Suffering Fools

Yesterday, as I was leaving the pharmacy, I walked behind an SUV that had just pulled in with a McCain-Palin sticker emblazoned on the back. As I passed behind it a woman launched herself from the passenger seat followed shortly by a man on the driver's side who tumbled from the car shouting — shouting! — "Women just shouldn't be allowed to drive!"

I was sorely tempted to stop him and inquire as to what logic led him to believe that the female human animal is incapable of operating a motor vehicle but is nonetheless fully qualified to occupy the Vice Presidency. However, he was far too busy chasing after his wife (who was unsurprisingly storming away from him with the force of a Cat-5) for me to engage in what would undoubtedly have been a most enlightening exchange.

And for the record? Women get cheaper auto insurance rates than men do because women get in fewer accidents. Not that I'd want to confuse Mr. Shirt-Tucked-Into-My-High-Waisted-Acid-Wash-Jeans with pesky facts.

If Only She'd Had My Vote to Lose

The City of Wasilla, home of Republican Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin, has responded to "a flurry" of requests and begun today to release public files to the media. Anyone with access to the internet can access the documents through the City of Wasilla's website here.

One item of interest to me is the city's response to requests regarding Palin's book-banning attempts. According to The New York Times, Palin attempted to have Wasilla's librarian fired for "disloyalty" (apparently a big Palin peeve) after she resisted the then-mayor's suggestions that book-banning ought to be considered. The firing attempt was blocked by public outcry.

According to the city's records, no books were actually banned as a result. Good. Nonetheless, this raises some serious questions about Sarah Palin's commitment to democratic (small d) ideals.

For now, there's plenty to dig through. Kuddos to Wasilla for releasing these documents to the public. Assuming they weren't thoroughly scrubbed.

Lieonomics

Every time I get into an argument about guns with a gun rights advocate, I hear about this study that purports to prove that cities with laws permitting concealed weapons have lower crime rates. This is an assertion I've heard from several people on several occasions, and the study they describe is always the same. I've never been able to find any research corroborating the assertion, and I've looked more than once.

Turns out there's a reason for that. It was likely bogus. The article, entitled "More Guns, Less Crime", was penned by conservative economist John R. Lott — a fellow who has asserted that abortions are good for crime rates, and apparently has a habit of creating internet sock puppets to comment positively on his work online.

His book is, of course, titled Freedomnomics. Sigh.

The Inconveniences Attending Too Much Liberty

In 1783 William Pitt (the Prime Minister whose actions began the slow dismantling of the hideous British East India Company) stood on the floor of the House of Commons and argued the following:

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants. It is the creed of slaves."

Strong words from the man who would soon become the Prime Minister of Britain — a nation which had only recently lost one of its most profitable tentacles in a revolution spurred by accusations that Britain was indeed in the habit of making "the argument of tyrants" to attain its goals.

Today we celebrate that very event, blowing things to bits in the sky to honor our determination to be a nation of free men (yes, then, men) rather than the worker bees of a corrupt king. Reason and the public good were to be our guiding principles — not necessity. Human freedom was to be held sacrosanct, and its infringement was to be guarded against by the vigilance of a robust populace.

And so to me Independence Day is very much worth honoring, less with hot dogs and streamers than with reflection upon the radical language that led to the formation of our nation.

On July 4, 1776 Thomas Jefferson and 56 other men laid a series of charges at the feet of declared tyrant King George III, making the case that he was no longer fit to govern them. Two of the charges were these:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

King George, of course, disagreed.

History repeats itself, and we have had other King Georges, and other attempts to impinge upon self-evident human freedoms, and other rationales for why necessity trumps the right of humans to be free (or at least the right to argue one's case for freedom before a jury of one's peers).

Bush: Dangerous Gitmo Detainees Could Walk US Streets After Supreme Court Ruling

William Pitt: "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants. It is the creed of slaves."

We've forgotten our roots. We have. Look:



One of our closest data twins is Iran. Iran. We, the descendants of men who would rather die standing than live on their knees, are now the ideological brothers of those whom we accuse of Islamo-fascism when it comes to humanity's most basic of civil liberties — the right not to be tortured.

Pass the celebratory hot dogs!

When someone tells us that giving prisoners the right to a trial means that they'll inevitably strangle us in our beds, we believe them. In a pique of textbook fear-mongering, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino disingenuously frets, "The judge might say to the United States, 'You don't have enough evidence to hold this person.' And then what do we do? ... Is he allowed to leave?" (The implication clearly being "Because if he does, he'll garrote your sons and deflower your daughters.") And we sagely nod along.

Am I missing something here? If a judge might reasonably say "You don't have enough evidence to hold this person," then why are we holding this person? If we know that someone is a terrorist, why not try him or her as such, attain a conviction, and carry on? How can we possibly deny the right of prisoners to a fair trial in one breath and celebrate the Declaration of Independence in the next?

You know, this Declaration of Independence:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

Like it our not, we live in a nation whose greatest linguistic architect was prone to saying things like this: "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."

Hear, hear.

I'm not against fire works and hot dogs. (Well, actually, I am against hot dogs, but that's a separate issue.) I just think we ought to know why we're eating them. (The hot dogs, not the fire works.)

Happy Independence Day, readers. I wish you happy meditations upon self-evident truths.

While I Wasn't Blogging: More News You Might Have Missed

This just* in: Scanners that see through clothing installed in US airports.

Really, beyond the headline, do you need anything else?

Okay, in case you do, have a quote: "While it allows the security screeners — looking at the images in a separate room — to clearly see the passenger's sexual organs as well as other details of their bodies, the passenger's face is blurred, TSA said in a statement on its website."

I'm sure none of those videos will ever pop up on YouTube.

*By "just" I of course mean 19 days ago, but you know.

While I Wasn't Blogging: Phoenix is for Crackheads

Thanks to Tom Waits, I have fully relinquished all anger about paying $4.50 a gallon for gas. Why, you ask? Because I realized it's not overpriced oil I'm paying for — it's the privilege of not having to spend my travel time standing (standing!) next to a whiskeylicious homeless man freestyling on his harmonica and dishing out parenting advice to a women three rows up who (mercifully) doesn't speak any English anyway.

And all of that was after he gravely informed me that a good wife listens to her husband.

Matters hardly improved once we escaped that stalwart bastion of egalitarian eco-friendly transportation, the city bus. After walking three quarters of a mile in 112 degree heat to get to a Circle K, we arrived just in time to see a pock-faced transient tweeker get into a fist-fight with the Circle K cashier over a four-pack of tall cans.

We theorized that maybe Tom Waits intentionally planned his tour to hit as many economically depressed towns as possible in order to boost their economies, in which case more power to him. But may I suggest an Oregonian logging town next time?

While I Wasn't Blogging: Essays and Eses

I'm going to spend the next few days trying to get back into the swing of things after having abandoned my blog to go frolicking in Fort Collins and Phoenix (the latter of which is actually a fairly non-frolic-friendly locale during the month of June, can I just say).

Today's "While I Was Living My Life Somewhere Other than in My Armchair" entry will focus on some of the folks I met while scoring AP World History essays for the College Board. No, not the charming Texan gentleman I sat next to on the shuttle or the lovely Alabaman professor with three sons and two dogs or the fellow Californian vegetarian. That would be far too upbeat. Rather, I'd like to share with you my fond remembrances of the guy who made me want to shove my empty wine glass down his throat in hopes that it would dislodge the silver spoon that was undoubtedly planted firmly in his gullet.

Some of you may be familiar with the Absolut Vodka ad that sent Loofah O'Reilly and his ilk into a tizzy:



How unamerican! How incendiary! How... historically accurate!

I was in the midst of deciding exactly how much tequila one ought to consume before having to get up at six in the morning when lo and behold, one of my AP-reading happy hour companions — who ought to by his very station as a history teacher know better — began a most craptastic instructive monologue regarding how all of this "hubbub" about how the southwest used to be part of Mexico is "crap" because (and I'm not making this up) "they weren't using it anyway."

Indeed! The crux of his argument was that hardly any Mexicans lived in what was at that time northern Mexico — part of an undisputed sovereign nation — and so they had no business getting upset when the United States began annexing it in bits and ill-used pieces.

Fascinating argument, really. Just one problem.



I fully expect this gentlemen to chortle in amusement and take another sip from his deeply dirty martini when Russia annexes the northern half of Canada since, you know, they're not using it anyway.

Furthermore, I find it interesting that someone as undoubtedly devoted to the capitalist ideology as this fellow must be defines ownership solely on the basis of usage. Perhaps he'd endorse a sliding scale for theft-related prison sentences based on the extent to which the original "owner" actually utilized the possession. You know, seven years if you steal his liver, seven months if you steal his brain.

We can call it the the "I'm Taking Your Ball and I'm Going Home Act."

Humanity I Love You

A group of "electro-sensitive" people are taking action against Santa Fe to have WiFi banned in public buildings on the grounds that they are "allergic" to wireless signals. Their argument is that the WiFi banning should be included under Americans with Disabilities Act regulations. One of the plaintiffs asserts that cell and WiFi signals give him chest pains. (I'd see a doctor about that, but I guess the City Attorney works too.)

I'm actually very excited about this bold new legal initiative; I believe this lawsuit will pave the way for the action I plan to bring against the City of San Diego arguing that stupid people should be banned from public buildings on that grounds that I am allergic to them.

Lieberman Meets the Intertubes

The inevitable day has finally come — someone told Joe Lieberman (world-renowned DINO) about the Internet, and more specifically, YouTube. Lieberman, apparently, skipped right past the porn and pandas and moved directly into searching for some combination of "people" and "who" and "hate" and "Jews." But I mean, who hasn't done that search, right?**

Lieberman sent a letter to YouTube demanding the removal of a plethora of content he deemed offensive (clearly a better use of my tax dollars than, say, figuring out a way to get out of Iraq). YouTube's response , excerpted below, is pretty awesome:

Senator Lieberman's staff identified numerous videos that they believed violated YouTube's Community Guidelines. In response to his concerns, we examined and ended up removing a number of videos from the site, primarily because they depicted gratuitous violence, advocated violence, or used hate speech. Most of the videos, which did not contain violent or hate speech content, were not removed because they do not violate our Community Guidelines.

Senator Lieberman stated his belief, in a letter sent today, that all videos mentioning or featuring these groups should be removed from YouTube -- even legal nonviolent or non-hate speech videos. While we respect and understand his views, YouTube encourages free speech and defends everyone's right to express unpopular points of view. We believe that YouTube is a richer and more relevant platform for users precisely because it hosts a diverse range of views, and rather than stifle debate we allow our users to view all acceptable content and make up their own minds. Of course, users are always free to express their disagreement with a particular video on the site, by leaving comments or their own response video. That debate is healthy.

Intertubes 1, Lieberman -8 bajillion. (In all fairness, the guy was already in a pretty deep hole.)

**Disclaimer: I haven't.

Racists: Obsolete

In an interesting political discussion with my family last night, my parents hypothesized that should Barack Obama become the Democratic nominee he would lose to John McCain because a large swath of Americans are still unwilling to vote for a black man as president. They may be right, but the thing is, a large swath of Americans don't have to.

There's an excellent analysis of why that is here (and it really is worth the read), but if you're in a hurry, what it boils down to is this: more people in more states have voted for Obama than any other candidate running and more than all of the Republican candidates combined. Furthermore Democratic turnout has trounced Republican turnout in every single contest so far, and based on mathematical regression models (same link — go read it!), this trend seems likely to repeat itself in the general election. Worthy of note is the fact that Democratic turnout was universally larger even when the Republican contest was more contentious than the Democratic contest (oh, the halcyon days of January). So sure, Kentucky won't elect Obama... but Colorado very likely will, and that's a state that John Kerry lost.

In short, Obama's November success isn't predicated on a moratorium on racism; it's predicated on attaining 270 electoral votes. Even conservative pollster Rasmussen has spent the last several months quietly reflecting the steep uphill electoral battle that McCain will face once the Democrats stop chewing on each other and start chewing on him.

And on a side note, I'd like to take a moment to personally thank George Stephanopolous for the fact that this scintillatingly newsworthy headline came across my Google feed reader this morning: Obama Wears Flag Pin to West Virginia Rally.

What, Me Worry?

A new study in the June issue of the journal Psychological Science reveals that conservatives are happier than liberals. I've read research to this effect before and it's never surprised me. I figure what puts the "conserve" in "conservative" is a desire to maintain the status quo. People who hold positions that are protective of the way are things tend to, well, like the way things are, and are hence happier living in that "way things are" world.

But this study contains an additional finding regarding why this happy-disparity may exist: "Conservatives also scored highest on measures of rationalization, which gauge a person's tendency to justify, or explain away, inequalities." This was measured by the extent to which respondents agreed with statements such as, "It is not really that big a problem if some people have more of a chance in life than others," and "This country would be better off if we worried less about how equal people are." From these responses the researchers extrapolate, "Our research suggests that inequality takes a greater psychological toll on liberals than on conservatives, apparently because liberals lack ideological rationalizations that would help them frame inequality in a positive (or at least neutral) light."

So there you have it. Proof conclusive that liberals are the cardigan-wearing emo kids of the ideological spectrum, and Bill O'Reilly actually does have an internal mechanism that allows him to shrug his shoulders at the fact that homelessness among veterans is surging... because at least they're not getting shot at?

Oh, and yes, Bill Clinton really does feel your pain.

Blur Had the Right of It

I somehow found myself sucked into a looking glass conversation about gender-separated public education. Here's what I had to say:

I teach in an urban high school in Southern California. In my classes of 40 or more human beings, I have teens who are Latino, white, black, Asian, English learners, recently declassified English learners, students with learning disabilities, students from military families, students from single parent households, Catholic students, Jewish students, secular humanist students, gay students, straight students, students with physical disabilities, and yes, students who are male and female.

The notion that simply separating males and females would remove the need for me, as a teacher, to employ every education technique (sensory, social, or otherwise) in my extensive arsenal is patently absurd. Nor would such a separation create an environment wherein students' most fundamental needs are being met; I find that the education needs of many of my students are far less defined by their gender than by any number of other factors comprising their unique situations and identities.

There are any number of ways we could divvy those students up "for their own good." But as I teach them world history, I think it's ever so valuable to have all of their wonderful voices and perspectives in our conversations — and make no mistake, a good teacher makes sure all of those voices are included. Period.

In earning my MAE, my coursework included extensive study of neurology as it pertains to adolescent learning, and I am more than familiar with the bio-essentialist arguments. They have many grandfathers, all equally well-intentioned, and all equally specious. I fundamentally object to the notion of pedagogical biodeterminism based on "the latest research" (which is always inevitably revised by even latest-er research). I do not object to the usefulness of science in honing education; I do object to rendering it as the only criterion.

Being a teacher means teaching every mind in the room, regardless of which of the myriad subgroups of humans each student happens to fall into. It is a noble task which can — and ought — to be done.

Retrieved a Nothing

In what I consider to be an unqualified success of a day, I spent the afternoon consuming, cover-to-cover, a full four of the 25 heretofore unread magazines decorating my coffee table. I read one each of Harper's, The Nation, NEA Today and California Educator.

Of the many excellent paragraphs I read today, the most fabulous by far was located in the "Findings" section of Harper's:

"A sex hormone was found in the drinking water of San Francisco, and anti-anxiety medications were found in the drinking water of Southern California. Prozac was revealed not to work, researchers demonstrated that placebos are more effective if the drugs for which they stand in are said to be more expensive, and a Scottish study determined that roughly half of a person's happiness is due to genetics. Physicists stored and retrieved a nothing."

Death by Domesticity

Today's favorite headline: "Men Create More Housework for Women". According to the article, married women today spend an average of seven more hours per week on housework than single women. Conversely, married men spend an average of one hour less per week on housework than their single counterparts (although apparently they do more housework than they did in 1976 — hurrah).

As I sit here typing this, I am looking at not one but two empty glasses and a half-consumed can of Coke left scattered on the coffee table by either malicious gnomes or my husband.

Being liberated sure is awesome.

We're All Going to Die

A world renowned cancer researcher is in the process of publishing an extensive, independent, peer-reviewed study concluding that cell phones pose a greater public heath threat than cigarettes and asbestos. I guess it takes about a decade of consistent cell phone usage for brain tumors to begin to manifest. And I guess it's been about a decade now.

Yeah, so, we're all totally dead.

Freedom Zero

According to GNU Operating System, free software requires the existence of four freedoms:

— The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).

— The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

— The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).

— The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

Per GNU, "To understand the concept, you should think of free as in free speech, not as in free beer." This is an important distinction for those of us who came of eAge alongside Napster. It wasn't about the free(dom) of the music, but the freedom to the music.

I find the concept of Freedom Zero particularly enticing, and wonder what it's sociopolitical parallels might be. Not that free software isn't political; it very clearly is.

There Are Dogs, and There Are Dogs, and There Are Dogs

The Good: "They spent months in an Iraqi war zone cementing a special bond. But after more than a month of being apart, Marine Maj. Brian Dennis began to worry if Nubs the dog would still remember him, especially in a new place like San Diego.

Their reunion early Saturday at Camp Pendleton clearly showed otherwise. The 2-year-old old dog, named for his two nubby ears, drenched Dennis' face with doggie kisses and said hello with excited whimpers.

'You remember that, huh?' Dennis said as he rubbed the dog's head."

Source: SignOnSanDiego

The Bad: "This week, however, Senator Clinton put a pistol to the head of her own campaign and put it out of its mathematical misery. Matthew Yglesias quotes Hillary saying in a speech earlier this week:

'I certainly do remember that trip to Bosnia, and as Togo said, there was a saying around the White House that if a place was too small, too poor, or too dangerous, the president couldn't go, so send the First Lady. That’s where we went. I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base.'

That sounds terrible. (If you'd like, you can read the original speech at Senator Clinton's campaign site). But join me as we flashback 1996 and then return to this week."



Source: Daily Kos

The Ugly: "America has been the best country on earth for black folks. It was here that 600,000 black people, brought from Africa in slave ships, grew into a community of 40 million, were introduced to Christian salvation, and reached the greatest levels of freedom and prosperity blacks have ever known. ... We hear the grievances. Where is the gratitude? ... Is Barack aware that black-on-white rapes are 100 times more common than the reverse, that black-on-white robberies were 139 times as common in the first three years of this decade as the reverse?"

Source: Pat Buchanen's Blog

Up in Smoke

A new study on life expectancy has found that educated Americans are likely to live an average of seven years longer than their less bookish counterparts. Much to my surprise, this discrepancy is not accounted for by the fact that stupid people are more likely to walk in front of moving vehicles. Rather, the study found, less educated people are more likely to smoke cigarettes and hence have higher rates of emphysema and lung cancer, dragging their mean life expectancy down significantly. Walking in front a car strikes me as cheaper and likely less painful, but whatever.

Still, I imagine Darwin would be somewhat amused.

Ew.

Ew ew ew ew ew.

Eeeeew.

The [Insert Your Name Here] Show

I just rewatched The Truman Show and was struck by how the world satirically predicted in that film 10 years ago has increasingly come to manifest. I'm not just talking about the growing domination of popular culture by "reality" TV shows such as American Idol, Project Runway and even the pure embarrassment that is Celebrity Rehab. Rather, I'm talking about the reality TV show starring you — the one in which you're caught on camera roughly 500 time a day. That's not a random number. It's the number of times the average American citizen is videotaped by cameras in ATM's, gas stations, stoplights and other subtle public surveillance stations, according to a recent study (I'd link, but Drudge took it down, the bastard).

An article on Military.com (and wouldn't you love to own that domain name) explores the extent to which high-tech surveillance is penetrating our daily interactions without our knowledge (let alone our acquiesence). It's well worth a read. For those of you who doubt the slipperiness of the slope, here's an interesting excerpt:

"This may sound like a privacy wonk's paranoia. But examples abound. Take E-ZPass. Drivers signed up for the system to speed up toll collection. But 11 states now supply E-ZPass records -- when and where a toll was paid, and by whom -- in response to court orders in criminal cases. Seven of those states provide information in civil cases such as divorce, proving, for instance, that a husband who claimed he was at a meeting in Pennsylvania was actually heading to his lover's house in New Jersey. (New York divorce lawyer Jacalyn Barnett has called E-ZPass the "easy way to show you took the offramp to adultery.")"

Of course, an active and informed citizenry could rise up and speak out against these incursions into our privacy. But considering the fact that off-handed remark I made calling something "Orwellian" at the gym the other day was met with "Oh, yeah, I remember that book" by the guy scanning cards behind the counter, I'm not holding my breath.

As Ben Franklin (or possibly Richard Jackson) wrote two centuries ago, "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."