Xark!

Gotta be the Exams . . . .

In a sign that studying for exams is starting to affect the mental capacity of the students, I overheard the following exchange today at Wendy's:

Student: I would like a drink.

Counter: What kind of drink?

Student: A medium.

Counter: A medium what?

Student: A medium sized.

Counter: A medium sized what?

Student: A medium sized drink! Dang, I just told you.

The Downside of Pleasure

I have recently been relearning a lesson about the complicity of pleasures, as well as the difficulties of resisting it.

As I’ve mentioned before, I am a strong supporter of public education.  In brief, my stance is that the more all of us are dedicated to our public school systems, the better we will collectively make them.  Rather than thinking about what is “good for us” as individuals, we owe it to each other to make the collective as good and strong as possible.  In this post, I want to bracket the question of whether my position is right or wrong (if you want to debate that question, you can go to the original post where I’ll be more than happy to engage you).  Instead, I want to focus here on the ways in which my reaction to my son’s recent decision to attend an “elite” private school for his university education points to the seductiveness of prevailing common sense, even when we are dedicated to resisting it.

Stop the Scientizing!

I'm a fan of science. I use it every day. I'm using it right now. And with a smile. But that doesn't mean, in my view, that science should poke its nose into everything. Particularly when the science under consideration is the kind that scientizes something just because it can. I'm talking here about two related phenomena: The first is for researchers to study and then quantify something that was more fun when it was explained via non-science, and the second is for news organizations to report such psuedo-science as, well, news. Not only does the scientization suck the fun out of these events, it also cheapens the idea of scientific journalism.

I bring this up because today, on three major (online) news outlets, I came across headlines for three articles detailing such scientization. These were: an ABCNews.com story on the mortality rates of rock stars, a CNN.com report on a study that "confirms" that men are attracted to attractive women, and a stop-the-presses from MSNBC.com about how scientists have (finally!) located the gene which controls skinny. My issue is not just that these studies seem a little unfocused (look at the sample rates, for instance), or that this is headline news (which it was on two of the three sites), but rather that I can't figure out the motive behind the stories and their newsworthiness in the first place. Why is it worth scientizing things that most people knew anyway? Who benefits from this research and reporting? What am I supposed to do with this information?

School Shopping

My Bonnie and I just took Christopher, a rising Senior, on a tour of colleges in North Carolina.  When we set out, we chose five different colleges or universities in order to give him a taste of different “types” of schools.  The idea was this:  when he says, “I’m interested in LARGE STATE school.  What’s it like?,” we could say, “Do you remember UNC-CH?” or “I’m interested in SMALL HIPPIE school.  What’s it like?,” we could remind him about our visit to Warren Wilson. 

After attending official university tours at UNC-Asheville, Warren Wilson College, Wake Forest University, Davidson University, and UNC-Chapel Hill, we feel a bit jaded. Here’s some of what we learned:

The Mayor's Children, My Vote

As the date for the local mayoral and Metro Council elections approaches here in Nashville, I've been trying, with some difficulty, to differentiate between my two favorite mayoral candidates--David Briley and Karl Dean.  Regardless of how much, and how often, I read about their positions, regardless of how many of my "in the know" friends I ask, I still can't come to a strong position on which one I should support. 

I have, however, found an issue that I am beginning to think might act as a personal wedge or divining rod.  Oddly enough, this is not properly a political issue, not in the traditional sense.  In brief, Karl Dean sends his children to private schools, and tha may well become the litmus test upon which I vote for David Briley in this particular election.

While the educational placement of a candidate's children has not been a deciding issue for me in national elections (e.g., I wouldn't have been concerned about Clinton or Bush's children) or in some other local elections, this is generally because I see more meaningful distinctions between the candidates.   All else being equal, I'm leaning toward making this the deciding issue.  The question that keeps bothering me, however, is whether or not this is significant.  Is this indeed a legitimate basis for making a decision?

The Perils of Common Sense

In local Nashville politics, there’s a controversy over the attempt of the Metro school board to mandate standard school attire for children in all Metro Public Schools.  There are a number of elements to the battle that are interesting—most notably the articulate public statements made by several area students and the vocal reaction of the local blogosphere.  Indeed, those interested can find a wonderful articulation/summary of the arguments in the midst of an original statement by NashvilleIsTalking’s Brittney Gilbert (I strongly encourage you to read this if you have any interest in pubic education, school attire, or local controversies). 

There’s been enough said about the topic itself that I have little to add.  However, there’s a lesson to be drawn from the arguments in general that I think should give us all pause.  It’s a lesson we’ve all learned before, a mistake we’ve promised not to make again:  the pitfalls of common sense.  In short: when one looks at the arguments involved in this case, a great number of people—especially those supporting standard school attire (think school uniforms)—have taken a position based on common sense rather than on research.  In doing so, they ultimately support a position that may have little to do with their ultimate goals.

'As bad as, like, whatever'

From the beautiful and brilliant Katherine Williams (lab buddy of the fabulous Pam) comes this collection of high school students' analogies, as submitted by their English teachers:

• Her face was a perfect oval, like a circle that had its two sides gently compressed by a Thigh Master.
• His thoughts tumbled in his head, making and breaking alliances like underpants in a dryer without Cling Free.
• He spoke with the wisdom that can only come from experience, like a guy who went blind because he looked at a solar eclipse without one of those boxes with a pinhole in it and now goes around the country speaking at high schools about the dangers of looking at a solar eclipse, without one of those boxes with a pinhole in it.
• She grew on him like she was a colony of E. coli, and he was room-temperature Canadian beef.
• She had a deep, throaty, genuine laugh, like that sound a dog makes just before it throws up.
• Her vocabulary was as bad as, like, whatever.

But wait -- there's more!

Bruce Sterling: Dot-Green

Via William Gibson, here's Bruce Sterling writing in The WaPo on green economics for our "stricken world that bypassed the time for action":

In 1998, I had it figured that the dot-com boom would become a dot-green boom. It took a while for others to get it. Some still don't. They think I'm joking. They are still used to thinking of greenness as being "counter" and "alternative" -- they don't understand that 21st-century green is and must be about everything -- the works. Sustainability is comprehensive. That which is not sustainable doesn't go on. Glamorous green. I preached that stuff for years. I don't have to preach it anymore, because it couldn't be any louder. Green will never get any sexier than it is in 2007. Because, after this, brown will start going away.

Could I return to my first paragraph for a second? That part about me and the crowd of Serbian radicals? Serbia may be the world's single-greatest locale for a professional futurist. Awful things happen there faster than awful things happen anywhere else. The Balkans is a tragic region that denied stark reality, broke its economy, started multiple unnecessary wars, and basically finger-pointed and squabbled its way into a comprehensive train wreck. It suffered all kinds of pig-headed mayhem, all unnecessary.

That's just how the world behaved with the climate crisis, too. The time for action isn't now. The time for action was 40 years ago. Today we live in a stricken world that bypassed its time for action. We have wreaked science-fiction levels of havoc on the unresisting carcass of Mother Nature. The real trouble is ahead of us.

So what's the good part? They never gave up around here. On the contrary: There's a certain vivid liveliness in the way they're scrambling and clawing their way out of yawning abyss. The food is great, the women dress to kill, and sometimes they even laugh and dance.

You don't have to predict the future when you live in it.

Oh, and FYI -- this is what's on Gibson's mind at the moment...

Of course, Gibson says this wasn't the vision he had. "Interstitial. Gotta be interstitial."