What BP and the lie of deregulation has wrought.
I am unspeakably angry and upset; worse, I feel helpless all over again. When a single senator can block even the simplest step toward legislating responsibility, what hope is there that the truly necessary measures can be taken?
Regulate and enforce. This has to stop. I wish there was more I could do, but I'm going to start by writing some letters.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Happy Anniversary, Mount St. Helens!
You exploded in a spectacular fashion 30 years ago today! If I'd thought about it, maybe I would have tried to bump my wedding 4 days earlier just so I could have a shared anniversary.
...just kidding. Mostly.
There's going to be less than normal going on in this blog for the next couple of weeks, FYI. Because there's this wedding thing, and guests from out of town, and I'm sort of running frantically around. I'm just happy that thus far that the volcano at Eyjafjallajökull has not prevented any of my British friends (and family-to-be) from making it across the Atlantic, but the game's not over yet.
...just kidding. Mostly.
There's going to be less than normal going on in this blog for the next couple of weeks, FYI. Because there's this wedding thing, and guests from out of town, and I'm sort of running frantically around. I'm just happy that thus far that the volcano at Eyjafjallajökull has not prevented any of my British friends (and family-to-be) from making it across the Atlantic, but the game's not over yet.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Jim C. Hines looks at first novel statistics
As someone that would one day like to wear the big-girl published author pants, I found Jim Hines' survey results fairly interesting. Particularly the way he takes a Mythbusters-esque approach to looking at certain "common widsom" about getting published - like that you have to have an in, or the way to do it is to write short fiction1.
And of course, something that makes my inner science fair judge smile - he has a section at the end on sources of error/survey flaws. Awesome work, Mr. Hines!
Overall, I found it very interesting and I'd encourage anyone who's wanting to become a published author of novels to take a look. It's obviously not definitive, but there's a lot of food for thought when you get the hint that just maybe the people who are telling you to self-publish are pushing you in a unhelpful direction. Or that it's okay if you don't get published before you're 30. As someone set to hit 30 this year, that last one makes me feel a whole lot better.
1 - My reaction: "You mean I don't have to write short stories? WOOHOOOOOO!" Mostly because I'm terrible at short stories. Other than the extremely rare ideas I come up with that a small enough for the format, trying to write short form fiction just fills me with seething frustration.
And of course, something that makes my inner science fair judge smile - he has a section at the end on sources of error/survey flaws. Awesome work, Mr. Hines!
Overall, I found it very interesting and I'd encourage anyone who's wanting to become a published author of novels to take a look. It's obviously not definitive, but there's a lot of food for thought when you get the hint that just maybe the people who are telling you to self-publish are pushing you in a unhelpful direction. Or that it's okay if you don't get published before you're 30. As someone set to hit 30 this year, that last one makes me feel a whole lot better.
1 - My reaction: "You mean I don't have to write short stories? WOOHOOOOOO!" Mostly because I'm terrible at short stories. Other than the extremely rare ideas I come up with that a small enough for the format, trying to write short form fiction just fills me with seething frustration.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
A few random links
A bit more on Electron Boy - Major blub warning.
Neil Gaiman feels like a political football - and after reviewing the facts, I don't blame him. There's also a link from that post to the comments from a BoingBoing post about this. Cory Doctorow's spot on as far as I'm concerned. I read over most of the rest of the comments, and man... I'm starting to think there's really something to the conception that scifi/fantasty fandom has more than its fair share of entitled brats.
Doubt is cast on many reports of food allergies - I thought this was quite interesting, since I've been (quietly, since I'm not expert) doubtful about the perceived massive leap in food allergies in recent years. Mostly because a lot of it smells a bit... naturopathic1. Also, I found the bit about IgE antibody tests interesting, since I recently had one that showed some antibodies for shellfish and milk, though I've never been allergic to either of those.
1 - Money quote:
Partially digested food floating around in my bloodstream WHAT?
Neil Gaiman feels like a political football - and after reviewing the facts, I don't blame him. There's also a link from that post to the comments from a BoingBoing post about this. Cory Doctorow's spot on as far as I'm concerned. I read over most of the rest of the comments, and man... I'm starting to think there's really something to the conception that scifi/fantasty fandom has more than its fair share of entitled brats.
Doubt is cast on many reports of food allergies - I thought this was quite interesting, since I've been (quietly, since I'm not expert) doubtful about the perceived massive leap in food allergies in recent years. Mostly because a lot of it smells a bit... naturopathic1. Also, I found the bit about IgE antibody tests interesting, since I recently had one that showed some antibodies for shellfish and milk, though I've never been allergic to either of those.
1 - Money quote:
Because of the inflammation, the lining of the gastrointestinal tract can develop little openings that bits of undigested or partially digested food can pass through. This is referred to as "leaky gut syndrome." When these particles enter the bloodstream, the body's immune system recognizes them as foreign and attacks them. Thus, an immune response is initiated at this point, but it is still not identified as a true food allergy.
Partially digested food floating around in my bloodstream WHAT?
Fluvial response to tectonic activity
Lunch today was quite fun; we had a "lunch and learn" that involved a lot of really tasty brownies and an hour-long talk by John M Holbrook. It was for the most part a general overview of the surface process quirks of meandering rivers and how those affect their usefulness as reservoirs. Most basically, oil companies like drilling in point bars since that's where the best sand packages are to be found. Understanding the complex ways that rivers meander and stack up point bars over time (and that coarse channel fill can act as a fluid transmitter between sets of point bars at times) is a way to try to maximize drilling effectiveness.
Not that mapping out historical meanders is an easy task even for a river that's still active and not buried hundreds of feet down and only visible via cores or seismic. Dr. Holbrook used a particular section of the Mississippi River (where it crosses the New Madrid seismic zone) to illustrate these concepts, and said that when they were trying to map out the old meanders by taking sediment cores, they were wrong about 30% of the time.
I thought the most interesting part of his talk was a brief look at fluvial response to tectonic activity, particularly how a river reacts to displacement on a fault that it crosses, since that normally means a change in grade on both sides of the fault. Looking at the Mississippi's reaction to the displacement on the faults it crossed, the basic response was for the river to straighten out (cutting off meanders) on the downdropped side of the fault (where the gradient decreases) and resume meandering on the uplifted side. Which makes a lot of sense, really, though the other interesting thing was how quickly this response occurs. (Answer: very quickly.)
He's got a paper in the pipe1 about using the Mississippi to examine tectonic activity on the New Madrid fault, which is currently in review for Tectonophysics. Apparently it's a bit controversial since what the river seems to show is that earthquakes along the fault system are temporally clustered, which doesn't necessarily fit with the current consensus on the seismic zone. So I hope that it does get published and I can find a way to get my hands on the paper, since it sounds like an interesting read.
1 - If it gets published, here's the title: Restored river courses reveal millennial-scale temporal clustering on a midplate fault
Not that mapping out historical meanders is an easy task even for a river that's still active and not buried hundreds of feet down and only visible via cores or seismic. Dr. Holbrook used a particular section of the Mississippi River (where it crosses the New Madrid seismic zone) to illustrate these concepts, and said that when they were trying to map out the old meanders by taking sediment cores, they were wrong about 30% of the time.
I thought the most interesting part of his talk was a brief look at fluvial response to tectonic activity, particularly how a river reacts to displacement on a fault that it crosses, since that normally means a change in grade on both sides of the fault. Looking at the Mississippi's reaction to the displacement on the faults it crossed, the basic response was for the river to straighten out (cutting off meanders) on the downdropped side of the fault (where the gradient decreases) and resume meandering on the uplifted side. Which makes a lot of sense, really, though the other interesting thing was how quickly this response occurs. (Answer: very quickly.)
He's got a paper in the pipe1 about using the Mississippi to examine tectonic activity on the New Madrid fault, which is currently in review for Tectonophysics. Apparently it's a bit controversial since what the river seems to show is that earthquakes along the fault system are temporally clustered, which doesn't necessarily fit with the current consensus on the seismic zone. So I hope that it does get published and I can find a way to get my hands on the paper, since it sounds like an interesting read.
1 - If it gets published, here's the title: Restored river courses reveal millennial-scale temporal clustering on a midplate fault
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Rapture Ready
I recently checked Rapture Ready: Adventures in the parallel universe of Christian pop culture out from the DPL branch near my workplace. The copy that I got had a different cover on it than what you see on that website; it was white, with a candy necklace on the front - except this candy necklace had a giant pink cross on it.
This made me feel just a little weird about reading it on the bus, though I didn't let that stop me.
I don't normally read a lot of non-fiction to begin with, and unless the book is exceptionally well written, I tend to slog through and take it in a little at a time. Not so here; Daniel Radosh deserves a lot of compliments. In general, his writing was very conversational, very entertaining, and he covered the necessary background or concepts that went with his own experiences without ever becoming the least bit dry. This was a book that I read while riding on my exercise bike, and that's a rare compliment indeed - it takes a very interesting book to get me to forget the fact that I hate exercise bikes because they make my ass go numb.
Looking at the narrative in the book, the two words that really spring to mind are "humor" and "humanity." There's a lot to find amusing in any pop culture; the weird quirks Mr. Radosh identifies in Christian pop culture seem even funnier (in a bizarre sort of way) to an atheist such as myself. But I think it's very important that he leavens the humor with a very big dose of humanity and understanding.
Which isn't to say that he is in any way supportive of the strange, walled-off sort of pop culture that has been created by a certain segment of American Christians. With deft comedy, he skewers the segments of that pop culture that so deftly need skewering, presents others with little comment when they will handily collapse under their own weight, and in a few instances becomes well and truly angry or a bit frightened when such emotions are richly deserved. I think what makes all of that so genuine is the sense that, while his stated purpose from the beginning was to find the dark underbelly of the true nuts, he was also doing his best to be open minded and allow himself to be surprised.
At the end, you get the sense that all in all, the experience has left him strangely hopeful. I found Mr. Radosh's strange journey to be something that gives me hope as well. While there are quite a few scary figures to be found within Rapture Ready (Ken Ham being one of the front runners) there are also many people who are hoping to find some sort of common ground, who seem just as disturbed as the non-Christians by some they are sharing their pop culture with. If nothing else, it asks the question, "Can't we all just get along?" and posits a cautious, "Maybe."
A few highlights from the books:
I would definitely recommend it.
This made me feel just a little weird about reading it on the bus, though I didn't let that stop me.
I don't normally read a lot of non-fiction to begin with, and unless the book is exceptionally well written, I tend to slog through and take it in a little at a time. Not so here; Daniel Radosh deserves a lot of compliments. In general, his writing was very conversational, very entertaining, and he covered the necessary background or concepts that went with his own experiences without ever becoming the least bit dry. This was a book that I read while riding on my exercise bike, and that's a rare compliment indeed - it takes a very interesting book to get me to forget the fact that I hate exercise bikes because they make my ass go numb.
Looking at the narrative in the book, the two words that really spring to mind are "humor" and "humanity." There's a lot to find amusing in any pop culture; the weird quirks Mr. Radosh identifies in Christian pop culture seem even funnier (in a bizarre sort of way) to an atheist such as myself. But I think it's very important that he leavens the humor with a very big dose of humanity and understanding.
Which isn't to say that he is in any way supportive of the strange, walled-off sort of pop culture that has been created by a certain segment of American Christians. With deft comedy, he skewers the segments of that pop culture that so deftly need skewering, presents others with little comment when they will handily collapse under their own weight, and in a few instances becomes well and truly angry or a bit frightened when such emotions are richly deserved. I think what makes all of that so genuine is the sense that, while his stated purpose from the beginning was to find the dark underbelly of the true nuts, he was also doing his best to be open minded and allow himself to be surprised.
At the end, you get the sense that all in all, the experience has left him strangely hopeful. I found Mr. Radosh's strange journey to be something that gives me hope as well. While there are quite a few scary figures to be found within Rapture Ready (Ken Ham being one of the front runners) there are also many people who are hoping to find some sort of common ground, who seem just as disturbed as the non-Christians by some they are sharing their pop culture with. If nothing else, it asks the question, "Can't we all just get along?" and posits a cautious, "Maybe."
A few highlights from the books:
I would definitely recommend it.
Friday, May 07, 2010
From Science: Climate Change and the Integrity of Science
Over at Science There's a letter with a veritable laundry list of signers regarding the recent (and not so recent) unconscionable attack on climate science by the media, politicians, and others. It's very much worth the time it takes to read.
Well said.
First seen over at Geotripper.
We also call for an end to McCarthy-like threats of criminal prosecution against our colleagues based on innuendo and guilt by association, the harassment of scientists by politicians seeking distractions to avoid taking action, and the outright lies being spread about them. Society has two choices: We can ignore the science and hide our heads in the sand and hope we are lucky, or we can act in the public interest to reduce the threat of global climate change quickly and substantively.
Well said.
First seen over at Geotripper.
Thursday, May 06, 2010
Thoughts from a future petroleum geologist
Maybe some of you are tired of seeing this picture already.
You know what? Tough shit.
You should tattoo this picture on the inside of your eyelids. This image should haunt your dreams. Every time you fill up your gas tank, you should think about this. Every time you hear some moronic politician of any stripe utter the meaningless phrase "reduce our dependency on foreign oil," this picture should be what you think about.
I don't make it a secret that I earn my living from the oil industry, and have done so for the past five years. I also don't normally make it a giant talking point. It's quite likely that when I get out of grad school in a couple of years with a Masters' in geology under my belt, I will return to the industry that set me on this academic course and work as a petroleum geologist.
But that doesn't mean I have to support everything that my industry does, or the absolutely stupid attitude that this country has toward oil and natural gas.
And it is stupid. Very, very stupid. Unless you're a believer in abiotic oil1, you have to come to grips with the realization that oil is an extremely limited natural resource. When it's gone, it's gone. And unless you're pandering, lying, or completely ignorant of how the oil business works, you have to understand that drilling more does nothing to diminish America's oft-cited dependency on "foreign" oil. We're not a country where oil drilling and production is nationalized. When oil is sucked out of formations in America, it doesn't go into a giant barrel marked "For Americans only." While we are a net importer we do export oil. Mostly it's Alaska and West Coast oil going to countries around the Pacific Rim; but the point is, oil produced in America does not automatically belong to us, the American people. And further, increasing the supply of oil is at best only a temporary solution; it does not decrease the demand, and oil - as I've said before - is a limited natural resource.
When I hear any of the slogans - "Drill, baby, drill" or "Drill here, drill now" being the worst offenders - frankly, it makes me want to vomit2. It's short-sighted, it's irresponsible, and it displays the sort of willful ignorance and dishonesty that has plagued our country since before the Exxon Valdez disaster. If we're truly worried about the fact that we import massive amounts of oil, that we are gobbling up a limited resource as quickly as it can be drawn from the ground, the solution is not to drill and speed the depletion. The solution is to reduce the demand, period.
So I bet you're wondering now why on Earth I'm working for an oil company, and why I'm considering a career as a petroleum geologist, since I'm apparently so anti-oil.
Part of it is financial, and I'm honest enough to admit that. My years in this industry have been the best of my working adult life. My company treats its people incredibly well, and I find the work very intellectually stimulating.
But more importantly, it is because I'm not anti-oil. I'm anti-stupidity and anti-irresponsibility. And those are the two qualities that have marked the handling of the industry and the public's general reaction to it since... well, ever, I'd say.
I believe that it is possible for oil companies to drill in a responsible manner that limits the environmental impact to almost zero. I believe that risky projects shouldn't be undertaken unless every possible precaution has been taken and the environmental impacts have been thoroughly studied and understood.
I believe that it is the government's job to step in and make certain that happens with strict regulation, monitoring, and enforcement, because frankly I think it's stupid to expect people to monitor themselves when they're in a situation where all profit is private but risk is shared out with the public, willing or no.
I believe it was industry irresponsibility that caused the slow-motion disaster that continues to horrify me every day, and it was also government irresponsibility. And frankly, it was also the irresponsibility of each and every person in America that has bought into the lie that business and industry don't need regulation.
But even more important - and I am going to put this in bold, because if you take nothing else away from this post, I want you to remember this - I believe that oil is an amazing and versatile natural resource that could be used to the general benefit of humanity and it is a crime that we are burning it.
Other posts to read:
An Open Letter To Anyone Who Ever Said "Drill, Baby, Drill"
The Power of a Photograph...
1 - Often referred to as "snake oil" or "horse shit" by most geologists I've ever encountered - and keep in mind that most of my geologists buddies are card-carrying members of AAPG.
2 - And not just because it's often being said by Sarah Palin.
You know what? Tough shit.
You should tattoo this picture on the inside of your eyelids. This image should haunt your dreams. Every time you fill up your gas tank, you should think about this. Every time you hear some moronic politician of any stripe utter the meaningless phrase "reduce our dependency on foreign oil," this picture should be what you think about.
I don't make it a secret that I earn my living from the oil industry, and have done so for the past five years. I also don't normally make it a giant talking point. It's quite likely that when I get out of grad school in a couple of years with a Masters' in geology under my belt, I will return to the industry that set me on this academic course and work as a petroleum geologist.
But that doesn't mean I have to support everything that my industry does, or the absolutely stupid attitude that this country has toward oil and natural gas.
And it is stupid. Very, very stupid. Unless you're a believer in abiotic oil1, you have to come to grips with the realization that oil is an extremely limited natural resource. When it's gone, it's gone. And unless you're pandering, lying, or completely ignorant of how the oil business works, you have to understand that drilling more does nothing to diminish America's oft-cited dependency on "foreign" oil. We're not a country where oil drilling and production is nationalized. When oil is sucked out of formations in America, it doesn't go into a giant barrel marked "For Americans only." While we are a net importer we do export oil. Mostly it's Alaska and West Coast oil going to countries around the Pacific Rim; but the point is, oil produced in America does not automatically belong to us, the American people. And further, increasing the supply of oil is at best only a temporary solution; it does not decrease the demand, and oil - as I've said before - is a limited natural resource.
When I hear any of the slogans - "Drill, baby, drill" or "Drill here, drill now" being the worst offenders - frankly, it makes me want to vomit2. It's short-sighted, it's irresponsible, and it displays the sort of willful ignorance and dishonesty that has plagued our country since before the Exxon Valdez disaster. If we're truly worried about the fact that we import massive amounts of oil, that we are gobbling up a limited resource as quickly as it can be drawn from the ground, the solution is not to drill and speed the depletion. The solution is to reduce the demand, period.
So I bet you're wondering now why on Earth I'm working for an oil company, and why I'm considering a career as a petroleum geologist, since I'm apparently so anti-oil.
Part of it is financial, and I'm honest enough to admit that. My years in this industry have been the best of my working adult life. My company treats its people incredibly well, and I find the work very intellectually stimulating.
But more importantly, it is because I'm not anti-oil. I'm anti-stupidity and anti-irresponsibility. And those are the two qualities that have marked the handling of the industry and the public's general reaction to it since... well, ever, I'd say.
I believe that it is possible for oil companies to drill in a responsible manner that limits the environmental impact to almost zero. I believe that risky projects shouldn't be undertaken unless every possible precaution has been taken and the environmental impacts have been thoroughly studied and understood.
I believe that it is the government's job to step in and make certain that happens with strict regulation, monitoring, and enforcement, because frankly I think it's stupid to expect people to monitor themselves when they're in a situation where all profit is private but risk is shared out with the public, willing or no.
I believe it was industry irresponsibility that caused the slow-motion disaster that continues to horrify me every day, and it was also government irresponsibility. And frankly, it was also the irresponsibility of each and every person in America that has bought into the lie that business and industry don't need regulation.
But even more important - and I am going to put this in bold, because if you take nothing else away from this post, I want you to remember this - I believe that oil is an amazing and versatile natural resource that could be used to the general benefit of humanity and it is a crime that we are burning it.
Other posts to read:
An Open Letter To Anyone Who Ever Said "Drill, Baby, Drill"
The Power of a Photograph...
1 - Often referred to as "snake oil" or "horse shit" by most geologists I've ever encountered - and keep in mind that most of my geologists buddies are card-carrying members of AAPG.
2 - And not just because it's often being said by Sarah Palin.
Wednesday, May 05, 2010
Mars Geomorph Porn
There's a lovely blog post over at The Planetary Society explaining a couple of images from IAG's Planetary Geomorphology Working Group's May 2010 featured images.
This is some cool stuff, since it's very much connected to the ongoing "water on Mars" debate, and the geomorphological argument has to do with water leaching minerals over a fairly long period of time. Another of the images that the blog post doesn't cover looks at:
Aqueous alteration environment... squee! With of course the added fun of wondering what might have caused the pH of that environment to go from neutral-ish to acidic. Interesting stuff, to be sure.
I didn't know about the images of the month, but I'm going to start checking them out for sure! Geomorphology was one of my favorite undergrad classes, and there's some very neat stuff on that site. For example, comparison of catastrophic flood bed forms on Earth and Mars that was April's set of images. Looking at land features via aerial/satellite imagery isn't perfect, but I think it's great to see our knowledge of our own planet being applied to the images we're getting from Mars.
This is some cool stuff, since it's very much connected to the ongoing "water on Mars" debate, and the geomorphological argument has to do with water leaching minerals over a fairly long period of time. Another of the images that the blog post doesn't cover looks at:
However, with the addition of infrared color, two distinct units of altered minerals can be discerned, and using spectroscopic information, these have been identified. Here at NE Syrtis, there is a unique stratigraphy of iron sulfate overlying carbonate, which is being exposed by the erosion of overlying lavas (Mustard and Ehlmann, 2010). This suggests a transition in the aqueous alteration environment from neutral-to-alkaline to acidic that is preserved in the rock record.
Aqueous alteration environment... squee! With of course the added fun of wondering what might have caused the pH of that environment to go from neutral-ish to acidic. Interesting stuff, to be sure.
I didn't know about the images of the month, but I'm going to start checking them out for sure! Geomorphology was one of my favorite undergrad classes, and there's some very neat stuff on that site. For example, comparison of catastrophic flood bed forms on Earth and Mars that was April's set of images. Looking at land features via aerial/satellite imagery isn't perfect, but I think it's great to see our knowledge of our own planet being applied to the images we're getting from Mars.
Local: I fear for the future of education in Colorado
SB10-191 ("Ensuring Quality Instruction Through Educator Effectiveness") has passed the Colorado state senate and moved on to the House education committee.
This is another bill in the tradition of "blame the teachers if students fail." I realize that mediocre and downright bad teachers exist. We've all had them in the past and can remember them well, no doubt. However, I think it's pretty unfair to teachers in general to pretend that outside factors don't have a profound effect on a kid's ability to make it to school and learn. Does the kid have supportive parents? Are they from an abusive family? Did they go to pre-school? Do they have a learning disability that no one has the funding to address? And so on.
Admittedly, I didn't think of a lot of these things myself until my best friend started teaching at a high poverty school, and I visited her class to meet some of the kids. There were a lot of great, wonderful little human beings, and I think most of them were really doing their best to learn - they sure asked a lot of questions when I talked a little bit about rocks in Colorado. But looking back at my own childhood, I can also see that no matter how bright and attentive a child might be at school, they may not be able to provide the test scores you think they should if, for example, they don't get meals outside of school lunches and breakfasts because their family is that desperately poor. Or if they go home and get beaten half to death by their father, or mother, or older sibling. Or. Or.
The proposed law would impose yet another round of standardized tests on children that already spend a shocking amount of time practicing for and doing tests as mandated by No Child Left Behind. And then the results would make up half of a teacher's "effectiveness" rating, which could potentially cause the teacher to lose their non-probationary status, which is Colorado-speak for losing tenure. Oh yes, and there's no funding in it for developing the new assessment tests either, which seems like a bad idea since the state funding for schools has already taken a big hit this year.
I see a lot of unintended consequences coming from linking a teacher's career so tightly to standardized tests in the name of accountability. I can foresee some teachers being worried enough about the testing that emphasis will shift even more toward teaching to the test, which doesn't do the students a whole lot of good in the long run. And I see this as a means to "scare" teachers away from wanting to work in high-poverty schools, because classically children in those environments test fairly poorly. High poverty schools have enough problems1 without adding "destroyer of careers" to their repertoires. Unfortunately, I think this bill was largely created without considering those implications, because the plight of students at high poverty schools - and the extra disadvantages many of the kids have - is largely invisible to those not directly involved.
I certainly understand the desire to hold teachers accountable; no one likes the thought that an awful teacher is soaking up public money while not doing their job. But I really, really, really don't think this is the solution, and frankly, I think the "awful teacher" has become a boogeyman that's distracting policymakers from attempting to address the very real problems in public education. When the state budget for education has been slashed, it's a lot easier to concentrate on "awful teachers" ruining students than address the effect that drop in funding will have on necessary programs, or admit that just maybe, we need to pitch in a little more on taxes so we don't shortchange the intellectual future of our state. When low wages and an ailing economy a preventing parents from being involved in the education of their children because they're trying to make ends meet on multiple low-wage part-time jobs, it's a lot easier to blame "awful teachers" than to try to figure out how to enable the parents so that they can help their children excel.
I'm proud to say that my state senator, Evie Hudak was one of the 14 "no" votes on the bill in the senate. I've e-mailed my representative to let her know what I think. Ms. Hudak had a lot to say about why she voted no, and if you don't buy my less-than-expert arguments, hers are much more worthwhile:
Senate Bill 191, Principal and Teacher Effectiveness
Why I Voted NO on SB 191
1 - Like not being able to afford, I don't know, paper.
This is another bill in the tradition of "blame the teachers if students fail." I realize that mediocre and downright bad teachers exist. We've all had them in the past and can remember them well, no doubt. However, I think it's pretty unfair to teachers in general to pretend that outside factors don't have a profound effect on a kid's ability to make it to school and learn. Does the kid have supportive parents? Are they from an abusive family? Did they go to pre-school? Do they have a learning disability that no one has the funding to address? And so on.
Admittedly, I didn't think of a lot of these things myself until my best friend started teaching at a high poverty school, and I visited her class to meet some of the kids. There were a lot of great, wonderful little human beings, and I think most of them were really doing their best to learn - they sure asked a lot of questions when I talked a little bit about rocks in Colorado. But looking back at my own childhood, I can also see that no matter how bright and attentive a child might be at school, they may not be able to provide the test scores you think they should if, for example, they don't get meals outside of school lunches and breakfasts because their family is that desperately poor. Or if they go home and get beaten half to death by their father, or mother, or older sibling. Or. Or.
The proposed law would impose yet another round of standardized tests on children that already spend a shocking amount of time practicing for and doing tests as mandated by No Child Left Behind. And then the results would make up half of a teacher's "effectiveness" rating, which could potentially cause the teacher to lose their non-probationary status, which is Colorado-speak for losing tenure. Oh yes, and there's no funding in it for developing the new assessment tests either, which seems like a bad idea since the state funding for schools has already taken a big hit this year.
I see a lot of unintended consequences coming from linking a teacher's career so tightly to standardized tests in the name of accountability. I can foresee some teachers being worried enough about the testing that emphasis will shift even more toward teaching to the test, which doesn't do the students a whole lot of good in the long run. And I see this as a means to "scare" teachers away from wanting to work in high-poverty schools, because classically children in those environments test fairly poorly. High poverty schools have enough problems1 without adding "destroyer of careers" to their repertoires. Unfortunately, I think this bill was largely created without considering those implications, because the plight of students at high poverty schools - and the extra disadvantages many of the kids have - is largely invisible to those not directly involved.
I certainly understand the desire to hold teachers accountable; no one likes the thought that an awful teacher is soaking up public money while not doing their job. But I really, really, really don't think this is the solution, and frankly, I think the "awful teacher" has become a boogeyman that's distracting policymakers from attempting to address the very real problems in public education. When the state budget for education has been slashed, it's a lot easier to concentrate on "awful teachers" ruining students than address the effect that drop in funding will have on necessary programs, or admit that just maybe, we need to pitch in a little more on taxes so we don't shortchange the intellectual future of our state. When low wages and an ailing economy a preventing parents from being involved in the education of their children because they're trying to make ends meet on multiple low-wage part-time jobs, it's a lot easier to blame "awful teachers" than to try to figure out how to enable the parents so that they can help their children excel.
I'm proud to say that my state senator, Evie Hudak was one of the 14 "no" votes on the bill in the senate. I've e-mailed my representative to let her know what I think. Ms. Hudak had a lot to say about why she voted no, and if you don't buy my less-than-expert arguments, hers are much more worthwhile:
Senate Bill 191, Principal and Teacher Effectiveness
Why I Voted NO on SB 191
1 - Like not being able to afford, I don't know, paper.
Tuesday, May 04, 2010
Just went I thought you couldn't sink any lower, Cuccinelli
First, there was Cuccinelli and his anti-gay dickery. Then he jumped on to the healthcare reform lawsuit band wagon. Then he let us all in on his nipple phobia. Oh Ken Cuccinelli, is there no nuttery you will not force me to look at an say, "...seriously?"
And now he's after a climate change scientist. Oh my stars and garters. Cuccinelli has come across pretty steadily as a climate change denier, so investigating Michael Mann for "defrauding taxpayers" over grants for global warming research carries a nasty whiff of intimidation. Don't like the science? Attack the scientist's reputation. Anyway, I think Phil lays it all out quite nicely.
I do have to say one thing I've found interesting on Phil's post is the comments. Because as you would expect, the minute the Bad Astronomer tippy-tapped out:
...the trolls and deniers came scooting out of their dark corners of the internet. What's fascinating me is how disjointed some of the comments seem from the actual post.
My dramatic reenactment:
I don't know. Maybe the people writing those comments are actually Cuccinelli and Inhofe under assumed names? Otherwise... goodness, we are getting a little defensive, aren't we.
And now he's after a climate change scientist. Oh my stars and garters. Cuccinelli has come across pretty steadily as a climate change denier, so investigating Michael Mann for "defrauding taxpayers" over grants for global warming research carries a nasty whiff of intimidation. Don't like the science? Attack the scientist's reputation. Anyway, I think Phil lays it all out quite nicely.
I do have to say one thing I've found interesting on Phil's post is the comments. Because as you would expect, the minute the Bad Astronomer tippy-tapped out:
To be clear: the climate is changing. There is zero doubt about that. None. Anyone telling you differently has an agenda to ram, and it’s one that is decidedly not realistic.
...the trolls and deniers came scooting out of their dark corners of the internet. What's fascinating me is how disjointed some of the comments seem from the actual post.
My dramatic reenactment:
Phil: Cuccinelli is a jerk! Inhofe is a jerk! Politicians that abuse their power to try to intimidate scientists who come to conclusions they don't like are jerks! RAR!
Commenter: But what about MY feelings????? How dare you call ME a denier!!! OMG I feel so attacked!!!
I don't know. Maybe the people writing those comments are actually Cuccinelli and Inhofe under assumed names? Otherwise... goodness, we are getting a little defensive, aren't we.
Fun with colors
xkcd did a survey of what people called different colors and has now posted the results. It's all pretty funny, for a variety of reasons, so you should read the post.
I was actually surprised that there wasn't really that much of a difference between what men and women called the various colors. And that there was some consensus between the genders regarding "teal." Because let me tell you, maybe my X chromosomes are faulty, but I have no clue what the hell kind of color "teal" actually is.
What I was most amused by, however, was the giant list of all the various colors, and the most frequent names given for them: Color table here. A lot of it is fairly ho-hum, but as you scroll down, you'll find some real gems, like "blurple." Also, "puke," "ugly brown," "bland," "poo," "windows blue" and "bile."
I was actually surprised that there wasn't really that much of a difference between what men and women called the various colors. And that there was some consensus between the genders regarding "teal." Because let me tell you, maybe my X chromosomes are faulty, but I have no clue what the hell kind of color "teal" actually is.
What I was most amused by, however, was the giant list of all the various colors, and the most frequent names given for them: Color table here. A lot of it is fairly ho-hum, but as you scroll down, you'll find some real gems, like "blurple." Also, "puke," "ugly brown," "bland," "poo," "windows blue" and "bile."
Terry Pratchett on Doctor Who
Terry Pratchett has written an interesting guest blog post about Doctor Who, and I have to say that I pretty much agree with him. And not just because I think Night Watch is an amazing book because it both made me laugh out loud and made me cry.
I tend to be more liberal with my definition of what science fiction happens to be, probably because I grew up reading fantasy and then moved over to science fiction when I got sick of unicorns. All I really want out of my science fiction is an element of scientific plausibility and some sort of logic to the laws of physics. I'm not that demanding. And in fact, I prefer my scifi almost unforgivably loosey-goosey compared to what hard science fiction fans like. I think long explanations about how faster than light travel could work incredibly boring. Really. Just tell me "It's something to do with wormholes," and I'm good to go1.
That said, even by my own incredibly forgiving definitions, Doctor Who really isn't scifi. It's magic cleverly tarted up with machinery. I don't think even whipping out Clarke's third law ("Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.") helps the case all that much when, as Pratchett cites, there's an alien using pills to transform body fat into little baby aliens. And you know what? That's totally okay. It's a fun show, and I actually don't think it matters all that much if people want to call it scifi or fantasy or superhero adventures, though I'm sure whoever feels that their genre is being abused will disagree with me. And I suppose it is something of a culture shock to people who have watched Doctor Who if they go to the local store and pick up some scifi and discover that it doesn't go quite like that.
What I actually think is more interesting about what Mr. Pratchett had to say were his comments on how the Doctor has become increasingly god-like, particularly in these new episodes.
I think here, he's hit on a bigger narrative issue than the tissue-thin science of the supposedly (winkwink) science fiction show, and something that I think really ruins some episodes that could have otherwise been interesting. I tend to think that the Doctor's increasingly god-like tendencies are probably connected to the need the show feels to threaten to blow up bigger and bigger things, which I've already complained about at length.
During The Waters of Mars I felt like the writers at least recognized the problem and did something quite dramatically fantastic with it. The Doctor buys in to his own image for a moment, believing in his god-like powers, and then at the end of the episode he gets a good metaphorical gut-punch to show him that no, he's not everyone's savior. It was lovely, and unfortunately ruined by what followed it. Here's hoping that the new season will let the Doctor go back to being very smart and inventive, but not some sort of deity.
1 - I actually have another reason for this beyond my own intellectual laziness. I don't think that those sorts of explanations make for good narrative or believable characters. For example, unless your character is the guy that invented the FTL engine, or someone intimately involved in its maintenance, it just doesn't seem all that plausible that they'd be that detailed about how it functions. Just think about people today and cars. If you ask someone who isn't the sort of person that changes their own oil how a car functions, you'd probably get something along the lines of "well, it burns gas and that makes the car go." At the risk of generalizing too much, I don't think most people give a crap about how their car functions so long as it gets them from home to the ice cream shop without exploding. And I bet that some day, when we're zipping around faster than light in shiny space ships, most people on those space ships will feel pretty much the same.
I tend to be more liberal with my definition of what science fiction happens to be, probably because I grew up reading fantasy and then moved over to science fiction when I got sick of unicorns. All I really want out of my science fiction is an element of scientific plausibility and some sort of logic to the laws of physics. I'm not that demanding. And in fact, I prefer my scifi almost unforgivably loosey-goosey compared to what hard science fiction fans like. I think long explanations about how faster than light travel could work incredibly boring. Really. Just tell me "It's something to do with wormholes," and I'm good to go1.
That said, even by my own incredibly forgiving definitions, Doctor Who really isn't scifi. It's magic cleverly tarted up with machinery. I don't think even whipping out Clarke's third law ("Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.") helps the case all that much when, as Pratchett cites, there's an alien using pills to transform body fat into little baby aliens. And you know what? That's totally okay. It's a fun show, and I actually don't think it matters all that much if people want to call it scifi or fantasy or superhero adventures, though I'm sure whoever feels that their genre is being abused will disagree with me. And I suppose it is something of a culture shock to people who have watched Doctor Who if they go to the local store and pick up some scifi and discover that it doesn't go quite like that.
What I actually think is more interesting about what Mr. Pratchett had to say were his comments on how the Doctor has become increasingly god-like, particularly in these new episodes.
The Doctor himself has in recent years been built up into an amalgam of Mother Teresa, Jesus Christ (I laughed my socks off during the Titanic episode when two golden angels lifted the Doctor heavenwards) and Tinkerbell. There is nothing he doesn’t know, and nothing he can’t do. He is now becoming God, given that the position is vacant. Earth is protected, we are told, and not by Torchwood, who are human and therefore not very competent. Perhaps they should start transmitting the programme on Sundays.
I think here, he's hit on a bigger narrative issue than the tissue-thin science of the supposedly (winkwink) science fiction show, and something that I think really ruins some episodes that could have otherwise been interesting. I tend to think that the Doctor's increasingly god-like tendencies are probably connected to the need the show feels to threaten to blow up bigger and bigger things, which I've already complained about at length.
During The Waters of Mars I felt like the writers at least recognized the problem and did something quite dramatically fantastic with it. The Doctor buys in to his own image for a moment, believing in his god-like powers, and then at the end of the episode he gets a good metaphorical gut-punch to show him that no, he's not everyone's savior. It was lovely, and unfortunately ruined by what followed it. Here's hoping that the new season will let the Doctor go back to being very smart and inventive, but not some sort of deity.
1 - I actually have another reason for this beyond my own intellectual laziness. I don't think that those sorts of explanations make for good narrative or believable characters. For example, unless your character is the guy that invented the FTL engine, or someone intimately involved in its maintenance, it just doesn't seem all that plausible that they'd be that detailed about how it functions. Just think about people today and cars. If you ask someone who isn't the sort of person that changes their own oil how a car functions, you'd probably get something along the lines of "well, it burns gas and that makes the car go." At the risk of generalizing too much, I don't think most people give a crap about how their car functions so long as it gets them from home to the ice cream shop without exploding. And I bet that some day, when we're zipping around faster than light in shiny space ships, most people on those space ships will feel pretty much the same.
Monday, May 03, 2010
Facebook? Bah, humbug.
I actually have a Facebook account. I just only log in to it when I'm extremely bored, because I've never had much use for it. And to be honest, while I do like everyone who I've friended, I also really don't care what they've been doing in Farmville or Mafia Wars. At this point, I am seriously considering just deleting the account.
Aside from my general apathetic feelings toward Facebook, there's also the privacy issues, as well as security and possibly even ethics problems. While I don't feel as if much of this affects me personally (I don't use any Facebook applications and about the only pictures I have are ones of my cats) it certainly doesn't paint FB as an attractive place that I want to spend a lot of my internet time. Plus people I don't even remember from high school keep friending me, and it's starting to get a little creepy.
Considering how little I actually use the thing, I doubt this would be much of a blip on the radar. Maybe I'm just more of a Twitter girl.
Questions of privacy and fairness and seem to abound these days. I'm looking forward to when I can get an iPhone finally, but at the same time feel more than a little trepidation about, say, Apple being the gatekeeper for the iStore and all the concerns with the DRM as well. I'm not a sophisticated user of technology here; when I get a new toy, I'm basically stuck with what it can do when it comes out of the box because I lack the dedication and brainpower necessary forge my own path through the digital jungles. So it makes me rather nervous to know that by buying a product, I'm ceding a lot of control regarding what I can do with that product to the manufacturer. I recently got to see an iPad; it was sleek and shiny and I immediately wanted one.
It's just that whiff of "Borg" that has me worried.
Aside from my general apathetic feelings toward Facebook, there's also the privacy issues, as well as security and possibly even ethics problems. While I don't feel as if much of this affects me personally (I don't use any Facebook applications and about the only pictures I have are ones of my cats) it certainly doesn't paint FB as an attractive place that I want to spend a lot of my internet time. Plus people I don't even remember from high school keep friending me, and it's starting to get a little creepy.
Considering how little I actually use the thing, I doubt this would be much of a blip on the radar. Maybe I'm just more of a Twitter girl.
Questions of privacy and fairness and seem to abound these days. I'm looking forward to when I can get an iPhone finally, but at the same time feel more than a little trepidation about, say, Apple being the gatekeeper for the iStore and all the concerns with the DRM as well. I'm not a sophisticated user of technology here; when I get a new toy, I'm basically stuck with what it can do when it comes out of the box because I lack the dedication and brainpower necessary forge my own path through the digital jungles. So it makes me rather nervous to know that by buying a product, I'm ceding a lot of control regarding what I can do with that product to the manufacturer. I recently got to see an iPad; it was sleek and shiny and I immediately wanted one.
It's just that whiff of "Borg" that has me worried.
There's a new hero in town
Electron Boy saves Seattle. Make a Wish does some incredible things for kids, but this has got to be one of the coolest. I think every fledgling geek has probably fantasized at some point about being a super hero, but to actually get to play that out in a story that involves lots of other people? Wow.
And of course, no WoW nerd can read this story without thinking of Ezra Chatterton, who left his mark on a fantasy world. There's a quest in the tauren starting area that he designed, among other things. And he's remembered as an elder now during one of the game holidays.
More than just wish fulfillment, I think stories like these really do touch the lives of others. Everyone finds their own meaning in them, but it really strikes me how these kids are able to have a moment, or an afternoon, or a week of happiness, and simultaneously (perhaps accidentally) shout to the world, "I was here."
And of course, no WoW nerd can read this story without thinking of Ezra Chatterton, who left his mark on a fantasy world. There's a quest in the tauren starting area that he designed, among other things. And he's remembered as an elder now during one of the game holidays.
More than just wish fulfillment, I think stories like these really do touch the lives of others. Everyone finds their own meaning in them, but it really strikes me how these kids are able to have a moment, or an afternoon, or a week of happiness, and simultaneously (perhaps accidentally) shout to the world, "I was here."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)