Unqualified Offerings

By Thoreau

I went to a seminar today.  The speaker was sponsored by a program that, well, I won’t identify the program except to say that it has zilch to do with students (except to the extent that everything at a university should ultimately have benefits for students, even if only indirectly).  Everybody in attendance had to fill out a short survey on the seminar.  That’s fine.  However, I noticed that one of the questions for students in attendance was “After attending this seminar, are you more likely to want to go to grad school?”

I know a bit about this program, I know that sending students to grad school is not one of the stated goals.  I know the purpose of the seminar series, and I know that the seminar series was approved for reasons that have nothing to do with sending students to grad school.  Nonetheless, the people organizing this clearly believe (perhaps quite accurately) that the people funding them will be happy if, in addition to fulfilling whatever goals the program has, as a bit of icing on the cake they motivate a few students to go to grad school.

Why?  Seriously.  Why?  Is the pyramid scheme not already well-supplied?

Meanwhile, I see this interesting article (subscription only, alas) arguing that we don’t have much of a shortage of new math and science teachers, but rather a failure to retain teachers.  I don’t know enough to say whether the article is accurate or not.  (I will note that even if it’s true we might nonetheless have a shortage of people with proper qualifications in specific areas, and there may be shortages of quality even if quantity is abundant.)  I do know that some of the “We need to produce more teachers!” rhetoric comes from some of the same places that the “We need to send more Americans to grad school!” rhetoric comes from.  So, I would be less than shocked if the rhetoric about science teachers is, overall, hyped.  But I should also be prepared for the possibility that the people who annoy me on one issue are right on another issue, and not let kulturkampf dictate whom I will believe.  Still, it’s interesting, and I intend to follow it.

By Thoreau

If you don’t want to review a paper, it really isn’t that hard to open the email from the journal, click on the “No thank you” link, and be on your way.  Letting the clock run out just means that it takes more time to line up reviewers and come to a decision on the manuscript.  Some of us are on tenure clocks, and would appreciate if this thing gets reviewed before the next magnetic field reversal.

By Thoreau

What better place than here?  What better time than now?

The Yes on 19 campaign has an ad that they’ll start running on TV this Wednesday.  They want to keep it on the air through Monday.  Help them out.

By Thoreau

Usually, if somebody is working on a plan that will eventually involve or affect you in some substantial way, it’s best to have a conversation with that person early in the process.  If the person is open to suggestions, by giving input early you can shape the plan in a way that’s mutually beneficial.  If the person is not open to suggestions, but is at least stubborn enough or hard-working enough to get the plan done in some form that might actually take effect (for good or for ill), you should at least know ahead of time what’s coming at you.

However, if the person is a joker who will deliver a half-finished and unusable plan, it is better to wait until the person delivers something.  Even if the plan is for an important task, if you can’t take the task away from the person it’s better to leave it alone.  Once you get the plan or proposal, you can cover it in red ink and make very specific requests for revisions, and thus take some sort of control over the process.  If you have a meeting prior to that, no matter how specific and insistent you are with your recommendations, a joker will simply give worthless assurances and evade direct questions.

All of which is my way of saying that even though I see the trainwreck coming, I have no plans to schedule a committee meeting on it until the joker has delivered the wreck.

By Thoreau

Over the weekend, we discussed how the rank-and-file supporters of legalization do mostly lean left (although some of my more nanny-style lefty friends and “I don’t smoke it so taxing it won’t affect me!” righty friends run counter to both sides of that stereotype) Democratic politicians are mostly against legalization (at least in public) for obvious reasons of kulturkampf.  (And probably also the fact that politicians of any stripe like things that involve power.)  I just realized this morning that when I read about legalization, any time I see mention of a pro-legalization think-tanker it’s always, always, ALWAYS a Cato person.  Admittedly, I don’t read every single piece of literature on legalization or every single article on Prop. 19, but I do read non-libertarian stuff on legalization, and even the lefty stuff on legalization seems to quote Cato.  Even Greenwald, when talking about Portugal’s experiment, gave a talk at Cato.

Now, Cato is obviously a well-known institution that has spent a lot of time writing about legalization, so there’s one reason for them to get lots of attention on this.  And I do realize that right-leaning and libertarian-leaning think tanks outnumber lefty think tanks (less so than in the past, admittedly), so statistically any time you see a think tank quoted the odds are that it’s not a lefty think tank.  Finally, I admit that I have not personally checked every position paper ever put out by a lefty think tank, so maybe there’s a whole bunch of legalization sentiment that I’m just missing out on.  But, whatever the reason, and however much individuals in lefty think tanks might have pro-legalization views, it’s Cato that gets all the attention.

Am I just missing out on stuff?  Or is it the case that just as Democratic politicians who want to be seen as “Serious” avoid legalization talk (never mind that they and their Republican counterparts probably all inhaled in college) the lefty think tankers also avoid legalization talk to be seen as “Serious”?  Or is it an amalgam of these:  There are indeed lefty position papers in favor of legalization, but the media quotes Cato because they are seen as more respectable on legalization than those dirty hippies in the lefty think tanks?

Steelers won today and I’m glad, even though I haven’t watched a football game this season yet. But Tim Graham at ESPN is blogging nonsense:

But Steratore’s ruling [on a fumble-possession replay challenge] wasn’t the reason [Miami lost].

“It was a big play in the game, but it shouldn’t have come down to that play,” Dolphins head coach Tony Sparano said. “We had plenty of opportunities to win, but we didn’t.”

Not awarding Miami the fumble recovery is a convenient way to overlook a few issues that allowed the game to be decided by one bad break:

• Poor red zone offense.
• Poor two-minute offense.
• Poor third-down defense.

The Dolphins failed to score touchdowns despite starting their first possessions at the Steelers’ 22- and 13-yard lines within the first 1:58 of the game.

If you’re a coach, you have to at least pretend to believe crap like this, and you probably do. Supposed analysts not only don’t have to, they have a duty not to.

Final score was 23-22 Pittsburgh. Logically, that suggests that if Miami’s performance was horribly flawed, Pittsburgh’s performance must have been too, or else how would Miami have gotten so close to winning? And indeed, it turns out the Steelers:

• couldn’t run
• had their QB fumble three times
• allowed Miami to go up 23-20 after Pittsburgh lead 17-9 early in the game

In other words, had the ref decision on the fumble gone against Pittsburgh, there would be plenty of causal explanations for why Miami deserved to win, despite the controversial call.

Broadly, the league has spent decades assiduously pursuing parity. When most games are between teams only narrowly separated, if at all, in ability, chance is going to dominate outcomes. Bad calls; lucky spots; injuries; flukes. I’d be very interested to see some sophisticated statistician tackle the question of just how much of an NFL season can be explained by random chance. Whoever does the study can’t be a coach or sports journalist, though.

By Thoreau

My nephew’s school can’t call their party at the end of October a Halloween party.  They call it a literature party (since most Halloween…um, I mean, end of October harvest festival celebration) costumes are based on characters in stories.  Why do they have to do this?  Because Halloween is apparently a religious holiday.

Look, I am well aware that many religions and cultures have had religious celebrations around the end of the harvest.  I am aware that Halloween in particular has roots in various religious traditions, and that the Catholic Church celebrates All Saints Day on Nov. 1.  Nonetheless, present context matters as much as historical context in determining whether a practice is religious.  Whatever Halloween may have once been, whatever it may still be to some small group, the present practice of costumes, pumpkins, and candy is hardly religious.

I’m an ACLU member and everything, but I take religion seriously enough to believe that the thoughts and intent of the practicioner matter as much as the history in determining whether an act is religious.  If you carve the pumpkin while thanking God (or Goddess) for the harvest, yeah, you’re engaging in some sort of religious act.  If you carve a pumpkin because it looks nice and the kids enjoy candy and costumes, that isn’t religion.  By way of analogy, I’ll support the ACLU in opposing the City Hall Nativity Scene, or the City Hall Christmas Tree with religious ornaments, but if they sue over a tree that has lights but no religious decorations, and ignore the fact that some kids (and adults) are having fun, I’m going to be all “Dude, have you been visited by 3 ghosts lately?”

What I’m curious about is who actually complained to the school and forced them to change the name of the party.  This is California, so it could be that some Wiccan felt that hir celebration was being profaned.  But the school is in suburban San Diego, so it could be that some Christian was upset that children were celebrating something with Wiccan roots. Either way, it’s worth noting that the person who complained succeeded only in changing the name of the party, but not in stopping the party.  So that’s something.

Final thought:  Since this is California, somebody should make some mischief and insist that they be allowed to have a Dia De Los Muertos celebration in the name of multiculturalism.  It will be just as much fun and at least as scary.

I have to go take a shower now, because I feel like those Fox News viewers who get upset when they hear “Happy Holidays.”

By Thoreau

I keep hearing that regardless of whether Prop. 19 passes, it will generate excitement and turn out among voters who will support the Democrats. Now, I grant that there are many good reasons why individuals who support Prop. 19 might also support Democrats, but if legalization is really the main issue that’s getting you to the polls, why should the Democratic Party assume that you’ll back them? What have most of the candidates on the ballot in CA (from either party) done for you on that issue? Most of them are openly opposed to 19. I’ll grant that single-issue legalization voters are unlikely to go Republican in large numbers, but I also don’t see any reason why they should be particularly motivated to pull the lever for a Democrat rather than a Green or Libertarian or no candidate at all.

Also, to the extent that you find any figures meriting the “establishment” descriptor in the legalization movement, there are at least as many conservatives and Republicans in that category as there are liberals and Democrats. Yes, these conservatives and Republicans tend to be genuine* libertarian types and/or fiscal conservatives** who get very little love*** in the GOP and conservative movement, but it’s not like the Democratic Party (as an institution) has worked hard to woo pro-legalization voters.

So, I guess what I’m saying is that while Prop. 19 might energize some young voters, if the Democratic Party (as an institution) wants to view the legalization movement as a reliable source of votes, they should probably do something to make us view them as a reliable ally on an issue at the intersection of taxes, economics, criminal justice, public health, race, civil liberties, and foreign policy.

*By “genuine libertarian” I mean “Somebody who realized that the government was big and intrusive in 2001-2008.”

**By “fiscal conservatives” I mean “Somebody who realizes that a trillion dollar war is still government spending.”

***By “love” I mean “Meaningful support on non-symbolic issues when in power, not just rhetoric when out of power.”

It means picking against two people it’s never smart money to go against – Bruce Baugh and Patrick Nielsen Hayden – but in this case you can avoid both misunderstanding and the final serial comma by rewriting the sentence as

Among those interviewed were Kris Kristofferson, Robert Duvall and his two ex-wives.

That said, the strongest argument I know for the serial comma is that in a grammar where the serial comma is an option, the line

The woods are lovely, dark, and deep . . .

is allowed to exist. And it needs to be able to exist so that we know that in the real line

The woods are lovely, dark and deep . . .

is not saying that the woods are 1) lovely, 2) dark, 3) deep. Rather the woods are one thing: lovely. And they are lovely because they are both dark and deep. And that, as it were, makes all the difference.

At Boing-Boing, Rob Beschizza gives us the New York Times Torture Euphemism Generator web app.

It turns out the NYT has a reputation for studiously avoiding the word, to the point of using bizarre bureaucratic alternatives.

It must be awfully hard work inventing these things. So I thought I’d help out . . .

As with all random apps, some results are better than others, but I am fond of

Logs Show Enriched Phenomenological Ultimata

Toll of War Includes Enriched Coaxing Inquests

Prisoners Experienced Improved Research Assessments

among others already. Only a couple repeats in a couple dozen tries.