Month: August 2005

We painted our office orange and maroon

I found an interesting story concerning my alma mater, but first, some background about its collaboration with King Abdulaziz University:

Ongoing discussions linking the two universities in the areas of distance and distributed learning (eLearning) and engineering were established by Sedki Riad, professor of electrical engineering and director of International Programs in Virginia Tech’s College of Engineering, and Tom Wilkinson, director of Virginia Tech’s Institute for Distance and Distributed Learning (IDDL).
…
As a first step, 60 KAU faculty members will arrive in Blacksburg this summer for a series of professional development activities that will be developed and delivered by Virginia Tech’s English Department, Communications Department, Faculty Development Institute, the Institute for Distance and Distributed Learning, and the English Language Institute. KAU faculty will participate in two of four planned development programs: 1) English instruction, 2) communications instruction, 3) basic and intermediate computer and web skill development, and 4) designing, developing and delivering eLearning courses. Family members accompanying KAU faculty also will have an opportunity to participate in activities at the English Language Institute.

I hadn’t heard anything about this when it happened in March, but I wasn’t involved in any of those programs while in school, so I’m not shocked that this missed my radar. It does sound interesting, though. Any program that expands Virginia Tech’s influence further is probably a good endeavor. Sharing with a culture we don’t normally think of when discussing higher education should be a bonus.

I say “probably” and “should be” because, today, I came across this article. The summer classes mentioned in the original article are taking place in Blacksburg, which I would suspect would follow our ideas of educational instruction, more or less. That’s not occurring. Consider:

The courses include topics such as Web site development and online instruction, but in keeping with the preferences of the Saudi university, the university created separate classes for the approximately 30 male and 30 female faculty members.

Why would Virginia Tech segregate the male and female faculty? We don’t segregate classes like that in the United States, at least not public universities, which Virginia Tech is. I’m disappointed that Virginia Tech would do this. I’ve always believed that Virginia Tech is a wonderful institution. In six years spent in Blacksburg, I never witnessed any form of discrimination. I hope that the details aren’t as frustrating as they seem.

Of course there is backlash coming from some of the Virginia Tech faculty because of these classes.

Eloise Coupey, an associate professor of marketing at the Virginia Tech, filed a complaint with the school Tuesday alleging the single-sex classes created a hostile environment for women.

“The presence of these segregated classes on campus indicates to me that the university doesn’t place a strong enough value on women’s rights,” Coupey said Wednesday. “This makes me feel that the university holds me in less regard than my male counterparts.”

Wait, what? Why is that environment hostile only to women? What about the men? Viewed from the context of the Saudis, yes, it’s specifically aimed at women. But viewed from the context of us, I’d consider it discriminatory to both the men and women involved. Unless Prof. Coupey is implying that men can learn from women in an educational environment but that the reverse isn’t true. I wonder, but I would still expect her to defend against all discrimination, regardless of gender.

In response to complaints, Virginia Tech “has made the course segregation optional,” which is amusing because of this additional information, clarifying what was implied earlier:

While the program was designed by Tech staff, administrators with King Abdulaziz University separated the classes by gender.

Tech subsequently offered to make the classes co-ed, however the Saudi faculty said they preferred the current set-up because most of their classrooms at home are single-sex. Separate classes also allows them to tailor the content to their needs, several Saudi faculty have said.
…
Saudi faculty have repeatedly stressed that they had chosen to separate by gender. Many of the professors earned their advanced degrees at American and European institutions and are therefore comfortable in co-ed settings, faculty said.

There is this additional detail:

King Abdulaziz University paid Virginia Tech $246,000 to design and operate the faculty development program this summer.

Fascinating. I’m still disappointed (only a tiny bit), but I’m not offended. Should I be? Perhaps I’m reading too much into the $246,000 payment, but it seems to me that King Abdulaziz University paid for a product which Virginia Tech agreed to create. Within reason, of course, King Abdulaziz University gets to set the requirements for the course. And if the students self-select a segregation plan? I’m under-whelmed by the need for outrage, but that’s because I think the facts suggest a simple solution. This isn’t the standard to which Virginia Tech should hold itself, so it should not have set the classes up this way. But it did. I see no harm in finishing this program with the optional, self-segregating plan. Next time, think wiser and clearer before setting up a program like this. If a university such as King Abdulaziz University refuses, don’t do the deal. Two-hundred-forty-six thousand dollars isn’t that much money. Live happily ever after. Simple.

And yet, it’s never that simple, is it? In a scene straight out of PCU, the outgoing director of Tech’s Women’s Studies Program offered a gem quote detailing how every event can be used for petty political point-scoring. Enjoy.

“I would say this demonstrates the insensitivity of the university administration to the experience of the women on campus,” [Bernice] Hausman said.

It’s visiting Saudi women, are you paying attention? Not every slight to a small group is a global “screw you” from the world to the women on campus. I have little doubt that $246,000 will now have to be re-directed to sensitivity training classes on the Virginia Tech campus for all administrators involved. I’ll take Ms. Hausman in the office pool as to who will teach the classes as an independent consultant/qualified expert?

If I knew now only what I knew then

In a recent opinion column in The New York Times, David Brooks writes:

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the rate of family violence in this country has dropped by more than half since 1993. I’ve been trying to figure out why.

It’s an interesting topic, although I’m a little amused at one of his conclusions. Consider:

Third, many people in the younger generation, under age 30 or so, are reacting against the culture of divorce. They are trying to lead lives that are more stable than the ones their parents led. Post-boomers behave better than the baby boomers did.

At 32, I fall into the “or so” category of post-boomers, so I’ll respond with what “we” are actually doing. We are trying to lead more stable lives, but we’re not behaving better than our parents. Our world changed between our parents’ twenties and our twenties. Today’s generation of young adults understands that we have more opportunities and choices. Some are due to changing technology, some due to a more robust, international economy. And some are little more than a pursuit of self-gratification. That may come in the form of job-hopping until we find what we believe will be the perfect fit or traveling to engage the world in different adventures. We’re leading busy lives and we know that that’s not a stable life for a family, even if kids aren’t yet involved. Basically, we’re too busy, so we’re waiting longer to get married.

A fundamental shift in the culture occurred making this possible. Our parents dealt with a culture that frowned upon out-of-wedlock sex, so they felt inclined/conditioned to marry sooner so that they could enjoy (relatively) guilt-free sex. Today, young adults aren’t as constrained by the stigma of out-of-wedlock sex. Call the good or bad, but it’s the way it is. Essentially, we’re not rejecting the culture of divorce, just the culture of poorly-thought-out choices-with-long-term-consequences.

Also, thanks to advances in medical science, we understand that we’ll live productive, active lives longer than our parents could’ve imagined at our age. We know we’ll work later into our lives. We can have children later in our lives and still support them. There will be time for the traditional adult activities, so we set responsibility aside for a few extra years. We’re benefiting from the efforts of the past.

Whether that leads to the decline in family violence or not is questionable, but I’m sure it has as much impact as Mr. Brooks theorized with his original supposition. Yet, his conclusion is still interesting.

Obviously, we’re not living in a utopia, where all social problems have been solved. But these improvements across a whole range of behaviors are too significant to be dismissed. We in the media play up the negative, as we always do. The activist groups emphasize the work still to be done, because they want to keep people mobilized and financing their work.

But the good news is out there. You want to know what a society looks like when it is in the middle of moral self-repair? Look around.

I don’t know if we’re in the middle of moral self-repair, though, unless moral self-repair means setting aside conventional wisdom (imposition) about how everyone should live and adapting to some more-than-notional sense that individuals can choose how to spend their lives. And deal with the consequences. We’re still making mistakes, as our parents did, and we’re correcting our mistakes, like our parents did. We’re just making better choices through their experience, as our kids will likely do a generation from now.

Of course, if you don’t believe people can make smarter, more responsible choices through learning from the past, I guess moral self-repair could be the answer. America did vote for the Bible in 2004.

(Source: Instapundit)

He’s not a person, he’s a suit! You’re mailroom. No consorting.

I’ve written a little in the past on the liberal media and possible alternate explanations for the mass conspiracy that many conservatives want to see there. In the beginning I posited the idea that “bad news sells” is a better explanation. I’ve since refined it to include liberal bias, but only in the context of specific media outlets. Smear The New York Times with a liberal bias claim and I can accept that. But I’d same the reverse about Fox News. The back-and-forth could go on a long time. Information, with whatever desired slant, is available in a multitude of forms. The old, entrenched media is liberal? Fine, read, watch, or listen to something else. Changing technology has a way of flattening the market of competitive dinosaurs. It’s Capitalism 101. Accept it.

Because of that, whenever I hear or read “liberal MSM”, I suspect that the speaker/writer merely wants to spew an ideological point to score points. It’s little more than stereotyping to diminish. My idea of reporting, writing, and thinking is that facts win. If there’s a bias, I rely on my intellect to decipher truth. I don’t need a political party to filter my perception. Not to mention that the ideal world would have no bias, not a non-liberal-so-it-has-to-be-conservative bias. So I stand by my theory.

Luckily for me, the news media provided an example earlier this week. (I’m not happy that the actual events happened to prove my point. I wish it hadn’t happened and all that hippy blah, blah, blah.) So, consider this headline:

Marc Cohn shot in head during car jacking

I was horrified. I like Marc Cohn, so I clicked the link. This is what followed:

A Grammy-winning musician and husband of ABC news reporter Elizabeth Vargas was treated at a hospital and released Monday after being shot in the head during an attempted carjacking following a performance.

Right, so the headline gave no indication of that. Now, a few days later, the sub-headline does, but search the headlines and, even now, half still lead with only “Marc Cohn shot in head”. Is that liberal bias? Or is it “bad news sells” bias? I clicked. And that’s what the news media, whether MSM or not, want me to do. Again, it’s Capitalism 101. If people weren’t buying, the MSM wouldn’t be selling. More to the point, aren’t those people who link to and write about liberal bias in the MSM clicking and reading and discussing?

Solution? Keep questioning the “liberal” media. Technology makes that possible. But also question the people who bitch about the “liberal” media. Your brain makes that possible.

People can be so base

This story is “interesting”. Consider:

The science and business of sex identification took yet another quantum leap forward recently with the Pregnancystore.com’s release of the Baby Gender Mentor Home DNA Gender Testing Kit. Now, a pregnant woman can know her child’s sex shortly after she discovers her pregnancy. As soon as five weeks after conception, she can prick her finger, FedEx a blood sample to Acu-Gen Biolab in Lowell, and have the sex of her sprouting embryo e-mailed to her faster than Netflix can send her next movie.

Seems like a nice, harmless little bonus for horribly impatient people, right? That’s what I thought, until I read further, discovering one potential issue I hadn’t, and hopefully never would have, thought of. Consider:

Ultrasound and amniocentesis cannot accurately determine a fetus’s sex until at least four months into pregnancy and sometimes not until month five — a point at which virtually all expecting mothers have already chosen to continue their pregnancies to term. Since the state has no legal interest in a fetus before its viability (usually at 24 weeks), there has been a legal and technological gulf separating a woman’s choice to continue her pregnancy and any knowledge of its sex.

This is no longer the case. With the Gender Mentor Kit, a new issue enters many prospective parents’ minds: Do we want to have a child of this sex? Or should we try again?

Just what the hell is wrong with people? I understand that some cultures value male children more than female children, but, and this is an important point, we’re not supposed to be one of them. Any couples who want to choose the sex of their children should keep their zippers up and adopt.

Ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhh… This topic is too disgusting; I have nothing more to say.

(Source)

13 nanoseconds exerted for humanity

I’m seeing a word popping up around the blogosphere and I want to state my opinion. I’ve seen it here, here, and many other places. Just google the word and countless other examples appear. The word is “reax”, short for reactions. Here’s my opinion demand, voiced to all bloggers who use “reax”: Stop.

If you can’t be bothered to type the extra five letters in “reactions”, you shouldn’t have a blog. Maybe you think you’re one of the cool kids because you use a slang word, but you’re not. You’re lazy. Stop being lazy.

I will, of course, continue writing “the Internets”. File this entry under “Hypocritical but correct.”

Let’s build one big pipeline with a faucet in every home

This editorial from The New York Times is amusing. The author speaks of bottled water and how it’s, among many apparent faults, not socially responsible. His logic is boring. Consider:

Bottled water is undeniably more fashionable and portable than tap water. The practice of carrying a small bottle, pioneered by supermodels [my note – Huh???], has become commonplace. But despite its association with purity and cleanliness, bottled water is bad for the environment. It is shipped at vast expense from one part of the world to another, is then kept refrigerated before sale, and causes huge numbers of plastic bottles to go into landfills.

Of course, tap water is not so abundant in the developing world. And that is ultimately why I find the illogical enthusiasm for bottled water not simply peculiar, but distasteful. For those of us in the developed world, safe water is now so abundant that we can afford to shun the tap water under our noses, and drink bottled water instead: our choice of water has become a lifestyle option. For many people in the developing world, however, access to water remains a matter of life or death.

More than 2.6 billion people, or more than 40 percent of the world’s population, lack basic sanitation, and more than one billion people lack reliable access to safe drinking water. The World Health Organization estimates that 80 percent of all illness in the world is due to water-borne diseases, and that at any given time, around half of the people in the developing world are suffering from diseases associated with inadequate water or sanitation, which kill around five million people a year.

Widespread illness also makes countries less productive, more dependent on outside aid, and less able to lift themselves out of poverty. One of the main reasons girls do not go to school in many parts of the developing world is that they have to spend so much time fetching water from distant wells.

I agree, clean water is a major issue and much suffering would cease with easy access to it. But… Illness alone does not make developing countries more dependent on outside aid. Tyrannical dictatorships make developing countries more dependent on outside aid. Illogical foreign aid policies by the developed world, in support of said dictatorships, makes developing countries more dependent on outside aid. The United States gives money to countries all around the world. Why aren’t they improving? Why do we see the same issues over and over?

And yet, the author continues with this:

Clean water could be provided to everyone on earth for an outlay of $1.7 billion a year beyond current spending on water projects, according to the International Water Management Institute. Improving sanitation, which is just as important, would cost a further $9.3 billion per year. This is less than a quarter of global annual spending on bottled water.

What if, just maybe, the incompetent, willfully negligent governments in developing countries misappropriate those additional funds. What then? Perhaps the palaces of Iraq could possibly verify such a radical theory. Regardless, as long as there are non-caring, bottled-water guzzling fashionistas, I’m glad that there are people smart enough to remind me that throwing more money at the problem is the answer. Brilliant!

(Hat tip: Radley Balko)

Manicure his picture on the White House lawn, instead

Who elected Representative Henry Bonilla mayor of Washington, D.C.? Either I missed the report or he possesses an elephantine pair of testicles. Unfortunately, they’re located where a brain should be. Consider:

A Republican congressman from South Texas has proposed renaming 16th Street NW as Ronald Reagan Boulevard.

Rep. Henry Bonilla, co-chairman of the 2000 and 2004 Republican national conventions, quietly introduced the 106-word resolution before Congress adjourned for summer recess July 28.

How is this an appropriate use of congressional efforts? Many local D.C. politicians are publicly mad, as they should be. They’ve pointed out that Rep. Bonilla’s stupid plan would mar the street plan for the District. It would also cost the city $1 million to “alter maps and signs”. Who’s going to pay for that? Certainly not the citizens Rep. Bonilla claims to represent, unless, of course, he recommends that we use federal money to pay for the change.

I know President Reagan is an American icon. That’s wonderful. But, wielding Congressional power in an effort to change street names in a city in which he’s not the elected mayor and isn’t even in his Congressional district isn’t a traditionally Republican value. I suspect President Reagan would not have fought for such nonsense, so I doubt he would be honored by this waste. Also, the deification of President Reagan needs to stop. Now. It’s unbecoming of a nation with a respect for representative government and the notion that all men are created equal. George Washington knew this in the 18th century. Why should President Reagan be different?

The most surprising fact in this, though, is this little tidbit from Congressman Loose Cannon&#153. Consider:

Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.), chairman of the House Government Reform Committee with jurisdiction over Bonilla’s legislation, called it “ridiculous” and said he would put it in the “appropriate file,” according to a report on radio station WTOP’s Web site that was distributed by Davis aides.

Davis noted that Congress has renamed Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport and dedicated the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center on Pennsylvania Avenue NW. “If Congressman Bonilla wants to name anything else, he has to look at his own district in San Antonio,” Davis said.

Criticizing Rep. Davis verges on sport for me, but I’m happy to offer him praise on this. Here, he’s acting as a responsible elected official, weeding out nonsense on our behalf. I can offer nothing less than a genuine “Well done.”

(Hat tip: Frank Foer, guest-blogging at AndrewSullivan.com)

I’ll ignore that the Congress should deal with bigger issues

Now that I’ve moved a considerable distance from my previous residence, I’d assumed that I’d be free of the insufferable disgrace that is Congressman Loose Cannon&#153. When I checked a few days ago, just out of curiosity, I couldn’t believe the gerrymandered nonsense that enabled me to remain within his representation. Thus, I preface this entry with an acknowledgement that I will continue to write about him as a matter of constituency rather than spite. The spite is there, but it wouldn’t be enough to sustain me. Regardless, I’ll be very busy during next year’s Congressional campaign season.

Everyone has by now heard that Rafael Palmeiro tested positive for steroids. It’s a bit shocking and a disgrace for Major League Baseball. Hopefully it’s nothing more than a sign that testing is serious and will not be blind to the bigger names of the game. It’s all wonderful.

The amusing aspect of the story is this:

“As a practical matter, perjury referrals are uncommon. Prosecutions are rare,” House Government Reform Committee chairman Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., said Wednesday in a telephone interview with The Associated Press.

“But this is a high-profile case, so I think it will get an honest look-see. I don’t think anyone can avoid it.”

I’m not going to attack Congressman Loose Cannon for this. As much as it pains me to say it, his basic point is right. Mr. Palmeiro represented himself one way and the facts, after his testimony, may discredit his original testimony. His innocence is still assumed, but any rational person would question his truthfulness. So, despite Congressman Loose Cannon’s obvious posturing and the complete idiocy of the original hearings, I can’t fault him for shoveling deeper in the hole he’s dug for the House.

I can, however, point out his additional comment on the matter.

And then Davis added: “If we did nothing, I think we’d look like idiots. Don’t you?”

Sometimes it’s so easy that it’s not even fun.

At the end of the drive the lawmen arrive

I don’t get e-mails, because I think I’d have to put my e-mail address on this site, but I do get Google searches. Here’s a jaunt through some of my most recent unexpected visitors. Enjoy.

“dale murphy” – Rock!

“santa and jesus” – I can only assume someone meant to type “South Park” and it came out as “santa and jesus”. At least, that’s what I hope happened. Otherwise, someone has some serious explaining to do.

“finger paint” – “I’m eight years old, if I want to finger paint, then I’m gonna finger paint.” Eric Cartman is always solid.

“borrowing wifi against the law” – Right, so if it’s against the law, that means it’s stealing, not borrowing.

“a crushed heart” – Wow. I don’t even know what to say to that. I’m sorry?

“prince and apollonia kissing” – I know what to say to that. Just say no. I’ve seen Purple Rain; you should spare yourself the pain. Don’t say I didn’t warn you.

“obsessed with her legs” – I’m intrigued. You’re not interested in any legs, but hers specifically. Who is “her”? What’s so special about her legs? Share with the Internets.

“doughnut porn” – Oh, I guess now I know how those chocolate doughnuts get covered in that sugary glaze.

She can’t be Sirius

Normally, I don’t bother with celebrity gossip because I don’t care. However, one quote from this story is worth highlighting. Martha Stewart is in trouble for some violation of her home confinement. As punishment, she faces an extra three weeks of being restricted to her home mansion. As inconvenient as that must be, she’s an ubelievably understanding woman. Consider:

“Martha Stewart has agreed to an extension of the terms of her home confinement until Aug. 31.,” her lawyer, Walter Dellinger, said in a statement released Wednesday.

It’s so nice to see that she agreed to the extension. I can’t imagine how much of a bind the government would’ve been in had she declined the offer.

Why do people like her?