Going on Jeopardy
Well, today was the audition/exam to be on Jeopardy. I drove down to Atlanta last night and stayed in the hotel where the exam was being held. It was pretty nice, and should have been for $170 for a single room and parking.
The exam was at 11:00, so at about 10:30 I went down to the lobby to scope the situation out, and saw bunches of people hanging around, all talking about how good they were at Jeopardy. I'm not much for that, so I went upstairs and just looked out the window (I was on the 34th floor, so the view was great). I went back down about 10:50, and was soon ushered into the testing room.
There were about 150-175 of us in the room. We listened to the contestant coordinators give their spiels, watched a video from Alex Trebeck, and got prepared to take the exam. It had 50 questions, and you had 8 seconds after each question was asked to write down your answer. The questions really ran the gamut, both in categories and difficulty.
Here are a few I remember:
Who wrote Of Human Bondage? (I got this one wrong; I wrote down the correct answer then changed it.)
What do you call a form of government with two houses of legislators? (I got this one right; I wrote the wrong answer then changed it.)
Name the former Miss Tennessee who started her own magazine in 2002. (I don't have a clue about this one.)
His second term as president began eight years after his first.
He wrote Childe Harold's Pilgrimage.
Minerva was the Roman goddess of wisdom. Who was the Greek goddess of wisdom?
This is the southernmost city in the contiguous 48 states, and it has a Hemingway museum.
Name the body of water between Spain and France also known as the Gulf of Gascogne.
Who wrote Gotterdamerung?
Even though he wasn't his father, Mozart and other musicians of the time called him "Papa."
Who wrote Moon for the Misbegotten?
Well, I can't remember any more of them. Anyway, to make a long story short, I was one of 12 people to pass the exam, so I was invited to play a mock game.
That was pretty interesting, because one of the people I played with was the anchor person for one of the news stations in Georgia. She had a film crew along, because they had been promoting this story for months, the fact that she was auditioning for Jeopardy. So after the mock game (which only put three questions in any category, and when a category was completed, another one was put in) the anchor asked to interview me. It'll air this Friday. I asked her what she would have done if she hadn't passed the exam, and she said that she would have just had to tell her audience that she did' make it. To be honest, that's kind of the way I felt going down there, like there was a huge burden on me to pass the exam.
The last person I spoke to in the room was the producer, who thanked me and chatted a bit. But I told him that everything after passing that exam was gravy, because that was the thing I was worried about, with so many people knowing I was taking it.
So I feel very good about making the cut and qualifying. But now for the bad news. Out of about 25,000 people who try out, about 800 make the contestant pool. But the show only needs about 400 contestants a year. So I've still only got about a 50/50 shot of making the show. I think I did well enough in the mock game (I got a number of the questions), and I think I told a cute enough story, so I hope I get called. They start filming the new season in July, and they'll call with a month or so of lead time if they want me out in L.A. And here's another bit of bad news: contestants have to pay for their own airfare, housing, and meals while competing. Of course, the goal is to win it all back and more.
4.17.2003
Hitting your wife
Over the past two nights a drama has played out upstairs here. The couple who lived there had a huge fight two nights ago, whihc went on from 2 to 4 am, and spilled out into the parking lot. All day yesterday and last night, the woman was moving out. I was ourtside doing some work on the car when I saw her with a bruise on her face. I asked her how she was doing, and she said she'd be better soon. I asked if I could help and she said no. I jumped to the conclusion that she was leaving because her husband gave her that bruise.
While I'm glad that there will be no more fights and stomping and storming around up there, I wonder how she'll survive, and what he'll do, too. Believe me, I'm no model husband, so I can understand what pushed him and how he reacted.
Anyway, here are some serious links on dv:
The National Coalition Against Domestic Violence
This looks like the big player int he field. It's also been chosen as one of the 100 most worthy charities.
Men Against Domestic Violence
This one goes both ways, looking at violence perpetrated by men and sufferd by men.
The Domestic Violence Handbook
This is a good primer for the field.
Over the past two nights a drama has played out upstairs here. The couple who lived there had a huge fight two nights ago, whihc went on from 2 to 4 am, and spilled out into the parking lot. All day yesterday and last night, the woman was moving out. I was ourtside doing some work on the car when I saw her with a bruise on her face. I asked her how she was doing, and she said she'd be better soon. I asked if I could help and she said no. I jumped to the conclusion that she was leaving because her husband gave her that bruise.
While I'm glad that there will be no more fights and stomping and storming around up there, I wonder how she'll survive, and what he'll do, too. Believe me, I'm no model husband, so I can understand what pushed him and how he reacted.
Anyway, here are some serious links on dv:
The National Coalition Against Domestic Violence
This looks like the big player int he field. It's also been chosen as one of the 100 most worthy charities.
Men Against Domestic Violence
This one goes both ways, looking at violence perpetrated by men and sufferd by men.
The Domestic Violence Handbook
This is a good primer for the field.
4.10.2003
We're in
Well, we just got approved. Our loan, that is, for the house. So we'll be closing on May 15 and moving in during the two weeks after that. I spent a couple hours there today with the inspector, and the place is starting to grow on me. I'm still not a big fan of the stairs, but I'll get used to the space, I'm sure.
It's nice, being able to afford something this costly. And it's all due to Amanda, who knows how to manage money far better than I do. This also gave us a chance to review our financial situation. I've really taken a beating in my IRAs, but I hope to make that up in the next 20 years. Of course, given the fact that I'm a workaholic, I really can't see myself retiring anyway.
You know, I'm never far from a rant about money in academia, and this would be the perfect opportunity to engage in one, but I'm just tired of it. I just got back in touch with a very old friend, from my Duquesne days, and catching her up made me write a bulleted list of my life the past few years. One thing I said about EKU is that I'm watching from a distance as it burns in slow motion. That used to make me angry, but now I'm just glad I got out.
This friend, Marcia Wratcher, is now a VP at Art Institute Online, a web-based venture by a for-profit Art school. I knew her when she was the tutor coordinator in the Learning Skills Program at Duquesne. Now it's a Center. Marcia employed me as a tutor, and when she left to go to Pitt, I took her job. Then she was at CMU, then Nova, and now at AIOnline. She was always a good person, and a good friend. She's had a ton of heartache in her life, but doesn't let it rule her.
I remember when I was in the Jesuits and working on my long experiment at St. Joe's University in Philly. Marcia called late one night, to tell me that her soulmate, the man she was born to be with, had just died. I can't remember the details of the conversation, but I remember the details of that cramped room I was in, and wondering, as I listened, how such a small space could hold so much pain coming through the phone line.
Through cancer, through death, through other great losses, Marcia has remained a wonderful person. I hope I can see her when I get to the Burgh this summer.
Well, we just got approved. Our loan, that is, for the house. So we'll be closing on May 15 and moving in during the two weeks after that. I spent a couple hours there today with the inspector, and the place is starting to grow on me. I'm still not a big fan of the stairs, but I'll get used to the space, I'm sure.
It's nice, being able to afford something this costly. And it's all due to Amanda, who knows how to manage money far better than I do. This also gave us a chance to review our financial situation. I've really taken a beating in my IRAs, but I hope to make that up in the next 20 years. Of course, given the fact that I'm a workaholic, I really can't see myself retiring anyway.
You know, I'm never far from a rant about money in academia, and this would be the perfect opportunity to engage in one, but I'm just tired of it. I just got back in touch with a very old friend, from my Duquesne days, and catching her up made me write a bulleted list of my life the past few years. One thing I said about EKU is that I'm watching from a distance as it burns in slow motion. That used to make me angry, but now I'm just glad I got out.
This friend, Marcia Wratcher, is now a VP at Art Institute Online, a web-based venture by a for-profit Art school. I knew her when she was the tutor coordinator in the Learning Skills Program at Duquesne. Now it's a Center. Marcia employed me as a tutor, and when she left to go to Pitt, I took her job. Then she was at CMU, then Nova, and now at AIOnline. She was always a good person, and a good friend. She's had a ton of heartache in her life, but doesn't let it rule her.
I remember when I was in the Jesuits and working on my long experiment at St. Joe's University in Philly. Marcia called late one night, to tell me that her soulmate, the man she was born to be with, had just died. I can't remember the details of the conversation, but I remember the details of that cramped room I was in, and wondering, as I listened, how such a small space could hold so much pain coming through the phone line.
Through cancer, through death, through other great losses, Marcia has remained a wonderful person. I hope I can see her when I get to the Burgh this summer.
4.05.2003
Buying a house
Well, we did it, took the plunge, etc. We're going to buy a house, if we can qualify on the loan. We made an offer today, signed the offer sheet and began the wait for a counter-offer. We meet with the money next Wednesday, and it doesn't seem like that's going to be a problem. Here's a look at the place, with picture from the realtor's web site.
I have to say, it feels very strange for me to be signing this mortgage knowing that I'm not bringing in the cash to pay it. I used to joke that I wanted to be a kept man, but now, the closer I get to that state, the more terrifying it is. I'm sure that any huge mortgage like this would worry me a bit, but knowing that I am so out of control on this one really makes it more difficult.
Amanda is fine with it all, and I guess that's what swayed me about the place. I've got a litany of things that I think are wrong with it, but in the end, it's all about compromise, and this seems to make A very happy. She likes the location, the style, the number of bedrooms, the fact that they're pretty small, and the deck and pool. That's a pretty good list, one worth honoring.
Well, we did it, took the plunge, etc. We're going to buy a house, if we can qualify on the loan. We made an offer today, signed the offer sheet and began the wait for a counter-offer. We meet with the money next Wednesday, and it doesn't seem like that's going to be a problem. Here's a look at the place, with picture from the realtor's web site.
I have to say, it feels very strange for me to be signing this mortgage knowing that I'm not bringing in the cash to pay it. I used to joke that I wanted to be a kept man, but now, the closer I get to that state, the more terrifying it is. I'm sure that any huge mortgage like this would worry me a bit, but knowing that I am so out of control on this one really makes it more difficult.
Amanda is fine with it all, and I guess that's what swayed me about the place. I've got a litany of things that I think are wrong with it, but in the end, it's all about compromise, and this seems to make A very happy. She likes the location, the style, the number of bedrooms, the fact that they're pretty small, and the deck and pool. That's a pretty good list, one worth honoring.
4.01.2003
Used by the truth
This whole Arnett fiasco has many sanctimonious journalists up in arms. The former editor of the Scripps Howard news service has this editorial on the Nando site. In it, he claims that journalists in this war shouldn't be used by enemies of a journalist's nation. Putting aside the petty and small-minded thought behind this, let's just examine the claim about being "used."
Yes, many journalists have been used by enemies of the state, some willingly and some unsuspectingly. But this use, it goes both ways. What we have in this war is massive use of journalists by the American state. Do you really think that these "embedded" journalists are telling you all they know? Do you really think you're hearing unfiltered reality? I'm not talking about giving away operational security, or endangering missions. I'm talking about the fawns at the Pentagon who hang on every word of operational briefings, damn glad to be allowed to play vicarious soldier. I'm talking about the men and women in the desert and on the ocean who satellite link everything that they're fed, from fawning interviews to news about nothing. Even if there is no intent to deceive on the part of the military (which I doubt), there is still an inevitable filtering and biasing of the facts. Is it just me, or is the entire press corps aware of their compromised positions, as they are willing to call themselves embedded, without even dinner and drinks beforehand? Don't sell yourself short, kids; your integrity is worth at least a good Meal Ready to Eat.
Our former editor calls the Iraq's Ministers of Defense nothing but propagandists. I'll give him this point, as long as he'll admit that we're doing nothing but the same in our daily Pentagon briefings. But he doesn't, because that would mean acknowledging the weakness of his implied claim, and suggests that his jingoism is the only thing he's got for support.
This whole Arnett fiasco has many sanctimonious journalists up in arms. The former editor of the Scripps Howard news service has this editorial on the Nando site. In it, he claims that journalists in this war shouldn't be used by enemies of a journalist's nation. Putting aside the petty and small-minded thought behind this, let's just examine the claim about being "used."
Yes, many journalists have been used by enemies of the state, some willingly and some unsuspectingly. But this use, it goes both ways. What we have in this war is massive use of journalists by the American state. Do you really think that these "embedded" journalists are telling you all they know? Do you really think you're hearing unfiltered reality? I'm not talking about giving away operational security, or endangering missions. I'm talking about the fawns at the Pentagon who hang on every word of operational briefings, damn glad to be allowed to play vicarious soldier. I'm talking about the men and women in the desert and on the ocean who satellite link everything that they're fed, from fawning interviews to news about nothing. Even if there is no intent to deceive on the part of the military (which I doubt), there is still an inevitable filtering and biasing of the facts. Is it just me, or is the entire press corps aware of their compromised positions, as they are willing to call themselves embedded, without even dinner and drinks beforehand? Don't sell yourself short, kids; your integrity is worth at least a good Meal Ready to Eat.
Our former editor calls the Iraq's Ministers of Defense nothing but propagandists. I'll give him this point, as long as he'll admit that we're doing nothing but the same in our daily Pentagon briefings. But he doesn't, because that would mean acknowledging the weakness of his implied claim, and suggests that his jingoism is the only thing he's got for support.
3.27.2003
Nicky's birthday
Today is my little brother's birthday. He's 40. It's weird that you can be that old, and still not feel like you're as old as all your friends who are 40. My mother was 40 when she had me (Dad was 30). I'm 42, and I still feel like I did when I was 30. Not too old, but definately not young any more. When I teach "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock" I always ask the students to tell me how old Prufock is. I used to laugh when they'd tell me he's 35 or 40. Now I wince, thinking that this must be middle age, to think you're younger than you really are.
I guess all of us, Mary too (she's 38 now), feel the same way. I don't see us growing older, just growing up and accepting more responsibilities. It wasn't just yesterday when we were young, and I wouldn't go back to that time, knowing what I know now. Imagine that, to have the knowledge of a 40-year-old and only be 18. That's more of a nightmare than going through adolescence the first time. I know many people who believe that their best days were in high school or college, and I really feel sad for them. They peaked so early, and they must recognize that everything has been downhill since then. What gets them out of bed in the morning? I mean, how could you face the day, knowing that it'll never be as good as something in your memory? I tell my students that if your best day isn't tomorrow, you should just shoot yourself today and spare yourself the disapointment that you life will inevitably be.
Sometimes I think about the future, about having a kid now, about being 60 when that kid is 18 (and those numbers don't even work any more -- I'll be older). And then I consider my employment situation, and wonder how long this part-timing will go on. Amanda and I are discussing rolling over my retirement package from EKU, and it's weird to think that in 18 years I'll be 60. How long will I work? How long will I be under-employed? What about kids? How will Amanda change? What other changes will those years hold?
Today is my little brother's birthday. He's 40. It's weird that you can be that old, and still not feel like you're as old as all your friends who are 40. My mother was 40 when she had me (Dad was 30). I'm 42, and I still feel like I did when I was 30. Not too old, but definately not young any more. When I teach "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock" I always ask the students to tell me how old Prufock is. I used to laugh when they'd tell me he's 35 or 40. Now I wince, thinking that this must be middle age, to think you're younger than you really are.
I guess all of us, Mary too (she's 38 now), feel the same way. I don't see us growing older, just growing up and accepting more responsibilities. It wasn't just yesterday when we were young, and I wouldn't go back to that time, knowing what I know now. Imagine that, to have the knowledge of a 40-year-old and only be 18. That's more of a nightmare than going through adolescence the first time. I know many people who believe that their best days were in high school or college, and I really feel sad for them. They peaked so early, and they must recognize that everything has been downhill since then. What gets them out of bed in the morning? I mean, how could you face the day, knowing that it'll never be as good as something in your memory? I tell my students that if your best day isn't tomorrow, you should just shoot yourself today and spare yourself the disapointment that you life will inevitably be.
Sometimes I think about the future, about having a kid now, about being 60 when that kid is 18 (and those numbers don't even work any more -- I'll be older). And then I consider my employment situation, and wonder how long this part-timing will go on. Amanda and I are discussing rolling over my retirement package from EKU, and it's weird to think that in 18 years I'll be 60. How long will I work? How long will I be under-employed? What about kids? How will Amanda change? What other changes will those years hold?
3.25.2003
Total meltdown
I've just spent the whole day trying to recover this computer, with the help of Wendell, the computer god. Now it looks like I've got it licked. When I booted up this morning, there was nothing but a black screen. I tried a few moves, and found that I could only run programs from the task manager, but I couldn't perform any Windows functions. It was a nightmare. I could see that my data was still there, but everything else was dead.
Almost three hours into what I hoped would be a five-minute call to Wendell, he figured that the registry melted down at such a level that the kernel couldn't even recognize itself. So I had to do a reinstall of Win2k, which means I've had to reinstall all programs, too. Fortunately, as Foghorn Leghorn says, I keep my feathers numbered for just such emergencies. I'm hitting the web and downloading updates, checking through my downloaded files to see what's essential, and pulling out the cds when I have to.
Fortunately, I wasn't completely pulling my hair out, because I knew that all our important data was burned to a cd a bit back. Man, I'm not a big one for backups, but this peace of mind was essential today.
Once again, Wendell proves his worth, talking me through all this. Once again, I see just how little I know about this machine. I may be a power user, especially when compared to most academics, but I'm a long way from the IT guy I used to be.
I've just spent the whole day trying to recover this computer, with the help of Wendell, the computer god. Now it looks like I've got it licked. When I booted up this morning, there was nothing but a black screen. I tried a few moves, and found that I could only run programs from the task manager, but I couldn't perform any Windows functions. It was a nightmare. I could see that my data was still there, but everything else was dead.
Almost three hours into what I hoped would be a five-minute call to Wendell, he figured that the registry melted down at such a level that the kernel couldn't even recognize itself. So I had to do a reinstall of Win2k, which means I've had to reinstall all programs, too. Fortunately, as Foghorn Leghorn says, I keep my feathers numbered for just such emergencies. I'm hitting the web and downloading updates, checking through my downloaded files to see what's essential, and pulling out the cds when I have to.
Fortunately, I wasn't completely pulling my hair out, because I knew that all our important data was burned to a cd a bit back. Man, I'm not a big one for backups, but this peace of mind was essential today.
Once again, Wendell proves his worth, talking me through all this. Once again, I see just how little I know about this machine. I may be a power user, especially when compared to most academics, but I'm a long way from the IT guy I used to be.
3.22.2003
Real fighting
Today the real fighting begins. "Stern" resistance. "Heavy" resistance. "Republican Guard with resolve." All of that means real casualties, real American men and women dying to promote an imperialist agenda. I saw one bereaved father last night ask George Bush to take a good look at a picture of his son. The NY Times gave it short shrift, because it doesn't jive with their jingoism: "Friends and neighbors of Staff Sgt. Kendall Damon Watersbey, 29, who has a 10-year-old son, sobbed in the streets of his northeast Baltimore neighborhood, according to WBAL-TV. 'I want President Bush to get a good look at this, really good look here,' his father, Michael, said, holding up a picture of the dead marine. 'This is the only son I had, only son.'"
Only one member of both houses of congress has a son or daughter in the military. No one on Bush's senior staff has a child in the services. Instead, they're pulling a sleight of hand about their involvement with Enron, Halliburton, and other corporate evil-doers, and killing other people's kids to do it. Pay no attention to the criminals behind the curtain; watch us blow things up instead. And if some poor person has to die to draw your interest elsewhere, well, you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.
So far, budget analysts estimate, a little over 24 hours of war has cost the US 1.1 trillion dollars. But I hope people start paying attention to the human cost of this war, what it will do to us as a nation. We have squandered our morality for something that will benefit only the rich. And the children of the poor will provide this opportunity for them.
This site, by cyberjornalist.net, seems to be the best collection of links to the real war news. The NY Times' rolling over on this sickens me. You used to be able to count on them for decent coverage, but now they're no better than Fox News. The truth is out there; we just won't get it from the US media.
Today the real fighting begins. "Stern" resistance. "Heavy" resistance. "Republican Guard with resolve." All of that means real casualties, real American men and women dying to promote an imperialist agenda. I saw one bereaved father last night ask George Bush to take a good look at a picture of his son. The NY Times gave it short shrift, because it doesn't jive with their jingoism: "Friends and neighbors of Staff Sgt. Kendall Damon Watersbey, 29, who has a 10-year-old son, sobbed in the streets of his northeast Baltimore neighborhood, according to WBAL-TV. 'I want President Bush to get a good look at this, really good look here,' his father, Michael, said, holding up a picture of the dead marine. 'This is the only son I had, only son.'"
Only one member of both houses of congress has a son or daughter in the military. No one on Bush's senior staff has a child in the services. Instead, they're pulling a sleight of hand about their involvement with Enron, Halliburton, and other corporate evil-doers, and killing other people's kids to do it. Pay no attention to the criminals behind the curtain; watch us blow things up instead. And if some poor person has to die to draw your interest elsewhere, well, you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.
So far, budget analysts estimate, a little over 24 hours of war has cost the US 1.1 trillion dollars. But I hope people start paying attention to the human cost of this war, what it will do to us as a nation. We have squandered our morality for something that will benefit only the rich. And the children of the poor will provide this opportunity for them.
This site, by cyberjornalist.net, seems to be the best collection of links to the real war news. The NY Times' rolling over on this sickens me. You used to be able to count on them for decent coverage, but now they're no better than Fox News. The truth is out there; we just won't get it from the US media.
3.21.2003
All war, all the time
I can turn on CNN at any time and get a live update on the war. I can hit their web site and get a rolling body count, interactive maps, military analysis, video feeds (if I'm willing to subscribe), live pictures from Baghdad, and administration talkin gheads justifying their existence. What I can't get is our admission that we will, if we deem it necessary, use chemical weapons against the Iraqis.
This is, of course, the ultimate in hypocrisy. But it proves my point about the shift in American foreign policy under Rove, I mean Bush. Might makes right. That's all there is to it. We couch it in different terms, but when push comes to shove, we support a double standard (there's the rest of the world, then there's us) because we have the strength to do so. Rove/Bush knows that the American military is a 500-pound gorilla, and the only 500-pound gorilla. So we can do what we want. There is no more rule of law, as Scalia admitted last week, when he claimed that he's in favor of curtailing the rights of American citizens during wartime. He was receiving a Free Speech Award in Cleveland, but he barred the broadcast media from attending the event (Is he smart enough to see the irony in this? I'm not sure.). When questioned by members of approved media outlets, he said that Americans enjoy far more rights than are constitutionally guaranteed them, and that he would be willing to cut back to a constitutional minimum for security reasons.
At least there are decent people out there. But who will hear such a scathing condemnation? He'll just be accused of anti-Americanism, which will, of course, be ironic. But American has a tin ear for hearing such things right now.
I can turn on CNN at any time and get a live update on the war. I can hit their web site and get a rolling body count, interactive maps, military analysis, video feeds (if I'm willing to subscribe), live pictures from Baghdad, and administration talkin gheads justifying their existence. What I can't get is our admission that we will, if we deem it necessary, use chemical weapons against the Iraqis.
This is, of course, the ultimate in hypocrisy. But it proves my point about the shift in American foreign policy under Rove, I mean Bush. Might makes right. That's all there is to it. We couch it in different terms, but when push comes to shove, we support a double standard (there's the rest of the world, then there's us) because we have the strength to do so. Rove/Bush knows that the American military is a 500-pound gorilla, and the only 500-pound gorilla. So we can do what we want. There is no more rule of law, as Scalia admitted last week, when he claimed that he's in favor of curtailing the rights of American citizens during wartime. He was receiving a Free Speech Award in Cleveland, but he barred the broadcast media from attending the event (Is he smart enough to see the irony in this? I'm not sure.). When questioned by members of approved media outlets, he said that Americans enjoy far more rights than are constitutionally guaranteed them, and that he would be willing to cut back to a constitutional minimum for security reasons.
At least there are decent people out there. But who will hear such a scathing condemnation? He'll just be accused of anti-Americanism, which will, of course, be ironic. But American has a tin ear for hearing such things right now.
3.20.2003
Hijacking the conversation
There was just some furor at my old school about anti-war and pro-troops protestors clashing. To be fair, I should say it's anti-war versus pro-war protestors, because that's really what it boils down to. What caught my eye was a picture of a girl pointing to her engagement ring, given to her by her affianced man in Kuwait, confronting a group of anti-war protestors. She equated being against this war with being against her husband-to-be. There was also an instance of one anti-anti-war man rushing through the anti-war protestors, ripping up their signs. Of course, the Public Safety office saw no need to control him at all.
Now, how many of you didn't like that move I made up there, to equate pro-troop with pro-war? Yes, it's a bad argumentative strategy, and, if you grant me that premise, I've effectively hijacked the conversation through this switch. This move, however, is exactly what the media and talk radio and other sources have done. It's unpatriotic to be against the necessary collateral damage in such an attack. It's anti-American to support the collective wisdom of the United Nations. It's treason to protest against this illegal action.
Why do we let them get away with it? I think it's because we fall prey to their fallacies. We're bedazzled by their rhetoric, or cowed by their volume, and just give in. We may take the moral high ground in expressing our doubts about the goodness of Hussein, and when we do, we're lost. If we admit to doubt, if we admit to not having all the answers, but knowing that this one can't be the right one, we've lost the argument, and we've lost the media. When I think of what winning this fight would cost me, morally, I don't feel so bad. But when I see these idiots getting face time and espousing idiocy I wish I had fewer qualms about using their tactics against them.
There was just some furor at my old school about anti-war and pro-troops protestors clashing. To be fair, I should say it's anti-war versus pro-war protestors, because that's really what it boils down to. What caught my eye was a picture of a girl pointing to her engagement ring, given to her by her affianced man in Kuwait, confronting a group of anti-war protestors. She equated being against this war with being against her husband-to-be. There was also an instance of one anti-anti-war man rushing through the anti-war protestors, ripping up their signs. Of course, the Public Safety office saw no need to control him at all.
Now, how many of you didn't like that move I made up there, to equate pro-troop with pro-war? Yes, it's a bad argumentative strategy, and, if you grant me that premise, I've effectively hijacked the conversation through this switch. This move, however, is exactly what the media and talk radio and other sources have done. It's unpatriotic to be against the necessary collateral damage in such an attack. It's anti-American to support the collective wisdom of the United Nations. It's treason to protest against this illegal action.
Why do we let them get away with it? I think it's because we fall prey to their fallacies. We're bedazzled by their rhetoric, or cowed by their volume, and just give in. We may take the moral high ground in expressing our doubts about the goodness of Hussein, and when we do, we're lost. If we admit to doubt, if we admit to not having all the answers, but knowing that this one can't be the right one, we've lost the argument, and we've lost the media. When I think of what winning this fight would cost me, morally, I don't feel so bad. But when I see these idiots getting face time and espousing idiocy I wish I had fewer qualms about using their tactics against them.
3.17.2003
The dogs of
Well, we'll probably start the invasion, and eventual military occupation of Iraq sometime very soon. Bush will speak tonight, and I won't listen (I'll be teaching). But the rest of the world will be listening, and watching us do this alone (or maybe with Tony Blair in a cheerleader's uniform). And the fact that we'll do this alone, without those pesky other nations who are united against us, just means that we won't have to make any concessions to power-sharing when the military government we set in place in Baghdad takes over.
When you boil it all down, I really can't believe that killing people, especially to remove one leader, is a viable alternative. Never was, never will be. Too much money and material expended on too focused a target. But it's obvious that this was has other motives behind it. Our eventual attack upon Iran is obvious. Bush's sleight-of-hand about the economy is also obvious. When the Saudis kick us out, will we go after them for possessing WMD, or will we still send them aid, even though they are the most repressive regime in the area? Hey, they're our buddies, right? They can't be bad, because we like them. Just like we liked Pinochet. Just like we liked Strosser.
But the polls keep on saying that Americans support this. For me, this is the ultimate in bread and circuses. It's the biggest circus possible, full of bells ands whistles. Big media will play the Bush game, and show us just what he wants us to see: American technology killing people far away, people whose leader threatens our way of life. So we'll keep the world safe for democracy by killing women and children, by killing even combatants that we have no quarrel with (Bush has claimed that we have no quarrel with the sovreignity of Iraq, only with its leader). So instead of assassination as a tool of statecraft, we offer the destruction of a culture as such a tool.
To question the need for this war is, according to the national tenor, unpatriotic. Isn't that what Reagan claimed when he union-busted PATCO? And isn't that what Jefferson was being when he questioned the crown?
Well, we'll probably start the invasion, and eventual military occupation of Iraq sometime very soon. Bush will speak tonight, and I won't listen (I'll be teaching). But the rest of the world will be listening, and watching us do this alone (or maybe with Tony Blair in a cheerleader's uniform). And the fact that we'll do this alone, without those pesky other nations who are united against us, just means that we won't have to make any concessions to power-sharing when the military government we set in place in Baghdad takes over.
When you boil it all down, I really can't believe that killing people, especially to remove one leader, is a viable alternative. Never was, never will be. Too much money and material expended on too focused a target. But it's obvious that this was has other motives behind it. Our eventual attack upon Iran is obvious. Bush's sleight-of-hand about the economy is also obvious. When the Saudis kick us out, will we go after them for possessing WMD, or will we still send them aid, even though they are the most repressive regime in the area? Hey, they're our buddies, right? They can't be bad, because we like them. Just like we liked Pinochet. Just like we liked Strosser.
But the polls keep on saying that Americans support this. For me, this is the ultimate in bread and circuses. It's the biggest circus possible, full of bells ands whistles. Big media will play the Bush game, and show us just what he wants us to see: American technology killing people far away, people whose leader threatens our way of life. So we'll keep the world safe for democracy by killing women and children, by killing even combatants that we have no quarrel with (Bush has claimed that we have no quarrel with the sovreignity of Iraq, only with its leader). So instead of assassination as a tool of statecraft, we offer the destruction of a culture as such a tool.
To question the need for this war is, according to the national tenor, unpatriotic. Isn't that what Reagan claimed when he union-busted PATCO? And isn't that what Jefferson was being when he questioned the crown?
3.14.2003
Annual evaluations
USCS is in the process of annual evaluations. That's when faculty produce fat reports about what they've been up to for the year. It's a mass of paper for the chair and any committee that reads them all. But is it worth it?
I used to joke that I would spend more time documenting what I did than actually doing anything worth documenting. While that's a stretch, I know that my best-laid plans to keep track of all service, scholarship, and teaching activities usually spun out of control about midway through the first semester, so I spent a frantic week before evals were due every year, trying to reconstruct what I had been doing. I'm sure that I missed a lot of stuff I did, gave others short shrift, and probably left a lot of activities undocumented. Such is life: you're either busy with it, or busy taking notes on it. As an adjunct, I'm spared the report-writing, but I'm also spared any activity worth documenting in detail.
As I expected, I heard tales of excess about what people presented for their annual reviews: copies of emails, thank-you notes, stuff like that. The chair spoke of someone who wheeled in a full four-drawer filing cabinet for his or her tenure application. That's just uncalled for. Have some respect for the Promotion and Tenure Committee members who have to sort through all this stuff, write a report, and then defend their decision at the college and university levels.
But the real problem here is the fact that anyone, and I do mean anyone, can make himself or herself look good on paper. This is especially true of English profs, who teach the ability to argue effectively. Since we know what everything will say, and how every faculty member paints himself or herself as indispensible to the institution, let's just agree that this is our starting point, and move on from there. For annual evaluation, let's offer up a bulleted list, with no explanations, no narrative, no excess wind. If explanations are necessary, they should be done in a meeting with the committee, and it is only there that supporting documentation should be produced. I'm willing to bet that the vast majority of people will get by, and get approved, on the strength of just their bulleted lists. They've saved themselves gobs of time, saved the committee a ton of work, and allowed us all to get on with our core business, educating people.
USCS is in the process of annual evaluations. That's when faculty produce fat reports about what they've been up to for the year. It's a mass of paper for the chair and any committee that reads them all. But is it worth it?
I used to joke that I would spend more time documenting what I did than actually doing anything worth documenting. While that's a stretch, I know that my best-laid plans to keep track of all service, scholarship, and teaching activities usually spun out of control about midway through the first semester, so I spent a frantic week before evals were due every year, trying to reconstruct what I had been doing. I'm sure that I missed a lot of stuff I did, gave others short shrift, and probably left a lot of activities undocumented. Such is life: you're either busy with it, or busy taking notes on it. As an adjunct, I'm spared the report-writing, but I'm also spared any activity worth documenting in detail.
As I expected, I heard tales of excess about what people presented for their annual reviews: copies of emails, thank-you notes, stuff like that. The chair spoke of someone who wheeled in a full four-drawer filing cabinet for his or her tenure application. That's just uncalled for. Have some respect for the Promotion and Tenure Committee members who have to sort through all this stuff, write a report, and then defend their decision at the college and university levels.
But the real problem here is the fact that anyone, and I do mean anyone, can make himself or herself look good on paper. This is especially true of English profs, who teach the ability to argue effectively. Since we know what everything will say, and how every faculty member paints himself or herself as indispensible to the institution, let's just agree that this is our starting point, and move on from there. For annual evaluation, let's offer up a bulleted list, with no explanations, no narrative, no excess wind. If explanations are necessary, they should be done in a meeting with the committee, and it is only there that supporting documentation should be produced. I'm willing to bet that the vast majority of people will get by, and get approved, on the strength of just their bulleted lists. They've saved themselves gobs of time, saved the committee a ton of work, and allowed us all to get on with our core business, educating people.
3.13.2003
Free and good
I admit it; I download mp3s all the time. I have recording music people telling me it's a crime. I have artists telling me I'm stealing money from them. But then I read that the average band, after they've sold 250,000 records, ends up owing its record company over a million dollars. So don't tell me that I'm taking food from anyone's table. I'm not letting a billionaire get any more richer. When they get a decent pricing structure for cds, something without a 1000% markup, then I'll think about buying pop cds again.
But I don't do the same for software. There are some great free programs out there, and I use them. They're usually smaller, with less bloat, and more stable that something from, say, Microsoft.
Many of the programs below are strange because they pack so much value into something that's free. It's something the music industry could learn. Here's an example of what I mean: Two weeks ago I was stopped by a cop in a small town in South Carolina, on my daily commute to and from work. He told me that I was doing 58 in a 40 zone. I know I was speeding, but it wasn't that by that much. He asked me if I traveled this route often, and I told him I was on this road twice a day. He asked me, nicely, to remember the next time to just keep it down, and he let me go. Now, every time I drive through that town, no matter how late I am, I do the speed limit, because this guy was so nice. If he had ticketed me, I'd be pissed every time I drove through there, and would keep on speeding. Now, however, I do 40, and think kindly of being let off by the nice guy who did me a kind turn.
Here's some good stuff:
Notetab Light
This is a great editor for html, or for ripping text from the web and cleaning it up before you put it into a full-featured word processor. It's fast-loading, with a great interface, the ability to open many files at once, and good menus and insert lists. I originally got it as a replacement for the windows notepad, but now I use it for a lot more.
Irfanview
Here's a great free pic viewer, with lots of options. Again, it's fast, small, and reliable. I use it as the system default for viewing pix. I used to use ACDSee, but now they're charging and nagging. None of that from Irfanview.
Gimp
I was a bit intimidated by this one at first. I have grown up with Photoshop as my big pic editor, so switching was odd. Unlike many other products, it doesn't try to look like Photoshop. But it does pretty much the same stuff. The learning curve is steep, and some functions are deep into menus, but anything that does this much takes a while to come to grips with.
Trillian
This all-in-one chat client is pretty hot. It compiles all your chat clients into one interface. I've got MSN, IRC, AIM, Yahoo, and ICQ access. Now I run them all under trillian. Small footprint, clean interface, pretty sweet.
Mozilla and Opera
Two good browsers. Opera is fast, very fast. But you give up some real estate on the screen for a banner ad (not too intrusive; it's in the toolbar). Mozilla is pretty sweet, and totally free. With all the holes in IE, I use these as much as I can.
TinyApps and Freeware Home
These are the places I hit the most often looking for new apps. Tinyapps specializes in just what its name says: small, very small applications, most of them free. Freeware Home runs a nice site, updated every weekday, with vigilance about things like browser hijacking and adware.
I admit it; I download mp3s all the time. I have recording music people telling me it's a crime. I have artists telling me I'm stealing money from them. But then I read that the average band, after they've sold 250,000 records, ends up owing its record company over a million dollars. So don't tell me that I'm taking food from anyone's table. I'm not letting a billionaire get any more richer. When they get a decent pricing structure for cds, something without a 1000% markup, then I'll think about buying pop cds again.
But I don't do the same for software. There are some great free programs out there, and I use them. They're usually smaller, with less bloat, and more stable that something from, say, Microsoft.
Many of the programs below are strange because they pack so much value into something that's free. It's something the music industry could learn. Here's an example of what I mean: Two weeks ago I was stopped by a cop in a small town in South Carolina, on my daily commute to and from work. He told me that I was doing 58 in a 40 zone. I know I was speeding, but it wasn't that by that much. He asked me if I traveled this route often, and I told him I was on this road twice a day. He asked me, nicely, to remember the next time to just keep it down, and he let me go. Now, every time I drive through that town, no matter how late I am, I do the speed limit, because this guy was so nice. If he had ticketed me, I'd be pissed every time I drove through there, and would keep on speeding. Now, however, I do 40, and think kindly of being let off by the nice guy who did me a kind turn.
Here's some good stuff:
Notetab Light
This is a great editor for html, or for ripping text from the web and cleaning it up before you put it into a full-featured word processor. It's fast-loading, with a great interface, the ability to open many files at once, and good menus and insert lists. I originally got it as a replacement for the windows notepad, but now I use it for a lot more.
Irfanview
Here's a great free pic viewer, with lots of options. Again, it's fast, small, and reliable. I use it as the system default for viewing pix. I used to use ACDSee, but now they're charging and nagging. None of that from Irfanview.
Gimp
I was a bit intimidated by this one at first. I have grown up with Photoshop as my big pic editor, so switching was odd. Unlike many other products, it doesn't try to look like Photoshop. But it does pretty much the same stuff. The learning curve is steep, and some functions are deep into menus, but anything that does this much takes a while to come to grips with.
Trillian
This all-in-one chat client is pretty hot. It compiles all your chat clients into one interface. I've got MSN, IRC, AIM, Yahoo, and ICQ access. Now I run them all under trillian. Small footprint, clean interface, pretty sweet.
Mozilla and Opera
Two good browsers. Opera is fast, very fast. But you give up some real estate on the screen for a banner ad (not too intrusive; it's in the toolbar). Mozilla is pretty sweet, and totally free. With all the holes in IE, I use these as much as I can.
TinyApps and Freeware Home
These are the places I hit the most often looking for new apps. Tinyapps specializes in just what its name says: small, very small applications, most of them free. Freeware Home runs a nice site, updated every weekday, with vigilance about things like browser hijacking and adware.
3.12.2003
The war frenzy
Is war a foregone conclusion? It certainly seems so, given the rhetoric I'm hearing not just from Washington, but from many media outlets. I guess I expect such sabre-rattling from W, as a way to keep our attention focused on anything but the absolute mess he's made of the economy, or the fact that our trade deficit, and the federal deficit, will grow ever-larger under his regime. But I don't expect it from radio personalities or talking heads on TV. And in the end, I think they're the ones who do the most harm, by waving this red flag under the public's noses.
How much does Washington affect my day-to-day life? In all honesty, not much. I mean, gas prices are higher, I can't get gainful full-time employment, and my retirement is worth less than a third of what it was worth three years ago. But all those things would probably have happened no matter whose finger was on the button. Dems, GOPs, it really makes little difference. And I think the same is true for most U.S. citizens. But I had to listen today to some open letter that Charlie Daniels sent to the "Hollywood people," read by some radio personality who wouldn't know an original thought if it actually strcuk one of the three brain cells he had in his head. And then he opens up the phone lines, so everyone can call in and jump on his pro-war bandwagon. All because Charlie Daniels, that intellectual giant, that man who has done more research than all other washed-up celebrities, wrote a whiney letter to cop some fame. Of course, he knows the score. Hussein is bad because he says so, because our leaders say so. And therefore we must go over there and get him. The leap of logic that gets from the first sentence back there to the next one just blows my mind.
By that same token, Sharon is bad, because our leaders say so. But we don't go get him. In fact, no one mentions him at all. We just keep on sliding him $3,000,000,000 (that's three billion dollars) a year, and cluck unapprovingly when the next batch of kids are killed. And Fidel Castro must be bad, because our leaders say so. But we don't get him. In fact, we lease land from him, and use his island as a convenient place, off our soil and away from our press, to conduct covert "interrogations" of people we don't like. We call it Guantanamo Bay. And hell, half the dictators in South and Central America must be bad, because our leaders say so. They say they don't like torture, but they use it. They say they don't like drugs, but they prop up regimes that support the drug trade. In short, we want to get Hussein because we can. Because our troops will soon be kicked out of Saudi Arabia. (Yeah, we look the other way at the way women are treated there, at the way political dissidents are tortured there, at the way the Faisal family has systematically plundered that country and its people for lo these many years. Why? Because we like them. We can put troops there, and fly through their air space, and give them aid.) And when they're kicked out of SA, they'll need some place to go, some place that's conveniently next to Iran, our next target.
Soon, after this exercise that will leave thousands dead, that will kill babies and non-combatants, that will be uncovered by the media, so fearful are they that they'll lose sources in the government, that will foment many atrocities and war crimes, after all this, we'll just up and transfer our rhetoric against Iraq to Iran. Iran harbors terrorists. They're building weapons of mass destruction. They kill their own people. And worse of all, they just don't like us.
Yes, I'll be expecting another letter from Charlie Daniels then, after he puts his teeth back in and slurps down another brew. It will be read again, by some chimp with a flair for showing his ass in public, doing what is necessary for ratings, and thought be damned. And it will affect the quality of my life far more than W has, because he'll ruin another morning drive, piss me off with his idiocy and inflamatory, knee-jerk speechifying, and make me realize it's not the smartest people we listen to, just the loudest.
Is war a foregone conclusion? It certainly seems so, given the rhetoric I'm hearing not just from Washington, but from many media outlets. I guess I expect such sabre-rattling from W, as a way to keep our attention focused on anything but the absolute mess he's made of the economy, or the fact that our trade deficit, and the federal deficit, will grow ever-larger under his regime. But I don't expect it from radio personalities or talking heads on TV. And in the end, I think they're the ones who do the most harm, by waving this red flag under the public's noses.
How much does Washington affect my day-to-day life? In all honesty, not much. I mean, gas prices are higher, I can't get gainful full-time employment, and my retirement is worth less than a third of what it was worth three years ago. But all those things would probably have happened no matter whose finger was on the button. Dems, GOPs, it really makes little difference. And I think the same is true for most U.S. citizens. But I had to listen today to some open letter that Charlie Daniels sent to the "Hollywood people," read by some radio personality who wouldn't know an original thought if it actually strcuk one of the three brain cells he had in his head. And then he opens up the phone lines, so everyone can call in and jump on his pro-war bandwagon. All because Charlie Daniels, that intellectual giant, that man who has done more research than all other washed-up celebrities, wrote a whiney letter to cop some fame. Of course, he knows the score. Hussein is bad because he says so, because our leaders say so. And therefore we must go over there and get him. The leap of logic that gets from the first sentence back there to the next one just blows my mind.
By that same token, Sharon is bad, because our leaders say so. But we don't go get him. In fact, no one mentions him at all. We just keep on sliding him $3,000,000,000 (that's three billion dollars) a year, and cluck unapprovingly when the next batch of kids are killed. And Fidel Castro must be bad, because our leaders say so. But we don't get him. In fact, we lease land from him, and use his island as a convenient place, off our soil and away from our press, to conduct covert "interrogations" of people we don't like. We call it Guantanamo Bay. And hell, half the dictators in South and Central America must be bad, because our leaders say so. They say they don't like torture, but they use it. They say they don't like drugs, but they prop up regimes that support the drug trade. In short, we want to get Hussein because we can. Because our troops will soon be kicked out of Saudi Arabia. (Yeah, we look the other way at the way women are treated there, at the way political dissidents are tortured there, at the way the Faisal family has systematically plundered that country and its people for lo these many years. Why? Because we like them. We can put troops there, and fly through their air space, and give them aid.) And when they're kicked out of SA, they'll need some place to go, some place that's conveniently next to Iran, our next target.
Soon, after this exercise that will leave thousands dead, that will kill babies and non-combatants, that will be uncovered by the media, so fearful are they that they'll lose sources in the government, that will foment many atrocities and war crimes, after all this, we'll just up and transfer our rhetoric against Iraq to Iran. Iran harbors terrorists. They're building weapons of mass destruction. They kill their own people. And worse of all, they just don't like us.
Yes, I'll be expecting another letter from Charlie Daniels then, after he puts his teeth back in and slurps down another brew. It will be read again, by some chimp with a flair for showing his ass in public, doing what is necessary for ratings, and thought be damned. And it will affect the quality of my life far more than W has, because he'll ruin another morning drive, piss me off with his idiocy and inflamatory, knee-jerk speechifying, and make me realize it's not the smartest people we listen to, just the loudest.
3.11.2003
Boys will be
If everyone in college athletics cheats, does that make it right? When America's self-proclaimed ethicist at the New York Times says it's OK to steal an umbrella if someone has stolen yours, then I guess it's OK to cheat if everyone is doing it.
Jerry Tarkanian, looking like he had a tooth pulled by an 18th-century dentist, appeared on SportsCenter last week to defend himself and Fresno State. He pleaded ignorance. Fresno State should get the death penalty just for hiring him, as should the next school to hire Harrick, soon to be late of Georgia. Punish the alumni who insist on winning at the cost of a school's integrity.
That's why I like what St. Bonaventure has done, starting at the top and cleaning house. Coaches get away with what they can, because they can get over on Athletic Directors. And ADs let it happen because they are, overtly or implicitly, allowed to by the administration of the school. So ditch the president, who was asleep at the wheel if not deliberately cheating. And this one had the gall to say that fudging this poor kid's transcript was "the Franciscan thing to do." Some real Franny should clock him with a sandal. The school made a good move, and I hope they save the AD, who protested this whole welding certificate thing, but was overruled by the OFM-impaired president.
What does it say about college sports when Bob Knight, Hitler in a sweater, makes the classiest move of the week by refusing his salary for this year? What a sad state for the game.
If everyone in college athletics cheats, does that make it right? When America's self-proclaimed ethicist at the New York Times says it's OK to steal an umbrella if someone has stolen yours, then I guess it's OK to cheat if everyone is doing it.
Jerry Tarkanian, looking like he had a tooth pulled by an 18th-century dentist, appeared on SportsCenter last week to defend himself and Fresno State. He pleaded ignorance. Fresno State should get the death penalty just for hiring him, as should the next school to hire Harrick, soon to be late of Georgia. Punish the alumni who insist on winning at the cost of a school's integrity.
That's why I like what St. Bonaventure has done, starting at the top and cleaning house. Coaches get away with what they can, because they can get over on Athletic Directors. And ADs let it happen because they are, overtly or implicitly, allowed to by the administration of the school. So ditch the president, who was asleep at the wheel if not deliberately cheating. And this one had the gall to say that fudging this poor kid's transcript was "the Franciscan thing to do." Some real Franny should clock him with a sandal. The school made a good move, and I hope they save the AD, who protested this whole welding certificate thing, but was overruled by the OFM-impaired president.
What does it say about college sports when Bob Knight, Hitler in a sweater, makes the classiest move of the week by refusing his salary for this year? What a sad state for the game.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
