today's time wasting roundup

3 things:

• He's an ass. I have a lot to say on why, but explaining myself coherently takes more energy than I'm willing to spend on a blog post just now.


• It's news when a college DOESN'T raise tuition one year.


• I love this article. It makes me sad that Isaiah Washington is apparently a homophobe, because despite his recent assiness, Dr. Burke is awesome. However, it makes me happy that there's an article describing the entire situation surrounding his use of the "anti-gay slur," but nowhere does the author mention what exactly that slur was.
  
  This lets the reader fill in the blank with his or her favorite. My vote is for fairy. It's got a sort of retro feel to it. Or maybe flyswatter, because as I learned from my fabulous high school french class, the French word for flyswatter also means faggot. It's true.

Everything sounds prettier in French, mon petit chou.

coos!

There's an article in the NYT today about a deadly storm in Europe. Truth be told, I didn't actually read the article, but it had a picture so incredibly cute I had to send it to my friends. You can see it here.

Highland coos (as my friend who studied abroad in Glasgow insists we call them) are awesome.

funny

Best news article of the day:
Va. School Fires Butt-Prints Art Teacher

Best sentence from the article:
The unique approach to art became a topic when a clip showing Murmer, wearing a fake nose and glasses, a towel on his head and black thong, turned up on YouTube.com and became the talk of the high school.

that is all

The sky is green.

this makes me proud of my county.

The thing that's frustrated me the most as I've followed this story (as the article says, they've been trying to get a curriculum approved for quite a while now) is the way some conservatives have co-opted the liberal rhetoric of open-mindedness to advance their agenda.

What I mean is, groups like Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays (I think that's their name) argue that if you're going to have an open discussion on homosexuality, you've got to include the viewpoint that it is immoral and a sickness that can be cured. (never mind what the pesky psychiatrists who reclassified it in the 1970s have to say.) The same thing happens in evolution debates. The vast majority of biologists everywhere agree that evolution happened (and is still happening). But a couple scientists dispute that. And they get on the news and talk about their "findings" (never published in serious peer-reviewed journals, of course. but that's because the establishment is "trying to silence them.") and convince enough people who are predisposed to either take the bible literally or mistrust scientists that they may be on to something. They *create* the controversey and then argue that we need to teach it.

What both issues have in common is the sentiment, "hey, we've got a viewpoint! how can you claim to be so open minded and accepting if you discredit it! you're silencing us, you hypocritical liberals!" As if somehow, respecting opposing viewpoints necessarily means ascribing to complete moral and intellectual relativism. (and as if challenging the underlying logic or premises behind a position is the same as silencing those who hold that position.)

The thing is, I have a viewpoint too. I believe the sky is neon green. I can probably find you some scientist somewhere who agrees with me. I am prepared to send letters to the editor of every major newspaper arguing my position. I am prepared to go on TV and radio shows and explain why I'm right. I'll take out ads in all different media, build a legitimate-looking website, and found an institute supporting my beliefs. I'm SO SURE of myself that I'm actually resentful that the rest of the world still thinks the sky is blue. How can they possibly ignore all of my arguments? At the very least, Kindergarden teachers everywhere should teach the controversey!

First post ever. Maybe the last?

I fully suspect this to become one of the millions of abandoned blogs that now litter the internet. But maybe that won't happen for a while.

To start out with, two public radio-related things that have been bugging me:

• Capitol Steps New Years Show This year one of the local broadcasts of the show got interrupted for the breaking news that Saddam Hussein was about to be hanged. That was freaking annoying. Still, before the broadcast got cut short, they had a parody of "Love Potion no. 9" where Vladimir Putin was singing "Polonium 209." Extremely funny song, but I was wondering this: All the news reports I've seen say that Alexander Litvinenko was killed by radiation from Polonium 210. Was the CapSteps' use of the number 209 simply poetic license, or did their lyrics choice have any scientific merit? I vaguely remember learning about radioactive decay and half lives in high school chemistry. It seems at least plausible that Polonium 210 decays into Polonium 209 and that the radiation that made him sick was simply the emission of whatever subatomic particles are let out in the process. But is this complete bullshit? Probably, but still, I'd like to know for sure.


• Bob Edwards Weekend One of my local stations recently started carrying the show, and I was just listening to it. He's a smart guy, and he interviews smart, interesting people, and he's got a very soothing voice, so it's a great program to have on in the background. Today he had on the author of This Book. As I was half listening to the show she said something that made me yell at the radio. To paraphrase, she was talking about Louisa May Alcott (or Margaret Fuller. like I said, I wasn't paying too much attention.) and saying how much she charmed Thoreau and Emerson with her intellect. Because this was the first time they'd met a woman this smart--one who could talk to them like a man. Nowadays, apparently, there are a lot of really smart women like that, but back in the 19th century, there weren't.
  
  I'm going to give the author the benefit of the doubt and assume she misspoke, but to state the obvious, of COURSE there were plenty of intelligent women in the 19th century. There just weren't too many of them hanging around Ivy League universities, feeling comfortable enough in their own social standing to risk societal ostracism (with likely dire financial consequences) by engaging in arguments with their male intellectual equals.
  
  What pissed me off so much though, is that I think people actually believe what the author said. I think people actually accept that the reason the vast majority of "Great Books" we read in schools are written by dead, European males is because they were the ones doing all the important thinking of the time. Maybe now things have changed and women and minorities can be intellectuals, but before, they just. weren't. smart. enough. And the fact that this obviously intelligent woman had unconsciously internalized this absurd misogynist nonsense has me a little worried.