• Carolyn Gilman, English language artsCongratulations and much empathy from this current candidate.
• Keith Holder, music
• Carissa Riley, English language arts
• Laura Wright, English language arts
As I learned a few days ago, from the above mentioned nerd-king, metonymy is "is the use of a word for a concept with which the original concept behind this word is associated."And Olympia is not Olympia. Just to keep things straight.
Like "press," which is literally a way to print something, also means the news media, Olympia has become a lazy-ass crutch for people when they could be saying something else.
No one else cares, but I'll care.
Repeat after me:
The state legislature is not Olympia.
The state government is not Olympia.
Seeley wouldn't share many specifics about the new learning requirements before the draft is released on Tuesday, but she did offer some examples about the way the teaching of math is evolving in Washington and around the nation.For the anti-WASL hopeful, dash yours: the WASL's still part of the program. It'll be "revised" by 2013, when it again comes perilously close to a bona fide graduation requirement before inevitable and inexorable delays. Whoops, cynicism creeping through.
The current math learning standards offer a spiral of learning - a number of concepts are taught over a number of years with more depth added over time. The new standards will shorten the length of time students are given to master a concept like fractions, but during the years in which fractions are a major emphasis, teachers will spend more time and make more of an effort to ensure that every child understands the concept thoroughly, Seeley said.
"We're really trying to get past the spiral, so students don't get stuck spinning around," she said.
Tuesday, State Board of Education members will be in Seattle to discuss raising the minimum number and types of classes students need to graduate from high school, and perhaps changing other state graduation requirements, such as the in-depth "culminating" project.They forgot to name test-taking, but it's in there, promise.
The board members aren't looking at removing the Washington Assessment of Student Learning (WASL) as one of the graduation requirements — that's something they support, said Edie Harding, the board's executive director.
They are considering adding to the list of courses students must take — perhaps matching what most four-year public colleges and universities expect of their applicants. And they're discussing whether to add a number of "lifelong learning skills" that students would have to demonstrate, such as leadership, civic responsibility and teamwork.
For this new topic, I'm a little tired of the utilitarianism and deontology debates. Would it be a good idea to say that the incentives of a nation justify its actions, in that since the United States is trying to prevent nuclear war, even if it fails, the actions (military force) are just?If I'm right in thinking you mean "intentions" instead of "incentives," then you're offering an essentially deontological reading of justice, where intentions or duties, not ends, matter most. You're not going to avoid the old ends-means argument unless your opponent agrees to your criterion.
To me it seems like the current resolution wanted [us] to infer Iraq, Iran, North Korea...but I think they're trying to stay away from directly having a topic on Iraq or Iran considering everyone's a little tired of having topics on it... lolYou're absolutely right: this resolution screams "Axis of Evil." The NFL's topical analysis [MS Word] even starts, "Iraq. Iran. North Korea." Zero points for subtlety. At least the previous resolution, plea bargaining, didn't stray too far in that direction--I hope.
1. How can you define and back up justice on an international level? Also, could you argue states only exist for the sake of individuals so giving "each his due" is more important than international law (which is not necessarily just)?To define justice on an international level, you might look to the UN Charter or other similarly cosmopolitan agreements. I see shades of the national sovereignty debate returning. (Hmm... maybe some old LD material will be useful here?)
2. Is it possible, maybe with a definition of "for", to frame the resolution to say "a situation in which the United States intervenes to stop a country posing a military threat from acquiring nuclear weapons is just?" Then, all you would have to do is demonstrate how someone is wronged in the process (especially if you go with individuals being key).I'll admit I'm a little confused here: it appears like the sentence makes the situation to be just, instead of the intervention. Perhaps you could clarify.
3. It is key to define "military action." This is definitly NOT the same as war. (Think Israel's 1984 airstrike on that Iraqi reactor.)Absolutely. As I've mentioned elsewhere, both the Osirak attack and the Cuban missile blockade qualify as "military action."
4. What percentage of the time would military action have to be justified to prove/disprove the resolution?51%. (Why not? The new LD ballot claims debaters have to prove the resolution "generally true," which I'll gratuitously interpret as "in a majority of cases.")
5. Could you argue the action of any state (or at least, any democratic state) is justified? (This worked well for me as a neg in plea bargaining. I said that any definition besides one of "conforming to law" was subjective, so the only remaining one was "conforming to law." I won with it more than I lost, although I don't know if that logic would work with this resolution.)Assume that justice means "conforming to law." Does that automatically justify any state action? No. Sometimes, states act illegally, even under their own laws. (Besides, the laws of a democratic state are "subjective" inasmuch as they are created by the subjects of the law, instead of derived from eternal truths.)
A mud flow destroyed the Ranch House BBQ off State Route 8 this morning and closed off a section of the highway indefinitely.Click through to see the horrifying photo.
“I just lost my whole life,” said Amy Anderson, who has owned the popular restaurant and catering business with partner Melanie Tapia for four years.
The finding challenges human assumptions about our uniqueness, and should make us think harder about ourselves in relation to other animals, says anthropologist Jill Pruetz of Iowa State University, Ames, US.I think it does more to expose the underestimation of animal intelligence than the proper estimation of human worth. As I've argued before, bumping into someone as smart as I doesn't reduce my dignity. To quote myself, "Moral worth isn't zero-sum."
“Observing that other species can outperform us on tasks that we assume we excel at is a bit humbling,” she says. “Rather than taking such findings as a rare example or a fluke, we should incorporate this knowledge into a mindset that acknowledges that chimpanzees – and probably other species – share aspects of what we think of as uniquely human intelligence.”
We can target the lab, and only the lab, and we can do so because there really is no other way to combat its product, and its workers really are assimilated into the ranks of combatants. We cannot wait to engage it on the field of battle because it is never intended to get to the field of battle. Since the weapon essentially goes from the lab to its target--granted, there are a few stops in between, but none of the stops are the battlefield--it is as if the scientists employ the weapon and in this sense, they are combatants.Thus, the United States, if faced with a military threat by a regime attempting to develop The Bomb, would have the rules of war on its side in using force to prevent that development. Although the resolution does not specify which sort of military action is justified, I think it's safe to say that the same reasoning would allow, say, a Cuban blockade or an Osirak scenario.
There is a meaningful sense in which we can say that, if we do not stop the production of the weapon, we will not get a chance to defeat it on the battlefield, once it gets into the hands of combatants. There will be no intervening battlefield to engage it combatant-on-combatant. In a very real sense it is reasonable to say that the weapon goes from the lab to our backyard. In this sense, the scientists employ the weapon and are, therefore, directly engaged in harming us. We are justified in defending ourselves against this type of threat.
Resolved: It is just for the United States to use military force to prevent the acquisition of nuclear weapons by nations that pose a military threat.This site will provide analysis, links, and sources over the coming months, so watch this space. To start, the NFL has provided initial topic analysis and lessons here [MS Word]. A sample:
A good place to start is with an investigation of just war theory. Is war ever just? If so, what are the conditions for justness? In particular, what are the sufficient justifications for a preventive strike? What is the distinction between a preventive and preemptive strike? What is the relevance of that distinction? Does a strike against any military threat quality as self-defense? There is great depth and tradition in the philosophies that attempt to answer these questions and they are all receiving updates in light of recent global events.Indeed. Even though this is another contextual "United States" resolution, just like the last one, it's at least broad enough to encompass many perspectives on justice, war, pacifism, and international relations. Furthermore, some of those definitions are critical. What counts as a nuclear weapon? What is a nation? To what degree must a nation pose a "military threat?" How urgent must the threat be? Does the resolution imply that the threat must be toward the United States, or would it include a unilateral action taken in the name of global security?
I think I'm finished cranking out all the letters of recommendation I've been asked to provide. I think I'm finished commenting on all the freshfolk stories I've assigned. ("These days, I long for nostalgia" is the best line of the batch.) I think I'm finished videotaping myself for National Board certification, if that whole class discussion holds up to scrutiny. "I don't believe Dennis' decision is the result of any coercion. He is mature and understands the consequences of his decision," Meyer said during Wednesday's hearing. "I don't think Dennis is trying to commit suicide. This isn't something Dennis just came upon, and he believes with the transfusion he would be unclean and unworthy."The Times writeup goes over some of the ethical implications:
Ethics experts and Jehovah's Witness officials said such a court case is unusual these days.Wondering if the ruling would be part of the public record, I called the court's clerk this afternoon. "I'm sorry, but the records are sealed," she told me. "We can't discuss the case, even over the phone." The legal world is strange: the judge determined that, at 14, Lindberg was adult enough to make the ultimate decision, and yet the law still treats him as a minor, keeping the details of his case from full public scrutiny.
Most cases involving transfusions stem from surgical cases, and current policy at Children's is to inform parents that while the hospital will do everything it can to avoid transfusions, it will not let a child die for want of blood, said Dr. Doug Diekema, an ethics consultant there.
Years ago, courts routinely supported transfusions of children against the wishes of parents, Diekema said. While adults have the right to refuse any medical treatment, the courts ruled, that right doesn't extend to their children.
"The principle there is that parents can make martyrs of themselves, but they can't make martyrs of their children," Diekema said.
With an adolescent, the situation is much more complex, he said. "We all know that 14-year-olds change their minds; they become adults, and they have completely different belief systems. And that makes you nervous."
Nordstrom's store at Bellevue Square recently did away with its pianist, and the Alderwood mall store in Lynnwood will soon follow suit, said company spokeswoman Brooke White....can the death of live music be far behind?
Apparently, some shoppers prefer popular tunes by the likes of Bob Dylan, Alicia Keys and Frank Sinatra to the jazz and Broadway standards that pianists have been performing in Nordstrom stores for 20 years.
WHY do people — gay or straight — need the state’s permission to marry? For most of Western history, they didn’t, because marriage was a private contract between two families. The parents’ agreement to the match, not the approval of church or state, was what confirmed its validity.The entire essay is a fascinating rundown of the social and political forces that conspired to turn marriage from a publicly recognized private contract to a state-sanctioned joint benefit agreement. All this is to argue:
For 16 centuries, Christianity also defined the validity of a marriage on the basis of a couple’s wishes. If two people claimed they had exchanged marital vows — even out alone by the haystack — the Catholic Church accepted that they were validly married.
In 1215, the church decreed that a “licit” marriage must take place in church. But people who married illicitly had the same rights and obligations as a couple married in church: their children were legitimate; the wife had the same inheritance rights; the couple was subject to the same prohibitions against divorce.
Not until the 16th century did European states begin to require that marriages be performed under legal auspices.
Possession of a marriage license is no longer the chief determinant of which obligations a couple must keep, either to their children or to each other. But it still determines which obligations a couple can keep — who gets hospital visitation rights, family leave, health care and survivor’s benefits. This may serve the purpose of some moralists. But it doesn’t serve the public interest of helping individuals meet their care-giving commitments.It's a point others have raised before. Gay marriage allows benefits to gay couples without cost to heterosexuals. It simply doesn't undermine traditional marriage, since traditional marriage is nothing like it used to be--and it's always been that way. Or, to borrow a phrase from one of the U.S.'s most astute cultural critics: "Modern marriage. It's been like that all down through the ages."
Two Thanksgiving meals with family. Two or three solid pounds of leftovers. So none of it goes bad, I'm eating as much as I can, every meal, every day this week.Lightning chased the players off the field during the pregame warmups, and the teams were given only nine minutes for additional warmups before the game started at 8:55 p.m., 25 minutes later than scheduled.Reminds me of a now-infamous home game at Elma High School's old Davis Field, back before it was "improved." I was a senior in the marching band, first trumpet.
After five high school and college games were played at Heinz Field last weekend, crews hurriedly put down a new layer of sod atop the chewed-up turf for Monday night's game.
"It was like being on the beach in the sand on every play," said Miami linebacker Joey Porter, the former Steelers star playing against his old team for the first time.
The delayed start meant no national anthem or player introductions. The rain washed away nearly all the yard lines on a new grass field that had been in place less than 24 hours, and Heinz Field crews hurriedly put down new lines at halftime.
"It was nasty," Miami linebacker Channing Crowder said....
Late in the third quarter, Brandon Fields' punt from near the Miami goal line came straight down and plugged in the drenched turf like an arrow, burying itself several inches deep.
A coalition known as the Network for Excellence in Washington Schools sued the state in January, claiming that the state "has not upheld its constitutional obligation to fully fund public education for all children."This is the Board's first major action since the hotly contested election, and, hopefully, shows a glimpse of things to come: a focus on collaboration when tackling the upcoming budget crunch--and whatever else is headed our way.
Monday's Olympia School Board vote means the Olympia district will spend $5,000 to join that lawsuit, and the Olympia Education Association — the local teachers' union — also will contribute $5,000.
"This is a potentially defining moment for education in the state of Washington," said OEA president David Johnston, who encouraged the school board to vote to join the lawsuit. "There is a fundamental crisis in education support."
A decade later, the Hittites to the north attacked the weakened area around Simyra. "The Hittites were able to steal booty, including animals, and brought the animals home," along with the tularemia the livestock harboured, Trevisanato explains. Not too long after, the Hittites themselves apparently began to suffer from an epidemic of tularemia.Bad pun, choice weapon of science writers:
History seems to have repeated itself a few years afterwards when another ancient people, the Arzawans from western Anatolia, saw the weakened Hittites to their east and decided to strike. "They thought, if we attack now, we can push the border back to where we want," Trevisanato says.
But strangely, during this period of warfare between 1320 and 1318 BC, records indicate that rams mysteriously began appearing on roads in Arzawans.
The Arzawans took the sheep to their villages and used them for livestock breeding. Soon after, though, they began to suspect a link between the appearance of the animals and the terrible disease ravaging their communities.
"They started wondering 'Why do these rams start showing up on the road?'" says Trevisanato. He believes that among the Hittites, "somebody must have had the bright idea" to send diseased rams over to their Arzawan enemies.
Ultimately, the Arzawans were so weakened that their attempt to conquer the Hittites failed.
Still, in order to consider the rams as a true biological weapon, evidence is needed to clearly prove that the Hittites understood the full ramifications of these animals towards their enemies, says Mark Wheelis, at the University of California, Davis.The theory has a surfeit of charm to make up for its moderate level of plausibility. Still, it doesn't take the germ theory of disease to connect "sick ram makes us sick" to "sick ram will wipe out our enemies."
The LORD's hand was heavy upon the people of Ashdod and its vicinity; he brought devastation upon them and afflicted them with tumors. [a] 7 When the men of Ashdod saw what was happening, they said, "The ark of the god of Israel must not stay here with us, because his hand is heavy upon us and upon Dagon our god." 8 So they called together all the rulers of the Philistines and asked them, "What shall we do with the ark of the god of Israel?"Footnote [b] helpfully adds, "Or with tumors in the groin (see Septuagint)."
They answered, "Have the ark of the god of Israel moved to Gath." So they moved the ark of the God of Israel.
9 But after they had moved it, the LORD's hand was against that city, throwing it into a great panic. He afflicted the people of the city, both young and old, with an outbreak of tumors. [b]
