinking about its existential implications.
3. Pat Robertson is at it again, claiming that an "existential view of life" is a contraceptive.
4. Joe Carter is asking what we owe the future, especially concerning our potential spouse.
5. My brother immediately asks what we owe to the past.
6. Which probably explains why he's resurrected a few old discussions.

Seahawks run out of miracles

Despite key injuries, despite being an 8.5 underdog, the Seahawks came out looking like a pretty tough team against Da Bears. Rex Grossman shed just enough of his badness to make a couple killer passes against Seattle's depleted secondary (the only reason we're not a Super Bowl team this year), and a couple late drives stalled with one painful yard to go for the Hawks. We really could have surprised everyone, but just couldn't quite pull it off.

Looking ahead: Saints will compete in the Super Bowl against the Patriots. Patriots will win it all. Again.

Update: Yes, I called it before the Patriots did it. Tom Brady just knows how to win. And Marty Schottenheimer just knows how to lose.

they will see us shilling

Funny: the indie through-the-mail-collaboration known as The Postal Service once got threatened with litigation by the real United States Postal Service. The USPS backed off when the band agreed to let them use their music in ads.

Ironic: see The Postal Service's "Such Great Heights" featured in the new series of shipping ads.

For UPS.

why we all love Carl Zimmer

Because he's one of our best living science writers.

...once the transmission has ended, I'm suddenly restless and at a loss. I still need to write--that's how the mortgage gets paid--but in the wake of a book project, magazine and newspaper articles seem strangely slight. (And blogging seems like flicking motes of dust.) Once the monster is gone, little matters.

Adam Morrison and J.J. Redick Watch: January 13

I've given up counting the days. (It's been a while, too.) Nevertheless, at the request of a family member, let's see how the two darlings of the draft have fared as of late.

Morrison scored 17 against the 76ers in a scrappy victory for bragging rights in the backwaters of the Eastern bloc. Morrison's best contribution:

The Bobcats also blew a 17-point lead along with their cool. With the Bobcats clinging to a 79-76 lead, Morrison, upset over a traveling violation seconds earlier, was called for a technical foul. Official Kevin Fehr then immediately hit Bickerstaff's son John-Blair with another technical.

Kyle Korver hit both free throws, and seconds later Samuel Dalembert's dunk gave Philadelphia its first lead since the first quarter.

"I put my team in a bad situation," Morrison said. "I can't argue there. Luckily we pulled it out."

Quoth coach Bickerstaff,

"I've never seen an uglier win. But when they write it down they say 'W.' They don't put a 'U' by it."

When you're as bad as the Bobcats, you can afford to be brutally honest.

Meanwhile, to give you a sense of just how bad the Eastern Conference is, the Suns, in beating Redick's Magic, improved to 17-1 against the Right Coast. Orlando dropped to 22-16. Redick sat. (Duke's going to retire his number. How sweet of them.)

Children of Men: see it now

Whatever your plans for the weekend, be sure to include Children of Men. Not for its vision of the future--which is as imperfect as all speculation--but for its artistic triumph, its moral and emotional weight. The night I saw it I lay awake mulling it over. We've been reading The Stranger and studying Camus' brand of existentialism in my junior classes. Watching the film, I came to realize that most people evade the true force of "the absurd" because we know life goes on for others, even when we're gone. As Camus writes in "Summer in Algiers," eternity is "what will continue after my death." But we cheat, and call eternity who. We want to leave a legacy, a culture, a history behind us. But what if there's no one to follow?

For the worst review of the film, read William Arnold of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

This movie left me swimming in unanswered questions. How did our species go sterile? Why does this pregnancy threaten anyone? What does the title mean? Most of all, if an army is besieging Seattle, why in the heck is it taking three years to do the job?

He apparently wants a movie to spell out everything in ABC blocks. It's like reading The Plague and wondering what virus might be implicated.

an ant's eye view of a tacky tie

If you're curious about the origin of this past Thursday's fashion must-have, check out Mr. A's world of tacky ties.

activists decry "Ashley treatment"

As I noted previously, area doctors' (and parents') decision to stunt a severely developmentally disabled girl's growth is not only ethically questionable, but is now meeting legal resistance.

"It is unethical and unacceptable to perform intrusive and invasive medical procedures on a person or child with a disability simply to make the person easier to care for," said Steven Taylor, director of Syracuse University's Center on Human Policy....

The Washington state attorney general's office said it is evaluating a complaint from a New Jersey disabled-rights activist. The state has no laws prohibiting forced sterilization....

About 25 protesters, some in wheelchairs, demonstrated outside the AMA's Chicago headquarters Thursday, chanting, "Accommodations, not operations."

"As far as I'm concerned, it was mutilation," said Donna Harnett, 42, who brought her brain-damaged 10-year-old son, Martin, to the protest.

Dr. Frederick Rivara, the journal's editor, said he published the case not out of support or opposition, but to bring it to doctors' attention "and to have exactly this kind of discussion in the scientific community about is this the right thing to do or not."

The problem is, an "accommodations, not operations" stance vastly oversimplifies the issues. Doctors perform radical operations all the time; would Harnett argue that "amputation is mutilation?" Would someone who has a limb lengthened so they can walk without crutches be guilty of self-mutilation? Shouldn't "quality of life" be a fair criterion for medical treatment?

plagiarism and labor

Long-time reader and all around good guy Josh sends a link to this Slate piece on why we don't like plagiarism. The demands of originality are addressed first. Especially in creative contexts, we like our authors to be original. "Distribution of labor," the plagiarist as slacker, is discussed second.

In fact, labor and plagiarism were entwined from the start. The word derives from the Latin plagiarius, referring to "kidnapper." Around the first century A.D., Roman satirist Martial gave us its modern sense when he wrote an epigram complaining that another man (whom he labeled a "plagiarius") had kidnapped his writings (which he metaphorically labeled his slaves) and was passing them off as his own. What had been a metaphor for a slave-stealer—someone who got labor for free—became a symbolic expression for the theft of words.

The academic sin of plagiarism is only partially described by this framework. From a teacher's perspective, plagiarism destroys the ability to assess a student's work, making meaningless half the labor of teaching.

ideas for the Aff, January-February LD topic (the actions of corporations...)

Like many trying to craft their Aff cases for this resolution, reader jay is stumped.

there are so many possibilities for the neg but i dont see any good ideas for aff. does anyone know of any?

The only way i see as of right now is to say that a corporation acts as an individual or in society's eyes, is an individual, but i dont see any other way

Also, just a thought, but i think it would be foolish to use any particular moral theory in your case because your opponent will attack that particular standard rather than your case...for either side, its better, probably, to just say that there is one without specifically naming it...

but yeah aff ideas?

He's come to the right place to get un-stumped. Maybe it's just me, but I think there are a lot of great ideas for the Aff to run with. Here's a quick rundown, as well as my answer to the "moral theory" question.

1. The legal presumption of "corporate personhood" is morally coherent as well. Corporations are rational beings (a la Kant) and/or intentional actors, unified in their being despite comprising diverse entities (see Peter A. French). Just like humans. Therefore, we should hold them to the same standards.

2. Since corporations act through and affect individuals, their actions ought to be held to the same standards as individuals. The different organizational context of the corporation does not warrant different standards.

3. Ethical consumerism. We hold corporations to moral standards by supporting them with our money, either through purchase or investment, or by not supporting them, by shopping elsewhere or by boycotts or other social pressure.

I'm sure readers can come up with other directions for the Aff to take.

Now, to the "moral theory" question. Should we promote a specific moral theory, or leave that undefined? As jay cautions, we may end up spending valuable time defending the standards instead of arguing on case.

This is one of the toughest calls with this resolution. If you don't adopt a moral framework (consequentialism via utility or something similar; ethical egoism; deontology via Kant or Rawls; virtue ethics; etc.) you risk opening yourself to whatever standards the Neg applies. You're probably already making moral arguments implicitly in your case; by selecting a moral theory as your criterion, you make those arguments explicit for the judge.

Secondly, if you don't adopt a moral framework, you'll have a tough time with any neg case running "morality is impossible because..." You'll have to spend the time arguing for morality anyway, so why not have your morality ready-made?

Third, the word "ought" presumes there's some sort of moral reason for holding them to the same standards. That reason is based on a moral theory. What is your theory?

I hope these quick thoughts are useful. Questions? Comments? Fervent disagreements? Let the discussion commence.