ramble through the bronx

Monday, March 28, 2005

For anyone who's ever wondered...

about the water towers in NYC.

jane 7:14 PM [+]

When they really just sound like a bunch of teenage boys

Oh, surprise, surprise! According to the NY Times, "An Army Program to Build a High-Tech Force Hits Cost Snags".

But listen to how ridiculous they sound, these teenage boys --

The Army is asking Congress to approve Future Combat while it is fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan whose costs, according to the Congressional Research Service, now exceed $275 billion. Future Combat is one of the biggest items in the Pentagon's plans to build more than 70 major weapons systems at a cost of more than $1.3 trillion.

The Army has canceled two major weapons programs, the Crusader artillery system and the Comanche helicopter, "to protect funding for the Future Combat System," said Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona and a member of the Armed Services Committee. "That is why we have to get the F.C.S. program right."

But Mom, a.k.a. the comptroller general, says the kids can't have everything they want:

David M. Walker, the comptroller general of the United States, said in an interview that the Pentagon's future arsenal was unaffordable and Congress needed "to make some choices now."

"There is a substantial gap between what the Pentagon is seeking in weapons systems and what we will be able to afford and sustain," said Mr. Walker, who oversees the Government Accountability Office, the budget watchdog of Congress. "We are not going to be able to afford all of this."

Meanwhile, this doesn't even include everything they need:

Future Combat soldiers, weapons and robots are to be linked by a $25 billion web, Joint Tactical Radio Systems, known as JTRS (pronounced "jitters"). The network would transmit the battlefield information intended to protect soldiers. It is not included in the Future Combat budget.

If JTRS does not work, Future Combat will fail, General Cartwright said. The Army halted production on the first set of JTRS radios in January, saying they were not progressing as planned.

Doesn't it give you so much faith in the Army? and in Congress?


If in NYC, go see the Diane Arbus exhibit at the Met

It's on until May 30. It's really quite lovely. James and I went yesterday. So many pictures! Hard to take it all in.

Pretty neat stuff.

Arbus was awarded Guggenheim Fellowships in 1963 and 1966 for her project "American Rites, Manners and Customs." She augmented her images of New York and New Jersey with visits to Pennsylvania, Florida, and California, photographing contests and festivals as well as public and private rituals. "I want to photograph the considerable ceremonies of our present because we tend while living here and now to perceive only what is random and barren and formless about it," she wrote. "While we regret that the present is not like the past and despair of its ever becoming the future, its innumerable, inscrutable habits lie in wait for their meaning....These are our symptoms and our monuments. I want simply to save them, for what is ceremonious and curious and commonplace will be legendary."

jane 1:55 PM [+]

more frivolously...

You scored as Willow Rosenberg. You are a very smart individual. Though, like everyone else, you've made mistakes. You've changed over the last few years, so have a lot of things in your life, but you've got great friends who love you and are there for you through anything. Willow Rosenberg 54% Buffy Summers 50% Xander Harris 42% Dawn Summers 38% Spike 33% Rupert Giles 33% Anya 33% Tara Maclay 21% Which Buffy The Vampire Slayer Character Are You Most Like!? created with QuizFarm.com

less frivolously

You scored as Existentialism. Your life is guided by the concept of Existentialism: You choose the meaning and purpose of your life. “Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does.” “It is up to you to give [life] a meaning.” --Jean-Paul Sartre “It is man's natural sickness to believe that he possesses the Truth.” --Blaise Pascal More info at Arocoun's Wikipedia User Page... Existentialism 80% Justice (Fairness) 55% Hedonism 55% Utilitarianism 50% Kantianism 50% Strong Egoism 5% Divine Command 0% Apathy 0% Nihilism 0% What philosophy do you follow? (v1.02) created with QuizFarm.com

(should I assign this quiz to my students? Maybe I'll assign the Buffy one too)

jane 3:22 PM [+]

As in, anyone against the war is on the "Far Left," and these uppity professors must be censured

Spurred by the ridiculously-named Students for Academic Freedom and conservative (former lefty) David Horowitz, several states are considering bringing in an "Academic Bill of Rights," including Florida and Ohio. Georgia already brought one in, March 2004. Oh, and Penn State University's Student Senate passed one. Check it out:

The Florida bill: (article abbreviated)

Capitol bill aims to control ‘leftist’ profs
THE LAW COULD LET STUDENTS SUE FOR UNTOLERATED BELIEFS.

By JAMES VANLANDINGHAM
Alligator Staff Writer

TALLAHASSEE — Republicans on the House Choice and Innovation Committee voted along party lines Tuesday to pass a bill that aims to stamp out “leftist totalitarianism” by “dictator professors” in the classrooms of Florida’s universities.

The Academic Freedom Bill of Rights, sponsored by Rep. Dennis Baxley, R-Ocala, passed 8-to-2 despite strenuous objections from the only two Democrats on the committee.

The bill has two more committees to pass before it can be considered by the full House.

While promoting the bill Tuesday, Baxley said a university education should be more than “one biased view by the professor, who as a dictator controls the classroom,” as part of “a misuse of their platform to indoctrinate the next generation with their own views.”

The bill sets a statewide standard that students cannot be punished for professing beliefs with which their professors disagree. Professors would also be advised to teach alternative “serious academic theories” that may disagree with their personal views.

According to a legislative staff analysis of the bill, the law would give students who think their beliefs are not being respected legal standing to sue professors and universities.

Students who believe their professor is singling them out for “public ridicule” – for instance, when professors use the Socratic method to force students to explain their theories in class – would also be given the right to sue.

“Some professors say, ‘Evolution is a fact. I don’t want to hear about Intelligent Design (a creationist theory), and if you don’t like it, there’s the door,’” Baxley said, citing one example when he thought a student should sue.

[...]The staff analysis also warned the bill may shift responsibility for determining whether a student’s freedom has been infringed from the faculty to the courts.

But Baxley brushed off Gelber’s concerns. “Freedom is a dangerous thing, and you might be exposed to things you don’t want to hear,” he said. “Being a businessman, I found out you can be sued for anything. Besides, if students are being persecuted and ridiculed for their beliefs, I think they should be given standing to sue.”

During the committee hearing, Baxley cast opposition to his bill as “leftists” struggling against “mainstream society.”

“The critics ridicule me for daring to stand up for students and faculty,” he said, adding that he was called a McCarthyist.

[...]“The big hand of state government is going into the universities telling them how to teach,” she said. “This bill is the antithesis of academic freedom.”

But Baxley compared the state’s universities to children, saying the legislature should not give them money without providing “guidance” to their behavior.

“Professors are accountable for what they say or do,” he said. “They’re accountable to the rest of us in society … All of a sudden the faculty think they can do what they want and shut us out. Why is it so unheard of to say the professor shouldn’t be a dictator and control that room as their totalitarian niche?”

In an interview before the meeting, Baxley said “arrogant, elitist academics are swarming” to oppose the bill, and media reports misrepresented his intentions.

“I expect to be out there on my own pretty far,” he said. “I don’t expect to be part of a team.”

House Bill H-837 can be viewed online at www.flsenate.gov.

Meanwhile, in Ohio, they have a wacky definition of the "far-left":

Another leftist professor, who teaches OSU’s Introduction to Peace Studies course is Basil Kardaras, Sociology and Psychology professor at OSU’s main campus. Kardaras is a speaker for Central Ohioans for Peace, a group dedicated to “generat[ing] effective ways of making [their] voices heard,” and “hold[ing] leaders accountable for advancing peaceful solutions to conflicts.” To this end, the organization promotes such far-Left groups as Not In Our Name, Veterans for Peace, and MoveOn.org.

And they're beating up on a philosophy professor, Joseph Levine:

Levine’s own concept of “higher education” is to include students in pro-Palestinian campaigns on the OSU campus. An unabashed anti-Israel activist, Levine’s predominant focus at OSU is calling for the university’s divestment of Israel – and enlisting students in his cause. Levine is the faculty adviser to the Committee for Justice in Palestine, a pro-Palestinian group that joins forces with other radicals in condemning Israeli security measures, while failing to denounce Palestinian suicide bombings. Although an atheist, Levine affirms that it is his “Jewishness that drives him to scrutinize Israel so closely.”

Levine took part in a June 14, 2002, protest against Bush, when the President came to speak at the school’s commencement ceremony about voluntarism and community participation. While only one individual was reportedly ejected from the grounds for disturbing the peace, Levine exclaimed, “There was no need for them to clamp down on free speech. They [security officials] knew pretty well what was planned. There was nothing especially disruptive about that. This was an attempt to really put a chill on protest activity.” Levine went on to say, “The president is pushing an agenda, one that is antithetical to the goals of higher education. His agenda includes a redistribution of resources toward the wealthy, while the function of public higher education is in large part to level the playing field and enable redistribution in a more egalitarian direction.”

However, it appears that providing an alternate viewpoint to their students on these vital topics would be too “egalitarian” for this crew. It may well be only passing State Senator Larry Mumper’s Senate Bill 24, the Academic Bill of Rights, can solve such a problem – and guarantee Ohio’s college students receive an education instead of an indoctrination.

What can be made of all of this? This blog entry seems to sum it up best. (please go look at it; the pictures are priceless). (To be fair, here's Horowitz's rebuttal -- make of it what you will).

Here's a link to Horowitz's magazine, Front Page, behind which is the organization Center for the Study of Popular Culture, which gets its funding from all sorts of nice people. The center's purpose is, "according to one of its recent direct mail appeals, is to 'change the leftist, anti-American, elitist culture that is dominant in the entertainment industry [and to expose] the idiocies and the viciousness of the radical leftism in universities, the media, mainstream churches, and everywhere else this modern plague is found.' The Committee on Media Integrity (COMINT), leader in the de-funding attacks on public television, is a project of the CSPC." (from the Media Transparency site, just linked). On the CSPC's website right now, Theresa Heinz Kerry's philanthropist is described as "radical left" (!!!!), and folks are invited to hear about America's future from good ol' Newt Gingrich, who "he disrupted the status quo by moving power out of Washington and back to the American people." (YES, this is a direct quote). Oh, and it gets better. There's also a link to The Individual Rights Foundation, which "is the legal arm of the Center for the Study of Popular Culture, designed to respond to the growing threat to constitutional rights." RIGHT... because the LEFT wants to fuck with constitutional rights these days... sorry, I was confused...

Here's how the students are supposed to measure liberal bias. Because clearly a registered Democrat is unfit to give a nuanced, balanced, academically rigorous account of their subject matter, and clearly every registered Democrat should be matched by a registered Republican, in order to ensure diversity. 'Cause that's obviously what diversity means. And you should read the complaint list, as it's unintentionally hilarious.* (I'm actually surprised that no one has reported our beloved Jim Marsh, given HIS Rate My Professor.Com ratings, but that's OK... good old Marsh).

Here's Horowitz's most recent defense of the project, which still doesn't answer Graham Larkin's criticisms from September 2004. (Larkin is the Vice President of the California Association of American University Professors. The AAUP, obviously, thinks the whole thing is just nasty).

--

* Check out this one -- it's a class in American National Politics, in the Political Science department, and the student is outraged that they had to read the Federalist Papers, which

were a series of articles written under the pen name of Publius by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. Madison, widely recognized as the Father of the Constitution, would later go on to become President of the United States. Jay would become the first Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court. Hamilton would serve in the Cabinet and become a major force in setting economic policy for the US.

The entire purpose of The Federalist Papers was to gain popular support for the then-proposed Constitution. Some would call it the most significant public-relations campaign in history; it is, in fact, studied in many public relations classes as a prime example of how to conduct a successful campaign.

(The Wikipedia information on the Federalist Papers, noting their opposition to the Bill of Rights, which at the time was highly controversial. Good read.) The student's complaint:

Nature of Complaint: Singled Out, Mocked Political/Religious Figures, Other, Challenged conventional thinking
Description of Complaint (please be as detailed as possible, including quotes from your professor where applicable):
Took issue with the truth that corporate influence in politics is a benevolent enhancement of the democratic process. Suggested President Bush is a bit of a dork. Exposed the media's lack of backbone. Actually made us read some of The Federalist Papers.

Action Taken:
Reported offender to the Thought Police

Response from Professor or Administrator (If Any):
Called our efforts "dishonest rubbish"

Time of Posting : Saturday, April 03, 2004

Oh no! "Actually made us read"... heaven forfend you learn about your country's political history! What the fuck. (By the way, here's an article about why it's important to teach the Federalist Papers).

OK, another one. I'll just quote it. It's too ridiculous:

Complaint Lodger Details : Anonymous
Class: Culture quebecoise
Subject: French
Professor: Anne McConnell
College: St. Michael's College


Nature of Complaint: Mocked Political/Religious Figures,
Description of Complaint (please be as detailed as possible, including quotes from your professor where applicable):
Encouraged students to try to understand the point of view of the Quebecois separatists. Mocked Maurice Duplessis.

Action Taken:


Response from Professor or Administrator (If Any):


Time of Posting : Tuesday, April 06, 2004

How dare anyone be encouraged to "try to understand the point of view" of anyone that they disagree with. That's like being with the terrorists!

OK, but this one makes it all better...:

Complaint Lodger Details : Anonymous
Class: finance courses
Subject: finance
Professor: all finance faculty
College: texas tech university


Nature of Complaint: Required Readings, Introduced Controversial Material, Mocked Political/Religious Figures,
Description of Complaint (please be as detailed as possible, including quotes from your professor where applicable):
All of my finance faculty have consistently backed Bush policies on tax cuts and SS reform. They have downed socialism in the netherlands in favor of the ever so lovely capitalism. They think that there should be a flat-tax, so that poor persons can pay their fair share too. I have even had profs support the Iraq war, which is not related to finace at all, unless you're trading oil and gas futures (that's why they care, now I get it. These ideas all differ from mine and have been forced on me.

Action Taken:
NONE. I act like an adult and realize that each has their own opinion. I cannot change that. I am strong enough in my beliefs that their views do not bother me. Believe it or not, I have learned a thing or two that has shifted my fiscal viewpoints a little to the right (a very small shift) by listening to the other side. I realize that I don't know it all.

Response from Professor or Administrator (If Any):
NONE. Did not make a fuss. I acted like a man. Students should realize that an education is not soley in the hands of a professor, but that they may take responsibility for reading outside material and discovering things on their own. GROW UP. I will be surprised if this makes it on the forum

Time of Posting : Wednesday, December 29, 2004

Basically, this is the deal

It's inappropriate for any professor to go on & on about their political/religious/moral beliefs, and wrong for any professor to grade a student poorly MERELY because of a political/moral/religious disagreement. But it IS appropriate to grade a student based on the quality of their argument, whether or not it "looks like" you're grading them for their opinion. Further,it IS appropriate to discuss current issues/politics in class, if the class deals with social and political thought, history, issues, etc. Why the fuck else would the students be in the class? Further, it's reasonable to correct a student for having certain facts wrong (or, at least, to suggest alternate ways of looking at facts), and certainly reasonable (why else have universities!?!?) to bring up viewpoints and ways of looking at the issue that are certainly NOT represented in the mainstream media (see my earlier blog post today, with the blog entry about the Schiavo case).

SO, good discussion, with encouragement to students to THINK FOR THEMSELVES = GOOD.
Mere ranting = BAD.

Professors are human. Our opinions will slip out. That's fair (I think). It's up to us to make sure that the general tenor of the class veers toward the good-think-for-yourself model, rather than the ranting model. But occasional criticisms of figures in power? Fuck. The powerful figures can take it. If you've done the work of providing a fair environment for students to learn, then by all means criticize powerful public figures in a university classroom. Your students, if you've taught them properly, will be able to argue for/against your position with actual *arguments*, and everyone will learn something.

OK, I'm rambling... sometime when my head hurts less, I'll try to write this out more clearly. All I can say is, I'm a radical liberal and old-biddy feminist, by the standards down here, and I LOVE my conservative students. They say the greatest things. Things I would only bring up as a counter-example. They help jump-start great discussions, in which we are then able to highlight the problems & tensions within moral philosophy & moralizing in the world. I wish I could slip my conservative students $20 each time they made a good point, since it spares me having to play devil's advocate. I'll ask them how they can justify such a position, and take them through the steps of their argument, the same way that I ask my liberal students how they can justify their position & get them to examine their argument. I'm sure the conservatives can tell I disagree with them, but I encourage their participation in class, and the comments I make while grading are clearly focused on the merits of their argument & their exposition of the philosopher in question. (I actually felt bad grading one of their papers once, because it was so badly written, and I was worried the student would think that I graded it down just because I disagreed with it... but based on recent work, I'm less worried - his arguing style has improved, and he doesn't seem to be sucking up to me. Good!)

Ramble, ramble, ramble... I just wish that everyone would write clearly, honestly, with good grammar, and good argument. That's all we need, and the so-called "culture wars" would be over. We could have honest social and political discourse. Sigh.

I really will try to rewrite this sometime. I'm sorry it's so disjointed. Just the whole thing bothers me, and I'm worried about it.

jane 11:33 AM [+]

Best blog post about Schiavo nonsense

This post has been my favourite thus far (via Leiter). (You're all lucky I'm not subjecting you to ALL I've read about Schiavo lately... procrastination on grading is a powerful force, my friends...)

jane 11:15 AM [+]

So, should I wear more short skirts to class?

Apparently it'll be good for my career... at least, as far as my teaching evaluations go.

Check it out:

In a well-known study, a professional actor was hired to deliver a non-substantive and contradictory lecture, but in an enthusiastic and authoritative style. The audience, consisting of professional educators, had been told they would be listening to Dr. Myron Fox, an expert on the application of mathematics to human behavior. They were then asked to rate the lecture. Dr. Fox received highly positive ratings, and no one saw through the hoax.(14) Later studies have obtained similar results,(15) showing that audience ratings of a lecture are more strongly influenced by superficial stylistic matters than by content.

Mmm, short skirts.

Further, this may be the only way to be truly impressive and not offensive:

Professors discussing unconventional or controversial ideas may also receive a larger number of very positive student evaluations, relative to other professors whose classes are more bland and, perhaps, boring. In spite of this, there are two reasons why the overall incentive created by SEF will be for the professor to avoid controversy. First, the average rating professors receive is 4 or above on a scale of 1 - 5; therefore, a very hostile student can give a rating three points below the average, whereas a very enthusiastic student can only give a rating one point above the average. Thus, assuming the professor is average, the marginal unusually hostile student has an impact up to three times greater than the marginal unusually enthusiastic student. Second, there is a saying in American politics to the effect that one doesn't gain votes, one only loses them--meaning that it is much easier to earn a voter's opposition through taking substantive stands on issues than it is to gain support by doing so. If a politician says three things that I agree with and one that I disagree with (all concerning emotionally charged issues), I am more likely to vote against him, provided the other candidate did not say anything I disagreed with, even if this was because the latter said very little at all. This explains why American politicians often avoid taking non-trivial stands on issues. A similar principle applies to professors, when their retention is decided in a similar manner: any statement or question a teacher raises that anyone could take offense at will run a risk of evoking hostile reactions from a few students who will regard the statement or question as grounds for a negative evaluation, while there is little chance that even a non-hostile student will take it as grounds for an especially positive evaluation. Thus, it is reasonable to suppose that the degree to which a professor is controversial would be a strong depressive factor on his student evaluations, although this thesis has not yet been subjected to systematic testing.

Of course, I'm reading all this stuff instead of grading as I should be...

jane 10:46 AM [+]

In other news,

Congratulations, General Dallaire!

No comment on Eggleton.

And if anyone wants to have a discussion about the pros and cons of the Canadian senate, well, that's fine too. But regardless of whether or not you like it (and I kinda have a soft spot for it, regardless of the NDP platform), it's a nice honour.

jane 4:05 PM [+]

What kind of a tagline is "Until death do us partake"?

Who else is really, really creeped out by there being a movie about Bernardo/Homolka, that Laura Prepon ("Donna") from That 70s Show is playing Karla, and (worst of all), that

Every scene of the film was derived from events transcribed in court testimony using police reports, interviews between Karla and her psychiatrist, and videotape of the crimes shot by the perpetrators themselves.

(from the synopsis on the official movie site)

Derived from court testimony?!? That's creepy that some Hollywood guy can get the court transcripts, given that the trial was under a media ban here in Canada.

The CP article says (Danson being a lawyer for the Mahaffy and French families:

The producers based the film on court transcripts, information that was subject to a media ban in Canada.

"I guess someone took the view that they were part of the public record and were entitled to it - I've read those transcripts and it's very, very disturbing stuff," said Danson.

Several items of hard evidence from the trials, such as videotapes and photographs, were later destroyed, but trial transcripts were preserved.

"We didn't destroy the transcripts because we have to be mindful of the fact that Paul Bernardo - even though it's theoretical - will be entitled to parole reviews in the future," said Danson.

The French and Mahaffy families are concerned the film could violate their daughters' memories.

"When we destroyed the videotapes and other sensitive material - (the families) really did believe they had purged this evil - that their daughters were now free from further violation," said Danson.

"The thought of a Hollywood production simulating what had happened to their daughters is something that's excruciating and incomprehensible to them."

The CBC had a discussion a few years ago about the possibility of a Bernardo movie, back when there was a possibility Jason Priestley might play Bernardo. Here's more information about Bernardo movies.

Who agrees with Dalton McGinty's call for a boycott? What do you think?

Obviously, yes, free speech, blah blah blah. But isn't it really weird that a Hollywood writer/producer can get access to stuff that was deemed too private to be shared with the Canadian public? Further, for the Americans, this is just a crazy true crime story... but I feel like it was a nightmare, at least in Ontario (possibly because as a kid I had only a very veiled idea of what was going on -- which made it all the scarier). I feel awful for the families.

Creepy, creepy, creepy.

(Also, go back to the synopsis page. It doesn't show up on the stills page, but the third picture down on the synopsis page Doesn't Bode Well for the movie. God. Nasty.)

Oh yeah, and here's a message from the producer. He says he hopes the movie will raise awareness of "the need for vigilance and alertness against the kind of predatory behavior that Paul and Karla personify." Right -- because we're totally laid-back about this sort of thing already. Whatever.

Oh, and ALSO creepy is that on the Links page, the Laura Prepon links are to "That 70s Show" (reasonable), Maxim magazine (I guess 'cause of her pictures there a few years back), and worst of all, the AskMen.com site, which has on it some of the most offensive, misogynist material I've ever seen. Great. Just great.

jane 9:32 AM [+]

I got my first comment on Rate My Professor.Com!

And it's not bad... apparently I'm too easy. Oh well.

Back to research and later... grading... they'll see if I'm still easy!

at least I got a chili pepper!

jane 11:20 AM [+]

You can't make a living from blogging? Curses, back to the PhD!

Apparently U.S. border guards don't have a high opinion of blogging (via Wonkette).

In other news -- What the fuck is Martin doing with a paper doll? (and Bush too, for that matter.

OK, enough of that. Taking away shopping carts is sadder than anything on Wonkette this week (well, other than the gays get their kids from the abandoned kids store story...)

(Cute boy -- still no call. But I saw City of God last night... for all of you who saw it on DVD -- did you watch the special feature documentary about the drug war in Rio? The interview clips with the chief of police were out of this world!!)

jane 11:29 AM [+]

Quick additional note

I deleted a post, since I reflected and realized that it remains a possibility that the subject of said post might wander by this blog, and that it would probably be easier not to let it stand. Just so you know. (So no, "hey, where did that post where jane revealed xyz go?". It just went... away.)

And in other news, I'm trying to get my department-mates to join me in building up Bars for Philosophers, a database of bar/coffeeshop/restaurant recommendations. Full of good ideas I am, no?

jane 11:46 AM [+]

Dryden's Index

Days since last class taught = 4
Days since Spring Break officially began = 3
Beers drunk = 11
Wine drunk (glasses) = 6
Whiskies drunk (ounces) = 2
Boys phone number given to = 1*
Boys I guess I'm still kind of seeing, but not really excited about, but oh well, may as well continue to see where it goes, until something better comes along = 1
Bright pink t-shirts bought (with little butterfly embroidered on, hopelessly, hopelessly, girly) = 1
Papers graded = 0
Books bought in hopes that they will provoke dissertationy thoughts = 3
Work done on dissertation = 5 minutes
Serious thoughts about dissertation = 0
Letters written to former professors = 1**
NYC mayors seen up-close during St Patrick's Day Parade (whose hands I had no desire to shake, but could have, since I was so close) = 2
Books read for pleasure = 2***

--
* I doubt he'll call. But he was pretty cute. And he had an adorable Minnesota accent. Do you want the story? It's cute. It involves Husserl, accents, group therapy, and a woman with a strange, strange name.

** I finally got around to writing the letter to Graeme Nicholson I've been meaning to write. Now I have to put a stamp on it. I found one of his books at the Strand yesterday, and bought it. (The Strand, by the way, is all renovated, and stuff is much, much easier to find than previously. YAY!!)

*** I re-read Eggers' A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius, and read Susan Jacoby's Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism, which I strongly recommend for all those who tire of enforced american religiosity.

jane 11:29 AM [+]

Ah, Kant

Ahem. I quote:

This is where we come to the fork in the ethical road and Kant is the waiter that provides us with the knife to cut through the issue and avoid the fork completely.

Ah, my students. Such budding philosophers.

jane 3:22 PM [+]

look me in the eye and tell me you don't find me attractive

Whew, I've been listening to a lot of Tegan and Sara (thanks, Calgary, for bringing us this wonderfulness).

I'm even going to be really cheezy (and channel all my inner 17-year-old) and quote a whole song. Yay!

where do you go with your broken heart in tow
what do you do with the left over you
and how do you know, when to let go
where does the good go, where does the good go
look me in the eye and tell me you don't find me attractive
look me in the heart and tell me you won't go
look me in the eye and promise no love's like our love
look me in the heart and un break broken, it won't happen
it's love that breaks the seal of always thinking you would be
real, happy and healthy, strong and calm, where does the good go
where does the good go
where do you go when you're in love and the world knows
how do you live so happily while I am sad and broken down
what do you say it's up for grabs now that you're on your way down
where does the good go, where does the good go

Anyway...

---

Just watched Ghost World again -- thanks, Natalia, for giving me a copy. While the credits were rolling I flipped through the comic, which was fantastic (and does a much better job of showing the relationship between Enid & Rebecca -- in the comic, Becca gets about the same number of good lines as Enid does -- unlike in the movie, where Enid gets all the good, snarky lines, and Becca's just kind of a wannabe yuppie). Anyway, comic-book-purist-snark aside, the movie's still good, although they seem a lot younger than when I first saw the movie (when I was in second year of undergrad... Megan saw it with me, at the Bloor).

After seeing the movie the first time, I went home crying & called my mom (at midnight) to tell her that I didn't know what I was going to do with my life, or whether I was making the right decisions, etc.

After seeing the movie this time.... I don't know. I like where I am in my life; I can still laugh & enjoy & relate to much of the movie, but in a different way -- more an acknowledgement of shared human nature, rather than still having the feeling of being 18-20 and totally confused. I think my students are still there, at that point. It's weird to think I've moved a little past it, since I didn't notice getting more "mature," you know?

Mature, schmature.

---
(and I'm not going to see James this weekend; he's in Chicago. So no fifth date yet.)

jane 10:17 PM [+]