So this sounds a little bit like a mock trial by ordeal to me. And people say history doesn't repeat itself!
The critique of Deltano's performance at Dominion High was conducted by the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States. It included criticism of his decision to demonstrate the ineffectiveness of condoms against HIV by dangling a cinderblock over a male student's genital area.
("Christian Sex-Ed Lesson Criticized"—via)
My favorite part of all this is that some sick self-righteous (I mean, "pious") bastard actually gets paid (from tax dollars) to threaten to crush teenagers' genitalia.
Labels: christianity, education, fud, history, religion, sham
I just saw
this video of U2 and The Arcade Fire performing Joy Division's "Love Will Tear Us Apart." Be warned that the video is pretty shaky because it is hand-held, but the sound quality isn't as bad as I thought it would be. Bono sounds convincingly like Ian Curtis, which is a little surprising. As is typical when two full bands are on the same stage, there are a lot of extraneous members hanging around playing extraneous instruments (think of the gluttony of Temple of the Dog). This recording has the unmistakable feel of an impromptu "let's play a cover" decision and you can see the backup singers repeating the chorus an extra time and laughing about coming in at the wrong time. I'm not sure what I actually expected from the performance, but if for nothing but novelty value, I think this is one worth checking out. Oh yeah, and I like Régine Chassagne's boots. A lot of the comments about this are negative, but I don't really think it should be compared with the original so much as seen as an homage. (Although, when a band releases a cover on one of their records, I consider it open season to compare and criticize against the original version.)
Shooting the messenger (but missing): dishonest argumentation
I came across
an article, written by a
Professor David Schaefer (Political Science - Holy Cross), complaining about an anti-military recruiter organization called the "Coalition Against Militarism in Our Schools." Upon first glance, I can't imagine why anybody would find a group who proposes that perhaps 14-18 year-old high schoolers are not quite mature enough to decide whether they should join our armed forces objectionable. High school students have impartial guidance counselors, teachers and their parents to help them decide what they should do upon graduating, so if our point of reference is the best interest of the students, it doesn't seem as if they need the military recruiters to guide them. It seems much more likely that the military recruiters choose high schoolers precisely because many students are impressionable and easier to convince. Professor Schaefer must surely realize this, so he does not bother to attack the reason why a group might attack military recruiters in our school districts; instead, he attempts to divert the reader's attention with an
ad feminam attack against Arlene Inouye, a spokeswoman for the anti-recruiter group, that can only be taken as a cynical rhetorical device (from a man who teaches philosophy, no less). Not willing to address the elephant in the room (recruiting teenagers still in high school is basically an attempt to swindle students who don't know any better into enlisting to be shot at in Iraq), Professor Schaefer instead points out that Ms. Inouye recently published an article in an openly communist magazine:
During the [BBC/Public International Radio program "The World"] radio interview, Ms. Inouye identified herself simply as a speech therapist working in the Los Angeles public schools. There is another facet to her identity that she avoided mentioning, however, and it's easily discovered by using Google. Her article "Kick the Military Out of Your School! We Did in L.A. and So Can You!" was recently published in Dynamic Magazine, an organ of the Young Communist League. While the League's website does not disclose the nature of Ms. Inouye's role in the organization, "the militarization of our schools" and "the impact of military recruitment on high school students" are the major themes of the YCL's current "Realities of War Speaking Tour." The "Coalition Against Militarism in Our Schools" thus sounds suspiciously like what used to be called a Communist front group.
He tries to impugn Ms. Inouye by insinuating the she has lied about her background (because in Professor Schaefer's world, apparently, every spokesperson first identifies her political allegiances before addressing any issue). Realizing that he cannot actually prove that Ms. Inouye is a communist (and apparently not realizing that the specter of the red bogeyman isn't as terrifying today as it once was) he points to phrases in her argument that are similar to the Young Communist League's current platform as evidence that she must be a communist. I have not read any of Professor Schaefer's academic writing and I cannot comment on it, but I can only imagine that it is not as shoddily argued as this small piece. The only conclusion I can draw from this is that he is making an intellectually dishonest argument first by attacking the messenger rather than the message and second by not even making that attack an effective one.
Labels: academia, education, military, music, philosophy
It often takes a philosopher to tell it like it is. And
this is what it's like.
Labels: 'merica, education, evolution, philosophy, sham
I was a little disappointed when I received this pin last week:
I mean, the pin itself is pretty nice,
but there are typos on it! The first ring of Latin text should state:
SIGILLUM COLLEGII RUTGERSENSIS IN NOVA CAESAREA - the Seal of Rutgers College in New Jersey (Nova Caesarea is pretty funny). However, instead of "IN NOVA" it says "INNOVA."
On the second ring of Latin text, the college motto is written. It
should state:
SOL IUSTITIAE ET OCCIDENTEM ILLUSTRA - Sun of Justice, illuminate the West also. Again, there is a mistake, the word "ET" is misspelled as "IET." I pointed out the flaws to the program administrator and she was very nice about it, but I'm not sure it's her decision whether they will get new pins for this year's batch of Henry Rutgers Scholars. She told me they have a big surplus of the pins. As far as I'm concerned, however, this is an embarassing collectible.
Labels: education, funny, latin
