Tuesday, May 26, 2015

NYT Tries To Whitewash Obamacare Disaster

"We have to pass the health care bill so that you can find out what is in it."

Not a single Republican vote in either house of Congress.

In other words, this was a Democratic bill.  It was the Democratic Party foisted this burden on the American public.  Them, and them alone.

But they screwed up, of course.  The rollout of the web site didn't work.  Not near as many people signed up as they thought would.  State insurance exchanges are failingPremiums went through the roof.  And the best laid plans of the socialists are, one again, a 5-4 Supreme Court decision away from gutting the law.

What?  What's that?  There's another case before the Supremes?  Yes, there is, and we'll know the outcome in a month or so.  And according to the so-called paper of record, it's all over a little sloppiness related to four measly words:
They are only four words in a 900-page law: “established by the state.”

But it is in the ambiguity of those four words in the Affordable Care Act that opponents found a path to challenge the law, all the way to the Supreme Court.

How those words became the most contentious part of President Obama’s signature domestic accomplishment has been a mystery. Who wrote them, and why? Were they really intended, as the plaintiffs in King v. Burwell claim, to make the tax subsidies in the law available only in states that established their own health insurance marketplaces, and not in the three dozen states with federal exchanges?

The answer, from interviews with more than two dozen Democrats and Republicans involved in writing the law, is that the words were a product of shifting politics and a sloppy merging of different versions. Some described the words as “inadvertent,” “inartful” or “a drafting error.” But none supported the contention of the plaintiffs, who are from Virginia.
That sounds so reasonable, so sincere.  It's also complete an total el toro poo-poo.  Those idiots at the NYT seem to forget there's this little thing out there called the internet and we don't have to rely on their faulty recollection of events anymore:
Jonathan Gruber, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology economist who helped design the Massachusetts health law that was the model for Obamacare, was a key influence on the creation of the federal health law. He was widely quoted in the media. During the crafting of the law, the Obama administration brought him on for consultation because of his expertise. He was paid almost $400,000 to consult with the administration on the law. And he has claimed to have written part of the legislation, the section dealing with small business tax credits.

After the law passed, in 2011 and throughout 2012, multiple states sought his expertise to help them understand their options regarding the choice to set up their own exchanges. During that period of time, in January of 2012, Gruber told an audience at Noblis, a technical management support organization, that tax credits—the subsidies available for health insurance—were only available in states that set up their own exchanges.

A video of the presentation, posted on YouTube, was unearthed tonight by Ryan Radia at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a libertarian think tank which has participated in the legal challenge to the IRS rule allowing subsidies in federal exchanges. Here’s what Gruber says.
What’s important to remember politically about this is if you're a state and you don’t set up an exchange, that means your citizens don't get their tax credits—but your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill. So you’re essentially saying [to] your citizens you’re going to pay all the taxes to help all the other states in the country. I hope that that's a blatant enough political reality that states will get their act together and realize there are billions of dollars at stake here in setting up these exchanges. But, you know, once again the politics can get ugly around this. [emphasis added]
Here’s the video, which according to YouTube's date stamp was uploaded by Noblis on January 20, 2012. The relevant passage starts around minute 31.

Who are you gonna believe, the NYT or your own lying eyes (and ears)?

The NYT just isn't being honest.  It's as simple as that.

A Socialist View

This comes from the so-called newspaper of record:
He doesn’t flinch over returning to the 90 percent personal income tax rates of the 1950s for top earners. And if reducing income inequality reduces economic growth, he says, that’s fine. “You don’t necessarily need a choice of 23 underarm spray deodorants,” he said, “when children are hungry in this country.”
Do people work for the government, or does government work for the people?  We know Comrade Bernie's answer to that question.

Do you know what's best for you, or does government?  We know Comrade Bernie's answer to that question.

Is personal choice only good if the choice is whether or not to have an abortion?  We know Comrade Bernie's answer to that question.

What's the difference between Comrade Bernie's views and Uncle Joe Stalin's views?  I don't know that there is one, when you get right down to it.  What's yours isn't yours (a la "you didn't build that"), it all belongs to the collective. 

Growing Old

I was born 20 years after World War II ended, which means I was born closer to WWII than to my own college graduation.  I've long thought that comparing myself to WWII was pretty extreme--that is, until a student introduced me to a web site today.  You type in your birthday and a bunch of interesting facts popped up.  This one floored me:
April 22nd, 1915:
The start of the Second Battle of Ypres in Belgium
Nearer to your birth date than today!
World War I.

I'm Not Shocked (Obamacare edition)

Obamacare sticker shock:
UNEXPECTEDLY! Sticker Shock for Some Obamacare Customers. “So the proposed 2016 Obamacare rates have been filed in many states, and in many states, the numbers are eye-popping. Market leaders are requesting double-digit increases in a lot of places. Some of the biggest are really double-digit: 51 percent in New Mexico, 36 percent in Tennessee, 30 percent in Maryland, 25 percent in Oregon. The reason? They say that with a full year of claims data under their belt for the first time since Obamacare went into effect, they’re finding the insurance pool was considerably older and sicker than expected.”

Gee, that’s bad luck.
Sure is.

This Is What Equality Looks Like

It doesn't look anything like today's feminism, that's for sure:
Women Now Demanding To Be Treated As Eggshells, Not Equals
Camille Paglia gets it right on sexual harassment, from Playboy from 1995:

"[You can't have] the Stalinist situation we have in America right now, where any neurotic woman can make any stupid charge and destroy a man's reputation. If there is evidence of false accusation, the accuser should be expelled. Similarly, a woman who falsely accuses a man of rape should be sent to jail. My definition of sexual harassment is specific. It is only sexual harassment-by a man or a woman-if it is quid pro quo. That is, if someone says, "You must do this or I'm going to do that"-for instance, fire you. And whereas touching is sexual harassment, speech is not. I am militant on this. Words must remain free. The solution to speech is that women must signal the level of their tolerance-women are all different. Some are very bawdy."

Actually, a law professor with an evolutionary orientation, Wayne State's Kingsley Browne, argues that men shove each other around with language; it's a form of exercising dominance.

And if women are actually men's equals, their response to language isn't filing suit -- or trying to bring down a man's career through social media because he makes a joke.

In fact, Browne points out, men using language to shove women around the same way they do to other men involves treating women equally.

It used to be that women marched around claiming that they weren't fragile little dollies; that they could handle what men could. Now just the opposite is the case. Women get men fired over jokes overheard at conferences.
Go read the whole thing.

Monday, May 25, 2015

Bachelor's Degree: A Sign of Education, of Seat Time, a Job Credential, or Merely the New HS Diploma?

I've been arguing against "college for all" for years:
America must break its “addiction” to bachelor’s degrees and become better acquainted with the financial benefits of one- and two-year degrees and certificates, an education researcher argued at a recent panel discussion about what level of higher education it takes to break into the middle class.

“When you ask people what they think about postsecondary education, they say ‘bachelor’s,’” said Mark Schneider, Vice President and Institute Fellow of the Education Program at the American Institutes for Research, or AIR.

“I think of this as a bachelor’s addiction which has to be broken and has to be changed,” Schneider said. “The contemporary bachelor’s degree takes too long, it’s too expensive and it’s not for everyone.”

Schneider presented wage-earnings data that show various one- and two-year degrees and several certificates enable holders to command salaries that surpass those of some bachelor’s degree holders.

Technical careers are particularly rewarding, Schneider said as he presented figures that show plumbers and technicians in a variety of fields that only require a certificate all earn upward of $71,000 — several thousand dollars more per year than many bachelor’s degree holders — a decade after they complete their educational program.

“Where you learn how to fix things, you win,” Schneider said.

The growth in associate’s degrees and other sub-baccalaureate credentials awarded has also outpaced that of bachelor’s degrees, 39 percent versus 18 percent from 2008 to 2013, respectively, figures provided by Schneider show.

Schneider made his remarks Monday at AIR during a social mobility lecture series titled “Do You Need a Bachelor’s to Join the Middle Class?”

Sunday, May 24, 2015

Free College

It's not "free", it would degrade to something less than "college", and the idea demonstrates the very antithesis of economics:
The WaPo’s Charles Lane looks at the economics of Bernie Sanders’s “free” college plan...

Lane goes on to examine how “free” college is working in Germany...

But these “free” college plans aren’t really about economics. They’re about anti-economics, the belief that incentives don’t matter, that somehow simply putting more money into higher education without any reform will somehow result in a better system. “Scarcity?” “Prices?” Feh. Just cut a check. How should education best deliver knowledge and credentials in the 21st century? “Free” college provides no answers. Makes for a catchy campaign idea, I guess.

Reverse The Colors and See If It's Still OK

I don't accept that universities should tolerate, much less condone, separation of the races.  When we say that one group of people can do something or go somewhere and another group can't--that truly cannot be justified in my egalitarian mind.  I understand being a minority, but that shouldn't give you rights, privileges, or entitlements that everyone else doesn't get in a country like ours.  Certain groups don't like it when I bring up Dr. King's color-of-skin-vs-content-of-character remark, but I actually believe in it.

That's why I find stories like this one so appalling:
Ethnic Minorities Deserve Safe Spaces Without White People

Last week The Ryersonian reported on an incident that involved two first-year journalism students who were turned away from an event organized by Racialized Students' Collective because they are white. Since then there has been a lot of commentary on the piece and a lot of debate -- a lot of the criticism is valid.

There are two sides to the story: 1) the media has a right to attend public events and report on matters that are in the public interest. The student media needs to cover initiatives that are happening on campus so that we draw attention to them and in turn create awareness (The Ryersonian reported that one student said he was covering the meeting for an assignment). 2) Marginalized groups have a right to claim spaces in the public realm where they can share stories about the discrimination they have faced without judgment and intrusion from anyone else.

I am a person of colour and a journalist and so there are two conflicting voices inside my head. But in this case one voice, that of a person of colour, is louder and my conscience does not allow me to be impartial. I have to take a side.

The organizers of the event, the Racialized Students' Collective, should have done a better job of labelling this event as a safe space on the Ryerson Students' Union online calendar. They should label safe spaces clearly and maybe even host events that educate the public on what they mean. Doing so will help the public and the media have a better understanding of the purpose and value of these spaces.

However, the point to note is not that two white students were asked to leave the event, but rather that this was a safe space and that we as a newsroom, as a campus and as a society are not as knowledgeable as we should be about what these spaces mean.
The author is putting lipstick on a pig, trying to defend the indefensible.

Saturday, May 23, 2015

Stop Digging

This is older than her most recent outbursts, but it's pretty clear that Boston University has hired someone who is cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs:
MAYBE B.U. NEEDS TO RETHINK ITS HIRING PROCESS: BU hire set up sex profile for rival: Was ‘jealous’ coed when busted in 2008...

Did BU know about all these problems when they hired her? If not, why not? And what characteristics did she possess that made her more appealing than the other 100+ candidates?
Read more details at Instapundit.

How To Spot The Wolves In The Free Speech Sheep Attire

This article is spot on:
It's easy to spot overt calls for censorship from the commentariat. Those have become more common in the wake of both tumultuous events (like the violence questionably attributed to the "Innocence of Muslims" video, or Pamela Geller's "Draw Muhammad" contest) and mundane ones (like fraternity brothers recorded indulging in racist chants).

But it's harder to detect the subtle pro-censorship assumptions and rhetorical devices that permeate media coverage of free speech controversies. In discussing our First Amendment rights, the media routinely begs the question — it adopts stock phrases and concepts that presume that censorship is desirable or constitutional, and then tries to pass the result off as neutral analysis. This promotes civic ignorance and empowers deliberate censors.

Fortunately, this ain't rocket science. Americans can train themselves to detect and question the media's pro-censorship tropes. I've collected some of the most pervasive and familiar ones. This post is designed as a resource, and I'll add to it as people point out more examples and more tropes...

Trope One: "Hate Speech"...
Trope Two: "Like shouting fire in a crowded theater"...
Trope Three: "Not all speech is protected"...
Trope Four: "Line between free speech and [questioned expression]"...
Trope Five: "Balancing free speech and [social value]"...
Trope Six: "This isn't free speech, it's [category]"...
Trope Seven: "Fighting words"...
Trope Eight: "[Professor] explained . . . ."
Trope Nine: "This speech may be protected for now, but the law is always changing"...
How many of those have you heard recently? Read the whole piece to see how those are woven into the anti-free-speech web.

Friday, May 22, 2015

Dreaming Is Free

First Wisconsin falls, then Illinois?  Perhaps California isn't a pipe dream:
A federal judge ruled late Tuesday that a lawsuit challenging mandatory union fees paid by government workers in Illinois can move forward. The judge’s ruling was in response to legal action taken in March by three state workers represented by attorneys at the Chicago-based Liberty Justice Center and the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.

“Government workers should not be forced to pay money to a government union to keep their jobs,” said Jacob Huebert, senior attorney at the Liberty Justice Center. ”With today’s ruling, the court recognized that these workers deserve to have their day in court.”

Pell Grants For Prisoners

What conditions are different from 1994 such that this program would now be considered?
The U.S. Department of Education is poised to announce a limited exemption to the federal ban on prisoners receiving Pell Grants to attend college while they are incarcerated.
Correctional education experts and other sources said they expect the department to issue a waiver under the experimental sites program, which allows the feds to lift certain rules that govern aid programs in the spirit of experimentation. If the project is successful, it would add to momentum for the U.S. Congress to consider overturning the ban it passed on the use of Pell for prisoners in 1994...
Even a limited experiment will provoke controversy. Spending government money on college programs for convicted criminals is an easy target for conservative pundits and for some lawmakers from both political parties...
The administration estimated that roughly 4,000 of the 60,000 incarcerated juvenile offenders would be eligible for federal aid. That investment makes sense, they said, given that it costs an average of $88,000 per year to lock up a juvenile offender. And inmates of all ages are half as likely to go back to jail if they take college courses.

Thursday, May 21, 2015

When Should AP Tests Count at College?

AP tests have been around for quite some time, so you'd think there might be some consistency by now about how they're used to allow students to validate college classes.  In Illinois the concerns about consistency are both academic and financial:
A proposed change to state law that has advanced in Springfield could expand high school students' access to college credit through AP testing — but could also have a financial impact on state colleges and universities in Illinois, which could lose out on tuition revenue.
The AP testing program awards students whose knowledge has surpassed the high school level, and can save them time and money in college because they don't have to pay to take the equivalent courses.
But college standards for granting credit for AP tests vary widely. The tests are scored on a 5-point scale, but while some colleges and universities will award credit for scores as low as 2, others require the top score of 5 in certain subjects, according to the College Board, which administers the program. At some schools, the standards vary by subject, while the University of Illinois has different thresholds for different campuses.
To standardize the criteria, lawmakers are considering passing a law to require public universities and colleges in Illinois to give course credit for scores of 3 or better...
Last year in Illinois, nearly 116,000 AP tests were awarded scores of 3 or better, according to a coalition backing the legislation that includes state education groups and the College Board. At an average cost of $426 per credit hour, that would add up to $148 million in savings overall, proponents say.
AP credit could cost colleges and universities lost tuition from those students who can skip over classes, but officials say many AP students simply take other classes instead, to add depth or breadth to their education. Or they can use the lightened course load to improve their chances of graduating on time.

Wednesday, May 20, 2015

Research Paper on the Development of Logarithms

Grades were posted today in my History of Mathematics course.  I haven't seen the grade I got on my research paper or on the final exam but I'm pleased with my overall grade in the course.

Since some readers showed an interest in my my research paper, I decided to post it here. The formatting didn't transfer, though, and it looked like heck.  If you'd like to read it--and it's a page-turner, I can assure you!--email me (contact info on my profile page) and I can send you the PDF.

And They Say There's No Inflation

70%, 20%, 10%--add that up and it's big money.  I'd say that's some inflation:
The bailout of the California State Teachers’ Retirement System enacted last year requires a 70 percent increase in pension contributions from school districts, a 20 percent increase from the state general fund and a 10 percent increase in teacher contributions. When the phased-in increases are complete in 2020-21, CalSTRS will get about $5 billion more a year than it now does, putting it on much firmer ground.
But even at a time when school funding has reached an all-time high, districts are apprehensive at having to spend so much more on pensions. This month, their strategy has become clear: establish separate, specific state funding for districts to cover their increased contributions.
If districts have to spend more on pensions there will be less available for raises.
[T]he education establishment expects to use the flexibility and extra dollars provided by the Local Control Funding Formula to pay for the higher pension costs. But that’s not what the change in how schools are funded was supposed to be about, according to its champion, Gov. Jerry Brown. The governor’s website contains a 800-word account of the signing of the LCFF law on July 1, 2013. It depicts the funding change as being solely about getting more help to struggling English-learners, the state’s “neediest students.”
Money doesn't grow on trees.  If you had to bet who would get extra money,  students who don't vote or teachers backed by powerful unions, on whom would you bet?

Tuesday, May 19, 2015

Now That Ramadi Has Fallen...

Just go here for a reminder of Biden's and Obama's bragging about how peaceful Iraq was in 2010, about Obama's 2008 statement that preventing genocide would not be enough of a reason to keep our troops in Iraq (I guess brown-skinned people don't matter to him, and he was warned), and other salient commentary and videos providing damning evidence of just what an incompetent president we have.

When Government "Asks" For "Investment"

Posted without commentary:

GOVERNMENT DOESN’T “ASK” ANYTHING:  Thomas Sowell rips apart President Obama’s recent remark opining that the way to reduce poverty is to “ask from society’s lottery winners” that they make a “modest investment” in government programs to help the poor.
[T]he federal government does not just “ask” for money. It takes the money it wants in taxes, usually before the people who have earned it see their paychecks. Despite pious rhetoric on the left about “asking” the more fortunate for more money, the government does not “ask” anything. It seizes what it wants by force. If you don’t pay up, it can take not only your paycheck, it can seize your bank account, put a lien on your home and/or put you in federal prison.
So please don’t insult our intelligence by talking piously about “asking.”
And please don’t call the government’s pouring trillions of tax dollars down a bottomless pit “investment.”
As for referring to successful individuals as “society’s lottery winners,” Sowell observes:
Most people who want to redistribute wealth don’t want to talk about how that wealth was produced in the first place. They just want “the rich” to pay their undefined “fair share” of taxes. This “fair share” must remain undefined because all it really means is “more.”
, , , ,
Obama goes further than other income redistributionists. “You didn’t build that!” he declared to those who did. Why? Because those who created additions to the world’s wealth used government-built roads or other government-provided services to market their products.
And who paid for those roads and other government-provided services if not the taxpayers? Since all other taxpayers, as well as non-taxpayers, also use government facilities, why are those who created private wealth not to use them also, since they are taxpayers as well?
The fact that most of the rhetorical ploys used by Barack Obama and other redistributionists will not stand up under scrutiny means very little politically. After all, how many people who come out of our schools and colleges today are capable of critical scrutiny?

Update:  When liberals say I'm "lucky", well--Peter Dinklage, in the picture I downloaded from Facebook, says it best:
It's not "privilege", either.  I've worked for what I have.

When Knowing How Isn't Enough

Barry Garelick and Katharine Beals discuss why knowing how to do math problems just isn't good enough under Common Core:
At a middle school in California, the state testing in math was underway via the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) exam. A girl pointed to the problem on the computer screen and asked “What do I do?” The proctor read the instructions for the problem and told the student: “You need to explain how you got your answer.”
The girl threw her arms up in frustration and said, “Why can’t I just do the problem, enter the answer and be done with it?”
The answer to her question comes down to what the education establishment believes “understanding” to be, and how to measure it. K-12 mathematics instruction involves equal parts procedural skills and understanding. What “understanding” in mathematics means, however, has long been a topic of debate. One distinction popular with today’s math reform advocates is between “knowing” and “doing.” A student, reformers argue, might be able to “do” a problem (i.e., solve it mathematically), without understanding the concepts behind the problem solving procedure. Perhaps he has simply memorized the method without understanding it.
I hear this silliness about "explaining" often.  I assert that a student who can solve a multi-step algebraic problem and get the correct answer shouldn't then have to explain each step--their comprehension is demonstrated already by the systematic steps taken!  If someone still disagrees with me, I give them this challenge:  "Divide 100 by 6 using long division, and explain to me why that algorithm works."  99% of people can't explain why the algorithm works, but does that really matter if they know the algorithm and can execute it flawlessly?  And why does it matter why the algorithm works?  After all, no one does division for its own sake but rather to solve a problem; the division itself is only a tool, not a goal in and of itself.  Yes, it would be nice if someone could explain it, but are they at all mathematically handicapped if they cannot?  Is someone handicapped at driving a car because they cannot explain the 4 strokes of a "4 stroke engine"?

But lets get back to Beals and Garelick:
Despite the goal of solving a problem and explaining it in one fell swoop, in many cases observed at the middle school, students solved the problem first and then added the explanation in the required format and rubric.  It was not evident that the process of explanation enhanced problem solving ability. In fact, in talking with students at the school, many found the process tedious and said they would rather just “do the math” without having to write about it.
In general, there is no more evidence of “understanding” in the explained solution, even with pictures, than there would be in mathematical solutions presented in a clear and organized way. How do we know, for example, that a student isn’t simply repeating an explanation provided by the teacher or the textbook, thus exhibiting mere “rote learning” rather than “true understanding” of a problem-solving procedure?
This is intuitively obvious.  And Garelick and Beals point out the greatest flaw in the "explain your answer" pedagogy:  requiring the types of explanations identified as good by Common Core undermines, and in fact is counter to, the conciseness of mathematics.
The idea that students who do not demonstrate their strategies in words and pictures must not understand the underlying concepts assumes away a significant subpopulation of students whose verbal skills lag far behind their mathematical skills, such as non-native English speakers or students with specific language delays or language disorders. These groups include children who can easily do math in their heads and solve complex problems, but often will be unable to explain – whether orally or in written words – how they arrived at their answers.
Don't intentionally misunderstand what I'm saying.  I'm not saying that students shouldn't be able to justify their work or shouldn't have to explain anything.  I'm saying that what's put forth as "Common Core" is excessive, it's geared towards the more verbal and less mathematical among us, and is not good math.

The closing of the linked article says it all:
As Alfred North Whitehead famously put it about a century before the Common Core standards took hold: 
It is a profoundly erroneous truism … that we should cultivate the habit of thinking of what we are doing. The precise opposite is the case. Civilization advances by extending the number of important operations which we can perform without thinking about them.

Monday, May 18, 2015

A Tale Of Two Professors

Actually, the tale isn't so much of the two professors as it is of the responses of their employers to their public commentary.

Professor #1, a black woman soon to be teaching at Boston University:
Boston University had a weekend change of heart about a new professor's angry tweets about white people, after FoxNews.com and others reported on the racially-charged comments -- and Terrier alumni threatened to stop writing checks.

Saida Grundy, an incoming assistant professor of sociology and African-American studies at the school, tweeted in recent weeks that "white masculinity is THE problem for america’s (sic) colleges," white men are a "problem population,” and that she tries to avoid shopping at white-owned businesses. On Friday, her new employer's spokesman, Colin Riley, told FoxNews.com that the tweets came from Grundy's personal Twitter account and that she was "exercising her right to free speech and we respect her right to do so.”

Then, amid a deluge of angry emails from former students, the school sought to amend the comment.
“The University does not condone racism or bigotry in any form and we are deeply saddened when anyone makes such offensive statements,” Riley told FoxNews.com Saturday.
You would think that after embarrassing, if not herself then at least Boston University, Ms. Grundy would tone it down a bit, or perhaps have been told by BU to keep a low profile.  You might think that, but you would be wrong:
Boston University, which has already condemned the racist Tweets of an incoming faculty member, has now been sent an outrageous Facebook exchange in which a poster who identifies herself as the controversial sociology professor mercilessly ridicules a white rape victim.

Saida Grundy, a newly hired professor at Boston University who recently said she regrets tweeting that white males are a "problem population," and other racially charged comments, is now accused of Facebook posts in which she appeared to taunt a white rape victim...
Chamberlin, the rape survivor, responded: “No really. I got it. You can take your claws out, thanks.”
To which Grundy exploded:

“^^THIS IS THE S**T I AM TALKING ABOUT. WHY DO YOU GET TO PLAY THE VICTIM EVERY TIME PEOPLE OF COLOR AND OUR ALLIES WANT TO POINT OUT RACISM. my CLAWS?? Do you see how you just took an issue that WASNT about you, MADE it about you, and NOW want to play the victim when I take the time to explain to you some s**t that is literally $82,000 below my pay grade? And then you promote your #whitegirltears like that’s some badge you get to wear… YOU BENEFIT FROM RACISM. WE’RE EXPLAINING THAT TO YOU and you’re vilifying my act of intellectual altruism by saying i stuck my “claws” into you?”

Chamberlin responded by trying to leave the discussion. “I am choosing to “exit” this conversation,” she wrote.

But Grundy posted again, finishing with: “go cry somewhere. since that’s what you do.”
This woman will soon be teaching at Boston University.

Now let's visit Professor #2, a white male professor at Duke University:
A Duke University professor was defiant after the school last week condemned his "noxious" and "offensive" words in a letter published in The New York Times in which he compared African-Americans unfavorably to Asian-Americans.

The school's rebuke came after a student backlash against Political Science Professor Jerry Hough, 80, whose May 9 letter sought to address racism and the Baltimore riots. Hough said African-Americans don't try to integrate into society, while Asians “worked doubly hard” to overcome racism instead of blaming it.

“Every Asian student has a very simple old American first name that symbolizes their desire for integration,” he wrote on May 10. “Virtually every black has a strange new name that symbolizes their lack of desire for integration.”

Duke students and faculty blast Hough last week, and the school told The News & Observer of Raleigh that he was placed on leave and that 2016 will be his last year at the school.

“The comments were noxious, offensive, and have no place in civil discourse,” said Duke spokesman Michael Schoenfeld. “Duke University has a deeply held commitment to inclusiveness grounded in respect for all, and we encourage our community to speak out when they feel that those ideals are challenged or undermined, as they were in this case.”

But Hough, in an e-mail to an ABC affiliate, said political correctness is getting in the way of thoughtful and frank debate.

“I am strongly against the obsession with ‘sensitivity,'" Hough wrote. "The more we have emphasized sensitivity in recent years, the worse race relations have become. I think that is not an accident. “I know that the 60 years since the Montgomery bus boycott is a long time, and things must be changed. The Japanese and other Asians did not obsess with the concentration camps and the fact they were linked with blacks as ‘colored.’"
Interesting, the two responses from the two schools regarding the two professors.

Talk About Militarization of the Police

Until this issue was raised (on a libertarian site I frequent) I'd never given much thought to excess Pentagon equipment being given to local law enforcement.  I'm reminded of a series of lines from the relatively recently reimagined Battlestar Galactica series in which Commander Adama explains to new-President Roslyn why Galactica's marines cannot serve as a civilian police force throughout the fleet:

That is the problem with militarizing police forces.

Recently I came across this article, from a site I do not know and the validity of which I cannot yet vouch, outlining what types of military equipment have been delivered to local law enforcement all over the country.  On this site, though, I was shocked to find that my own little hamlet in suburban Sacramento has an MRAP.  That's Mine Resistant, Armor Plating.  Why the heck does a local police force need such a vehicle?  And the vehicle truly does exist--I saw it in my neighborhood a few weeks ago!  The local police said it's good for them to have such a "defensive" vehicle, one that protects officers, but unless they're being protected from mines and RPGs, which we don't have many of here in Sacramento County...talk about the militarization of the police!

I started this post well over a month ago and just saved it, not knowing when or if I'd ever finish it, but decided today to complete it when I heard about the following:
The Obama administration on Monday moved to prohibit federal agencies from providing local cops with certain kinds of military equipment such as grenade launchers, high-caliber weapons and bayonets, in the wake of controversy over a "militarized" police response to unrest last summer in Ferguson, Missouri.

The new prohibitions are part of an executive order President Barack Obama issued for federal agencies to review the types of equipment they provide to local and state police...

"We've seen how militarized gear can sometimes give people a feeling like there's an occupying force as opposed to a force that's part of the community that's protecting them and serving them," Obama said in Camden Monday. "It can alienate and intimidate local residents and send the wrong message."

Agencies including the Defense, Justice, and Homeland Security departments help provide equipment to local police. 

The banned list includes: tank-like armored vehicles that move on tracks, certain types of camouflage uniforms, bayonets, firearms and ammunition of .50 caliber or higher, grenade launchers, and weaponized aircraft. 
Why do police officers need bayonets or camouflage uniforms?  Answer:  they don't.  And if they don't need those, they don't need grenade launchers or weaponized aircraft, either--for exactly the reasons Commander Adama gave in the video clip, and for exactly the same reasons President Obama outlined in Camden.

Update, 5/20/15:  Here's the information at the bottom of the first link:

It's set to open on California but you can check whatever state you want.  I notice the Sacramento County Sheriff got 5 bayonets and scabbards.  US DHS CBP FORCE OPTIONS TRNG, which is listed in California, was given machetes. Ventura County was provided with "guns thru 30mm". Maybe they got a Vulcan!

Abusive Fees

If this story were about college students' not having the maturity or responsibility necessary to keep from racking up heavy credit card debt, my take would be "too bad, so sad" along with some commentary about the real world.  I don't fault companies when individuals make bad decisions.  I do fault companies, however, when their practices are abusive, and in this case it's probably good that the federal government is stepping in:
The Obama administration is taking on banks and other financial firms with new rules that would ban certain fees they can charge college students as well as restrictions on how they market products on campuses.
The U.S. Department of Education on Friday unveiled draft regulations on debit cards and other financial products offered on campuses. Consumer advocates have long sought the rules, which have drawn the ire of the financial services industry.
The draft regulations target two categories of financial products. First, the department is seeking to place the most stringent restrictions on debit cards and prepaid cards that colleges use to directly disburse federal grants and loans to students. For those accounts, the department would prohibit point-of-service fees, overdraft or insufficient funds charges, and ATM withdrawal fees.
A second category includes checking accounts or other financial products that are offered on campus or marketed to students under an agreement with the college. For example, some banks offer debit cards that are co-branded with the logo or mascot of a college. Those types of products would be prohibited from charging account access fees or in-network ATM withdrawal fees.
What is the point of having an account if you have to pay to access it? 

Of course, as with so much else it does, the federal government regulations go too far--why shouldn't someone be penalized with overdraft charges?--but other than that these regulations seem both reasonable and overdue.

Sunday, May 17, 2015


This upcoming week is the last full week of school.  Following it are two 4-day weeks, and then two months off.

I have some travel planned this summer so I'm looking forward to the time off.  That doesn't mean I've stopped teaching, though--no, despite the pleas from my students we're still working in my math classes.  My seniors will have the longest summer of their lives off, most not starting school until September.  They don't need a few more weeks if we can use that time to review, retain, and master some material.

OK, so on one of our upcoming days we'll play Statistics Jeopardy.  I downloaded a PowerPoint template which looks like the Jeopardy board, and you put in your own questions and answers.  The Jeopardy music is already built in!  It's way cool, an entertaining yet serious review of topics from the last semester.

In 5 classes (two different courses) I have only a few students who may not pass.  No one's out of the game yet.

Trigger Warnings, Safe Spaces, Micro-aggressions, and other Fruits of Campus Feminism

I posted this video in a previous post about so-called micro-aggressions, but the topics Sommers discusses merit a post of their own.

Some of the highlights, IMNSHO:
5:20-6:40  In the past her opponents would come to debate or spar, now they "protest my presence on campus as a threat to their mental health"
6:50-7:50  The movement for "safe rooms" and panic attacks isn't about protecting vulnerable people, it's a power grab by people who can't persuade others about their views so they try to shame and delegitimize and shut others down
15:40-16:40  Is this what feminism has become?
18:50-19:35  A nod to Socrates, debate, inquiry, and "safety"--and this "safety" is regressive and harmful to women
28:05-30:31  The US Dept of Education's "Dear Colleague" letter and the now-granted legitimacy of the belief in so-called rape culture on campuses
32:05-32:40  A discussion of the Rolling Stone article about a non-rape at the University of Virginia
36:30-40:15  Feminism on campus is warmed-over Marxism, we don't live in a patriarchal oppressive society, equity feminism is an American success story

California's "Mediocre" Graduation Rate

I'm not convinced that Common Core is going to bring us to the Promised Land of all students graduating, or even that all racial and ethnic groups will graduate in statistically-equal proportions:
California’s high school graduation rate has improved in recent years but is still mediocre compared to other states, a new national study reveals.
The study, entitled “Building a Grad Nation,” was done for America’s Promise Alliance, a consortium of civic and business groups headed by former Secretary of State Colin Powell and his wife, Alma. Its goal is to raise the national graduation rate, 81.4 percent in 2013, to 90 percent by 2020.
While citing progress in raising graduation rates, Powell says in an open letter accompanying the report that “we are running out of time to close large and lingering gaps in graduation rates among different student populations.”
California’s 2013 graduation rate, 80.4 percent, is a full point below average, although the state was cited in the report for adding 4.4 percentage points to its rate in two years. California’s superintendent of schools, Tom Torlakson, reported last month that the state graduation rate rose again to 80.8 percent last year.
Twenty-eight states had graduation rates higher than California’s in 2013, the study found, with Iowa, at 89.7 percent, Nebraska (88.5 percent), and Texas and Wisconsin (88 percent) coming closest to the 90 percent goal. Oregon had, by far, the lowest rate, 68.7 percent.
I'll admit that I'm surprised that Oregon's rate is so low.  Are all these percentages calculated the same way?  If so, what is the explanation for Oregon, and for Texas?