I am taking the GRE on Saturday. I would like to score all 800s (6's for the writing), but unfortunately that seems quite unlikely, given that my math skills and vocabulary have deteriorated since high school, and I don't think I've written a timed essay since I was 17.
plus, it's at 8am. what the hell was I thinking?
anyway, feel free to ignore this post. I'm just going to type out the definitions of some words I don't know, because hopefully this will cement them in my mind.
abrogate (v.t.):
1. To annul or abolish by an authoritative act.
2. to put an end to; to do away with
derivation: from Latin abrogare (ab = away from, rogare = to ask; also, to propose a law). so abrogare = to completely repeal a law
sentence: The Massachusetts blue laws on Sunday alcohol sales have recently been abrogated.
abrogation doctrine: con law doctrine describing when the federal government can waive states' sovereign immunity.
amortize (v.t.):
1. to liquidate (a debt) by installment payments.
2. to write off an expenditure for (office equipment, for example) by prorating over a certain period.
derivation: Middle English, but eventually Latin: (ad + mors, mort-) so towards death. to deaden.
sentence: He amortized his mortgage over a period of 30 years.
artful (adj):
1. not straightforward or candid; disingenuous
2. marked by skill at achieving a desired end, especially with cunning or craft. (ant = artless)
sentence: The artful dodger was good at both lying and picking pockets.
bilk(v.t):
1. a. To defraud, cheat or swindle.
b. To evade payment of
2. To thwart or frustrate
3. To elude
sentences: He made millions bilking wealthy clients on art sales. OR He bilked his debts. OR “Fate . . . may be to a certain extent bilked” (Thomas Carlyle)
cynosure (n):
1. anything to which attention is strongly turned; a center of attraction
2. That which serves to guide or direct.
3. Ursa Minor (the constillation)
derivation: comes from Greek word kunosoura, meaning "dog's tail,"
which was apparently the ancient Greek name for Ursa Minor.
sentence: Betty, ever the life of the party, was the cynosure of our social circle.
desultory (adj):
1. jumping or passing from one thing to another without order or rational connection; disconnected. aimless.
2. by the way; as a digression; not connected with the subject.
3. coming disconnectedly or occuring haphazardly; random.
4. disappointing in performance or progress.
derivation: Latin desultor = a leaper (de = down from, salire = to leap)
sentence: Their correspondence consisted of the odd, desultory postcard. OR Their desultory conversation touched on many random topics.
encomium (n):
1. warm, glowing praise.
2. a formal expression of praise; a tribute. a panegyric.
derivation: Greek from enkomion = a formal speech/poem of praise (for a victorious athlete, for example). (en = in, komos = celebration)
sentence: The encomiums about "The Sopranos" likened it to Dickens and Shakespeare.
inimical (adj):
1. having the disposition or temper of an enemy; unfriendly; unfavorable.
2. opposed in tendency, influence, or effects; antagonistic; adverse.
derivation: Latin inimicus = unfriendly, hostile (in = not, amicus = friendly)
sentence: Venus is even more inimical to human existence than Mars.
(NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH INIMITABLE)
invidious (adj):
1. tending to provoke envy, resentment, or ill will.
2. containing or implying a slight
3. envious
derivation: Latin. invidiosus = envious, hateful --> invidere = envy --> invidere = to look upon with the evil eye (in = upon, videre = to look at)
sentence: The lover's obsessiveness may also take the form of invidious comparisons between himself, or herself, and the rival.
-- Ethel S. Person
minatory (adj):
1. threatening, menacing
derivation: Latin minatorious --> minari = to threaten. (related to menace)
sentence: The guard gave him a minatory look and he decided not to cause any trouble.
sinecure (n):
1. an office or responsibility that involves little work or responsibility
derivation: Medieval Latin sine = without cura = care (originally described a church office without the care of souls. i.e. an empty title.)
sentence: The position of VP on house council is a sinecure.
traduce (v.t.):
1. to cause humiliation or disgrace by making malicious and false statements; to malign.
derivation: Latin traducere = to lead as a spectacle; to dishonor (trans + ducere = to lead)
sentence: You traduced my good name around the world.
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Alberto Gonzales
When I found out Alberto Gonzales was resigning yesterday, my first thought was, "why resign on a Monday?" As all good fans of The West Wing know, when you want to bury stories in the news cycle, you announce them on Friday. Reporters are more likely to go to home early on Fridays so things might not make it into Saturday's paper, the Sunday paper is planned way in advance, and the Sunday shows are booked way in advance, so not much will get said until Monday, at which point the news is stale.
So, strategically, when you must announce things that make you look bad, you should try to slip them in to Friday afternoon news conferences.
It makes the president look bad that Gonzales resigned. He probably knew he was going to resign by Friday. In fact, don't you think he probably knew he was going to resign weeks ago, when the US attorney scandal first broke? So why wait until Monday, when he would dominate coverage for much of the week?
I see two possibilities:
1. Bush thinks it doesn't make him look that bad. After all, everything he does is basically a major fuck-up. Maybe it actually makes him look good to clean out the cabinet of his cronies. like he's actually taking responsibility for his actions. to me, this is the less likely possibility. the more likely possibility is,
2. Bush was trying to bury something else in the news cycle. something that got announced on Friday, but was overshadowed by Gonzales's announcement on Monday. The only thing was, I couldn't think of what it could be.
Then, I read Bob Herbert's column in the NYT($) today, and I have a nomination.
For the past few weeks, Congress has been trying to expand funding for SCHIP (State Childrens Health Insurance Program). This is a program that gives health insurance to poor kids who wouldn't be covered otherwise. Pretty much everyone, democrat and republican, supports it because how can you explain being against sick, defenseless children to your constituents. Bush is basically the only person speaking out against it, and indeed, he's threatened to veto any congressional expansion of the program. But even for Mr Unpopularity, that would look pretty sucky, so what does he do instead? He waits until a Friday night when Congress is out of session to unilaterally impose draconian new restrictions on how states can administer the funds. No need to actually sign a veto, and just for extra protection, he announces the resignation of an unpopular figure the following Monday so no one will pay too much attention.
look at this quote from the Op-Ed.
or this one from yesterday's NYT editorial:
Emphasis mine, but it looks like the NYT pretty much agrees with me.
So, strategically, when you must announce things that make you look bad, you should try to slip them in to Friday afternoon news conferences.
It makes the president look bad that Gonzales resigned. He probably knew he was going to resign by Friday. In fact, don't you think he probably knew he was going to resign weeks ago, when the US attorney scandal first broke? So why wait until Monday, when he would dominate coverage for much of the week?
I see two possibilities:
1. Bush thinks it doesn't make him look that bad. After all, everything he does is basically a major fuck-up. Maybe it actually makes him look good to clean out the cabinet of his cronies. like he's actually taking responsibility for his actions. to me, this is the less likely possibility. the more likely possibility is,
2. Bush was trying to bury something else in the news cycle. something that got announced on Friday, but was overshadowed by Gonzales's announcement on Monday. The only thing was, I couldn't think of what it could be.
Then, I read Bob Herbert's column in the NYT($) today, and I have a nomination.
For the past few weeks, Congress has been trying to expand funding for SCHIP (State Childrens Health Insurance Program). This is a program that gives health insurance to poor kids who wouldn't be covered otherwise. Pretty much everyone, democrat and republican, supports it because how can you explain being against sick, defenseless children to your constituents. Bush is basically the only person speaking out against it, and indeed, he's threatened to veto any congressional expansion of the program. But even for Mr Unpopularity, that would look pretty sucky, so what does he do instead? He waits until a Friday night when Congress is out of session to unilaterally impose draconian new restrictions on how states can administer the funds. No need to actually sign a veto, and just for extra protection, he announces the resignation of an unpopular figure the following Monday so no one will pay too much attention.
look at this quote from the Op-Ed.
“We had zero forewarning,” said New Jersey’s Jon Corzine. “It was sprung at 7:30 on a Friday night in the middle of August, the time when it would draw the least fire.”
or this one from yesterday's NYT editorial:
Late on a recent Friday while Congress was in recess, a time fit for hiding dark deeds, the administration sent a letter to state health officials spelling out new hurdles they would have to clear before they could insure children from middle-income families unable to find affordable health coverage.
Emphasis mine, but it looks like the NYT pretty much agrees with me.
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Laura Sessions Stepp
Oh, this article pissed me off this morning.
Which, considering the author, is not exactly surprising.
Let's summarize the article below:
Women Talk Too Much
by Laura Sessions Stepp
Conventional wisdom says that girls talk more than boys. I believe conventional wisdom is usually right. After all, just think of any high school cafeteria anywhere. You'll always hear the girls complaining about their latest school, diet, or boy troubles. In fact, you could even say, "While males tend to think their way through problems, females tend to talk their way through."* If you don't believe me, ask the 2 college students I interviewed for this article. (You might remember them as the 2 college students I interviewed for my groundbreaking piece of investigative journalism, Unhooked, a book describing the "hook-up culture" that I argue is pervading college campuses everywhere, and ruining our young girls' chances at ever finding meaningful relationships. What hath feminism wrought?!) They are experts on the conversational patterns of males v. females. After all, one of them's female, and the other is male! How much more expert can you get, people?!
Since my modus operandi is to repackage conventional wisdom with shiny new labels saying, "IT'S SCIENCE," I will now proceed to do. William Doherty agrees with me, and he's a professor. Ignore the fact that he hasn't done any peer reviewed research on this hypothesis, because he has a PhD. Or consider this: Alice Rubenstein is a clinical psychologist and she agrees with me too. She wrote a book for popular audiences called, "The Inside Story on Teen Girls." That's kind of like doing real research, isn't it? And if that isn't enough for you, consider that Louann Brizendine agrees with me. She's a neuropsychologist, and she wrote a popular book about gender brain differences. Never mind that she's been repeatedly discredited or that she's since rescinded her widely quoted assertion that women talk more. No, she said it once, and she used big scientific sounding words, so it must be true.
In conclusion, I am full of bullshit. The end.
*actual quote. boys think. girls talk. presumably mindlessly. boys are smart and girls are dumb. the end.
Which, considering the author, is not exactly surprising.
Let's summarize the article below:
Women Talk Too Much
by Laura Sessions Stepp
Conventional wisdom says that girls talk more than boys. I believe conventional wisdom is usually right. After all, just think of any high school cafeteria anywhere. You'll always hear the girls complaining about their latest school, diet, or boy troubles. In fact, you could even say, "While males tend to think their way through problems, females tend to talk their way through."* If you don't believe me, ask the 2 college students I interviewed for this article. (You might remember them as the 2 college students I interviewed for my groundbreaking piece of investigative journalism, Unhooked, a book describing the "hook-up culture" that I argue is pervading college campuses everywhere, and ruining our young girls' chances at ever finding meaningful relationships. What hath feminism wrought?!) They are experts on the conversational patterns of males v. females. After all, one of them's female, and the other is male! How much more expert can you get, people?!
Since my modus operandi is to repackage conventional wisdom with shiny new labels saying, "IT'S SCIENCE," I will now proceed to do. William Doherty agrees with me, and he's a professor. Ignore the fact that he hasn't done any peer reviewed research on this hypothesis, because he has a PhD. Or consider this: Alice Rubenstein is a clinical psychologist and she agrees with me too. She wrote a book for popular audiences called, "The Inside Story on Teen Girls." That's kind of like doing real research, isn't it? And if that isn't enough for you, consider that Louann Brizendine agrees with me. She's a neuropsychologist, and she wrote a popular book about gender brain differences. Never mind that she's been repeatedly discredited or that she's since rescinded her widely quoted assertion that women talk more. No, she said it once, and she used big scientific sounding words, so it must be true.
In conclusion, I am full of bullshit. The end.
*actual quote. boys think. girls talk. presumably mindlessly. boys are smart and girls are dumb. the end.
Saturday, August 18, 2007
Monday, August 6, 2007
Jena, LA
This story is crazy.
Summary and quotes from the NPR Story:
At Jena High School in Jena, La., the white kids ate their lunch under a big shade tree in the courtyard, and the black kids ate by the auditorium. Last year, during a school assembly in September, a black freshman asked if he was allowed to sit under the tree. The principal said he could sit anywhere he liked.
The boys weren't expelled or arrested, and the nooses were judged a prank. They were given in-school suspension.
On Nov. 30, Jena High school was burned down. Each race thought the other was responsible.
The next night, Robert Bailey, a 16 year old black student at the school, tried to attend a mostly white party. He was beaten up, and a guy at the party broke a beer bottle over his head. The incident wasn't investigated until months later, when the white boy who attacked him was charged with battery and given probation.
The next day, a kid from the party threatened Rober Bailey with a gun. Bailey and his friends managed to wrestle the gun away, and he took the gun home with him. For that, he was charged with theft of a firearm, 2nd degree robbery, and disturbing the peace. The guy who pulled the gun on him wasn't charged at all.
The following Monday, a white kid named Justin Barker was bragging in the halls about beating up Bailey at the party that weekend. When he walked into the courtyard, six black students attacked him, and he was sent to the hospital. The injuries were superficial, and he was released later that evening.
The six kids were charged with aggravated assault, but the district attorney increased the charges to attempted second-degree murder. One student has already had a trial, in which his court-appointed lawyer did not mount any defense, and an all-white jury found him guilty. This school football star had a chance at a scholarship to a Division I school, but instead, he's now facing up to 22 years in prison.
So, to review:
White kids:
yet somehow, it's the 6 black kids facing jail time and being accused of attempted murder?
how is this happening in 2007?
Summary and quotes from the NPR Story:
At Jena High School in Jena, La., the white kids ate their lunch under a big shade tree in the courtyard, and the black kids ate by the auditorium. Last year, during a school assembly in September, a black freshman asked if he was allowed to sit under the tree. The principal said he could sit anywhere he liked.
Three white boys on the rodeo team apparently disagreed. The next morning, there were three nooses hanging from the shade tree in the courtyard.
The boys weren't expelled or arrested, and the nooses were judged a prank. They were given in-school suspension.
The school called an assembly and summoned the police and the district attorney. Black students sat on one side, whites on the other. District Attorney Reed Walters warned the students he could be their friend or their worst enemy. He lifted his fountain pen and said, "With one stroke of my pen, I can make your life disappear."
That evening, black students told their parents that the DA was looking right at them. Walters denies that.
On Nov. 30, Jena High school was burned down. Each race thought the other was responsible.
The next night, Robert Bailey, a 16 year old black student at the school, tried to attend a mostly white party. He was beaten up, and a guy at the party broke a beer bottle over his head. The incident wasn't investigated until months later, when the white boy who attacked him was charged with battery and given probation.
The next day, a kid from the party threatened Rober Bailey with a gun. Bailey and his friends managed to wrestle the gun away, and he took the gun home with him. For that, he was charged with theft of a firearm, 2nd degree robbery, and disturbing the peace. The guy who pulled the gun on him wasn't charged at all.
The following Monday, a white kid named Justin Barker was bragging in the halls about beating up Bailey at the party that weekend. When he walked into the courtyard, six black students attacked him, and he was sent to the hospital. The injuries were superficial, and he was released later that evening.
The six kids were charged with aggravated assault, but the district attorney increased the charges to attempted second-degree murder. One student has already had a trial, in which his court-appointed lawyer did not mount any defense, and an all-white jury found him guilty. This school football star had a chance at a scholarship to a Division I school, but instead, he's now facing up to 22 years in prison.
So, to review:
White kids:
- Put hangman's nooses in a tree to show black students they weren't welcome.
- Ganged up on a black student and beat him up.
- pulled a gun on the same student
yet somehow, it's the 6 black kids facing jail time and being accused of attempted murder?
how is this happening in 2007?
Friday, August 3, 2007
education
so I've been reading this washington post forum about AP and IB education, and there's this one lady on the forum who's convinced that IB is this big socialist conspiracy to turn America's children into young pioneers. Also, everything that's wrong with US education today is the fault of the Liberals. (and Californians, but really Californian is a synonym for liberal.)
Her evidence for IB is that it's based in Geneva (those scary Swiss people are corrupting our minds?), it has an association with the UN (I guess some right wingers think it's a clever socialist enterprise to destroy America), and in her son's IB US History class, they had to read Howard Zinn. I really want to respond to her, but jesus christ, do I have to sit there and find sources to prove that the UN is not a socialist conspiracy? I'm lazy. Also, I'd want to be nice and polite about it because I can't post anonymously, but that removes like 98% of the fun, so I probably won't bother.
But the thing is, I was still thinking, "maybe I can prove to her that reading Zinn, as long as you read other history books too, is fine. After all, kids should be taught to evaluate their sources critically, and besides, he approaches history in a way not traditionally found in High School textbooks. For one thing, he remembers that women and minorities exist." So I started googling IB US History reading lists, and a couple things happened. First of all, I started feeling this weird nostalgia for my old history books Boller and Boyer. Let's consider for a moment that I barely even read the Boyer. what? It was boring. I liked primary sources. But still, it was funny to see their names on a bunch of reading lists again. Second of all, I started getting really grateful that I was done with high school. The syllabi had cutesy idiotic word puzzles to teach you the name of random European rivers, dumb map quizzes, and waay too much rote memorization for my taste. My high school wasn't that bad, but I wonder, with the kids all reading just a boring textbook and doing lots of mindless busywork, how does anyone in those classes graduate from high school liking history at all?
Her evidence for IB is that it's based in Geneva (those scary Swiss people are corrupting our minds?), it has an association with the UN (I guess some right wingers think it's a clever socialist enterprise to destroy America), and in her son's IB US History class, they had to read Howard Zinn. I really want to respond to her, but jesus christ, do I have to sit there and find sources to prove that the UN is not a socialist conspiracy? I'm lazy. Also, I'd want to be nice and polite about it because I can't post anonymously, but that removes like 98% of the fun, so I probably won't bother.
But the thing is, I was still thinking, "maybe I can prove to her that reading Zinn, as long as you read other history books too, is fine. After all, kids should be taught to evaluate their sources critically, and besides, he approaches history in a way not traditionally found in High School textbooks. For one thing, he remembers that women and minorities exist." So I started googling IB US History reading lists, and a couple things happened. First of all, I started feeling this weird nostalgia for my old history books Boller and Boyer. Let's consider for a moment that I barely even read the Boyer. what? It was boring. I liked primary sources. But still, it was funny to see their names on a bunch of reading lists again. Second of all, I started getting really grateful that I was done with high school. The syllabi had cutesy idiotic word puzzles to teach you the name of random European rivers, dumb map quizzes, and waay too much rote memorization for my taste. My high school wasn't that bad, but I wonder, with the kids all reading just a boring textbook and doing lots of mindless busywork, how does anyone in those classes graduate from high school liking history at all?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)