HDMI and Wire Strangle

So, we recently upgraded to a DVR. I figured why go with 5 component cables into the TV when you could just use one. I didn’t know that HDMI would force an analogue signal to 4:3 aspect and so we now have 2 HDMI cables going into the TV, on top of the 5 component, then A/V cable out to the speakers. We must also scroll through the inputs when seeking the proper signal. Does anyone have suggestions? I want less cabling not more.

Gay Marriage and Logicless-ness

One of the problems with this commentary by Leslie Wolfgang is that it insults fathers. Another problem with it is that it misinterprets the state’s influence on the lives of people “in specific.”

Let’s first start with the strawman:

But now that I have children and realize the importance of Daddy in the lives of families, I am willing to speak out against attempts, however unintentional, to institutionalize fatherless-ness as just another option for raising healthy children.

The strawman comes with this notion that legitimizing gay marriage unintentionally institutionalizes “fatherless-ness.” We could rewrite the intention of the move: that it would strengthen contractual relationships and relieve many people of the burden of inequity.

Inherently, when the state removes gender as a requirement for marriage, it institutionalizes and approves of the absence of a man for the prospective care and raising of families.

In this context, I have no idea what Wolfgang means by “inherently” and “prospective.” (I assume “inherently” simply should be taken as “this should be readily obvious.) But let’s look at the logic

What concerns me and others is that same-sex marriage will, in the long term, further discourage men from becoming responsible parents through the social institution of marriage. Statistics show that this fatherless-ness hurts children and their mothers by making them more likely to be poor, sexually abused, under-educated and engaged in illegal behavior.

The writer here asserts that fatherless-ness “hurts children.” Statistics say, but I’d love to see them. But to link the “kind” of fatherless-ness to the unintentional result of gay marriage is patently illogical, given that the author has yet to supply enough inductive proofs to make the link debatable. But there’s also the insult part. Good fathers don’t practice good fathering because of any institutional structure or reward. “Why are you a good father?” asks A. B responds: “Because if I’m not the state will punish me.” This is not what Plato argues in Crito. Men may assume the obligation, but that’s the beauty of the obligation: I chose it and try to do the best job I can, gender or no gender. In my mind, a man has more than an obligation to “fatherhood.” If you’re a father, be the best damned one you can be. I believe that a women can be just as good a father as any man. Masculinity is not what fatherhood is about. The next element of support comes from a quote by Maggie Gallagher of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy

As Maggie Gallagher, president of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, stated during her testimony last week at the Capitol, “When a child is born, there is bound to be a mother somewhere close by. If we want fathers to be involved in raising their children and supporting the mothers of their children, there’s a cultural process by which we teach the next generation of men and women that fathers have an obligation to children and their mothers, and the word for that is `marriage.'”

This is just wonderful. The author plays as if we’re simply meant to buy the authority wholesale. Because Gallagher says it, it must be true. But what Gallagher says is mere “this is just what I think.” Marriage teaches men they have an obligation. Yikes. Whence do people learn obligation? This attitude of institutional indoctrination is nothing I want relations with.

A few more points. The author writes:

Our youngest generations, relying on the rule of law to help them form their minds as to what society expects, will take the senator’s suggestion to its logical conclusion that because they are optional, fathers don’t really matter for marriage and children.

We have forgotten as a society that the state’s interest in marriage is not to validate mutual affection. If that were so, the state would issue friendship certificates or mutual-admiration badges. The purpose of licensing marriage is to encourage the most stable environments for raising well-adjusted future citizens. By licensing marriage without regard to gender, the state will present absentee fatherhood as an equally good alternative for raising children. It wasn’t long ago The New York Times reported that “from a child’s point of view, according to a growing body of social science research, the most supportive household is one with two biological parents in a low conflict marriage.”

The first section up there is more strawman building and, indeed, undercuts the author’s point: is it the rule of law or parents who should raise and teach a child? Again, the idea that law influences peoples’ decisions this deeply is a false conclusion: legal obligation cannot force a mind to change. Any father or mother can be a hapless dolt, regardless of the law. Where is the proof that “this out of this” many marriages under this set of conditions produced less fools. Such evidence isn’t supplied because it isn’t available. To suggest that gay marriage is about “validating mutual affection” is inexcusably illogical. The accompanying article in the Courant Commentary certainly doesn’t argue such a point. The quote from NYT, just to close things off trivially, is laughable as support. From a child’s point of view, chocolate cake could be a vegetable.

A state can certainly create laws that define marriage as this or that. But I think the law should reflect a collective wisdom not collective bias, fear, or belief. Wolfgang asserts not the place of the law but a personal ethic that just happens to coincide with current tradition. But should law maintain tradition always? My opinion is no.

Tunxis Tours

Spazeboy writes further about his Tour de Tunxis.

I’d like to see him write more about a logical full-time faculty staffing number. I think we need five more English faculty to cover work load. That’s a lot of faculty. What forces prohibit a reasonable number of full-time teaching faculty?

Is this the correct question?

He might ask, “Why don’t you write about it?”

And I would answer, “Because I’m a cynic.”

This is not Poetry

In this article yanked from the Hartford Courant, we have examples of the wonderful world of the language of politics

Gonzales and the White House made the final decision to proceed with the plan, Sampson said. “I don’t think the attorney general’s statement that he was not involved in any discussions about U.S. attorney removals is accurate,” Sampson said.

and

Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., the top Republican on the panel, said Sampson’s testimony did more to cloud Gonzales’ future than clear up the controversy. “I think there are more questions,” Specter said, adding that there was now “a real question as to whether he’s acting in a competent way as attorney general.”

The White House stepped back from defending Gonzales even before Sampson finished testifying.

“I’m going to have to let the attorney general speak for himself,” White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said.

Even so, President Bush “is confident that the attorney general can overcome these challenges, and he continues to have the president’s support,” said White House spokesman Tony Fratto.

Typically, when words like “accuracy,” “speak for himself,” “is confident,” “competent,” and “I think” are used by spokespeople and those in Congress all kinds of other things are meant. We could revise the language this way

What he said was bullshit.

and

He’s an asshole and I’m one for not admitting it.

and

I wish I were invisible.

and

We’ll just make like Rumpelstiltskin.

In an opinion piece, found here, Larry McHugh writes

Study after study has demonstrated the significance of education in the lives of young people. The better the education, and the earlier it begins, the better. The governor and General Assembly have always recognized the importance of education, but we are at a critical juncture. Moving education front and center in the current legislative session, as a harbinger of comprehensive action before adjournment, is about as good as it gets for our state’s business community.

“Study after study has . . . ” And this means what? I guess it’s okay to reference studies as a convention in this kind of writing. Most people, however, just open their eyes in the morning. “The better the education, and the earlier it begins, the better.” There are better ways of expressing this and they don’t involve circles.

Hypertext and Commitment

Jesse Ives adds to a post with this comment

The “Game” of life is a serious one, and goals can be important. Of course that’s one of the problems people are facing; a lack of goals. I’m guilty of it myself, but that’s neither here nor there. If a person chooses a path often they can’t go back, but sometimes it’s not worth going all the way along a certain path for one reason or another (perhaps another has opened, or some other aspect has shed light on an undesired result) they choose to adjust or switch to another.

Life is hypertextual.

One question I would ask is can a person commit without some sense of goal. One can have a goal, a mind for an outcome, and this establishes path (Gawain). One can proceed on a path (Buddha, Spiderman) and acquire a sense of outcome.

I don’t want top players. I want students like Jesse.

Responsibility and Ethics continued

This comes from a comment on “the other weblog” from a good citizen:

I was appalled as a student to see the level of irresponsibility and “uncaringness” in my math peers. Has no one taught them, in their previous 19 years, to pull their own weight? (Then again, looking at who’s running the country, I don’t think it’s a new issue.) I don’t even think it’s a college issue. If you’re not prepared, you fail. Yes, this is detrimental to a person’s self-esteem; maybe that’s a good thing. Somewhere along the line every individual needs to learn responsibility. Maybe a slap in college will wake them up. Maybe not. Maybe we can slap the parents??

I myself wouldn’t go after parents. Not even after students, who may or may not know how to “pull their own weight.” It’s not my intention to presume too much, but to justify certain ethics that I feel will promote opportunity. For Mary Ellen, the way people behaved in the course perhaps detracted from her own experience as a student who takes learning space seriously, and must take it seriously, because the institution will provide the path for her own future goals. This last is a key point. If I choose a path, then I must deal with the consequences of my choice. If I intend a vertical climb, I should bring ropes.

Since I’m a game player, I know that good games are designed to be winnable. But they also involve obstructions. Some games punish the player for not paying attention; they force players to rethink their approach. But they also reward those who untangle the patterns and work hard. Good game design is a good model for policy making, in my mind.

The drop date at our college is a major problem, and I’ve argued this in open forums and lost. I believe a drop should be three to four weeks into a semester. Such a date provides people with plenty of time to establish themselves in a learning space, to plan ahead, to determine fit, and to commit. A drop date that is too far into a semester becomes a wild-card variable.

In addition, I can no longer drop students from a course. I should be able to do this, so that I can control and encourage the learning space. In a game, players who get to the middle by cheating or by continually running to the walkthrough will not respond to feedback in the same way that vanguard players do. In reality, I cannot surmount a game section for another player. Players must make the decisions, learn from mistakes, and find the way through. No one could save Sampras from his opponent but himself.

In one section of American Shaolin, Matt Polly confronts major fear at the Zhengzhou tournament. This is the famous “scared shitless” scene. He writes:

I felt tears stream down my face. I wanted to go home. I wanted to stay in that bathroom forever. I wanted to do anything but get on top of a platform and face the Champ in front of 10,000 screaming Chinese.

For me, this is a powerful kind of learning situation where confrontation provides opportunity for demonstration of ability. Games, tests, wounds–these provide learning opportunity.

Let’s continue with this gaming metaphor.

But will the students play?

Responsibility and the Hero’s Trial

Matthew Polly is kind enough to leave a note on this post. He is the author of American Shaolin.

I’ve always been a fan of the literature of the hero’s journey and Mr. Polly’s book falls into this category. But it reminds me of a conversation I had a few weeks back with my fiction students about the core issue of fire, a metaphor for the hero’s trial: Matthew Polly against himself; Sir Gawain and himself and the Green Knight.

Most of the students agreed that a college education can–and I emphasize the “can”–serve as one step on a trial. So this could be added to my last post about the ethics list:

1. Students should seek out trials. (As should faculty)

Thanks, Matt.

Responsibility and the Ethics of Classrooms

Something’s been bothering me of late. It has to do with college student responsibility. Why is it bothering me? A couple of reasons. I find more students not observing the time and date of my meetings with them. I did not determine these dates and times, though I agreed with them in consultation with my wonderful English Department chair. I entered class a few weeks back and found 4 students waiting for me. 4 out of fifteen, more if I count the roster.

I’ve been teaching in various capacities for about fourteen years, more if I count student teaching as TA and GA. I have, therefore, a span of time to work with in terms of tracking how my experience of the classroom has changed. It’s changed dramatically. At UT El Paso, I began teaching Composition courses. I would typically start out with courses full of students and end semesters with about the same amount of people. These days, writing courses start out pretty much loaded and I end semesters with less than half of students submitting portfolios. Not all of them will meet the requirements for success. Attitudes have not changed; behavior has.

One reason for diminished student success has to do with the amount of stress students lay on themselves during the course of a semester. I find that many more people are not participating in course work in addition to their lack of attendance. Lack of attendance and missed meetings stresses a student’s experience. Here’s a scenario. A student misses a class where I go over how to organize and deal with counterargument or I provide examples of analysis in a section of an argument. The object here is to provide practice. If a student misses this discussion, they miss the subject entirely or won’t pick up on its variations later on.

This is fine to a point. People can’t always attend. Stuff happens, and we work with students who have other responsibilities to balance.

Nevertheless, I find that behavior is affecting my own attitude and and my own ability to teach. If a few students miss, I can catch them up and see them to the next level inside the course. If many students miss, I have to move to the next level and hope the students somehow catch up. I have to rely on several students staying alert with the readings. If not, I’m essentially teaching to an empty room and speaking to people who really don’t know what I’m driving at. My main technique is the Socratic method. I enter, ask questions, play with the responses, and build to deeper questions that leave students wanting to find out more. But this method–lecture, debate, discussion–needs a variety of opinion and a variety of response. If the majority of students don’t read on the subject, questions about the topic have no context.

Most faculty, I would argue, put a lot of preparation into what they do day to day. Their time between teaching–what some people call breaks–is taken up with prep, catch-up, field work, and revision. The good teachers I know never stop what they do. They’re also adding to their approaches with weblogs, wikis, xml technology, database use, new emphases to teaching approaches, and the ubiquitous upgrades to equipment. Councilors and other support staff hold long hot hours, bolstering systems, and working with students to get them where they want to go. Throughout the year, most faculty fulfill their responsibilities; many I know break their backs on behalf of students.

We have our duds, too, people who give colleges and universities a black eye, who take advantage, who ruin. We always will have them. I have my own horror stories about the faculty member who fucked up by forgetting to challenge. And I can still see the eyes rolling in the room when Dr. Whatshisface opened the book and started reading from it. I also remember meeting up with other students to make up for the loss.

It’s my belief that liberal education at college should remain a choice. Literature courses should be offered at colleges and universities. Hopefully students will want to take them, or, if they have to take then, as directed by their degree requirements, they should channel their best efforts towards learning what a course has to offer because that costs nothing. It is also my belief that students who do not want to take a literature course should not do so, even if their degree requires it. To extend that logic, people who don’t really want to attend college, should try something else out for a while, or find success on another life track (college isn’t the only game going). However, if a student, regardless of reason, choses to attend, then they must understand that certain expectations come with that choice.

The Fallacy of Subjugation

People often have odd reactions to form in essay writing. They see a 12 point font or MLA requirement as somehow taking away from their creativity or from some other area of their time. My answer to the typical “Why do we have to do it this way?” is, “You don’t.”

“What is the MLA’s reasoning” is an entirely different question.

Fact is:

1. Form can be learned.
2. It doesn’t require much time.
3. It can add to depth of study.

“Why in CSS is border:none non compliant?”

Everyone must deal with form: in law, politics, engineering, and architecture. The larger point here is that we all must learn to negotiate with a variety of forces external to us. Citation requirements, reading lists, and academic demands are simply three examples of such learned negotiation. But if a person doesn’t want to comply with simple forms or read, then they don’t have to comply.


Intellectual Bootcamp

What follows is a list of ethical position I think students should take in a college environment. Each one of them embeds a related ethic for college and university personnel.

1. They should take on an aggressive urge to learn things. This one is key because it costs nothing. There are 24 hours to the day. It can be taken up with work, worry, study, or any other activity. Over a three month period, a person can study and get a lot out of a design course or not attend and get nothing from it, all within the same time span.
2. They should demand a rigorous curriculum. Carpentry is not easy.
3. They should seek out opportunities to apply learning and to question what we think we know.
4. They should try to beat the learning environment at its own game. All the good teachers I know want their students to challenge them and their discipline, to push them and it forward. I want people to provide different readings and reflections of Othello, to acquire and use their growing knowledge in meaningful and new ways.
5. They should expect to earn the right to a hearing. This ethic can’t be purchased.
6. They should seek out complexity. Not because atomic structures are complex, but because people are.

This is a duplicate post.

More on Symmetry

“I was not involved in seeing any memos, was not involved in any discussions about what was going on,” Gonzales said.

Maybe he just doesn’t remember. Anyway, this would seem to indicate otherwise. Which brings me back to the scruple: why can’t these guys just stand up? Again, I just don’t get it.

I miss the old theme.