fits and snorts

Joe Carter has cobbled together a list of stupidisms by a master of the genre, Pat Robertson. (He was inspired by this article, which nearly caused me to spew coffee all over my laptop when I first saw it the other day.)

Forget writing in Jon Stewart. Pat Robertson: a Mickey Mouse candidate again.

dumbing down

Paula Cohen reviews Diane Ravitch's The Language Police, noting its balanced portrayal of both conservative and liberal moralistic bowdlerism of today's textbooks. It's a subject that teachers coming out of today's ed programs are fairly familiar with; and many of them share the distaste for textbooks that I do. Not one of my English classes uses a textbook at the center; all rely primarily on books, short stories, essays, and articles, often of the students' choosing.

Only one paragraph struck me as off-kilter:

Perhaps the best alternative to bad textbooks is no textbooks. The Language Police has an appendix containing a list of primary readings for grades three to ten. This is a good idea but an impractical one. Using primary materials, especially in the early grades, poses logistical and pedagogical problems that most American schools are not prepared to handle. Thus, textbooks are likely to remain with us. One can only hope that Diane Ravitch's book will help bring about a revision of the sanitized texts that are currently breaking our children's backs and dulling their minds.

"This is a good idea but an impractical one." Why? Because of "logistical and pedagogical problems American schools are not prepared to handle." What are these problems? Because of their bulk and their snazzy color formatting, textbooks are outrageously expensive; trade paperbacks can be bought and turned over every few years for about the same price. If schools aren't prepared for it, they should prepare for it, not just complain that it's too difficult.

And what might the pedagogical problems be--that teachers would have to create meaningful lesson plans, instead of using worksheets and handouts pre-formed by the textbook company? That's just sloppy, irresponsible teaching. Students might not be at the same reading level? Same problem with textbooks. What about the vast library of knowledge called The Internet? Sure, it's not uniformly valuable, but teachers and librarians are supposed to be professionals.

If American schools aren't prepared to do away with textbooks, it's because they're not really trying.

a little Dylan. Thomas, that is.

For the Yankees

Do not go gentle into that good night,
Hot bats should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Though umpires at their end know left is right,
Because their calls have forked like lightning they
Do not go gentle into that good night.

Pitchers slump and scowl, crying how slight
The strike zone has become, and in their way,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Catchers who tried to guide the pitch in flight,
And learn, too late, they erred, it flies away,
Do not go gentle into that good night.

Skippers, near death, who see with blinding sight
Blind eyes of umpires have the final say,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

And you, announcer, there, from your sad height,
Curse, bless us now and cheer us on, we pray.
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

(Apologies.)

life-changing

Whoa there, fundamentalist podnuh.

[thanks to The Obscure Store]

enough already

Why do pundits care at all for national polls? Our electoral college system is not a national referendum; each state race polls independently. You can win the popular vote and lose the election, and vice versa. This is a "duh" point which every voting American should already understand, and yet Hugh Hewitt seems to think that because Bush leads in overall polls, he'll win the election. Same for Kos and Kerry. There is no "national zeitgeist" when it comes time to vote. Duh. Duh. Duh.




Oh, and duh.

take off the masks

In some of my classes, we've been discussing the election, writing our own campaign platforms, forming political parties, and preparing to square off in debates and give speeches. As an activity, I had students read campaign platforms of the candidates on the ballot in Washington state--but with names or other obvious clues to the party's identity blotted out, so they'd have just the issues to consider.

The results were fascinating, and only somewhat surprising (at least, to me). Remember, these were high school students who have been studying the election for two weeks, have seen much of the debates, have viewed some of these platforms before.

Workers World Party

They work towards building a society which puts people’s needs first, not profits. They support a $15/hour minimum wage, jobs, childcare, housing, education and healthcare for all, and the right of all working people, including immigrants, to unionize.

These candidates oppose racism, sexism, and all discrimination and bigotry. They oppose the Patriot Act, the death penalty and police brutality, support reproductive choice for all women, and full rights of lesbian/gay/transgendered people, including marriage.

They say no to the Iraq war and occupation and want the troops brought home now. They call for slashing the huge military budget to create living-wage jobs with benefits, to rebuild cities, expand social programs and fund all human needs.

Parker and Gutierrez say it’s time that working people and all who face discrimination, unemployment, poverty, have their own party—one that represents their interests, and not those of big business and the super-rich.

Students' answer: John Kerry

Independent

We seek an end of corporate control of government and a government that is truly "of, by and for the people." They seek to shift the power to workers, consumers and tax payers and put the necessities of people before corporations including health care for all, earning a living wage for themselves and their family, authentic consumer protection, environmental protection, labor law reform, a jobs program to rebuild U.S. infrastructure, ending poverty, an energy policy that breaks U.S. addiction to fossil and nuclear energy and creates jobs building sustainable clean energy as well as efficient buildings and motor vehicles. They support education, from pre-school through college, affordable for all Americans with developed civic skills. They protect the Constitution by repealing the Patriot Act, ending the failed drug war and restoring justice. They would shift the burden from work to wealth and to things we like least, e.g. pollution, gambling, addictive industries and stock speculation more than things we like, e.g. food, books, clothing.

Students' answer: Kerry (mostly); Nader (a few)

Socialist Workers

The immediate, unconditional withdrawal of U.S. and other imperialist troops from Iraq, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Korea, Haiti, Colombia and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

For a massive federally funded public works program to put millions to work at union scale.

For the extension of social security to cover universal, federally funded, lifetime health care for all.

Defend and extend affirmative action in employment, education, and housing.

Fight cop brutality, abolish the death penalty.

Defend a woman’s right to choose abortion.

Students' answer: Kerry

Constitution

* Stop the undeclared wars which are daily costing American lives and billions of tax dollars;
* Stop reckless spending, including foreign aid, and take care of America’s domestic needs;
* End debt financing of the Federal government;
* Get rid of the Federal income tax, and restore a tariff based revenue system;
* Immediately terminate international trade agreements such as NAFTA, WTO, the proposed CAFTA and FTAA, and stop sending high paying American jobs to foreign countries;
* Uphold God-ordained marriage and defend America’s moral and family values;
* Protect the right to life of all unborn innocent children;
* Get the Federal Government out of the Education business and allow parents to control the education of their own children;
* Uphold Second Amendment rights; and
* Restore a debt free, interest free money system;

Students' answer: George W. Bush

We talked about why they might confuse Kerry for Che Guevara, or Bush for Pat Buchanan, and how the two-party system, for better or worse, excludes voices on the margins. All in all, it was a lively discussion.

add it up

I've been wasting too much time at The Evangelical Outpost, because Joe Carter's interests are as eclectic as mine are, even though we come at the issues from different slants. EO is constantly thought-provoking, funny, and dogmatic. It's also a "haven of civility in the blogosphere."* At any rate, I'm adding it to the blogroll.



*A designation that also fits Ed Brayton's Dispatches from the Culture Wars. Oh, and "I often quote myself. It adds spice to the conversation." --G.B. Shaw

Update: Welcome, readers of Evangelical Outpost. Here are some Carter-related posts of Decorabilia past.

Befriending the Colon: Carter's Rule of Entitlement
any excuse to bash Kinkade
Jesus the logician?
bestest posts of 2004
always right?
historical views of personhood

where the buck stops

I didn't liveblog the last "debate," nor have I yet commented on it. I've been letting it steep and stew in my mind, mulling over the various gaffes and missteps, counting the ducked questions, the evasions, the distortions and fabrications.

I had only one "aha" moment upon reflection. It was this: Bush, right or wrong in his actions, has a skewed vision of leadership. Although he claims that good leaders show firm resolve, and send clear messages, he has missed another key aspect: leaders take responsibility, especially for mistakes. As a friend in the Marines once put it, "The complaints go up, not down." As Harry Truman put it, "The buck stops here."

You said that if Congress would vote to extend the ban on assault weapons, that you'd sign the legislation, but you did nothing to encourage the Congress to extend it. Why not?

BUSH: Actually, I made my intentions -- made my views clear. I did think we ought to extend the assault weapons ban, and was told the fact that the bill was never going to move, because Republicans and Democrats were against the assault weapon ban, people of both parties...

My biggest disappointment in Washington is how partisan the town is. I had a record of working with Republicans and Democrats as the governor of Texas, and I was hopeful I'd be able to do the same thing.

And we made good progress early on. The No Child Left Behind Act, incredibly enough, was good work between me and my administration and people like Senator Ted Kennedy.

And we worked together with Democrats to relieve the tax burden on the middle class and all who pay taxes in order to make sure this economy continues to grow.

But Washington is a tough town. And the way I view it is there's a lot of entrenched special interests there, people who are, you know, on one side of the issue or another and they spend enormous sums of money and they convince different senators to taut their way or different congressmen to talk about their issue, and they dig in.

I had these big dreams for Washington, and they were dashed on the rocks of partisan reality. Golly gee, I didn't know that Big Money ruled Washington--'cause out here in Texas, that sorta thing just doesn't happen. Uh-huh. When I succeed, it's me, with a little help from the conservative senator from Massachusetts. When I fail, it's other people, the "entrenched special interests." When I admit even one mistake, it's the people I appoint who don't do exactly what I want. When my war plan falls apart, it's because we succeeded too quickly. When I send troops into battle without sufficient body armor the first time, it's because of Kerry's symbolic protest vote the second time.

Jon Stewart for president.

apocalypso

Yep. George W. Bush is a pawn of the Antichrist. But don't take my word for it; trust Michael Evans of WorldNetDaily.

When President Bush was at a nadir in the polls, when he was being brutally attacked by the liberal media, the war in Iraq was at its lowest point, and when the 9-11 commission was attempting to undermine his integrity, with character and courage, he made a biblically based, moral decision to stand with the nation of Israel. I believe this decision by President George W. Bush was prophetic, and will echo throughout eternity.

Why? Because Israel's existence is a necessary precondition for the (brief) reign of soon-to-arrive Antichrist, the Son of Perdition, The Beast, Apollyon, The Great Deceiver--and yes, they're all the same guy. It's all in the kooky book of Revelation, the most misinterpreted, misunderstood, misused book in the New Testament.

So if peace is achieved in the Middle East any time soon, thank George W. Bush, head for your bunker, and whatever you do, don't take the Mark.

Orwell spins

Timothy Sandefur points us to this article on a brand-new phenomenon: an atheist summer camp. John Ashmen of Christian Camping International, quoted in the article, wins the Meaningless Babble Award for the week.*

"Using the camp setting for different ideologies is not unusual," Ashmen said. "All of the stimuli has been changed and new bonds are built, old walls are broken down, and that's why you have such an impacting opportunity."

Yikes. We have verb number problems ("stimuli has been changed"), empty phrases ("new bonds are built"), and nouns-as-verbs ("impacting").

Congratulations, Mr. Ashmen. I'll mail you a copy of Simply Speaking (by every conservative's favorite speechwriter!) if you happen to read this.




*Yeah, I've never awarded it before today. Maybe I'll start it "for reals."

the horror

Amanda Fortini says what I've been saying to myself (and to my wife, bless her) since I started seeing women dressed up in the worst fashion trend since Hammer pants.

Although it seems like a perfect excuse to reify Elaine's only-imagined urban sombrero...

loosening screws

Sometimes teaching drives you crazy.



[thanks to the obscure store]

splash

One of my promises is going to be Social Security reform, and you bet, we need to take a trillion dollars out of that $2.4 trillion surplus. Now remember, Social Security revenue exceeds expenses up until 2015. People are going to get paid. But if you're a younger worker, if you're younger, you better hope this country thinks differently, otherwise you're gonna be faced with huge payroll taxes or reduced benefits. And you bet we're gonna take a trillion dollars of your own money and let you invest it under safe guidelines so you get a better rate of return on the money than the paltry 2% that the federal government gets for you today. That's one of my promises. But it's gonna require people to bring both Republicans and Democrats together to get it done. That's what it requires. There was a chance to get this done. It was a bipartisan approach, but it's been rejected. I'm going to bring them together

That's George W. Bush concluding the debate, back in 2000.

Whither bipartisanship? After all, as the soon-to-be president continued, "A promise made is a promise kept." Flash forward to 2004:

BUSH: My biggest disappointment in Washington is how partisan the town is. I had a record of working with Republicans and Democrats as the governor of Texas, and I was hopeful I'd be able to do the same thing.

And we made good progress early on. The No Child Left Behind Act, incredibly enough, was good work between me and my administration and people like Senator Ted Kennedy.

And we worked together with Democrats to relieve the tax burden on the middle class and all who pay taxes in order to make sure this economy continues to grow.

But Washington is a tough town. And the way I view it is there's a lot of entrenched special interests there, people who are, you know, on one side of the issue or another and they spend enormous sums of money and they convince different senators to taut their way or different congressmen to talk about their issue, and they dig in.

I'll continue, in the four years, to continue to try to work to do so.

My opponent said this is a bitterly divided time. Pretty divided in the 2000 election. So in other words, it's pretty divided during the 1990s as well.

We're just in a period -- we've got to work to bring it -- my opponent keeps mentioning John McCain, and I'm glad he did. John McCain is for me for president because he understands I have the right view in winning the war on terror and that my plan will succeed in Iraq. And my opponent has got a plan of retreat and defeat in Iraq.

Iraq. That's where bipartisanship disappeared. Right there. Bush, like Kerry, wants it both ways: to unite the country while dividing the electorate.

Campaign promises either wither in the heat of urgency, or get stuck in the halls of politicking, or vanish amid the confetti of victory celebrations. They're cotton candy. Dandelion seeds. Dust bunnies.

Forget the debates. Everything changes after the election.

a bug in your ear

This is just too weird to believe.

Or is it?

Watch for the Matrix bulge in the last debate. If it's not there, put on your tinfoil hat.

[thanks to Jason Kuznicki]

Update: Now there's a contest: spot the bulge, win a Salon subscription!

Update update: All Things Earwig!

follow the money

My paternal grandfather always laments the rise of "Republican plutocrats." Whom do the plutocrats really vote for, though? You might be surprised.

laundry list

What has scores of professors all riled up?

trundle on over

Add to the blogroll Jason Kuznicki's Positive Liberty, if not for its "classical liberal perspective," then for its emotional honesty, erudition, or eccentricity.

(Thanks to Ed Brayton, via whose blog I found Kuznicki's in the first place.)

---...---

Timothy Noah of Slate, fearing that he'll sound like a conspiracy theorist, does a little Googling and discovers that yes, in fact, Bush talkin' bout Dred Scott = Bush talkin' to the evangelical base.

Come on.

I mean, anyone who's ever listened to Alan Keyes knows that.

Oh.

Never mind.

three--no, two cheers--for democracy

Do as I say, not as I do.

More here.

However this shakes down, the prospect is more than a little unsettling. Blogger beware.

two--no, three cheers--for democracy

So the Afghan elections are going well, so far, and the primary challenger to Hamid Karzai has rescinded his call for a boycott, as long as the results are monitored by an independent panel. What this bodes for the future of Afghanistan is anyone's guess; but nascent democracy is better than no democracy at all. History, as any Popperian would warn, is too contingent, too chaotic to predict. (Look at the differing outcomes in post-Communist Poland and Russia for a comparison case. Life is especially tough in the latter.) But that's not what interests me, really. What I noticed immediately upon hearing the news was that the results won't be in for two weeks.

Two weeks!

Donkeys, helicopters, planes, trucks, and trains are carrying the results in to be counted. The potential for fraud is enormous, but that's still not what interests me.

It's the two weeks.

We live in a relatively stable democracy, where we vote over two months before the new candidate is sworn in. But I remember certain political pressure to render a quick decision in Florida four years ago, and I remember calls for "the nation to move forward."

And yet Afghanistan won't even have certifiable results for a fortnight.

If our upcoming election is as close as the last, and it could be (again, I'll be a tentative Popperian), anyone who calls for a quick recount will be dismissed from my already-small list of politicos I admire, or at least begrudgingly respect.

Democracy takes time. Every vote counts. We can't let Afghanistan upstage us, when we're the ones evangelizing democracy in the first place.