Saturday, August 13, 2005
Crawford or Bust
As I'm running late this morning, I can't give a comprehensive post on my reasons for going to Crawford, but, rest assured, it's coming. As soon as I hit the "send" button, I'm outta here. Gotta be in Crawford by noon for the rally at the Crawford HS stadium, and I want to get there a little before that.
Now that I've discovered audioblogger, you should expect a few posts-by-phone. If you wanna know how it's going down there, give me a call... 903-271-7605.
Otherwise, have a great day!
Now that I've discovered audioblogger, you should expect a few posts-by-phone. If you wanna know how it's going down there, give me a call... 903-271-7605.
Otherwise, have a great day!
Thursday, August 11, 2005
'Our kind of people'
From the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:
Staff Sgt. Jason Rivera, 26, a Marine recruiter in Pittsburgh, went to the home of a high school student who had expressed interest in joining the Marine Reserve to talk to his parents.
It was a large home in a well-to-do suburb north of the city. Two American flags adorned the yard. The prospect's mom greeted him wearing an American flag T-shirt.
"I want you to know we support you," she gushed.
Rivera soon reached the limits of her support.
"Military service isn't for our son. It isn't for our kind of people," she told him.
That absolutely offends and disgusts me. But, it doesn't surprise me. We're more than happy to "support the troops" and support the war when we or our children are not the troops and not at war. We, as a country, send working class kids to fight our battles. And that's no problem. It'll only be when it starts to affect the middle class, the voting class, that we will see real change.
If my parents were forced to send their children to war, I bet they would fight to see the end of it. Especially if they knew we were lied to and that there was no "noble cause." But, it's easy to support something when you don't have to sacrifice, isn't it?
That house was all decked out in American flags. But, her son, join the military? No. "Our kind of people" simply don't do that!
Disgusting.
President Cheney
The Denver Post is reporting that Bob Woodward believes that it is "highly likely" that Dick Cheney will run for President in 2008.
Now, granted, he already has a lot of experience at being President, but...
I think it would be hard for him to win. Bush and Cheney made a great team because Bush could be the front man, bringing in the Religious Right and the social conservatives. Sure, he had massive ties to big business, but Cheney was the real assurance to corporations that a Bush/Cheney administration would leave no multinational corporation or billionaire behind.
Cheney, by himself, out front, rather than out-of-the-spotlight as a constant representative of big oil, energy, and money, will be a hard sell for social conservatives, I think. Even if Pat Robertson ran as VP. After all, he has a gay daughter, as KE04 so often reminded us last fall.
Now, granted, he already has a lot of experience at being President, but...
I think it would be hard for him to win. Bush and Cheney made a great team because Bush could be the front man, bringing in the Religious Right and the social conservatives. Sure, he had massive ties to big business, but Cheney was the real assurance to corporations that a Bush/Cheney administration would leave no multinational corporation or billionaire behind.
Cheney, by himself, out front, rather than out-of-the-spotlight as a constant representative of big oil, energy, and money, will be a hard sell for social conservatives, I think. Even if Pat Robertson ran as VP. After all, he has a gay daughter, as KE04 so often reminded us last fall.
Friday, August 05, 2005
hahaha
So, I have a honking huge library fine at UTD because I have lost a book and they finally decided to charge me for it. They also put a hold on my records. While this is bad, there is was no pressing need to go pay the $80 until after I got my loan money for the fall. After all, I'm already registered for classes. But--summer class grades are up now. I logged into the SIS, where it said that the grades for the term ("Summer 2005") I was looking for were unavailable.
I was sad. On a lark (never heard anyone in real life use that phrase... it sounded cool) I decided to try to look at my "unofficial transcript" on the SIS. It totally let me see it, and totally had my summer grades on it. HAHAHA, UTD suckers!
Sorry, I'm a dork. And happy about my grades.
I was sad. On a lark (never heard anyone in real life use that phrase... it sounded cool) I decided to try to look at my "unofficial transcript" on the SIS. It totally let me see it, and totally had my summer grades on it. HAHAHA, UTD suckers!
Sorry, I'm a dork. And happy about my grades.
Faith vs. Fact
I've been thinking alot about science and religion, faith and fact, and how they (ought to? should? do?) interact. We often try to make them fit together in a nice theory-of-everything. That's a western obsession of ours, trying to make all of our different knowledges and ways of knowing the world compatible.
The Bible tells us that faith is “the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” (Hebrews 11:1). Science, on the other hand, is a weaving together of logic and empirical fact. Faith-based and fact-based views of the world are necessarily different, yet often in our society we try to make them fit together. They dont NEED to agree with each other in order to individually be valid and useful in their different purposes. The primary difference between faith-based views of the world and science is that science relies on empirical, or experiential and observable, evidence to support its claims while faith relies upon that which is inherently unknowable or observable. These two views of the world are mutually exclusive; you would not want science to answer questions about the meaning of life any more than you would expect religion to provide a satisfactory explanation for the phenomenon of gravity.
Empirical evidence requires facts. Facts are mutually agreed upon experiences that can be simultaneously observed or experienced in any place at any time by any number of people. The appearance of an angel to a person or group of persons cannot be described as a fact: the event cannot be experienced again by anyone at any time. To believe this requires an act of faith. Science, on the other hand, is completely shareable. If I say that water is made up of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom, this could be proven by anyone, anywhere.
Science also must be able to be disproved. Just as I cannot scientifically say that an angel appeared, neither can I say that an angel did not. The existence and appearance of angels, therefore, is not a matter in which science can concern itself. I can, however, prove that the Earth is not 10,000 years old by using carbon dating, or by counting rock layers. Because faith requires no evidence, it cannot be disproved. This is why science cannot answer the question of the existence of a God: it is ultimately and completely a question of faith, not one of fact.
Faith deals in absolute truths; the very nature of science does not allow it to deal with such issues. Science is about probabilities, the probability that a certain event will occur in the future given conditions and variables x, y, and z. Faith-based ways of knowing the world search for absolute truth and make absolute statements of Right and Wrong. Science cannot answer these questions, and we would not want it to.
Through history, people have always tried to make science and faith agree with one another, but often both suffer in the attempt. Pythagoras and others, when describing the universe, tried to make it conform to their faith-based views of the world. Their faith was tied up in the perfection of the universe, and thus the universe and everything in it was seen to be spherical or circular, the most perfect geometric form. When ideas about Beauty and Truth overshadowed ideas about science, the result was statements such as this by Plato: “This was the method I adopted: I first assured some principle which I judged to be the strongest and then I affirmed as true whatever seemed to agree with this, whether relating to the cause or to anything else; and that which disagreed, I regarded as untrue."
To make his science fit his faith-based views of how the world ought to be, Plato and his students introduced the concept of retrograde, explaining away apparent irregularities in planets’ paths while retaining perfectly circular orbits. Claudius Ptolemy, in his observations of the universe, was also determined to make his ideas about perfect harmony and order in the universe conform to his observed data. As we can see, when empirical observations are interpreted through the lens of a faith-based view of the world, science cannot accurately describe the present or predict the future.
A major breakthrough was made in rescuing science from faith-based ways of knowing when German mathematician Johannes Kepler, after working with Tycho Brahe’s meticulous data and attempting to fit it into both the Ptolemaic and Copernican models of the universe, decided to let the data simply speak for itself, finding that empirical facts simply did not fit with a faith-based view of the world that insisted on perfection and sphericity. Empirical facts were able to describe the shape of the universe more accurately than ever before; no longer was a certain view of the world and how it worked necessary to understand and accept the science: it became more universally shareable. No longer relying on faith-based ideals, theories could be disproved by empirical facts.
Yet we still try to make faith- and science-based views of the world agree with each other. Creationists try to find scientific evidence to support a 10,000 year-old Earth. The Archbishop of Canterbury sought out Einstein to ask how his theory of relatively would affect religion (his response: “None. Relativity is a purely scientific matter and has nothing to do with religion.”). We can see not only that these two different views of the world are designed for different tasks, but that when we try to make them agree we get perfectly circular orbits and impossibly young planets, both bad science and bad faith. Faith does not need evidence. Science can be shared and universally applied precisely because it can only be based on empirical facts.
The Bible tells us that faith is “the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” (Hebrews 11:1). Science, on the other hand, is a weaving together of logic and empirical fact. Faith-based and fact-based views of the world are necessarily different, yet often in our society we try to make them fit together. They dont NEED to agree with each other in order to individually be valid and useful in their different purposes. The primary difference between faith-based views of the world and science is that science relies on empirical, or experiential and observable, evidence to support its claims while faith relies upon that which is inherently unknowable or observable. These two views of the world are mutually exclusive; you would not want science to answer questions about the meaning of life any more than you would expect religion to provide a satisfactory explanation for the phenomenon of gravity.
Empirical evidence requires facts. Facts are mutually agreed upon experiences that can be simultaneously observed or experienced in any place at any time by any number of people. The appearance of an angel to a person or group of persons cannot be described as a fact: the event cannot be experienced again by anyone at any time. To believe this requires an act of faith. Science, on the other hand, is completely shareable. If I say that water is made up of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom, this could be proven by anyone, anywhere.
Science also must be able to be disproved. Just as I cannot scientifically say that an angel appeared, neither can I say that an angel did not. The existence and appearance of angels, therefore, is not a matter in which science can concern itself. I can, however, prove that the Earth is not 10,000 years old by using carbon dating, or by counting rock layers. Because faith requires no evidence, it cannot be disproved. This is why science cannot answer the question of the existence of a God: it is ultimately and completely a question of faith, not one of fact.
Faith deals in absolute truths; the very nature of science does not allow it to deal with such issues. Science is about probabilities, the probability that a certain event will occur in the future given conditions and variables x, y, and z. Faith-based ways of knowing the world search for absolute truth and make absolute statements of Right and Wrong. Science cannot answer these questions, and we would not want it to.
Through history, people have always tried to make science and faith agree with one another, but often both suffer in the attempt. Pythagoras and others, when describing the universe, tried to make it conform to their faith-based views of the world. Their faith was tied up in the perfection of the universe, and thus the universe and everything in it was seen to be spherical or circular, the most perfect geometric form. When ideas about Beauty and Truth overshadowed ideas about science, the result was statements such as this by Plato: “This was the method I adopted: I first assured some principle which I judged to be the strongest and then I affirmed as true whatever seemed to agree with this, whether relating to the cause or to anything else; and that which disagreed, I regarded as untrue."
To make his science fit his faith-based views of how the world ought to be, Plato and his students introduced the concept of retrograde, explaining away apparent irregularities in planets’ paths while retaining perfectly circular orbits. Claudius Ptolemy, in his observations of the universe, was also determined to make his ideas about perfect harmony and order in the universe conform to his observed data. As we can see, when empirical observations are interpreted through the lens of a faith-based view of the world, science cannot accurately describe the present or predict the future.
A major breakthrough was made in rescuing science from faith-based ways of knowing when German mathematician Johannes Kepler, after working with Tycho Brahe’s meticulous data and attempting to fit it into both the Ptolemaic and Copernican models of the universe, decided to let the data simply speak for itself, finding that empirical facts simply did not fit with a faith-based view of the world that insisted on perfection and sphericity. Empirical facts were able to describe the shape of the universe more accurately than ever before; no longer was a certain view of the world and how it worked necessary to understand and accept the science: it became more universally shareable. No longer relying on faith-based ideals, theories could be disproved by empirical facts.
Yet we still try to make faith- and science-based views of the world agree with each other. Creationists try to find scientific evidence to support a 10,000 year-old Earth. The Archbishop of Canterbury sought out Einstein to ask how his theory of relatively would affect religion (his response: “None. Relativity is a purely scientific matter and has nothing to do with religion.”). We can see not only that these two different views of the world are designed for different tasks, but that when we try to make them agree we get perfectly circular orbits and impossibly young planets, both bad science and bad faith. Faith does not need evidence. Science can be shared and universally applied precisely because it can only be based on empirical facts.
If you can't take the heat...
Yesterday was not a good day for right-wing ideologues. They're all losing it.
I guess I should have figured things like this would start happening after President Bush, the head of the Republican party, started flipping off the press corps last week.
But, not to be outdone in immaturity, today Bob Novak walked off the set of Inside Politics, yelling at James Carville that "This is bullshit!" One might guess that the only thing that would provoke the usually nasty Novak to go to such extremes would be a mention of the Valerie Plame affair. But, no, they were talking about Katherine Harris (see below). He just kind of cracked up. Maybe he knew what was inevitably coming soon. Maybe he was tired of the glare from James Carville's head. Who knows. He's got a lot going on, that's for sure.
In other conservative blowing-up news, Rick "man-on-dog" Santorum, Pennsylvania Senator, got a little hot under the collar when talking about homosexuality on the Brian Lehrer show on NPR. According to Crooks and Liars, "Santorum reiterated his assertion that gay sex is never consensual and that it is a kin to bigamy, polygamy, incest, or adultery. At that point, Lehrer let loose and brought up the fact that Santorum's Chief of Staff just came out of the closet. Santorum was pissed off that Lehrer brought this up."
Between Bush, Novak, Santorum, and Dick Cheney ("Go fuck yourself!" to Patrick Leahy on the senate floor, remember?), it's sad (but not all that surprising) when, back last fall, the biggest story for a few days was the fact that a candidate's wife had told an intrusive reporter to "shove off."
I guess I should have figured things like this would start happening after President Bush, the head of the Republican party, started flipping off the press corps last week.
But, not to be outdone in immaturity, today Bob Novak walked off the set of Inside Politics, yelling at James Carville that "This is bullshit!" One might guess that the only thing that would provoke the usually nasty Novak to go to such extremes would be a mention of the Valerie Plame affair. But, no, they were talking about Katherine Harris (see below). He just kind of cracked up. Maybe he knew what was inevitably coming soon. Maybe he was tired of the glare from James Carville's head. Who knows. He's got a lot going on, that's for sure.
In other conservative blowing-up news, Rick "man-on-dog" Santorum, Pennsylvania Senator, got a little hot under the collar when talking about homosexuality on the Brian Lehrer show on NPR. According to Crooks and Liars, "Santorum reiterated his assertion that gay sex is never consensual and that it is a kin to bigamy, polygamy, incest, or adultery. At that point, Lehrer let loose and brought up the fact that Santorum's Chief of Staff just came out of the closet. Santorum was pissed off that Lehrer brought this up."
Between Bush, Novak, Santorum, and Dick Cheney ("Go fuck yourself!" to Patrick Leahy on the senate floor, remember?), it's sad (but not all that surprising) when, back last fall, the biggest story for a few days was the fact that a candidate's wife had told an intrusive reporter to "shove off."
Doctoring photos?
Katherine Harris, former Florida Secretary of State (who, in her dual role as Chair of the Bush for President Committee in FL and the SoS, certified the election in 2000) and current Congresswoman from Florida, claimed on Sean Hannity's talk radio show on Monday that certain (unnamed) newspapers of doctoring her photo back in 2000 to make her and her makeup look ridiculous.
Yes, Ms. Harris, the newspapers had nothing better to do than try to make you look silly. Don't you know, that's their goal?
Now, on the subject of doctors... someone's had a makeover since 2000:
Yes, Ms. Harris, the newspapers had nothing better to do than try to make you look silly. Don't you know, that's their goal?
Now, on the subject of doctors... someone's had a makeover since 2000:
Virtual Quote Book
So, I just picked up Sarah from the airport. And since I no longer keep a proper quote book, I figured this was an apt a place as any to record her random comments.
On the quality of Canadian water: "When I fill up the tub with water, it looks like someone had diarrhea in it."
On the quality of Canadian water: "When I fill up the tub with water, it looks like someone had diarrhea in it."
Wednesday, August 03, 2005
Another random rant.
Oh, for an anonymous blog where I could truly rant and rave. I might start one.
(If you think this is about you, it's probably not.)
(If you think this is about you, it's probably not.)
Dorkiness, cont'd...
Your Geek Profile: |
Academic Geekiness: Highest |
Music Geekiness: High |
SciFi Geekiness: High |
Geekiness in Love: Moderate |
General Geekiness: Moderate |
Movie Geekiness: Moderate |
Fashion Geekiness: Low |
Internet Geekiness: Low |
Gamer Geekiness: None |
The Keys to Your Heart |
You are attracted to those who have a split personality - cold as ice on the outside but hot as fire in the heart. |
In love, you feel the most alive when your partner is patient and never willing to give up on you. |
You'd like to your lover to think you are loyal and faithful... that you'll never change. |
You would be forced to break up with someone who was ruthless, cold-blooded, and sarcastic. |
Your ideal relationship is lasting. You want a relationship that looks to the future... one you can grow with. |
Your risk of cheating is zero. You care about society and morality. You would never break a commitment. |
You think of marriage as something that will confine you. You are afraid of marriage. |
In this moment, you think of love as commitment. Love only works when both people are totally devoted. |
The True You |
| You want your girlfriend or boyfriend to be more relaxed, calm, and composed. |
| With respect to money, you are a bit stingy. |
| You think good luck might come your way, but if it does you'll be so surprised you'll burst out laughing. |
| The hidden side of your personality tends to be reluctant to accept things as they are. And you are prone to think negatively. |
| You are tend to think about others' feelings a lot, perhaps because you are so eager to be liked. |
| When it comes to finding a romantic partner, you are not too worried about finding someone right away. You're kind of laid-back in such matters. |
| You are a Black Coffee |
 At your best, you are: low maintenance, friendly, and adaptable At your worst, you are: cheap and angsty You drink coffee when: you can get your hands on it Your caffeine addiction level: high |
| You Are 54% American |
 Though sometimes the good ole US of A makes you cringe Still, you know there's no place better suited to be your home. You love your freedom and no one's going to take it away from you! |
You Are 70% Left Brained, 30% Right Brained |
The left side of your brain controls verbal ability, attention to detail, and reasoning. Left brained people are good at communication and persuading others. If you're left brained, you are likely good at math and logic. Your left brain prefers dogs, reading, and quiet. The right side of your brain is all about creativity and flexibility. Daring and intuitive, right brained people see the world in their unique way. If you're right brained, you likely have a talent for creative writing and art. Your right brain prefers day dreaming, philosophy, and sports. |
Must...stop...quizzes taking over...
"How to Prevent Homosexuality in Boys"
A recent series of events has caused me to happen upon several websites purporting to give parents advice on how to "prevent homosexuality." Not only does this take the view that a child being gay is something that a parent can "cause," but also treats such occurrences as quite possibly the worst thing that can happen to a parent.
"Don’t wait until your daughter’s masculinized behavior or your son’s effeminate preferences get any worse. Remember that for many prehomosexual boys and girls, some of the characteristics may be more subtle...Call to make an appointment with a professional therapist who believes change is possible. Work patiently with that therapist in redirecting your child’s prehomosexual behaviors. "
This website gives a series of tips. I've found that most of the online literature addresses boys becoming gay. Apparently daughters turning lesbian is not as big a concern.
1) The best prevention of homosexuality in boys is a strong father/son relationship in which the father affirms the masculine identity of the son... This relationship should include rough and tumble play between father and son... The mother may try to intervene, but in a healthy situation the father ignores her protestations and the son learns independence from the mother. If the mother prevails and the activity ceases or never begins, the father/son bond is not firmly established. There is evidence that being tossed in the air and rough-and-tumble play in the first 3 years of life builds brain connections which lead to confidence in physical activity and may effect later coordination.
So, let me make sure I've got this right: boys won't become gay if their fathers ingrain in them not only a love for physical activity but also the idea that women are to be ignored and are overly worried. The father/son bond is dependent upon the mutual rejection of the mother. This "confidence in physical activity" is something that boys in particular need. What about girls? Don't they need confidence and coordination? Or might that turn them gay?
2) Second, it is absolutely essential that all adults and older children unequivocally affirm the boy's masculine identity, and show disapproval toward stereotypically girly activities and cross dressing. A simple "Boys don't do that" on the first occasion is sufficient.
Yes, it is vital that not only do we force boys to conform to stereotypically masculine behaviors, but we must also impart in them a homophobia, a disapproval of boys doing "girly" things and the idea that "boys don't do that." Yeah, that's healthy. For all that women get short shrift in society as a whole, I do think that both men and women, and particularly boys and girls, suffer from being pigeonholed into traditional ideas of femininity and masculinity. It reminds me of the song When I Was a Boy by Dar Williams, where she talks about the fact that she used to be a tom boy but when she grew up, she couldn't play outside, couldn't ride her bike without her shirt on, etc. And then a guy tells her that he was once a girl, that he helped his mom in the kitchen, that he could cry, etc. It's not just girls that are being hurt by our rigid gender-typing of children.
3) The mother must encourage her son's competence and mastery and teach him how to overcome his fears and anxieties.
But not her daughters', right? Also, if he's fearful and anxious... that's what'll turn 'em gay!
4) The mother must affirm her respect for manhood and men, particularly if the father is clearly deficient or absent.
Yes, we absolutely must reinforce the absolute wonderfulness of traditional masculinity. If those boys start to think that the women don't respect him... well... that might just make him be attracted to men... right? Yeah, this one makes little sense.
5) The boy must have a chance to observe happy marriages close up and understand that love between husband and wife is a beautiful thing.
I would be curious to see a study about gay males to see whether most lived with married parents or not.
6) The boy needs boy playmates who share his interests.
If he plays with girls will he turn out gay?
7) The mother should be modest in front of her children and respect their modesty. Children should not observe sexual acts.
I agree. But I also agree that fathers should be modest in front of children, too. But--most importantly, I don't see that this has anything to do with creating homosexuality.
8) Children should be protected from sexual molestation by adults or other children, with a yearly admonition from their parents that if anyone tries to touch their private parts or asks them to touch his parts they are to tell immediately and that people who do such things are usually liars.
I agree...? Again, not seeing the link...
9) Parents need to teach children to forgive those who injure them, to reject envy and self-pity, and to practice virtue. The difference between boys who become homosexual and those who do not is not simply that the former were traumatized and the latter not. Almost all children experience traumas of one sort or another. The difference may be that for the homosexually attracted the trauma remained unhealed. In many cases bitterness, envy, unforgiveness, and self-pity were either allowed to fester or subtly encouraged.
Any evidence for this?
So, basically, the "problem" is that people are gay because they are having gender identity confusion? See, and here I always thought it was because they were attracted to the same sex! I know several gay people, and I don't believe any of them are confused about their gender or want to be the other gender.
See, if you start with the assumption that homosexuality is a result of gender confusion, all the "remedies" and "preventions" begin to look the same. There is a focus on instilling, or learning, traditional masculinity (or femininity, when they actually address females!). Focus on the Family's article that addresses preventing homosexuality in children gives us a few tips on how to recognize signs that your boy may become a homosexual:
- A tendency to cry easily, be less athletic, and dislike the roughhousing that other boys enjoy.
- A persistent preference to play female roles in make-believe play.
- A strong preference to spend time in the company of girls and participate in their games and other pastimes.
- A susceptibility to be bullied by other boys, who may tease them unmercifully and call them “queer,” “fag” and “gay.”
- A tendency to walk, talk, dress and even “think” effeminately.
*Sigh* These "prehomosexual" tendencies simply mean that a boy is not accepting what is told by their culture, their society, their toys, their t.v. shows, and everything else about what is "normal" or how a boy ought to act. Possibly it could be a sign of good parenting? But, no, it is a sign that a boy is confused about his gender and will probably be gay. Because, of course, gender confusion=homosexuality.
That was the underlying theme running through all of these websites that I saw. That the "cure" and "prevention" for homosexuality is a recognition of very firm gender role boundaries that should not be crossed by men or boys (or women or girls, but we're less concerned about them, really).
I'll stop rambling now, as it's 2:30 in the morning. But I was just upset at reading these things. I don't know whether to laugh or cry. It's kind of funny. But it's sad to think about the real people that these ideas hurt.
Edited to add: Some of you may think that I have simply made fun of their arguments and not really addressed them. You're right. Partly because some of them don't need to be addressed, they're that stupid. And partly because it's my blog and I'll whine about idiots if I want to. This blog is called Random Rants and Ravings, not Well Thought Out Ideas and Arguments. Please feel free to respond, however, with why I am ridiculously wrong, spot on, or somewhere in between.
Tuesday, August 02, 2005
Because I'm a dork...
I'm a Ravenclaw!
Nothing too surprising there. I'm totally in Ravenclaw. Apparantly, however, most U.S. adults would place themselves in Ravenclaw (they would put Hillary Clinton and George W. Bush in Slytherin and would guess that Laura Bush would be a Hufflepuff.)
Harry Potter Personality Quiz by Pirate Monkeys Inc.
I am an INTJ (Introverted iNtuitive Thinking Judging on the Meyers-Brigg personality test), I always get that result (well, sometimes I end up with ISTJ), but never have I thought of myself as having a similar personality to Severus Snape. Oh well. That reminds me, now that I am back in the blogging state of mind, I will soon treat you all to my (possibly lengthy) essay on why Snape is totally innocent. I know you can't wait.
Edited to add: I looked at the ISTJ result: Hermione. Yay.
Harry Potter Personality Quiz by Pirate Monkeys Inc.
I like that one better than Snape. And I kind of think it fits better.
| Overall, Your Observation Skills Get: C- |
 But the details aren't exactly your forte |
Too true to be funny. Alas.
Monday, August 01, 2005
Should I be sad?
Let me start off by apologizing. Not only have I not posted all summer, but I promised at one point that I would, only to not follow up. Not that anyone reads this. But I still feel guilty.
So--having finished my job and summer classes, I thought I'd kick-start the new blogging season with a kind of funny/kind of sad thing I found:
Next year (starting this fall) is my senior year, so I am beginning (kind of late, I think) to look at graduate schools, not just in Sociology, but also in American Studies, Women's Studies and other interdisciplinary programs. After looking at a few, I decided to simply type in a few of my interests into Google to see what I would find. Maybe I'd find some exciting sociologist/interdisciplinarian with similar interests, or maybe I'd find a department with similar focuses.
It probably would have been more effective to have only searched for a few at once, but, either way, I searched for about 10 or so (as many as Google would let me!), and of the 7 results, all but 2 were about the awful state of American higher education and the liberal bias found on college campuses. The top result, found here, is from the Young America Foundation, and details courses that unsuspecting college students have been forced to take. How awful! Our youth are being corrupted! (Should I be sad that most of the courses they listed sound pretty interesting to me?)
This gets me to the broader issue of liberal bias in the academy. I'm not really going to discuss it in general, but I am going to complain about an editorial I read a few months ago, which bemoaned the fact that surveys show that more college and university professors identify themselves as liberal than conservative. (As my roommate Ema just pointed out: shouldn't it say something that the most educated among us tend to be liberal??) Who is going to want to go into a career that requires a great deal of education and investment for little monetary return? I would venture to guess that conservatives are less likely to make that choice. I would say that, more than anything, there is a great deal of self-selection going on rather than discrimination based on political affiliations or beliefs.
There is alot, alot more that could be said about this. And, if I were a good blogger, I probably would. But, if nothing else, the past few months have demonstrated that I am an incurably bad blogger, so I'll just leave it at that.
So--having finished my job and summer classes, I thought I'd kick-start the new blogging season with a kind of funny/kind of sad thing I found:
Next year (starting this fall) is my senior year, so I am beginning (kind of late, I think) to look at graduate schools, not just in Sociology, but also in American Studies, Women's Studies and other interdisciplinary programs. After looking at a few, I decided to simply type in a few of my interests into Google to see what I would find. Maybe I'd find some exciting sociologist/interdisciplinarian with similar interests, or maybe I'd find a department with similar focuses.
It probably would have been more effective to have only searched for a few at once, but, either way, I searched for about 10 or so (as many as Google would let me!), and of the 7 results, all but 2 were about the awful state of American higher education and the liberal bias found on college campuses. The top result, found here, is from the Young America Foundation, and details courses that unsuspecting college students have been forced to take. How awful! Our youth are being corrupted! (Should I be sad that most of the courses they listed sound pretty interesting to me?)
This gets me to the broader issue of liberal bias in the academy. I'm not really going to discuss it in general, but I am going to complain about an editorial I read a few months ago, which bemoaned the fact that surveys show that more college and university professors identify themselves as liberal than conservative. (As my roommate Ema just pointed out: shouldn't it say something that the most educated among us tend to be liberal??) Who is going to want to go into a career that requires a great deal of education and investment for little monetary return? I would venture to guess that conservatives are less likely to make that choice. I would say that, more than anything, there is a great deal of self-selection going on rather than discrimination based on political affiliations or beliefs.
There is alot, alot more that could be said about this. And, if I were a good blogger, I probably would. But, if nothing else, the past few months have demonstrated that I am an incurably bad blogger, so I'll just leave it at that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)