September 5th, 2009 — thoughts
I was recently referred to a blog post so I could understand better why some parents are concerned about allowing their children to hear the upcoming education speech. I also read about a dozen others, trying to get a handle on all the facts (as much as one can do so via the interwebs).
A long time ago, in a galaxy called High School, a teacher taught me that people who use underhanded rhetorical techniques quite likely got nothin’ else. Of course, it’s possible to use nasty debate tricks and have a good point, but I think the presence of the former does reduce the probability of the latter, overall. There are definitely liberal outlets (*cough*HuffPo*cough*) that use these ridiculous tactics on a regular basis, but I think I find them even more from the Right. Perhaps I should do a structured study to test whether this is just a perception issue.
Anyway, here’s most of the dumb tricks from that blog post.
Why Parents Don’t Trust Educator-In-Chief
By MICHELLE MALKIN | Posted Thursday, September 03, 2009 4:30 PM PT
the sneering defenders of Barack Obama – can’t fathom – the cult of Obama – activist language – Obama’s bureaucrats – whitewash – the taint of left-wing radicalism – the Educator-in-Chief and his “comrades.”
The bulk of the post is actually about William Ayers, and is composed of quotations establishing his leftist views. Standard.
February 23rd, 2009 — photos
Here in South Texas, stuff blows around a lot. Few trees and certainly no hills to stop it. Lots of wind. So my teeny back “yard” gets its share of trash. This delicious document was in the take sometime last month. Is it not precious? I defy you to malign its preciousness.
(sorry about the quality; it’s a faded, blurry document; I’ve done what I can to make it legible)
January 23rd, 2008 — thoughts, updates, webthings
So I just wrote a few letters of recommendations for graduate school. Traditionally, this involves writing an actual letter, maybe checking items on a form, etc., and mailing (or emailing) these materials to an admissions committee. Increasingly, however, it often involves working through an outsourced third-party company that manages the admission application process. In some ways it makes sense.
But you also hitch your free & open University wagon to a Business, with any attendant stupidity.
So, in order to help my students have a decent shot at grad school, I had to agree to certain somewhat insane and (in my mind) questionably legal terms & conditions (quotations from T&C in footnotes, emphasis mine):
- You agree never to hold them responsible for anything, even if it’s obviously and legally their fault
- If you live somewhere that terms like these are illegal, then you can’t ever claim more than $100
- but if YOU violate any of these terms, there is no limitation on what damages you might pay
- and you have to agree if you want your student to have a chance at grad school
I’m with Leo Lessig and others who would like to see some backlash against companies denying (or pretending to deny) citizens of their rights in legally-questionable, morally-stupid ways. Stuff like this is part of the poopy sediment settling over the landscape of our societies.
June 20th, 2007 — thoughts
A couple of nights ago, my friend Brad and I had a discussion. It got me thinking, as I often do, about mi patria (the United States), its role in the world, and its future on the international stage. This morning, while trying to find a citation for homicide rates as (lousy) indicators of overall crime rates, I ran into a 2005 article titled “The next 50 years: Unfolding trends,” in what appears to be a good peer-reviewed academic journal.
The article has a section titled “America’s Retreat.” He predicts the end of U.S. international dominance by about 2050, with clear signs starting a few decades ago, and becoming more apparent very soon. He cites a lot of economic indicators, such as national debt, increasingly weak currency, and huge (and increasing) trade imbalances. He has graphs (pretty ones) and apparently rigorous data analysis. Some nifty excerpts from the article, after the jump. Continue reading →
February 5th, 2007 — updates, webthings
On my way to work today, I passed a Lotus in the visitors’ parking area. Yes, a Lotus. At least it was in the visitors’ area, not in the administrators’ parking spots. I think the car was one of the models here (the Exige or the Elise). What’s this car doing in our parking lot? We’re a university. Actually, now that I thik about it, perhaps it belongs to some wealthy person giving a donation to the school. That would be acceptable. If there must be huge income inequalities in the world, some of the filthy lucre should trickle down to the educational system. You know, for the students’ increased learning outcomes. And my paycheck.
On the other hand, I looked up the prices on these things, and it looks like the Elise only (heh) costs between about $40,000 and $50,000, while the Exige goes for approximately $50,000 to $60,000. If I’m not mistaken, you can buy an SUV for the same price. OK, so that’s not exactly a ringing endorsement; it’s still luxury car pricing (a la Acura or Lexus), but despite the extremely sexy looks of this Lotus, it’s not in the price range of a quarter-million-dollar Lamborghini or Ferrari, or the million-plus McLaren F1. So I guess conspicuous consumption has fine gradations of magnitude.
Discussion of British cars (like Lotus) Reminds me of a bumper sticker I saw on an MG once: “The parts observed falling from this car are made with the finest British craftsmanship.”
