I have moved my blog once again (hopefully for near the last time). What I have done is combined this blog with my personal blog (Life on the Fry Side) under a single new banner: The Fry Side, which is located at my new personal website, ebfryer.com. All my archives have moved as well, so returning to this address shouldn't be necessary. I have explained my move in a post there as well.
Cheers, Radioland!
Another great essay from This I Believe on the workings of the world coming, this time, from the first Poet Laureate of Canada, George Bowering. Yet another thoughtful person making ties to jazz. Mr Bowering's essay is "The Holy Life of the Intellect"
I believe that the human intellect is the closest thing we have to the divine. It is the way we can join one another in spirit.
So I listen to the NPR Podcast It's All Politics with Ken Rudin and Ron Elving. I think they're smart, clever and analytical, and their back and forth is full of beans. Of course, it's geeky, Washington political jibber-jabber. But tying in lots of things historically, this century especially, lends some perspective.
Listening to last week's podcast (8/23/07), they were commenting on the President's war speech talking about what we've done in the past and what we're doing now. Mr Bush made the controversial move of bringing up Vietnam in this speech. They commented on how relations between the United States and Vietnam have changed since the mid-70s, and the quote of the day is when the President visits Vietnam, he uses the slogan
I think we should let Saigons be Saigons.
This has been the second day in a row reading articles in the Wall Street Journal (yes, I renewed it; I couldn't pass up my cheap subscription price) regarding the United States education reforms. Particularly, these articles focus on mainstreaming disabled students into standard classrooms. The original piece of legislation declaring this to be the law was written in 1975.
I think the idea works. The idea, at least. All too often, what occurs in practice isn't how it works in reality. Still, these kids get a great chance to learn with their peers, and their peers get a chance to be exposed to some humility. Goodness knows so many children these days need that lesson in humility and humanity. While sometimes those with special needs get put where they oughtn't be (especially when there is a difference between behavioral disorders and learning disabilities), it's a good thing to try.
In 2001, our foresighted federal government passed another mass education reform: the No Child Left Behind Act. Its principal was to ensure that children do not slip through the cracks during their education. It is a noble goal, indeed. However, it does expose some truths about children and schools.
Believe it or not, some kids do better in education than others. I would even go far enough to say some are smarter than others, but that is quite an over-generalization on how things work. So when the schools are told to make sure no kid fails, but they're already doing their best to get as many the best education they can, things get fudged.
Grades get fudged, and when the state requires 'checks' (ie, tons of testing) on students' academic progress, little things are done to help out. Extra time is given, reading comprehension exams are read aloud, and even calculators are given out when they are not called for. Every time this happens, the bar gets lowered a little more. And the bar has been lowering at an alarming rate for over a decade. We've succeeded! No child can be left behind now. We won the war on education.
But the truth is that it is different kids who are left behind. Reading a tidbit from Time, it turns out the gifted, the ones who will actually help continue and advance our world, are being left behind. Some argue that they will come out on their own; they don't need any help. That is hardly the case. What the best way to leave a bright child behind? Ignoring their achievements. You'll turn them off to the world so fast that by the time it's even realized, they would be as insubstantial as ghosts.
This very point was brought home to me a while back. I was working in the lab and looked out the window to see a select group of students waiting for a bus to arrive to take them on a trip. I could recognize about half of the kids, and quickly figured out that these were the under-achieving behavioral problem group. They were being awarded with a field trip. Why? I have no idea. Probably just because they showed up. I'm sure it was an incentive to keep their butts in the seats the rest of the year. All this while I'm sure there were twice as many gifted kids being bored out of their gourds in classrooms looking out at them.
These articles pointed out another group of kids being left behind still: those in special education. The mainstreaming combined with lowering of standards (punishment essentially ensues if a kid fails) means that the special needs kids aren't being taught to bring up their actual abilities. They are instead just being pushed through, helped along, and given diplomas that don't mean a thing. What good is a high school diploma when a kid is left at a sixth grade reading level? These kids deserve the little extra help from their qualified special education teachers to bring home the points taught to them in their mainstream classes, rather than being given assistance only to pass through the standardized testing that the system focuses too much on.
I do so wish I had a solution. But I would say that this really was the reason I majored in Political Science, so that I might enter into politics to change these frighteningly low standards and bring back the dignity that used to go along with a high school graduation and the prestige brought about by having a rare university education. The common folk of our country got running water, electrical power while still managing to split the atom on a miniscule percentage of the people having college and university educations.
Here's a good blog, and even more good (albeit sometimes a touch out of touch) commentary following it. Some is nonsense, of course, particularly the strain on porn, but they come back around when commenting more on violent pop culture (which I do think is an oxymoron). Still, it was nice to read a bit more of the generally good discourse that the internet is capable of instead of the rubbish spewed as commentary on YouTube or MySpace.
When did Russ Ortiz get traded back to the Giants, and why did nobody tell me? I loved that pitcher ever since his debut; he's a workhorse.
Heretical Thoughts about Science and Society
By Freeman Dyson
Here is another heretical thought. Instead of calculating world-wide averages of biomass growth, we may prefer to look at the problem locally. Consider a possible future, with China continuing to develop an industrial economy based largely on the burning of coal, and the United States deciding to absorb the resulting carbon dioxide by increasing the biomass in our topsoil. The quantity of biomass that can be accumulated in living plants and trees is limited, but there is no limit to the quantity that can be stored in topsoil. To grow topsoil on a massive scale may or may not be practical, depending on the economics of farming and forestry. It is at least a possibility to be seriously considered, that China could become rich by burning coal, while the United States could become environmentally virtuous by accumulating topsoil, with transport of carbon from mine in China to soil in America provided free of charge by the atmosphere, and the inventory of carbon in the atmosphere remaining constant. We should take such possibilities into account when we listen to predictions about climate change and fossil fuels. If biotechnology takes over the planet in the next fifty years, as computer technology has taken it over in the last fifty years, the rules of the climate game will be radically changed.
When I listen to the public debates about climate change, I am impressed by the enormous gaps in our knowledge, the sparseness of our observations and the superficiality of our theories. Many of the basic processes of planetary ecology are poorly understood. They must be better understood before we can reach an accurate diagnosis of the present condition of our planet. When we are trying to take care of a planet, just as when we are taking care of a human patient, diseases must be diagnosed before they can be cured. We need to observe and measure what is going on in the biosphere, rather than relying on computer models.
It has been a regular debate in my mind the past month as to whether or not to renew my subscription to the Wall Street Journal. I love the paper, but hardly get a chance to read it daily, and usually only skim what I can before someone calls my name and I'm off to save the world yet again. Plus, with money being the necessity to feed and clothe my son (I still say kids should just be wrapped in towels until they get to school age) those things might take precedence over my reading tidbits of one of the last good news sources in the United States.
Reading through the BBC News website this morning, I came across a sobering article:
I know my blogging has been infrequent, and I hope to cure it soon. Hopefully, this little ditty on utter nonsense can grease the wheels again...
Little People - A tiny street art project
Here's just one little tidbit to add to the odd science of the day.
Just one more thought for today (then my quota of three has been filled).
I have often asked myself the question, what is the end goal of a free person's life? To get high and watch television. Thankfully we have nothing more to strive for. After all, ignorance is... something. I forget. Eh, it doesn't matter. (Article found at Edge.)
Marrying the sciences, letters, and the arts into a new humanism. (Found via 3quarksdaily). A really fascinating train of thought, that wonderfully is not too far off from what I think about the world and humanity. I guess I'm one step of the way there with my Bachelor of Arts in Political Science degree. As always, a little research leads to more and more ideas filling my mind. Once again, the world and its history appears cyclical while at the same time, progressing in whatever direction it goes in. A return to the renaissance may be due, of course following a great dark period of our development in the Western world. I think I'll just go stoic and bide my time. Either way, I am sure I will read more of Señor Pániker when I can.
This morning, I was pouring over the local listings on Craigslist and found myself about an hour later at a lady's house the next town over. While making our transaction, the question arose as to why I was free in the late morning on a Tuesday. The woman guessed correctly that I'm in education, and she brought up a common question asked in the area: what do you think of year-round schedules?
Thank Grammar Girl once again, for now my only quest in life (since my boy minds his Ps and Qs now) is to use the term 'mondegreen' in a sentence. Well, other than that one. While I think it happens quite often, I suppose mishearing my wife doesn't quite count.
Last evening, the family and I partook of the latest Pixar film, Ratatouille. I will admit I was a tad skeptical on how good it would be before going to the theater. After all, this film had some tough acts to follow (I still think Finding Nemo is one of the best movies ever made, animated or otherwise.) So I walked in with my expectations a little low.
We entered the theater a few minutes after the show started, and the room was quite dark for being a part of an animated movie. The three of us managed to find our seats and took in what we could of the opening plot. Immediately I was taken aback at how realistic the scenery was, and it continued to develop in its quality as the movie progressed. The elements, especially water, were particularly well done. And the camera angles! Oh my, they were quick and fluid and fun, especially when taken through the perspective of a rodent's location and how quickly everything swaps around when trying to evade a waiting cart. Oh, and I think the animators captured the look of a soaking wet rat perfectly.
But the movie was far more than simple eye candy. Here is where Pixar excels over all: they make good movies. The medium is what is it, but the quality of the plot and characters are grand. While others may not care for the pretense of a rat wanting to be a cook, I liked it. Plus it lends to a greater point, and surely the driving home of a principle of doing what you have a passion for, even when it's not what is customary or common, is a good thing. The theme was tied in at multiple places, and I liked the reinforcement at different while not beating it over the head.
I walked away happy, having both enjoyed the movie personally, and knowing my son had just seen something of high quality. It struck such a chord personally that I was thinking of it the next morning while taking a shower. My only beef is, while the movies Pixar makes are wonderfully mature (not necessarily adult or for a specific age group), they have let a few instances of curse words slip. Now, I'm not one to usually care for censorship, and even was one who came of age during television's destruction of decency (6th graders watch Family Guy for goodness' sake!) But when everything else is so good, the world 'hell' sticks out in my ears. But, c'est la vie.
Holy shit.
This completely boggles my mind. Is one of the big nine actually talking about a television program as if it were real? As if it had any bearing how we should rule ourselves? I'm still reeling a little bit and rubbing my eyes and going 'WAH?' a la Jon Stewart.
I even read the article from globeandmail.com and I still can't figure it out. I want so desperately to believe that legitimate lawmakers and the judicature were just going through some playful banter.
I can see part of what was being argued. Should the allowance of beyond-Geneva-Conventions methods be shown on television as praised with no repercussions? I would say no, since we are (vainly and foolishly) trying to set a moral example for the world, we ought not let people think we can get away with the awful for a good cause. And if it were kept to that, fine.
But there is a line out there, that we all know and feel, and it is the borders of reality. There is a great difference between what is actually present and happening in the world and what are the fictions we create to either understand or at least get through those realities. Once those fictions are spoken of as if they actually happened, and if they have even remote bearing in our lives, then we are back in Socrates' cave.
To inaccurately quote a line from Rocky and Bullwinkle, when Rocky was pursuing a train. Here are the conductors:
"I think I'm going crazy, Edgar"
"Why's that, Jonesy?"
"Because if squirrels are chasing us, we must be nuts."
Just opening up my book of Marcus Aurelius' reflections, I came across this:
Do not act as if thou wert going to live ten thousand years. Death hangs over thee. While thou livest, while it is in thy power, be good.
[Book 4, Part 17]
Yesterday evening, I was cooking dinner. I had some giant kosher hot dogs on the grill, and the sun had sunk low enough in the sky to shade part of my deck. So, while the dogs were cooking, I sat down on a padded chair next to my son, and read the newspaper. He, in all his adorability, took on of the other sections of the paper to 'read' too. There was a pleasant breeze putting the shade at a perfect temperature. My beautiful wife came out to join us, reading her favorite author. There was nothing beyond that deck that concerned us in any way. It was a perfect slice of time that froze, and I watched it and consumed it for what felt like all the time in the world.
I do not know when or how, but long ago I ceased to believe in an afterlife. It simply does not make sense to me, and it comes across as a rather egotistical notion to think that of all the creatures to which we are kin, that for some odd reason, we may be granted eternity. We are all bound by the same laws of life and death, physics, thermodynamics, genetics, etc. To think that we have been given even more beyond our gifts of reason and mastery of earthly materials is rather presumptuous.
My studies have also confirmed that others see the idea of eternal damnation/salvation as I do. Namely, it is only a tool created and perpetuated to keep people in line. The reward of an eternal life beyond one's current misery by following the rules and listening to people in charge certainly sounds like false hope. The master will always tell the slave, 'next go around, you'll be free.'
However, the touch, the spark of the divine is not absent from my life. I just do not see a time for me to exist beyond where I am in this form. Nor do I want it. There are too many questions, too many different sets of rules, to know exactly how to wind up in the good portion of an afterlife.
The lack of a beyond is not a point of depression for me. It is quite the opposite; it is a motivation. This is all I have. Why do poorly and wrong in this life, then? It's my one chance to live. It is short, and above all, finite. I have no control over that. But I will have a say in whether it will be nasty and brutish.
I do believe in heaven and in hell, of sorts. For me, they do not coming in the hereafter, I rise into and delve into both during moments of my life. There are times when the soul boils when experiencing or witnessing something terrible. It can be personal or impersonal, but it makes one squint at an indefinable pain that exists only on a metaphysical level. Hopefully, those moments are rare, especially so they are never dulled. When dulled, the awful may happen beyond what one should reasonably have to put up with.
There are in life those opposite moments, too. Those times in hell do get burned into the mind, yes. The heavenly, though, are encapsulated in the heart. They are those moments when, even as they are happening, you can step outside of yourself and watch and realize that you are in fact in heaven. And they are remembered well, too. Those moments in heaven become treasures that can be returned to whenever wanted, and more importantly, when needed.
So yesterday evening I was cooking dinner, and I wound up in heaven.
Looks like human beings still remember how to make the world around them a good place. And this time, it happened in my neck of the woods.
I can't help but feel a little disappointed.
How am I supposed to break this to my son?
I must apologize to my teeming masses of readers and groupies for not having my usual amounts of larger, more legitimate posts of my own thoughts as of late. Being in education, this is by far the most busy time of year and my personal life is somewhat full during the latter half of May as well. Rest assured, there will be more coming, especially with summer vacation around the corner. I am slowly but surely researching into the current immigration debate, namely because what I keep hearing and reading is becoming increasingly troubling.
Bless your hearts for continuing to return and bearing with me.
Am I a douchebag?
Of course, in my fanciful and carefree days of adolescence, I used the term regularly on friends and offensive people alike.
I particularly like the basic definition by Grant Barrett being "somebody who can't help but to be an asshole."
A New Zealand cow that naturally produces low-fat milk is producing offspring. Not a bad find from a country that is also free of agricultural subsidies.
I have added myself to Technorati's listings, and now below my archives is a search bar for looking up content in my past posts. It works pretty well, and hopefully it'll help toss me around the blogging realm.
Still, if anyone wants to give me a direct donation, I will readily accept it once the check clears~
You know, it used to be the United States at the forefront of human rights and, even more so, human freedoms. Now, in the 21st century, all we seem to do is catch up, or fight against the backtracking that occurred in our country.
We were founded as the most liberal country in the world, and we should continue to be so. Of course, liberal, in this sense, means classic liberal (read 'libertarian' now) and means being for freedom from government intrusion, regulation, and oppression. Classic liberalism means that one may think, say, act, and worship as they please, and are bound only by the brilliance of natural human reason and the simple golden rule.
So all that brings me to give Britain their due credit for doing what is right. And who would have guessed that the world did the exact opposite of pulling apart at the seams?
It is almost depressing that we still have not fixed what is wrong, just as Truman did when he integrated the military in nearly six decades ago. But then again, with the people who have been in charge for as long as they have, it is no surprise.
Blogger did it. It has saved my soul and sanity in one shot. Those folks at Google are good people.
What is 'it' that they did?
Blogger now has an autosave function built right into it. Every minute, it saves what I've written to that point.
Faboo~
It seems there has been a little more analysis done on how introverts' and extroverts' brains function, with each being content in their own chosen mediums. I tell you, I can definitely appreciate the former group's needs at times.
Okay, we have now moved past the reading testing and on to math. These kids are doing multiple choice questions regarding algebra. This, my dear readers, is the dumbest thing ever.
3x2 - 6x = 0
a. x = -1
b. x = 3
c. x = -2
d. x = 2
Now, to point it out for those who have nearly forgotten our 4 years of math like myself, rather than reducing and solving properly, all you do is put each of the four potential answers in for x and you're there. That is, as my generation is wont to say, weak sauce.
Rummaging around the web during my free time surfaces some funny things. Here is an initial listing of places to get free books.
I tried the top of the list, which was manybooks.net, which has electronic versions of a who ton of books. I just downloaded Dostoevsky's The Idiot and Chaucer's Canterbury Tales. It will just be a matter of finding little pieces of time to read those, you know, along with all the news the world produces every moment, blogs talking about the news, writing my own blog, oh yeah, and working. Lousy work keeps getting in the way (although, it has given me a few programs to play with that I would not otherwise have had in my arsenal).
Oh, and I also found this site from the free books list that my wife might find useful when loaning (or as many people say so very incorrectly, borrowing) books to friends.
Ah, where nerds and dog-lovers can cross paths... check these wonderful conversations out:
Many Worlds, Many Treats
Bunnies Made of Cheese
These little ditties are the works of Chad Orzel, writer of the blog Uncertain Principles.
My wife brought to me the other day an article from the Star Tribune titled Taxing women less: Gender pay equity? When the idea was first mentioned, I admit to being a little skeptical, as I am when intentional inequity is put anywhere into law. However, it was definitely an idea worth pondering.
Through much of the article was the presentation of those who originally came up with the idea. They say that to even the playing field, women be taxed no more than 80% of the level a man does, and most likely less than that. Though this creates a discrepancy, there are already plenty of others in the tax code for marriage, children, etc. So adding one more to entice more people into the workforce would not be unreasonable.
That is the primary goal of reducing the tax rates for women. The reasoning is that by lowering the tax rate, more women could join the work force and actually increase the amount of income to the government through greater numbers of people being taxed. It is a grand idea, and I would be in favor of it if it were on the table.
The authors claim that women tend to be more attuned to changes in tax codes than men, and I can vouch for that. My wife takes into account more of that, whereas I would rather just see a bigger number on my paycheck. My theory is that women like to figure in discounts more than men ("Aren't you glad I found this unnecessary expensive item on sale!?") and taxation brackets bear similarities to that.
I think the biggest argument against this idea, as good as it is, is the reason most women do not join the workforce has little to do with money and is more of a personal choice in life. Also, if child care was not so bloody expensive, it would be far easier to justify going to work and paying that care expense. Even having just our one child in daycare cuts out a huge chunk of our income, to the point where unless one of us broke enough past even on that, she or I would just stay home with the boy instead of working and him going to daycare.
I am not sure how many women a lowering in taxation would bring into the workforce, but if the US truly needed that many more people working, I would not oppose it. I think it is a good idea and a rather viable one, and even if it turned out did not make a difference, would be worth trying. If nothing else, it would give single mothers a better shot at raising their children in a more economically stable home, and I do think stability in general is an important factor in raising kids.
That all being said, I would like to state that my opinion is the world will never have full employment equality based on numbers. Equal pay for equal work, that is certain to come, and it damn well better soon. But I do believe that there will simply be corners of employment where men should exclusively rule. Why? Because we men are expendable.
Yes, I do see women as fully capable of operating as well as men deep in dangerous mines or on battlefronts. But when it comes to the most dangerous of work, we as a species (a supposedly intelligent one at that) have a responsibility to not put the carriers of our offspring into harm's way. I do not feel this is sexist; it is just reasonable to say that men are better off being killed as they will never be capable of bearing our children into this world.
Or maybe it's close to Mother's Day and I'm just protective of my mom and my wife.
This past week, Britain's Queen Elizabeth II came to visit the United States. This is a nice piece by Matt Frei from BBC News. I enjoy his writing and perspectives of being a Briton living and reporting in America.
The most memorable portion of the Queen's journey to the former colonies was when President Bush mistakenly said the bicentennial anniversary of our country was in 1776 rather than 1976. The Queen apparently flashed the President a look that made him blush and cringe, and amazingly utter the best line I have ever heard him use to recover his own idiocy by saying that the Queen gave him "a look that only a mother could give a child".
Aside from the obvious fact that the analogous descriptors were truly dead on the qualities of the two world leaders, I think the whole scenario says much about the Queen. She, as it was reported, was not amused by the President's blunder, as I am certain she kept her stiff upper lip throughout many rather undignified ramblings by sub-par 'representatives' in Washington. I would not blame a woman of her demeanor to think too highly or speak too loosely with folk of that ilk.
I have always wanted to meet Elizabeth II. Now, my American arrogance would want to stand tall, shake her hand, and say that it's so nice to meet an equal. Politically speaking, it is true. The United Kingdom does in fact belong to her, and our United States belongs to its adult citizens. My little rebel's slight would end right there, however, and it is because of lessons my Grandmother taught me.
My impression of Queen Elizabeth II is that she is the epitome of dignity and grace. Any room she occupies has an increased air of respect for all humanity in it. When she speaks, it is nothing but truth and wisdom. And in her silence is a pure patience without judgment. I do not feel I am far off the mark, as the Queen of England is so like my own Grandma Mary (who also has land named after her).
As children, my sister and I were given fair warning to make absolutely certain that our behavior was exemplary while at Grandma's. Now, that is not to say we were awful around our other grandparents; it was just especially important for Grandma Mary. Looking back, it was hardly because she was overly strict; it was, and still is, simply how to do things. She is a proper lady, and so ought her guests be. To be otherwise is simply rude, and there is no reason to be rude.
My grandmother is all that I have described of Her Majesty the Queen, and I learned so much of that dignity from my grandmother. It was never taught directly; it never needed to be. She simply was dignity and grace in her own existence, so it had no need to be spoken of. I am already teaching my son those lessons on good behavior and I hope I am successful enough to make her proud of he and I when she finally meets him next month.
It would be lovely to meet the Queen, to have a spot of tea and a chat of all things big and small, and to learn from her Highness as I did (and still do, bless her) from my Grandma Mary.
[Portrait by Christian Furr, who hopefully won't be terribly upset by my adding his art to my site and giving him due credit for a great work.]
The day the world was saved...
Too many terrible things have happened to the world since that day. I think a great deal of them are because people then, and definitely people now, forgot what happened to get to that day.
Sometimes my own unconscious decisions amuse me.
Being in computer repair for a 21st century school, I will, at some point during the year, step foot into every single classroom in the building. I will converse with each member of personnel, and in those conversations, attempt to understand exactly what problem they actually encountered, which is often not at all what they are describing. Due to this, I will develop preferences for the people I would be helping.
My least favorite section of the building is one where their computer systems are of a totally different operating system, network system, and method of teaching and communication than any other in the entire building. Basically, not only are they of a different, and far more dysfunctional, operating system; they are run another third party system on top of that operating system to convolute everything going on. So instead of being completely fluent in troubleshooting an error on the normal systems, I have to hunt and peck around a system that is alien to everywhere outside that single room.
On top of that space being of poor software configurations, the hardware has its own design flaws. The desktop computers are designed to be compact, so everything inside is tightly packed, and when just enough dust gets inside or the box is jarred enough to have things bump into one another, the system is unable to power on at all.
Oh, and as icing on the cake: the people who staff those rooms are terribly annoying.
So, I do my best to avoid that whole little world. And it amuses me just how my brain decides to do it. With the way the hardware gets clogged with dust, they regularly go down. It is nothing to repair, I just open them up and use an air duster to clear it out, and the machine is up and running normally again.
Now, if I wanted to avoid that room and those computers more, I would just tell that group to get its own can of duster and clear out the hardware themselves. But aha, why would I want to do that? It's such a fast and easy fix, that it gives my life a far more tolerable condition. If I showed them how to do this quick fix, then all they would see is me struggling to fix problems and blowing them off for better things in the rest of the building. So long as I come down to do the dusting when it's required, and I'm in there less than five minutes, it gives the impression that I'm helpful and quick and obviously above par as a technician.
It is obvious to me, as well as anyone who knows me, that I am not smart enough to devise this plan. It is far too clever and devious for my pun-spewing self (I spent at least twenty minutes last night while doing dishes to figure out a gag for a Dalai Llama; no I didn't get one... yet). But my brain, that big gray organ 'safeguarded' by its cranial case, is just as potent as the next man's. So left to its own devices, it has taught me to endure a minor annoyance to well avoid any crucial criticism.
Who knew I was so brilliant? I didn't~
I've rummaged through many podcasts floating out there in Radioland. A set of them that I particularly like come from QDNow. My personal favorites are Mr Manners and Grammar Girl. This week's Grammar Girl podcast covered a topic I am almost certainly guilty of breaking the rules.
Using i.e. versus e.g. to either further describe something or give an example, respectively. Firstly, as some readers may have noticed, I am not a fan of adding punctuation to abbreviations (particularly an apostrophe to the plural CDs. Even though it is actually okay, writing CD's always looks like a possessive to me.)
I learned some of my non-punctuation from living in Britain where Mr and Ms do not normally have periods after them. I liked this form because it looks cleaner and does not give an illusion of breaking the flow of a sentence. Flow and tone of writing mean quite a bit to me, as it is my personal drive to write as I wish I spoke.
So yes, I am very guilty (though one cannot qualify guilt since it is an absolute (and I am going into stickler mode here)) of writing i.e. as ie, but at least I usually follow it with a comma. Although I am completely wrong, I feel that if I used the periods, I would omit the comma due to cluttering up punctuation marks.
I am almost certain I have swapped i.e. and e.g. on a regular basis, probably because I favor the vocal sound of i.e. and the fact it is used more readily in speech. I just checked my most recent Fry Side post, and I think I may have actually gotten the usage correct in the first paragraph.
Still, though I readily admit to being a proper stickler, I do not think I will be going back to check on my previous posts and edit them. I will be a little more aware of using those two abbreviations in my writing in the future. That is certain. Thanks, Grammar Girl.
I was handed this little piece of greatness by my boss just now. Here's the line of my life:
I am not an "idiot." I am a person who suffers from idiocy.
Now, I will admit that I did not follow the French elections all too closely, though it certainly seems that every single person in France did. I personally was leaning toward Royal to win, as she seemed the more likely leader to side with the Union and give the EU the power it needs to become an actual forceful body in this world.
What struck me as truly amazing was the voter turnout: 85%. Now that's an election. A number that high lends itself to the phrase 'the people'. Not just who wanted to, but most everyone got out and voiced their opinion via ballot. It amazes me.
To contrast, the United States has not touched the 60% mark since 1968 (though it seems to be on the uptick, as 55% made it out to vote in 2004). I think it is a rotten shame that the centuries old shining beacon of democracy only turns out half the percentage for a Congressional election year compared to most anyone else's parliamentary elections.
It's a slightly maddening thought that someone elected by a total population, only half of which shows up, and then only half of those actually voted for them, means the one person representing the whole group was in fact chosen by about one quarter of the people. Sadly, there is no way around this, as voting is voluntary (once some has a right to it, of course) and cannot be coerced or ordered in any way. If elections are of that bent, then they cannot be considered free and therefore not legitimate.
One of my favorite ideas for how to improve voter turnout in the US is to make Election Day a national holiday. No businesses are to be open, the entire government would shut down, and the only thing to do is to vote and wait to see whether your choice of candidate won. We could even add fireworks or some other special tradition to go with the whole idea of all adult citizens going out and simultaneously doing the act that makes us a free republic. It would be such an exciting and inspiring scene, and something universally American.
And I still feel it would be even more fun to root on your local district's little old ladies counting the vote and sending in the results!
While searching for the stranger titles to add to my personal library, I came across this website selling books:
BetterWorld Bookstore
It's an interesting read to see what they're about. I just liked the free US shipping and low costs on used hardback books. Those who know me know how much I enjoy accumulating very old texts to see exactly how people thought a century ago.
I've put some ads on the side of my blog here. If anything sparks you, or if you're bored, feel free to click. Once my total reaches a hundred bucks, Google will send me a check. While I don't expect to see anything come of it, it should at least keep my hopes alive of being payed a little for doing what I love to do anyway.
The phrase that drips with sarcasm during this time of year (which is a recurring event throughout the school year) is "We'd rather be testing than teaching, right?" At work we have been doing more of the required state testing using our computers rather than basic pencil and paper. We not only are doing our rounds of the standard testing on our computers, but a new system they are field testing on top of it. Never mind the fact that we spent more than a month last fall doing exactly the same testing.
Here is how it works:
The state dictates how and when we will test these youngsters (mine are in the 6-8th Grade range). When they (that wonderfully ambiguous 'they') give us a new system, it is up to us to utilize the resources at our immediate disposal in order to implement it. So in addition to the time allocated from classrooms the students will be taking these tests, we in the IT support world must take away access to the technologies we have in order to prepare for the testing to be done.
In essence, due to powers beyond our control (for now), we have to take computers out of classrooms, then we have to take the kids out as well. To put this in a little perspective, there has been much feedback making the rounds in tech department emails, most of it completely negative. Not flaming or irrational, but just things that don't work, and more so, hurt the kids' ability to learn and use technology.
So many, like myself, had to completely wipe out and re-image dozens and dozens of computers (I had about 140 to do, half twice-over, 3 at a time) well before testing was to begin. And these are increasingly heavily used labs of laptops that are wheeled into classrooms (something very cool indeed.)
Other departments have brought in the numbers, namely the fact that nearly all of the technology that is integrated into classroom work gets tied up for testing for over half a term. At my school, we use up a little over 2 months for testing. Yes, it is staggered, kids aren't out of classrooms for that long. But the labs are tied up for that long. Given all vacation time, students are in school for about eight months total, and for one fourth of that time they don't have research, writing, or creative use of our computers.
It certainly seems like a good use of funding and the limited time these youngsters have in school, no? The teachers regularly complain (among so many other grievances) about not having enough classroom time with their students. It is not even just the teachers having difficulty justifying it. Administrators cannot believe how much time we devote to testing instead of teaching, and they voice it to us, too.
It's an awful position we put ourselves in, truly. All the teachers would rather be teaching, and all the students would rather be learning. So what to do? How do we fix it?
Now, I work in the technology field. And part of my solution: stop using computers for testing at all. Apart from students who need specialized assistance, using technology slows down the process rather than speeds it up. Why? Because not all kids are tech savvy. Sure they can use gadgets specifically marketed to them, but it's not universal. I have some kids who can work in flash, and others who can't figure out how to save a word document after doing it for four years.
My assumption on how we got to this terrible place is that it is because it is the technology experts who demonstrate the functions of any piece of software. So when a tech person says 'sure, it's a snap', they mean for them. It's rare to find one who understands the difference between how they work with technology, and how a layperson does.
So, since not all kids can use technology the same, and since any technology now requires more set up and constant monitoring and maintenance, let's get back to our pencils and paper. I say the same with all voting systems. Let us mimic the British: check off on a small piece of paper who you want elected, and stuff it in a box. Then, for that precinct, have dozens of little old ladies race to be the first counted and double-counted out of the county and country. Minimal error, humans are accurate, and you can't beat the simplicity. Simple = error free.
My other solution: stop testing at all! Let's go to what so many brilliant, industrial, universal education systems do: you don't move on until you pass a rigorous exam every couple of years. This does two things: leaves more room for teaching and less room for kids to be left in the dust due to thin and hasty teaching, plus it ensures that all kids at a grade level are, in fact, at the same grade level.
Let us actually be tough and get kids up to par. We can raise the bar, and they'll make it there and push themselves for it. Imagine a world where if you don't put in the effort, you won't get to move on. Holy cow, I might even have been a good student in school.
... but probably not.
I don't know how they pulled this off. I think it's awesome, though. Wish I could do it with my animation class, that's for certain.
100 year old predictions.
Some are amazingly close.
Some are rather far off.
And some are 'Why on Earth haven't we done that!?' (Such as #11.)
There are still high-quality, non-violent games being made. Civilization is my computer game of choice for all-time. Of course, Chess is the greatest of games, but at least the Civ series combines the strategy of chess with historical development and world conquest. I dig Axis & Allies as well, and I think you would too. Right, Jaime?
It seems, my dear readers out there in Radioland, I might become a columnist. Of course, it's just to answer my parents. Here's what my mom sent me the other day:
Did you catch OpEd piece on Thurs. 12 A14--The Rebirth of Civility? Here's hoping that the internet blogging can help up us bring civility so that freedom of expression means more than just being able to say whatever you want, without having to be obnoxious just to be heard. If the shouters could only learn that by being civil they might actually be listened to, not just heard. I loved the one quote--"Free speech is enhance by civility."
And of course that brings us the the radio personality. It looks like the Web Sites and Bloggers had a lot do with him getting canned. What do you think of that kind of revolution. You have always said that the Web would be the forum of our future. Interesting proof of its power, if indeed that is what made the networks act.
The horror which befell Virginia Tech yesterday is of an unspeakable nature.
There is a feeling of inescapability to it, I think. There is so much else going on right now in the world, and in my own life, but for the life of me I can't stop wishing there was something I could do to help or comfort those more directly affected by it. However, I can't help but feel affected by it as well. It all could have happened at my Alma Mater just as easily as anywhere else.
I am reminded of how I felt when listening to the radio about the bombings in the London Underground two summers ago. I was just out there, living, traveling in those tubes. I had been to Kings Cross Station numerous times, and passed it so many more. I have for London, as I have for being a university student, a distinct familiarity with being in that place. I was just there. I cannot escape the feeling that I could have been there and want to be there because it feels as though my friends could be there.
All this writing does very little. There are no words that befit such a pointless, painful loss of life. A lack of words is not discomforting, though. There is a comfort to silence. Silence creates a somber space for the mind to unravel its twisting thoughts or wrap them in a warm cocoon. In silence, you can have a friend put an arm around your shoulder, and that will be all that is needed. I take comfort in the fact those poor souls still reeling from all that has happened have that out there for them.
An event like this displaces the soul from the normal progress of time. To the affected soul, time can slip by without a notice or slow down into agonizing micro-moments that never seem to pass. Eventually, the soul will recover, and the mind will be able to perceive the world as it is once more. Hence the adage, "Time heals all wounds." It is a simple truth, and the affected will settle back in the world in their own time.
Those lost are at peace now. It is their friends and families that must now cope. For the rest of us, the time is not to debate, to speculate, or to even speak. The time for all that will come eventually. For now, let us just pay our respects with our silence.
Peace~
Here's just a little tidbit my pop sent me recently:
I can just see the twinkle in his eye as he says this. The lead mathematician at Bletchley Park that broke the Enigma Codes was quite gay.
"It is impossible to obtain a conviction for sodomy from an English jury. Half of them don't believe that it can physically be done, and the other half are doing it."
Winston Churchill
The United States has formally declared war five times in its two and a quarter century lifetime. The last time was against the Axis powers in World War II. So since 1945, the United States has known a world utterly free of the pains of war.
How can this be so? Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution states that Congress is the only branch of government with the power to declare war. It was quite purposefully vested in the body of government that is the slowest in making decisions. The main reasoning being to not have a single person with the power to send its citizenry to die without provocation or reason. They had had enough of that with the royalty of Great Britain.
Again the question, how could we have been involved in so many conflicts without declaring war? The answer is right there: we were in conflicts, not wars. Well, at least, that was so often the designation. Or 'police actions'. It is quite a trick in order to combat an abstraction, not another state. We fought communism, not the Viet Kong. We are fighting terrorism, not the Iraqis. Of course, we did not defeat communism; it just happened to fail in the Soviet Union. And it sure seems that we aren't looking to defeat terrorism anytime soon, since it gets so constantly stoked and provoked. Besides, it is not something that is defeatable; it is simply a tactic. But I digress.
Most of these undeclared wars came about due to one thing: fear. More specifically, paranoia. America after the Second World War followed a foreign policy of containment against communism. It was particularly strengthened by the fall of China to communism in 1949, playing into the idea of the 'domino effect'. The fear of communism spreading aided in creating and maintaining the idea of containing communism to its current borders, effectively drawing us into every local nationalist conflict that decided to support itself with Soviet funds.
Also with the beginnings of the Cold War, the United States Congress started vesting increasing emergency powers to the President, so he may react more swiftly than they in the event of a direct attack by the opposing powers in the East. It means that the President could effectively send troops anywhere deemed insecure for democracy/capitalism/our interests, and from there escalate or surge (we've heard those words before, no?) as deemed necessary.
The War Powers Resolution of 1973 set into place a set of rules regarding how far a President could go with this new-found power. Apparently Congress realized that a certain cap should be in place after being in Vietnam for over eight wildly successful years. What it amounted to was that the President could act freely for 60 days before Congress would decide whether or not to continue or end US troop involvement, with an additional 30 days while Congress convenes and debates.
The President of the United States, a single person, has been given control of the most powerful military in the world for any three month period without question. What an American ideal! I am so glad that our country was not founded under the philosophies against arbitrary rule by one person. Otherwise we would be running counter to the very wisdom of the brilliant men who helped create a new, working model of free democracy that would inspire people the world over for centuries.
To bring my whole convoluted post to a close, let us return to the present. With the rubber stamps being pushed out of power in Congress, debate has returned to whether or not to continue the war in Iraq and how to end it. But the past half-decade's rhetoric has punctured the powers of Congressional and even societal debate. The idea of cinching the military's purse strings has been termed 'not supporting our troops'. This is a damning phrase now, but hopefully one that will die. Of course troops are supported, we will always support them, because we won't have them return home the way Vietnam veterans had to for just following orders. In fact, I hope they return home seen even more differently: as tragic heroes put through hell for other peoples' cruel, cruel lies.
Here is my point, pure and simple. Congress is doing its job. The War Powers Resolution, and indeed any and all Presidential actions using American forces without a direct declaration of war, or invocation of Article V of NATO, is illegal and unconstitutional. I am willing to grant certain powers to extricate American and ally citizens from direct assaults. Once they are out and safe, our troop involvement ceases, because no war has been declared.
The title of Commander in Chief is meant to be only the unifying apex of all the military branches. The President commands the Army and the Navy in battle only. It is Congress, and Congress alone, that raises, organizes, arms, and keeps American military power. Congress creates treaties and declares war. It is within the powers of Congress to decide whether or not and where to send the American military, and when they are done operating. Commander in Chief only directs the forces when they are sent to engage the enemy, and even that power really gets delegated down (ie Supreme Allied Commander Eisenhower and the Generals and Admirals, and even filtered on down the way it is supposed to be structured.) Congress essentially owns the military; the President only gets to operate it when Congress allows.
We are a lawful people. It is all we have. There is no state religion, nor royal family. We govern ourselves, and our laws are our agreements among free people. To break our laws is to make an offense to our land and fellow citizens. We fine their riches and imprison the offenders, taking away part of that which is most precious to all people: their limited time on this earth. The President has broken the law, and it is the fault of Congress for allowing it to happen. Congress must reassert its true place as the most powerful branch of the government, because it controls the money, and it represents the people most directly.
And I do hope we the people of the United States realize this. Our troops need to be brought home. Ask any of them what the better way to support them is: keeping them as the primary targets in the middle of a civil war fueled by religions fervor, or bringing them home to their families?
I would just like to state that I would kill to simply be in the room while Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert have a conversation. I got a small glimpse of it when my uncle sent me an article from Rolling Stone. I think it would be a moment touching divinity. Good golly those two men are brilliantly funny.
The reason for the new format is because I've started dealing a little in block quotes. The previous template did not look very clean with them, but I like how this is laid out. Maybe I'm picky, but I do actually care how I present myself to the world (despite my youthful convictions.)
Ta~
I read a little chain of blogs having to do with the future of morality, and more specifically how societies of the future will look back at the practices we live by and how utterly barbaric they might become. This is really a fun topic to sit and ponder on. For me, however, I returned to a thought I touch on regularly: the future of the state.
Now, for those not fluent in political theory-speak, when I use the term 'state' I mean a country or nation with its own people, land, and government. Iowa is deemed a state, but it is merely an assigned territory of the state that is the United States. Often used in historical or political texts is the term 'nation-state', usually in the context of, 'coming from the scattered rule of many kingdoms rose the powerful, modern nation-state.' The kingdoms of France eventually gave way to the unified French nation-state, or simply state for short. Country is usually synonymous, but I prefer not to use it. Nation can also be considered synonymous, but generally among academics, nations are only composed of people, not tied to a land or independent government of their own (though that is what they strive for).
Enough semantics. What will become of the state in the future? Right now, the state is the authoritative body in the world. It defines borders, rights, land use, etc. It was not always so, though. Using the example I am most familiar with, Europe, there were shifts in what really ruled and people were willing to accept as true. Rome ruled throughout for centuries, and following its collapse, the Christian Church was the body that determined what power would exist where (or at least, verified a person or group's right to rule.) That authority declined and collapsed as well, leaving a void which states would fill, and a few, in their time, would attempt to conquer the rest.
The collapse of the Church's authority came due to the hands of Johannes Gutenberg and his movable-type printing press. People no longer had to rely on the interpretations of the Church in order to understand God; they could come to their own decisions on how the world worked. An ever-increasing state then stepped in to secularly, and relatively democratically (if only to say the people could remove the heads of poor rulers), decide order among people.
Our current era of digitization is creating a similar world of discontinuity that occurred following previous periods. Homogeneity is diminishing as people are able to find others with their more specific interests and beliefs in common. Entertainment is incredibly customized, to the point now of being increasingly self-made (rather like the ancient days, no?) It does not seem too far a stretch to see that allegiances to people and governments with which one disagrees may crumble in time as well.
I do not see this as immediate, or even remotely perceivable for some generations. It is difficult to even conceive of such a notion as not having a state one pays taxes to or even associates with. Instead, loose associations connected wirelessly to people occupying land not considered theirs all around the globe may be where people rest their identities. Maybe it will look similar to the religions of the world, with no specific countries under their feet anymore. Or perhaps there will be gradual migrations to be among those of similar minds to the point of disassembling and reassembling the borders of the world.
These are all odd scenarios associated with my pondering on the idea of a world without states. I wish this post had been more congruent, but sadly its writing was broken up beyond a week's time. I'm sure one can easily read where one session's writing ended and the other began. Hopefully I can have better luck writing in the future, when I may complete a thought in the same sitting as I started~
Leave it to my pop to bring home bring home a point on technical issues so well:
Nice discussion on the blog. I wish the mainstream enviros would look at this the same way. ... Another point to add. Transportation (autos) consume 35% of the oil. Raising prices (taxes) to fund all forms of transportation infrastructure and high speed rail corridors would encourage smaller cars as would increasing the producers fleet mileage. By the way coal to liquid fuel means diesel which gets better mileage. South Africa and Brazil are the current world leaders in the technology.
Now, this is my argument against an open-air ballpark being built out here:
Silva, Twins' outing vs. White Sox put on hold
Right-hander Carlos Silva will have to postpone his season debut as tonight's Twins-White Sox game has been suspended due to the extremely cold temperatures and winds forecast for the evening. The game will be rescheduled for a future date.
As of late, mostly since the Democrats returned to power in Congress, there has been an increasing level of awareness and talk about climate change, global warming, foreign oil dependence, energy security, etc. Most of those categories arrive due to a single factor: oil. It has long been obvious that a nation relying on its majority of a resource to come from outside its borders is a sure sign of a loss of sovereignty. We are not a strong, independent state if what fuels our existence is not within our control. The producers of our crude could, at any time, arbitrarily raise the price per barrel and give our economy the equivalent of heartburn and remind us that our stability is at the whim of others.
This is one of the few things I agreed with President Bush on from his State of the Union. (Ha! You thought I'd never mention it again, but I did!) It was merely a part of a list when he was speaking of alternative methods of producing energy. But still, it was there. And here it is, the ability to reduce our dependence on foreign fuels, give our country a safe standard of electrical production, and even reduce our carbon emissions: nuclear energy.
The word nuclear has an unfortunate stigma attached to it. Yes, there are nuclear weapons, though only used twice, but there are other weapons, as I am sure you are all well aware, and all have been used to far greater extents. We, like the old nuclear powers of the world, are experts in not only making these terrible weapons, but experts in avoiding their use. And let's face it, the only two remotely dangerous disasters with nuclear power facilities can't possibly happen in modern plants. I won't argue with Springfield's nuclear power plant whose safety inspector is Homer Simpson, either, because damnit, it's a funny scenario.
So why am I aiming for nuclear power to save the United States? Because, first of all, it works. It's clean and safe. Don't believe me? Just ask Japan and France. They have been at it for decades, due to their own homelands' lack of resources. In fact, even the US does a fine job of using it, though we still are not as efficient with it as we could and should be. We only use nuclear power for about twenty percent of our electrical production. I still believe we could learn quite a bit from the French and the Japanese, simply because they have poured far more energy and resources into developing nuclear power efficiency and safety.
Now the political reasons for switching to using at the very least half nuclear electricity production? We are in the top ten of uranium mining countries in the world. That in itself lends to a great deal of economic security. We aren't spending tons of money just moving the fuel from awfully unstable places in the world and leaving pipelines open for intrusion. It's here; we have it. But what I think is even better is this: The number one producer of uranium in the world is... Canada! I love it. Canada is not Saudi Arabia, hell it is not even Russia. It is, by the greatest margins possible, the safest country in the world from which we can buy the remainder of the fuel we need. I think it is durned skippy to be investing even more money into our biggest trading partner, making them richer, and having them buy more stuff from us. I really do not know how to expand further on this idea; I think it stands well on its own.
Now, here's my last trick to getting us weaned off foreign oil and standing on our own again: coal liquefication. Now, it is an old idea, turning hard coal into a liquid fuel, but it has been worked on for nearly a century, and with a few more pushes in the right direction (such as the price of crude exploding again), this could be an economical alternative, and again, produced in our own backyard. We are the second most productive miner of coal in the world (first is China, by a lot). So why not just make gasoline out of it, using our home-grown coal or nuclear energy, and take care of ourselves?
Now I just need a train system in the US that rivals the EU, and I'll be a happy little pup~
Much of my downtime here at work, of which there seems to be less and less, I do my best to keep myself informed of the happenings in the world. I actively watch the BBC, listen to NPR podcasts, have finally repaired my links to use the Economist online (thanks, Dad!) and have been delving a bit when I can into what is strangely called the blogosphere. I suppose it's a better term than 'bloggernet' or 'blogmania' or other concoctions. However, I do think that blogs, and how they are handled by the majority of heavier users, is nice. I think it's an amazing resource for writers, artists, and thinkers to share more directly with a wide audience, and makes an easy pathway to written debates.
As I have mentioned before, the internet's promise does come with a price. If you check anywhere with a message board or blog reply system, you'll very readily find the knee-jerk, foolish, and grammatically-lacking reply. I got a clean view of it when reading a review of Roxio's Toast 8, and the responses to the review were empty to the point of being vacuous. Responders would rarely add in their two cents to the review, but would instead tear into one another's poor responses. It was almost painful to look at, because my train of thought always goes to questioning the quality of humanity and why bother continuing to work at being upstanding and thoughtful.
I sure do get sidetracked easily. The point of my writing this blog is to point out a blog Ben had recommended to me a while back. I've taken to reading Andrew Sullivan's Daily Dish regularly throughout the day. Not only is he a great writer and reading him will link you out to many other wonderful things in the world, but he does epitomize the thoughtful courtesy in a blogger that I am writing about. It's amazing what happens when someone touting themself to be a proper conservative. I start agreeing with a great deal of the ideas they put forth.
An awesome thing that happened while in Mr Sullivan's corner of the blogosphere has been a debate between he and another writer, Sam Harris. Sullivan has a strong Christian faith, and Harris is a vocal Atheist, and somehow, somewhere, they wound up in a debate, Is Religion 'Built Upon Lies'? All the content aside, it's a grand thing to see two people, who obviously enjoy one anothers' writing, have two different views and manage to politely tear into the other man's arguments without coming to a terrible standstill. My father and I have long talked (debated, yelled, whatever) about the idea of proper discourse between people of different values and ideas. My dad and I do our best to keep in touch with how the 'other side' reasons, 'the other side' being just whomever happens to have a contrasting opinion. It is grand work by Messrs Harris and Sullivan, and I hope to find more of it in the future.
Oh, and as a final note, I would like to mention how much I love my Apple computer (specifically PowerBook) and the Dashboard with Widgets that exists in OS X. I cannot count how many times I have hit F12 and typed directly into the dictionary. Aside from all the other nifty things I use, that dictonary access has sped up my writing and research, and I especially like the etymology that is included with most definitions. It definitely (ha!) lends itself to more accurate usage.
Toodles~
