Pish, Tosh

It is Friday night, and I am too poor to go out, so my husband and I have enjoyed some decadent cheese and red wine.

We caught the last end of a comedy special that actually made me laugh out lout many, many times. Look up a dude named Daniel Tosh, and I will tell you why...

1) He made fun of Kobe Bryant.

For those of you who don't know, I think Bryant is the symbol of evil. And Tosh hit it right on the head. He very clearly explained to Mr. Bryant that it isn't the money, the work-ethic, or the talent we hate him for - it is the rape thing.

2) He made fun of white privilege.

Any white dude who can laughingly talk about how much more money he makes than his black counterparts just because he is white deserves props. Sorta like Dave Chapelle.

3) You have to invite God into your heart or he doesn't come in - he's like a vampire.

Funny people are sexy. Work on this - you'll get laid way more often.

How depressing must it be to serve no purpose in the world and for everybody else to know it?

As I have said, I fully support the writer's strike. Not that they care what I think, but there it is. And I am very heartened to see so many of those who benefit from writers think the same. See Letterman, Leno, Stewart and Colbert, and Carrell, to start with.

Which is why I feel I should denounce Carson Daly not as an entertainer, that's been done, but as a thinking person. He is one of those people I have a personal vendetta against, because I believe on a deeply profound and ideological level that two-bit hacks should not get paid for publicly being a two-bit hack. There's a big list of those folks - ask me sometime. I will passionately tell you all about it.

http://unitedhollywood.blogspot.com/2007/11/exciting-employment-opportunity.html

Seriously, just read this. It is ridiculous.

Calvinball

I recently heard of a thing called Cornish Hurling. My husband discovered this and was good enough to share his excitement.

It is a game played with an orange-sized applewood ball, coated in silver. It is played on Shrove Tuesday (Mardi Gras, if you prefer the French). There is something about some goals and a perimeter. After that, there are no rules. Anybody can play and teams are however big you want. Some seem to imply that at one point there was something about no forward passing, but that has been dropped in favor of chaos. Let the rugby players worry about that.

Point being, we now have Fat Tuesday plans. Everybody is invited! Bring the kids! Bring the pets! Except we'll probably use a tennis ball - not coated in silver.

OMG - I am one of those academics who can't have a conversation

I am helping to teach persuasion to a bunch of sixth graders. Remember this is argumentation at a very basic level. Here is our progress:

There are facts and opinions. Then we define those (NB- I had to sit silently here because of my doubt that there are more than a dozen facts in the world).

You try and persuade by giving an opinion and supporting it with facts. It does not help to support an opinion with another opinion.

Here is where we run into a problem - how do you explain to sixth graders that not just any fact supports an opinion? Ex. SFA is the best junior high because the colors are green and white. Well, it is a fact that SFA's colors are green and white, but that does not support that conclusion.

My partner in crime asked me how to explain that, and I immediately began to think in terms of fallacies, Aristotle, and Toulmin. I stared blankly as I realized that I could not explain this phenomenon without using Greek words.

I have become that guy. I am that guy that nobody likes to talk about because I don't make sense outside of academia. My family has been insinuating this for years, but I feel a sense of certainty about it now.

And if anybody has any ideas about how to teach persuasion to a twelve year old, don't hold back.

Astounded

Let me apologize for the egomaniacism of the last post. But I'm sure you know how it goes.

We were discussing Marx and Rand in class yesterday and I said something about the invisible hand of greed. Almost all of my students laughed because they thought it was something I was making up on the spot. There were only two who had ever heard the phrase before.

Also, earlier, I said something about "opportunity cost" - as in, the post from a few days ago, and people had no idea what I was talking about.

SERIOUSLY? What the crap do people learn in economics?

So, today we get a very basic lesson in economics, because NEWSFLASH - if you don't understand economics, you have no idea what's going on in American politics today.

Here are the things you need to remember:
1. The invisible hand of greed
2. Opportunity cost/guns and butter
3. Efficiency

To begin with, economists worship at the altar of efficiency. Their whole purpose is to be able to explain the course that will have the greatest output with the least resources expended. That is easy enough - except efficiency is a value-laden term.

This is because of opportunity costs. That is the cost of something in terms of the resources it takes away that will reduce the ability to produce other items. This is the classic guns and butter scenario, or as I learned it, baby food and napalm. Let's say there are only two products produced - guns and butter. Some of the resources to make one product are necessary for the other. Which means, for every gun you produce you reduce the amount of butter you can produce. Why? Because the guns sap your resources leaving you with little left to make butter. This is OPPORTUNITY COST on a macro scale. Hence, the idea of efficiency is a value judgment. It is probably most efficient on paper to make all butter or all guns - but can you run a society or community with only that one product. No - not even in the current global economy. You have to decide the most efficient way to produce given your opportunity costs and based on which product ultimately is most beneficial AND does not waste resources. I feel the example has more poignancy when you use baby food and napalm - the contrast is more clear. So one can see that the market does not run on money but on opportunity cost. - this is an important point. Don't forget.

Finally, the liberal market is not a moral one. Adam Smith himself told us that the market is driven by "the invisible hand of greed." I'm not saying you are a bad person if you are a capitalist...hell, communism is no ethical picnic, either. But the market forces remain stagnant without an invisible mechanism, and for us that is greed. Avarice. The desire for more than is necessary. This is an excellent way to achieve progress, right? We are encouraged to continually make the market more efficient. However, to somehow see Jesus as a good capitalist is a display of profound ignorance of one or the other - or both. There is no way around the fact that our market is powered by something most people disdain. We will get to Objectivists at some other point - they have an interesting "moral" counterpoint there.

Finally, a parting note that is not completely necessary to understanding American market forces, but a useful one. FDR's main money guy was John Maynard Keynes. Keynes sort of designed that whole "New Deal" thing. His motto: "In the long run, we are all dead." American economics ran on that principle for years and now it is coming home to roost. It is an interesting footnote to the efficiency principle. Is it better to be efficient in the long-run or efficient now? See how that comes back to a value judgment? What's the most efficient of the efficients? Keynes and FDR did great things for America at a rough time - but sixty years later are we paying the piper? Keynesian economics...ask an old economics teacher. They will either get a far-away lovelorn look in their eyes, or go apoplectic. Either way, there is amusement to be had.

The Bad-Assness of my Rhetorocity is overwhelming

Guess who is presenting at RSA in the summer?

That's right, bitches. Of course now I actually have to produce a paper that sounds as good as my abstract, but we'll cross the bridge when we come to it.

On another I-am-awesomer-than-I-realized note, here is a little blurb from "The Week":

Men have a good evolutionary reason for preferring women with narrow waists and wide, womanly hips, says the London Sunday Times. Women with a classic "hour-glass" figure, a new study has found, tend to have smarter children. Using data from 16,000 women, University of Pittsburgh and University of California researchers found that moms with large hip-to-waist rations were more intelligent themselves, and gave birth to children who scored higher on standardized tests. Growing babies' brains thrive on omega-3 fatty acids, which are found in the type of fat that tends to settle around a woman's hips. Tummy fat, on the other hand, is high in omega-6 fats, which don't seem to promote brain development. Women who are thin or stick-figured also ten not to have high levels of omega-3s. This may be one reason evolution programmed men to be attracted to curvy women. Previous studies have found another possible reason: Women with this body shape tend to be more fertile.

And finally, please remember that the original Venus looked a bit like this:

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://donsmaps.com/clickphotos/venuswillindorflarge.jpg&imgrefurl=http://donsmaps.com/willendorf.html&h=1496&w=812&sz=196&hl=en&start=1&sig2=mMHhAvXGywagcJIy_BEBPA&tbnid=ZLvsOs8iJphgOM:&tbnh=150&tbnw=81&ei=o5hLR8mEBp-SeLKinO4L&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dvenus%2Bof%2Bwillendorf%26gbv%3D2%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den

Eat it, Twiggy.

Why the flat tax is a wretched idea

There is a difference between equality and equity. Equality is what we strive for but will probably never achieve. And rightfully so - some folks have advantages and some don't. I, for example, will never be a great ballerina. And that's okay. Equity is putting everyone on the same playing field and then letting them work their way up or down. This is one of the things that always amuses me about the whole Cold War/Commies vs. Capitalists fight. Both systems are sort of obsessive about equality. In capitalism it is assumed that equality exists, so the market is the mechanism through which a person can prove themselves. In Communism equality is imposed because the assumption is that equality cannot exist without some outside control.

I am a big fan of equity. If two people are trying to make money and one inherits 1 million dollars while the other is working from the savings of a $35,000 dollar a year job we will never actually know who is the better businessman/woman/whatever because the chap w/ all the money has such an advantage. This is the thinking behind progressive taxes - putting a slightly higher burden on those with the advantage in an effort to give those without advantages a chance to close the gap.

And all of this leads me to the actual subject for today: the flat tax. The flat tax assumes equality of opportunity cost. This, as any high school economics student can explain, is utter nonsense. First, money does not drive the market. Opportunity cost does. Opportunity cost is simply how much opportunity purchasing an item will cost you. For example, if I have 1,000 dollars I can technically afford $900 dollars in rent. I just have to give up things like fuel, electricity, and work clothes. That $900 dollars is very expensive to me. If a colleague has $5,000 dollars they, too, can afford $900 dollars in rent, and still have plenty of cash for things like food, air conditioning, and gasoline. While we are treated equally in that we are charged the same, clearly my rent has a much, much higher opportunity cost than that of my colleague.

A flat tax is "equality" at its worst. The response to this is that the tax is proportionate to income, so it is fair. Once again, this is ignoring the basic economic premise of opportunity cost.

A woman makes $100 a year. She pays $35 in rent, $25 for food, $25 in bills, and $15 dollars for the 15% tax. She takes the bus to avoid fuel costs and works a minimum wage job so she does not need work clothes. She makes just enough in a year to pay her expenses - unless she ever has to go to the doctor or something ridiculous. That tax is affordable, but eliminates any opportunity for health expenses or education.

Her boss makes $1000 a year. She her mortgage comes to about $130 dollars a year, she spends $100 on food, $100 on fuel, $80 in bills, $35 for car payment, and $35 for clothing expenses. Then she pays another $150 for taxes. She puts $50 dollars in savings. At the end of the year she has money left over for entertainment and can look forward to paying next year's tax out of excess. Eventually her money will build up, so that the 15% tax becomes less and less expensive. Her taxes are completely affordable, giving her excess cash reserves for entertainment, savings, and acquisitions.

The head of the company makes $10,000 a year. He has a yearly housing cost of $1000, $500 on food, $300 on fuel, $100 for a car, $100 for clothing, $300 in savings, $200 in preventative health care, $200 for education and professional development, and $300 on a vacation. Then he pays $1500 in taxes. At the end of the year he has spent less than half of his income.

This is equality in action - treating people as equals when they are clearly not does not make things fair. It feeds the cyclical financial problems that so many face. The idea of a flat tax assumes that everyone has equal resources, therefor the burden is the same for everybody. What fool genuinely thinks that?

Don't drink and blog

A special for Thanksgiving:

www.freerice.com

Please remember, as we sit with friends, family, and anabundance of food and drink, that we are the privelaged few.

Happy Thanksgiving to you all.

Hallelujah

Interfaith Thanksgiving service hosted by Muslims at Beth IsraelDespite snub from Hyde Park Baptist Church, Sunday service drew hundreds

By Patrick GeorgeAMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFFMonday, November 19, 2007

For 23 years, Thanksgiving in Austin has come with huge crowds of people in saris, hijabs, clerical robes and yarmulkes, celebrating their similarities. Sunday's 23rd annual Austin Area Interreligious Ministries Interfaith Thanksgiving Celebration marked the first time the service was hosted by Muslims — and it was at a Jewish temple, no less.
But the service wasn't without some controversy. Last week, Hyde Park Baptist Church, on whose property the event was originally going to be held, backed out because it objected to non-Christians — particularly Muslims — worshipping at its Quarries location.

Congregation Beth Israel stepped up, and the standing-room-only service was held there....
"On Wednesday morning, we got the call from one of our congregants who works at Austin Area Interreligious Ministries' building about the issue," said Jennifer Smith, executive director at Beth Israel. "We made some calls and realized we had plenty of room for everyone."

Smith said that although the temple served as the location for the service, it was Central Texas Muslimaat that ran the show Sunday. Austin's Muslim community lacks a space big enough to hold the worshippers. Simone Talma Flowers, Austin Interreligious Ministries' interim director, said Muslims have always been involved with the service but were most heavily engaged this year.

"There are a lot of stereotypes about how far apart Muslims and Jews are, and I don't think it's true," Smith said. "This shows that Muslims and Jews can work together."
The event featured a Jewish shofar — a trumpet typically made of a ram's horn — a Muslim song calling for prayer and Christian bell music. Religious leaders from several faiths and denominations, including Methodists, Bahais and Buddhists, took part. At sundown, the Maghrib, the fourth of five daily Muslim prayers, was also held there.

"This is a very good concept," said Ahsan Chowdhury, a Muslim who worships at the North Austin mosque. "This country is a country of immigrants. We should be breaking our boundaries of religion, culture and heritage as part of this great American holiday."
As for Hyde Park Baptist Church's decision not to allow the event on its property, "it shouldn't have happened," Chowdhury said. "But these types of things slowly improve. In the future, we will see less and less of it."

An evangelical megachurch at West 39th Street and Speedway, Hyde Park is not a member of Interreligious Ministries. Last week, church leaders issued a statement that said, "Although individuals from all faiths are welcome to worship with us at Hyde Park Baptist Church, the church cannot provide space for the practice of these non-Christian religions on church property."

Smith said that most of her congregants were happy and proud that Beth Israel stepped up to the plate. Others at the event Sunday criticized Hyde Park leaders.
Don Waak, a former Southern Baptist who also attended the service last year, said, "It really breaks my heart to see this. They have a right to do it, but what does it say?"
Janet Nitibhon said, "To me, this was the biggest slap in the face to the whole idea of this celebration. One congregation's decision wasn't a very charitable or Christian gesture."

pgeorge@statesman.com; 445-3851

Strike!

I hate that "Scrubs" is going to be short some episodes in it's last season. And it sucks that NY is losing money right now because stagehands are refusing to work.

But I completely support the current movements in entertainment to even the score.

So many folks I know are anti-union. Ask yourself why you work 7-8 hours a day instead of 12-18. Ask yourself why you have a weekend. Ask yourself why you are guaranteed some vacation time, a safe working environment, or a minimum amount you can be paid.

Thank the unions of yesteryear for all of that.

So many think that certain groups - teachers, nurses, etc., - shouldn't be allowed to strike. Bullshit. Those are exactly the people who SHOULD be able to strike because we realize just how invaluable they are. And if we won't pay to treat those people with respect then it is our own fault when they walk out on us. Forgive my pontificating, but I truly don't understand the anti-labor sentiment.

As for the writers and stagehands, I readily admit they are not necessary for our survival. But the show does not happen without them. So why shouldn't they get a slightly bigger piece of the pie? Oh, wait. I forget. In American capitalism it isn't those who produce goods who get paid - it is those who already own. Yeah, sure. That makes sense.

The "F" Word

I am a feminist. I make no bones about it. In the classes I teach I do my best to keep my personal politics out my lectures with two invariable exceptions. One: No Child Left Behind is the worst bit of legislation in the last 30 years, at least. Two: I am a feminist and I am very proud of that.

The thing is, nobody knows what the f-word means. NEWSFLASH: You don't have to hate men, be ugly, butch, a dyke, gay, or mad to be a feminist. If you are a woman that felt she was worthy of a college education and that it would improve your life in some way, you are a feminist. If you are a man who sees these women in college and doesn't stop to tell them they should be at home bearing children, you have feminist proclivities. I hate talk radio because it produced the term "feminazi" which is the most ridiculous term ever. Yes, I think women should get equal pay for equal work - I guess Hitler and I have a lot in common in that respect?

All right, I know all of this sounds like just a rant, but there is a source here.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/11/19/saudi.rape.victim/index.html

So many people think of me as a postmodernist, in the sense that I question meta-narratives. But here is where my very modernist/Enlightenment sensibilities show. Not all cultures are equal - those that recognize women as equals are more "enlightened." Please note: this is NOT a rant against Islam. I have had many Muslim students - and some of those women have been the most intelligent, well-spoken, and impressive students I have had. These are clearly women who have not been raised to think they are less than those around them. In fact, I have noticed a certain confidence they have I could only wish for the other women in my classes. Islam does not impede women - but fear of change does.

Joss Whedon has a fabulous speech on www.americanrhetoric.com. In it he describes a press conference in which he is asked the same question over and over: why does he keep creating these strong women characters? He comes up with many reasons, some political and some personal, but the ultimate answer is because people still feel compelled to ask.

The "F" word - why is it so dangerous to think that I kick just as much ass as another? Well, I do. I am an ass-kicker. Does this make me a bitch? Or just a man in a woman's body? A man who thinks he is awesome is sexy. And I am never more sexy than when I know what I am talking about.

Ultimately, the article mentioned is a frightening reminder of how far we have come. Because of the brave women who came before me, I am getting my PhD. and can one day expect to get paid good money for it. Or, if I so chose, I could stay home. It is up to me. If my husband chose to stay home, that would be fine. I truly live in a blessed time and place. What can I do for those who do not share my benefits?

Money makes the world go around

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20071101faessay86605/richard-k-betts/a-disciplined-defense.html

See the "Bryan and Beveridge" entry below

It's coming back? I mean, It's coming back! Woo-hoo.

couth

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/19/us/politics/19mccain.html?ex=1353128400&en=5777e1f7836da5fd&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

I do not agree with John McCain. On anything. The only person I disagree with more is Ron Paul - and I like that guy. He is smart, personable, and consistent - a trait not to be taken lightly in the age of constant media coverage. But John McCain bothers me a great deal. He has tried to court moderates, and every time he does I think his uber-right half gets highlighted. He has tried to court the "evangelical" voting block, and it only makes him look moderate. Incidentally, I wonder if I am a part of that block. I am an evangelical and I am a voter...Ha. Take THAT Gallup!! But, more to the point, I have a great deal of respect for John McCain the man. McCain can talk the talk and has walked the walk. He is anti-torture because he has been tortured. I don't care what block you are from, that is some street cred. While I don't like his policies (okay, I like what he has to say about torture and I am fully behind the McCain-Feingold bill) I like the dude. McCain seems very concerned with, well, human decency. I can get behind that. Yeah, he's been very pointed about some things he disagrees with - especially when H. Clinton is concerned. But it seems to me as if he wants to disagree like civilized people. I guess being a POW teaches the value of basic decency. I dig.

So, here's to you, Mr. McCain. Now I just hope you don't get elected!

Ha! They ARE the same person!

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/17/us/politics/17giuliani.html?ex=1353042000&en=f7e1487c66febf14&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7099758.stm

We are SO SMART. How much smarter can we get before everything actually goes to hell?

What J.K. Rowling did for me personally

I love reading children's and adolescent literature. At work I read all this theory and history and criticism that when it comes to my own time I really like a good story. However, kiddie lit has changed since I was young. My friends read the Babysitter's Club and the Babysitter's Club. That was about it. Books for kids now are entertaining, original, and even provocative (check out the [well-deserved] controversy over The Golden Compass!). But what is particularly exciting to me is that fantasy and sci-fi are cool again.

I have always loved fantasy. Always. Which sort of makes me a nerd. Until JK. The Harry Potter phenomenon made magic and unicorns cool. Which maybe makes me cool. Okay, maybe not, but I like to dream. Now I no longer have to hide my love of The Wizard of Oz and everything that comes of it. I can speak openly of the awesomeness of The Last Unicorn. And the truly fantastic thing about all of this is that as fantasy becomes hipper, it gets darker. True love.

And so, I proudly make some recommendations.

Read stuff by Jonathan Stroud. He will make you laugh out loud and want to wage class warfare.
Read stuff by Gregory Maguire. He will make you question truth through perspective.
Read C.S. Lewis. He will make you smarter.
Watch stuff from Joss Whedon. He will make you want to kick some ass.
Read stuff from Peter S. Beagle. His prose will give you the chills.
Watch old Disney movies. There is nothing bizarre or childish about singing animals.
Read Madeleine L'Engle. Seriously, just read it.
Read anything by George Orwell.
Take Isaac Asimov seriously. Okay, maybe not the best prose, but brilliant premises!
Read Neil Gaiman. Funny...or TERRIFYING?
Revel in superheroes: X-Men, Spiderman - they all rock. And these days they are all neurotic or trying to deal with scarring issues from their childhood. Who doesn't love that?
Revel in monsters: same issues as superheroes. And who can distinguish the two these days?
Watch An American Werewolf in Paris.

And finally, I happily admit I am stoked about the SciFi channel mini-series Tin Man. There is NOTHING wrong with re-visiting the Yellow Brick Road again. And each time we go back it gets darker and darker. And this one has Alan Cumming missing half his brain. I'm not sure things could be potentially cooler.

Douglas Adams and Pastafarians - a theological discussion

http://www.venganza.org/

http://www.squidoo.com/FSM/#module1540830

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_spaghetti_monster

A few years ago I picked up a book by Douglas Adams. It was destiny. After reading the first two pages, just the intro, I knew I had found my favorite author.

Adams tells the tale of a young woman sitting in a coffee shop, when suddenly it hits her. The answer. The answer to everything. Suddenly she understood why the world was the way it was and what to do about that. (This was a mere 2000 years after people had nailed a guy to a tree just for saying we should be nice to each other.) She ran to the nearest phone, anxious to call somebody. Anybody. She got a man on the phone and began to blurt out THE ANSWER, but before she could the world ended. But, Adams explains, the book I was reading was not her story.

I am not the only one who thinks it is the end of the world

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/11/15/doomsday.cult/index.html

But here is the question: if the world is going to end why hole up in a cave? Will the world end, except in that cave? If I thought the world was going to end, instead of holing up in a cave, I would finally go see the Spurs (and get good seats), find my way to Rome or somewhere in Wales, and try living off of dark chocolate, red wine, and expensive cheese. But hey - that's just me.

The U.S. does not toture

From "The Week":

"It [waterboarding] was first used during the Spanish Inquisition in the 1500s on people suspected of holding Jewish, Protestant, or other heretical beliefs. During World War II, both the Nazis and the Japanese used waterboarding during the interrogation of resistant prisoners. Khmer Rouge employed waterboarding during its reign of terror in Cambodia. Most recently, the Bush administration authorized CIA interrogators to use waterboarding as one of several 'enhanced interrogation techniques' for prisoners capture in the war on terrorism."

AWESOME.

Show me the money

This evening I find little in the political world to excite me. Perhaps I am just tired of the joke we have made of the democratic process, or perhaps I have simply missed the latest barbs betwixt candidates. More likely, I am sad that though the writer's strike is deserved, it leaves me without the guidance of Colbert and Stewart, so I don't know what to talk about. Even more likely, I am depressed because I realized today I don't believe in democracy so much as republicanism. I am sure we will get to that at some point.

This evening, I am thinking about, well, our own fragility. I don't want to get into philosophical treatises on the meaning of life or fortune cookie advice. And I could certainly turn this into a tirade about health care. Seriously, I could. But I am working at a middle school part-time, and what I see there reminds me that I have it SO EASY. I work with kids who are dyslexic. Dyslexia is such a minuscule problem and yet so many will get stuck in entry-level positions because of it. I have colleagues who have children with autism and I can't even imagine that struggle. But those kids are lucky enough to have successful and educated parents. I know from personal experience that juvenile diabetes is a killer. But we have access to great doctors and specialists. We have cancer, mental illness, heart disease, and anemia just in my immediate family - and we are going to live forever. What happens to the kids I work with who have leukemia and whose parents work two full-time jobs? They probably don't live forever.

And so I get infuriated when I hear about what a drain the poor are on us. How the hell can a decent person not DEMAND that we take care of the health of those around us? I have this crazy idea that if people are healthier they will be more successful. And you know what? Sometimes that kind of advancement takes research, and research takes money. Suck it up. You think life is sacred, treat it like it's holy - or at least special.

I think I might be sick. But luckily, I am middle-class, so I should be able to get better.

and now, for something completely the same

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/13/AR2007111300750.html?nav=rss_email/components

I completely understand the desire for fiscal responsibility. I don't think that's something to criticize. I just came from a council meeting where I willingly agreed to give up some of my funds so that we would have money for more pressing needs. It is a cost/benefit analysis.

HOWEVER. I am not sure fiscal responsibility is useful if everybody is sick and stupid.

why I will be thrown out of school

Two things of interest today. Teaching and hate speech. Please feel free to argue that they are one and the same.

Today I asked a colleague (one of my conservative friends - I have a surprising number all things considered) to join me in my large class. She knew a bit more about the context of our readings than I did, so I thought she might have some things to offer. We talked about FDR, Nixon, and the current commander-in-chief. That's right, war rhetoric. The class went exceptionally well. I thought the team-teaching thing went really well, and she was able to address some questions that I could not. Actually, she probably could teach the class on her own, but we focus a bit more on Aristotelian criticism than others might. Still, it was a pleasant experience - and my kids really responded. I feel like we got the important stuff - the virtues that all war rhetoric appeals to: Freedom, Divine Sanction, Invincibility, Security, etc. I think this would actually make for an interesting study. Not that it hasn't been done, but thinking about it in a rhetorical history sort of way - what leads some leaders to appeal to some things more than others. Is it a matter of personality or context?

This actually leads me to the other subject. If the hate speech code had passed the Faculty Senate this week I believe I would be asked to leave the university. For example, today in class I used the following phrases without pausing: "I hate that fucking guy and I am going to rip his throat out" and "Let's go kill some brown people!" Taken out of context, these might be a reason for concern. Now I realize when you hear or read things like that the first thought is "Please tell me a context in which those statements are okay." Fair enough. That is generally my response to Ann Coulter - she has not answered satisfactorily, by the way. But the first was an example of un-righteous anger. The comment was if I said "I hate that..." I would not come across as an innocent victim or a person of reason and justice, but a raving lunatic. The former get support, the latter does not. Hence the need for leaders to be reserved and "moral" in their responses. You know, reasonable. At least most of the time. That comment will be reserved for later. See FDR and Nixon for good examples. And Reagan is always a good example. Of anything. The other phrase - okay, maybe I don't have as good a reason for that one. A student was describing an inappropriate response to war, and they said "Let's go!" in a sarcastic tone - so I finished the thought with "Let's go kill some brown people!" You know, as in Vietnam and Iraq. Everyone laughed out loud and most looked profoundly uncomfortable, especially my guest teacher. I don't think she realized I am prone to say such things in class. I was happy to see that the few minorities in my class (at least the ones in the first few rows)looked quite pleased.

Point being, I am pretty sure I could get thrown out even for those sarcastic teaching moments. And I wonder about the legitimacy of a hate speech code. I understand the reasoning, and think there is something to teaching people to use their right to free speech responsibly. But there is another part of me that is profoundly uncomfortable with telling people what they can and cannot say. It's hard to be progressive when both sides of the "progressive" argument have such dire drawbacks. Admittedly anybody who uses racial slurs (as racial slurs) would be thrown out of my class. Is that different from a speech code? I contend that it is. But I am not sure where the line is. As a teacher, when do I move from expecting decorum to censoring? I really don't know the boundaries. The way I figure the best pedagogical choice is just to continue being a tyrant and arbitrarily set boundaries that I myself am allowed to break. That sounds reasonable to me.

fun with guns

Today I would direct you to the blog of a dear friend. There is an interesting discussion going on there. Click on the "conservative friends" link to your left.

Or, if you prefer to stay within my personal comfort range:

http://www.jimgilliam.com/2004/07/doonesburys_interview_with_rupert_murdoch.php

I live in hell

I am sure I will have more to say about something more substantive later, but I have a small vexation to vent about.

It is supposed to hit 88 degrees this week. IT'S NOVEMBER. There are places in these United States that are literally 40 degrees cooler than this area. I hate it here.

What's Up, Tigerlily?

The title is the name of the movie I currently have on. Woody Allen is a frickin' genius.

Other people you should make a point to watch:

Robert Altman
Alfred Hitchcock
Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu
Mel Brooks
Ingmar Bergman (when he's coherent - but seriously, you have to see The Seventh Seal)
Tim Burton
Joss Whedon

And keep an eye out for Julie Taymor. Not consistently fabulous, but always a visual feast.

Federico Fellini is overrated! Ha. I said it. Let the film gestapo come.

the woes of a heretic

I won't be posting on Saturday. Why, you might ask? Because I am not going to be near a computer. I am going on a Women's Church Retreat.

No. I'm not kidding.

I am a bit nervous. I will be the youngest person there by about 20 years, I don't have kids to talk about, and I tend to unnerve my fellow congregants. For example, I don't think "God's will" or "We simply can't understand His wisdom" are good responses to things like Katrina, Darfur, or my family's medical issues. So burn me at the stake.

Much of this heretical thinking comes from the fact that my friends aren't church people. In fact, a good number of them are atheists. And you would be amazed how far "God's will" does NOT go with somebody who questions God to begin with. When I share this in Sunday School, all I get are confused stares. Most of the good people at Peace have never known an atheist. Which I totally don't get. How can you NOT?

So, my blood-pressure is slowly creeping up. I agreed to this because 8 different people specifically asked me to come. Seriously? I am the last person you want in a get-to-know-you-share-your-faith environment.

I have already informed them that I will be bringing a portable radio and my cell phone. That way I can at least check the score between bouts of offending the holy hell out my Sisters in Christ.

post-script

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/08/AR2007110800879.html?nav=rss_email/components

That's right. People are being thrown out of their houses, the gap between poor and rich is growing by leaps and bounds, and things don't look good for the next year. Happy Thursday.

Beveridge and Bryan

I am currently teaching American Oratory and we are looking at American Imperialism and War. Awesome.

I could see half of my students getting visibly uncomfortable, and that always indicates to me that I am having a successful class. The theme for the class is that nothing has changed. Yeah, as a class we decided that plumbing and vaccines are progress, but in this country we have not resolved any of the issues that bothered us in the 1770's. So, today the first thing I told them (besides that I did not have their tests graded) was that when I told my colleagues that we were studying American Imperialism the reply was "That's cool. You know it's making a comeback." My students looked shocked - most of us have this vague idea the Imperialism is bad - stupid Gandhi ruined that for us. So I asked, "why would my friend say that?" Awkward silence, then one single solitary hand. Yes, student? "Um, because we are militantly exporting democracy?" Excellent. Let's get the controversy up front.

We talked about the way both sides of the old argument used the Bible as evidence that their cause was correct. So I was able to emphasize again that using the Bible is always dangerous and probably not a good idea unless you are in church, because you can find something in the Bible to support ANYTHING. I think this makes some of them mad, but they know I know a whole lot more about religion - so I get little resistance to that statement. Ultimately, however, the thing that most of them seemed silently upset about is that we hear the same friggin' arguments almost verbatim now as we did then. I had one particularly astute student who said "well, haven't we always been Imperialists? Isn't' that sort of what we did to Native Americans?" I laughed out loud. "Oh, you. Indians don't count as real people!"

Ultimately, I feel good about what we've been doing in class. We are just covering the basics, but the basics are making them think. That's really all I ask.

BTW - I am watching Dave Chappelle. I challenge you to find a better rhetor IN THE NATION. Seriously, he's brilliant. Mencia can bite it. He will never be that good. Chappelle. Recognize. Damn. I mean D-A-M-N.

I believe that the world might be about to end.

Or at least "conservative" as we know it. Today, Pat Robertson announced his support of Guiliani. WHAT? Last time I checked Guiliani and Clinton were the same person. I mean the healthcare thing is a problem, but largely only one of them is necessary. And coming from a Southern Baptist background I know that there are many who believe that Clinton is at least a succubus, if not Legion him/themselves. So I find myself confused.

Ultimately, this points to an idea that my students and I have discussed at length. There are no consistent ideologies in America. At least, not in the mainstream. Libertarians are pretty dependable, but they apparently aren't cool. A "conservative" wants the government out of our lives - down with big government. Except when it comes to the choices we make with our bodies, the way we behave in the bedroom, and what we say on the telephone. That is CLEARLY a small government's business. If you are liberal you are okay with big government - let's centralize some stuff. Except for gathering intelligence, what to do with our bodies, and how we behave in the bedroom. The government can be big - but not that big.

I won't even begin to comment on the philosophical economic difference between equality and equitability. But eventually I will. Does anybody take economics in high school anymore? The words "opportunity cost" should ring a bell.

Whatever. The parties are a mess. And, lo and behold, surveys indicate that young voters think so, too. Party alliance seems dumb to Generation X and Y'ers. They go issue by issue to see who they agree with the most. And who can blame them? For many of us our parents don't make sense. And for many of us our parents are Democrats and Republicans. That being said, the two party system sure makes things easy. I'm sure we can all attest to sitting in a restaurant forever because there were so many choices on the menu.

But I digress. Robertson. Guiliani. My grandmother, who is the most ardent Republican IN THE WORLD, is shitting a brick right now. That is, assuming she knows anything about Rudy except he is a Republican and he's from New York. My guess is all her friends and all my parent's friends are in the same boat.

And I'm out.

good advice

I was recently reminded that it is a bad idea to conduct my education in public. This sounds terribly reasonable to me. I don't want to announce to colleagues and future employers how dumb I am I don't want to discuss ideas that are not mature. But I'm not sure how to do that. It seems to me every time I open my mouth or sit down at my computer, people can gage my learnin'. Simply the maturity of argument or the basic construction of a sentence indicates something about whether I am moving forward, backward, or am at stasis. I believe not only do I need guidance, but I think lots of us should seriously consider this wise gem.

Also, 2007 has been the deadliest year in Iraq. Good thing there is the upside of stable democracy in the Middle East and low gas prices. I support our soldiers - and I especially support their right to life. And time with their families. And decent pay.

global warming and other controversial issues

Pat Buchanan is an idiot.

St. Jude

Is this a lost cause? This is not an existential question about the nature of reality or a cynical comment on modern politics. All of which are forthcoming, I am sure. The issue today is blogging. I spoke with a friend today, who I had not been able to talk to in quite some time, and we were musing about the possibility of being a blogger without being a jackass.

Surely, there are useful web pages out there that call themselves "blogs." You've got the Drudge report and the Blogora (see the link to your left) and even Wil W. moves back and forth between talking about his kids and discussing important issues in society and technology. But so many of my fellow simply seem to be reaching out to cyberspace because they can't make connections in real life. I mean, seriously, who does that? Oh, wait, I do.

Let's face it - the blagonet is awesome, but I'm sure you can think of many people who are losing the ability to interface without a technological medium. I mean, just think about how many dating websites there are out there - what is so hard about making friends in real life?

So, the question is, what is a blog supposed to do? Do you read them because we are curious about people we don't know and their inability to connect, or is there something specific we are looking for? Is it just to give you something to think about? If that's the case why not just pick up a book? Any book. Except for books by Norah Roberts, John Grisham, and Tom Clancy. Those DO NOT count. What makes a blog worth your time? I look for blogs to provide food for thought or to increase my body of knowledge. Is that their job, or are they really places to post a personal life?

Your body is not a four-year-old

People are convinced that they are smarter than our own bodies. Why is this? My body is really, really smart - but I am not. Take smoking (completely clean for almost a year!). You put your first cigarette to your lips and take your first drag and your body does the responsible thing. It tries to violently expel the crap you have just forced into it. You, on the other hand, spend the next five minutes trying to convince your body that, no, really this is great! And, if you get over the coughing, eventually this will give you a buzz. Until it's more about feeling normal - so just smoke more. Your body knows that you are full of shit. It's like telling a toddler she will like brussel sprouts, keep eating. That toddler knows the sprouts suck and they are not going to suck less just by eating more. In that situation it is the grown-up who is stupid. The toddler knows what she does and does not like. We treat our bodies like that toddler. Eat too much sugar, and your body lets you know you have made a mistake. It even gives you a head's up - you feel sick well before you throw up. Our poor bodies are very communicative about what is and is not acceptable. And yet we are so convinced of our own smartitude we don't listen to the expert.

This is on my mind because today I have a bit of a hang-over. This is my body telling me without hesitation that I am a screw-up. It let me know there was a problem all throughout the evening - it kept taking away things I like. You know, like memory and hand-eye coordination. So the next day is one big "Never do that again!" And I know I will not listen. Sometime, probably in the near future, I will get a hangover again. And I will ruminate that day on why I am stupid and do not listen to the more intelligent party - which also happens to be me. To those friends of mine in Austin, Waco, and D.C. - yes, I get hangovers now, apparently I was only invincible for a short period of time - you may well read this as you sip black coffee trying to convince your own body that you know what's best. Let's just all admit we are stupid. Let's make no excuses and accept that we have completely missed the Bell curve, here. We are not as smart as our stomach, lungs, or liver. How does that make you feel? For me, it puts this whole "Ph.D" thing into perspective.

Ooh, that smell...

First and foremost, let me give you a viewing tip. You may have noticed that the news sucks. Cable news networks are simply polemics and infotainment with no real value. Being a bit of junkie for current events, this saddens me. However, if you are up at 7am and looking for your pseudo-intellectual-"I'm-so-smart-because-I-kinda-know-what's-going-on" fix, then I recommend Morning Joe on MSNBC. See, I don't really care what people think, as long as it is reasonable. I am very intolerant toward those who lack an argument. Joe Scarborough on MSNBC is not dumb - and this pleases me. Today, however, officially got the stamp of approval. Joe is an ex-Congressman, Republican. But today he announced that Mark, the market analyst, was his man-crush and that he was distracted by how hot Mark is. How do you not love a Republican who uses the phrase "man-crush" on national TV? Now, I don't always agree with Joe, and he has some pretty extreme guests who sometimes turn me off. But he handles it with class. Of course, right after this positive moment one of their guests came on and started bashing all non-Republicans and throwing around a bunch of liberal-market voodoo Reaganomics, which I think we can all agree is CRAP, but I don't blame Joe for his dumb-ass guests. All that aside...

We have two dogs: Flannery and Penelope. Flannery after O'Connor and Penelope after Odysseus's wife. Penelope used to spend a lot more time inside, but due to schedule changes she now spends quite a few hours a day in the backyard. Penelope decided that fences were not for her and has created many new entrances and exits for herself. We have had to retrieve her from neghbors more than once. We fixed her re-modelling projects, but she is still a little unsure about this all-day-outside business. And because she is nervous and hyper, she gets a little crazy. This causes her to smell a bit more like the great outdoors than usual. The other day I informed her that she stinks, to which my husband responded, "Penelope says, 'I don't stink, that's the smell of intrepitude!'" Seriously, how can you not fall in love with a man who uses phrases like "smell of intrepitude"?

Why doesn't somebody describe me that way? If one of those jerks in college that I hung out with had ever told me I smelled of courage, adventure, and discovery, I probably would have responded with something like "Gee, thanks! Wanna help me lose my virginity?" But, alas...all I got were comments on my boobs. Of course, times have changed. Now it would probably be more like a "bouquet of lameness" or "eau d' boring." What happened? Believe it or not, I was once a very exciting person. So I wondered how many of the people I know still feel we smell of intrepitude? What was the last truly brave thing any of us did? And I don't want this to end up sounding like a made-for-TV movie, but it is an important question. Do you smell of intrepitude or stink of boredom? Just wondering.

Right...

So, blogging. You must know I am here because it is National Blog Posting Month. I am supposed to have something to say everyday. Here's a head's up about me - I am neurotic and have no comprehension of social conventions. I am quite sure at some point I will talk about sports, politics, pets, and any number of things. What I really don't want to create is just an online diary. A diary is for personal things an day in/day out stuff. That is both private and un-interesting. I love dialogue - maybe a bit too mcuh. But I really have an issue with people who simply post their inner emotional workings, and either get mad because the wrong person found out, or get upset because so many people feel the need to comment on their lives. Oh, did I mention that sometimes I am a bit impatient and sometimes say things that are either offensive or entirely inappropriate? It is sort of my husband's job to tell me when I am behaving in a manner that is socially inappropriate. He's so kind about it, too. Enter the awesomeness of the Internet - not only can I say what I want, but there are few rules of etiquette and no one pays attention to them anyway. How glorious. If you hate me you don't ever have to listen to me again. If you hate me and want to tell me about it - some people really like endorphins, like left-wingers who feel compelled to listen to Rush Limbaugh and marathon runners - in no way do I feel any moral compunction about not caring. Also, marathons are sinful. The first dude who ran a "marathon" died. And we celebrate this? Seriously, who does that? So, tomorrow I will have a real issue to pontificate about. Also - you should know I lack any recognizable train of thought or notion of resolution. If you are into post-modern lit you might just fall in love with me.