“There is no smoking gun.”  That’s the phrase I keep hearing supporters of the global warming hypothesis using when they refer to the released documents from the CRU East Anglia “hack.”  I heard it again today from my erstwhile sword bearer, Paul Krugman.  The meaning seems to be this:  No evidence of crime, outright hoaxing or significant fraud – nothing to worry about.

This misses the point, of course.  For me at least.  I wasn’t expecting a smoking gun, but what I found was bad enough.  Does there have to be a “murder” involved to make anyone pay attention or think that something bad was done?

Sometimes, the school you picked isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. Maybe the culture just doesn’t mesh with you, or maybe you realize after a few months that you want to be studying something completely different.

The thought of transferring crosses your mind. And then the thoughts of all you’d have to do -  paperwork, credit juggling, and the process of making new friends all over again – flood your brain. My expert advice (I’m a self-proclaimed expert, of course)  is to give your school a fighting chance before you go through the grueling process of transferring. But if you’re really unhappy, a change can be well worth it.

There are many different options when it comes to your education, some of which you might never knew existed. Here are a few different routes you can take on your path to academic success and happiness:

• Four-Year College
It might be a public university or it might be a private school, but places are handing out bachelor’s degrees like candy these days (well, if you do the work, anyway). This is probably the type of school most of you are in and the type to which most of you would consider transferring. There are zillions of them, so do your research and really know what you want—don’t just transfer because your boyfriend goes there.

• Career College
If you know exactly what you want to do and you’re on the fast track to doing it, consider a career college. Some of them can be just as pricey as liberal-arts colleges, but they may not keep you there for the full four years, and when you’re done, you’re basically set to get a job or apprenticeship in your field. A quick way to check out your options is to visit a site like CollegeSurfing.com, which lets you search for schools by career interest.

• Technical School
A little bit like a career college, a technical school preps you for employment in a specific line of work. Most of the programs are only two years long, so you’ll be able to graduate before all your friends and start raking in the dough while they’re still paying off loans. Common technical-school programs include management, beauty, culinary arts, and trades like welding. The U.S. Department of Education gives you a few tips to keep in mind when trying to choose a technical school, such as making sure the institution is accredited.

• Vocational School/Trade School
Vocational school is closely connected with apprenticeship programs and is likely to give you a lot of on-the-job training. It also prepares you for a specific line of work, but the difference is that most vocational-school programs are non-academic and primarily require you to work with your hands. You can go to vocational school to learn how to be a mechanic or a blacksmith, for example, although the term has branched out considerably to now encompass careers in cosmetics and other fields as well. Explore what’s available from the vocational-school world at this directory.

Obviously, there are other options – dropping out and open a cupcake bakery, for example – but if you want to earn that degree or certificate, you’ll likely be hitting up one of the above. Before you go, though, get to the root of why you’re transferring, and make sure it’s the right decision for you. You want to make sure to make an informed decision this time so you don’t have to do the Transfer Shuffle again!

Just remember that transferring should be primarily motivated by an academic choice. If you’re going through a tough time with friends or boys or making your mark on a campus, trying on a new school for size isn’t likely to solve all your problems (that’s what chocolate is for).

We at CC want you to be happy, and part of that includes finding the school that fits your needs best, so if you’re not there, go forth and explore!

It seems like studying for a long period of time, continuously – creates a very quick and agile brain.

Take a break, and then suddenly, you find yourself starting from zero. Although much less than the previous times you found yourself in the same situation…

Does studying (dynamically) make you smarter?

Sarah Palin is the gift that continues to keep on giving. In her recent appearance on O’Reilly, Palin was asked the “intelligence question,” to wit, the lack of presumed intelligence to be president. Palin responded by explaining that in today’s politics the lack of an impressive education or resume is actually the credential that Americans want in a candidate.

Here is the transcript:

O’REILLY: Let me be very bold and fresh again. Do you believe that you are smart enough, incisive enough, intellectual enough to handle the most powerful job in the world?

PALIN: I believe that I am because I have common sense, and I have, I believe, the values that are reflective of so many other American values. And I believe that what Americans are seeking is not the elitism, the the kind of spineless… a spinelessness that perhaps is made up for that with some kind of elite Ivy League education and a fat resume that’s based on anything but hard work and private sector, free enterprise principles. Americans could be seeking something like that in positive change in their leadership. I’m not saying that has to be me.

Putting aside the uncertain meaning of having “values that are reflective of so many other American values,” Palin actually suggests that a successful background is a liability — what really matters is personality and the lack of such impressive resumes.

This part of the interview occurs around the 7:45 marker on the interview below:

In the parallel world of Palin, educated means spineless and success means elitism. She was able to avoid both liabilities, here.

It seems to be a winning combination of little resume credentials and no impressive educational background:

What is an automaton?

An automaton is a recognizer i.e given an input language, it recognizes if a string is a part of that language.

For Eg. English is a language comprising of alphabets ‘a-z’, “beethoven” word is a valid string of the language. At the same time “!a89rr” is an invalid string.

Terms involved in modeling a Finite State machine

Start State – The initial state of the system when no interaction has taken place yet

End/Accepting State – The state(s) that indicates the successful operation of a system (Eg. acceptance of a string)

Transition – An action which triggers the change of the system from one state to another

Mathematical Definition [ Wikipedia ]

A deterministic finite state machine or acceptor deterministic finite state machine is a quintuple (Σ,S,s₀,δ,F), where:

• Σ is the input alphabet (a finite, non-empty set of symbols).
• S is a finite, non-empty set of states.
• s₀ is an initial state, an element of S.
• δ is the state-transition function: (in a nondeterministic finite state machine it would be , ie., δ would return a set of states).
• F is the set of final states, a (possibly empty) subset of S.

Graphical Representation

An automata is represented graphically using a state diagram where each state is represented by a circle and transitions are represented by arrows labeled with the input alphabet causing the transition.

Finite State Machine

Eg. A Finite state Machine which recognizes if the input string has even  number of zeros

There are only 2 possible states for a string “Even number of zeroes” or “Odd number of zeroes”.The initial state, an empty string has even zeroes. Hence, the start state is the end/accepting state. This FSM can be represented by

Even -> 1  =  Even
Odd -> 0= Even
Even -> 0=Odd
Odd -> 1=Odd

Here, ” ->  ” represents a transition  and ” = ” represents the change to the next state. [ Assumed ]

The language accepted by the FSM is {00,100,1100,110000,10000, . . . } . The set of strings generated is infinite

Now I understand how Bush won Florida in 2000. It appears that 193% of voters support one of the three leading candidates.

It appears that math has been found to be another Obama socialist conspiracy.

Muhammad Abduh

A couple weeks ago TBE added a Reading Material tab to our masthead, but additions to it don’t show up in Google Reader and maybe other RSS readers, and the tab’s contents have the potential to become quite unruly, so we’ve decided to publish occasional book reviews on the main page as well as adding them to the reading material section. In this edition: A new biography of Muhammad Abduh, Wolf Hall, Dialogues in Arab Politics and the effects of Turkish Islamists’ governance on women’s educational and professional attainment.

We’ve also added the “subscribe via email” button for which those who have not yet accommodated themselves to the brave new world of RSS have long been clamoring. It’s below the links.

Muhammad Abduh by Mark Sedgwick

We haven’t read this book. The AUC Press version hasn’t even come out yet. According to their calendar it is supposed to come out this month, but an employee at the bookstore told TBE she thinks it’s been delayed.

At any rate it’s the first book-length biography of Abduh in English that we know of, though he has of course received a lot of attention in Hourani’s Arabic Thought in the Liberal Age and elsewhere, and the Oxford UP website says that it draws on new sources and the latest research, so you might learn something new.

Some enterprising scholar or aspiring Ph.D. student should be shopping a Rashid Rida project.

Wolf Hall by Hilary Mantel

Aside from the usual things, TBE is thankful to the Booker Prize Committee (and the Ice Cream Paint Job beat, for other reasons) for making us consider reading a historical novel, which we probably wouldn’t have otherwise. We’re only about 100 pages into the book but we’ve already concluded that the hype is justified.

The story is incredibly engaging, the prose is for the most part workwomanlike (used here as a compliment) with occasional forays into court wit. As an act of authorial imagination the book is pretty amazing.

One last note: Don’t be threatened by the length, if you’re the type to hate long books. The typeface used is exceedingly large.

Dialogues in Arab Politics by Michael N. Barnett

This is an oldie-but-goodie that has been on our minds, in our hearts and on our lips a lot recently, what with the ongoing Algerian-Egyptian imbroglio and the Saudi-Yemen-Iran tripartite d(is)alliance still unresolved. Because we don’t have the book in front of us, or even in this country with us, we’re not able to comment with any real authority, so we decided to reprint a musty old response paper we wrote about it back in the olden days… Please don’t take our criticisms to mean you shouldn’t read it, though. It’s the best Middle East IR book we’ve read.

As is often the case in political science books, Barnett seems eager to stake out more explanatory power for his preferred constructivist interpretation than it can logically bear. But the maximalism of Barnett’s constructivism can only be understood in dialogue with Realism. Just as the currently ascendant conservative Arab regimes were shaped by radical nationalism, so one hopes that someone will convincingly synthesize realism and constructivism, rather than positing them in opposition, as though only one could be right about everything.

This scholarly brinksmanship leads to some excesses on Barnett’s part, in failing to examine or glossing over events that would tend to support a realist view. One example of this is the treatment of the Yemeni civil war. Barnett claims that “Nasser’s decision to support the [Revolutionary Command Council] had little to do with military politics and everything to do with symbolic politics.”[1] Yet the previous sentence outlines Saudi fears of an Egyptian “foothold on the Arabian penninsula.” One can plausibly state that Nasser’s support for a radical interpretation of Arab nationalism forced him into the role of supporting the Yemeni revolutionaries, but Egypt’s involvement in Yemen was, at base, a classic instance of Offensive Realism, with Egypt attempting to achieve regional hegemony through territorial expansion or the creation of satellites. While Barnett’s reading of constructivism has many interesting things to say about the process of competitive bidding in bringing various Arab states to the brink of war and beyond, there are instances like Yemen’s civil war or Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, that are much better understood under the rubric of realism.

Another flaw in Barnett’s argument is his on-again, off-again relationship with using domestic and international public opinion as an explanatory variable, and a relative lack of discussion about the role of aggrieved state elites, as opposed to broad publics, in fomenting unrest in those Arab states with high regime turnover rates. One finds, early in the book, the contention that the main goal of Arab regimes was regime survival, a perfectly legitimate claim, and that they used interactions with other states to bolster their domestic status, another uncontestable claim.[2] Two inconvenient facts present themselves, however. First is that challenges to internal regime stability were far more likely to come from state elites than broad-based uprisings. This could be a failing of the regime’s themselves, rather than Barnett, though more discussion is warranted. Second is that public opinion is utterly disregarded, both by Barnett and, apparently, the regimes themselves, in instances when it would be expected to be highly mobilized, such as during the Jordanian civil war. In this instance, many regimes, including Egypt, sided with the Jordanians against the Palestinians, despite deep public sympathy for the latter.[3] In summary, Barnett initially theorizes that regime survival depends on domestic public support, but does not explore what happens when the regimes pursue a course contrary to public opinion.

[1] Barnett: 139.

[2] Ibid: 35.

[3] Ibid: 178-9.

Islamic Rule and the Emancipation of the Poor and Pious by Erik Meyersson

This paper, about the effects of “Islamic rule” in Turkish towns and cities on women’s educational attainment, ended up being far more stats-heavy than we expected. That is not necessarily a bad thing, but it suffers from the same faults as much quant-based political science: the numbers are interesting, but the discussion “beyond the regressions” is simplistic. For some reason very few people produce work that does a good job synthesizing quantitative and qualitative approaches. We guess because the two approaches’ acolytes face very different incentive structures.

In celebration of Thanksgiving, I give you our annual Turkey Torts of a few potential and actual lawsuits from this holiday. From deep-fried Turkeys to salmonella salads, the holiday gives personal injury lawyers a great deal to be thankful for.

IN RE JEAN KASPER (as yet unfiled 2009)

This year, we have a curious product liability and negligence allegation. When Lisa Blair’s mother, Jean Kasper, died, she wanted to carry part of her mother with her. She consulted with a funeral home on the use of heart-shaped lockets for carrying the ashes. She filled identical lockets for her seven daughters and stepdaughters. She alleges that she dropped off the lockets to be sealed and tested by the funeral home.

At Thanksgiving dinner, Blair noticed that the mashed potatoes had small flecks in them, but continued to eat. After consuming most of the potatoes, she looked down and realize that her mother’s ashes had fallen into the mashed potatoes and that she had consumed them. She also discovered that the lockets on her daughters and stepdaughters had also leaked into their food.

Cresmount funeral home will not discuss the allegations. Blair could allege an assortment of torts from negligence to negligent infliction of emotional distress. If the funeral home represented that the lockets were sealed, it might be able to survive a motion to dismiss. There is also the possibility of a products claim. However, these lockets were not made for this purchase and this is not likely a case for foreseeable misuse against the manufacturer.

For the full story, click here.
———————————————————–

APONTE v. CASTOR
155 Ohio App. 3d 553 (2003)

Guests can bring potential liability for alleged attractive nuisances found during a Thanksgiving dinner. At least that is what Michael and Deborah Castor discovered. They invited their niece, Teresa Aponte and her daugher Erica (age 7) to share a Thanksgiving feast. According to the court, “[f]ollowing dinner, accompanied by her cousin, Erica went outside and crawled under/through an electric wire fence that enclosed appellees’ horse paddock area. Erica was subsequently kicked in the face by appellees’ horse, sustaining injury.”

The niece sued her uncle and aunt. The question was Erica’s status as trespasser or an invitee. The case also explored the meaning of an attractive nuisance.

The court held as follows:

In this case, it is undisputed that Erica was invited over for Thanksgiving dinner and that she did not obtain permission from appellees or any other adult to exit the house or visit the horse penned in the paddock. Moreover, it is uncontested that Erica was never permitted by appellees to roam freely in “any part of the subject property without both parental supervision and permission.” Upon a thorough review of the record, and finding no genuine issues of material fact, we find that Erica was only invited to appellees’ home for Thanksgiving dinner and was not invited to freely explore the property. Accordingly, we find that once Erica left the house and entered the horse paddock area, she exceeded the scope of appellees’ invitation and became a trespasser or a licensee on appellees’ property.

Normally, a landowner would only owe a trespasser or licensee the duty to refrain from wanton, willful or reckless conduct which is likely to injure the licensee or trespasser. . . .However, the Ohio Supreme Court has held that the amount of care required of a landowner to discharge a duty owed to a child of tender years, who is exposed to danger on the landowner’s property, is greater than that required to discharge a duty to an adult exposed to the same danger. Di Gildo v. Caponi (1969), 18 Ohio St. 2d 125, 47 Ohio Op. 2d 282, 247 N.E.2d 732, paragraph one of the syllabus; and Bennett v. Stanley (2001), 92 Ohio St.3d 35, 39, 2001 Ohio 128, 748 N.E.2d 41. The rationale for this rule is that HN7″‘Children of tender years, and youthful persons generally, are entitled to a degree of care proportioned to their inability to foresee and avoid the perils that they may encounter ***. The same discernment and foresight in discovering defects and dangers cannot be reasonably expected of them, that older and experienced persons habitually employ; and therefore, the greater precaution should be taken, where children are exposed to them.’” Di Gildo at 127, citing 39 Ohio Jurisprudence 2d 512, Negligence, Section 21. “Even child trespassers are accorded special protection in Ohio tort law.” Bennett, 92 Ohio St.3d at 40.

In recognizing that “children are entitled to a greater level of protection than adults,” the Ohio Supreme Court in Bennett adopted the attractive nuisance doctrine, contained in Restatement of the Law 2d, Torts (1965), Section 339 . Bennett set forth
the attractive nuisance doctrine as follows:

“A possessor of land is subject to liability for physical harm to children trespassing thereon caused by an artificial condition upon the land if:

“(a) the place where the condition exists is one upon which the possessor knows or has reason to know that children are likely to trespass, and

“(b) the condition is one of which the possessor knows or has reason to know and which he realizes or should realize will involve an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily harm to such children, and

“(c) the children because of their youth do not discover the condition or realize the risk involved in intermeddling with it or in coming within the area made dangerous by it, and

“(d) the utility to the possessor of maintaining the condition and the burden of eliminating the danger are slight as compared with the risk to children involved, and

“(e) the possessor fails to exercise reasonable care to eliminate the danger or to otherwise protect the children.”

In determining a landowner’s duty to a child, Bennett held that “whether an apparatus or a condition of property is involved, the key element should be whether there is a foreseeable, ‘unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily harm to *** children.’” Id. at 42, citing Restatement, Section 339(b). However, “even when a landowner is found to have an attractive nuisance on his or her land, the landowner is left merely with the burden of acting with ordinary care” and “does not automatically become liable for any injury a child trespasser may suffer on that land.” Id.

. . . Appellant argues that appellees’ horse created an attractive nuisance and, as such, appellees owed Erica the duty of ordinary care. We, however, find no authority in Ohio law which establishes that an animal is “an artificial condition” which invokes the doctrine of attractive nuisance. Accordingly, we find that the attractive nuisance doctrine is not applicable in this case. Nevertheless, based upon the holdings and rationale in Bennett and Di Gildo, we find that “children of tender years, and youthful persons” are generally entitled to a degree of care commensurate with their inability to foresee and avoid dangers, even when trespassing.

In considering whether appellees breached their duty to Erica, we must first consider whether it was foreseeable to appellees that Erica would trespass into the horse paddock area while on their property. Appellant argues that it was foreseeable that Erica, a child guest at Thanksgiving dinner, would wander out to the horse paddock. We, however, find that the undisputed evidence is to the contrary.

First, neither on the day in question, nor during earlier visits, was Erica ever given unfettered access to appellees’ property; rather, permission and adult supervision was required. Second, at no time was any child guest allowed “to roam freely around the subject property or enter the area in or around the horse paddock area.” Third, according to Mr. Castor, on previous visits to the property, Erica “never unilaterally left the house or entered the area in or around the horse paddock area.” Fourth, the horse was enclosed with an electrified wire fence, which, according to Erica, she was warned to avoid. Based on these undisputed facts, we find that it was not foreseeable to appellees that Erica would trespass upon their property into the area of the horse paddock.

Assuming arguendo that a genuine issue of material fact exists regarding whether it was foreseeable to appellees that Erica would trespass into the horse paddock, we note that the degree of care owed by appellees only would have to be proportionate to Erica’s inability to foresee and avoid the perils that she may encounter and, in no event, would appellees’ duty to Erica extend to dangerous conditions that were obvious and realized by her. See Bennett, supra at 43.

In this case, it is clear that Erica had an appreciation that horses presented a risk to her. Erica testified that she had been told “never to go behind a horse”; she knew that she was not allowed to be around horses, appellees’ horse, or in the corral, without a parent or adult supervision; and that, although she did not remember anyone ever telling her specifically not to go into the corral, she was “pretty sure that *** [appellees] thought that [she] had the common sense not to go there” and that “they knew that if [she] were going to that [she] would ask for an adult to come with [her].”

Appellant, however, argues that appellees should have warned Erica and her parents regarding this horse’s history of aggressive behavior toward a sheep that entered its enclosure. However, based on Erica’s own testimony, we find that she knew horses presented a risk, that she was not to go near the electric fence, and that an adult was supposed to accompany her around horses. Accordingly, we find that the potential danger any horse posed to Erica was both known and obvious to her. We therefore find that appellees owed no duty to Erica or her parents to provide additional warnings regarding this horse in particular.

Based on the foregoing, we find that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that appellees are entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. Erica was a trespasser on appellees’ property and, therefore, appellees were only required to refrain from willful, wanton and reckless conduct. However, to the extent that Erica’s age would entitle her to a greater degree of care than that normally afforded a trespasser, we find that appellees breached no duty to Erica insofar as she fully realized the obvious risk that horses presented, and proceeded at her own peril. Accordingly, we find appellant’s first and second assignments of error not well-taken.

On consideration whereof, the court finds substantial justice has been done the party complaining and the judgment of the Williams County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Appellant is ordered to pay the court costs of this appeal.

————————————————————

DENNIS V. DENNIS
2001 Del. Super. LEXIS 11 (2001)

The Dennis case shows why a good lawyer requires relatives to sign waiver forms before the start of any holiday. Here are the facts from the case:

FACTS

On November 16, 1998, Plaintiff [*2] Crystal Dennis (“Crystal”) and her thirteen-month-old son, Velvin Morgan, Jr. (“Velvin”)(collectively, the “Plaintiffs”) went to the home of Mr. Dennis, who is Crystal’s father and Velvin’s grandfather. Defendant Stephanie Dennis (“Stephanie”), who is Crystal’s sister, was also present at her father’s home. The sisters had gathered at Mr. Dennis’s residence in order to clean it for Thanksgiving dinner. While the daughters were cleaning, Mr. Dennis babysat Velvin. While all three adults and Velvin were in the kitchen prior to eating breakfast, Stephanie warmed water in the microwave for hot tea. She took the cup out of the microwave and placed it on the counter. Velvin, who was sitting on his grandfather’s lap, got up and walked over to the counter, reached up and poured the scolding water on himself. As a result, he sustained first and second degree burns on his neck and chest. The Plaintiffs filed suit against Mr. Dennis and Stephanie (collectively the “Defendants”), alleging that the Defendants’ negligence was the proximate cause of Velvin’s injuries.

The issue was whether the daughters could claim to be business invitees in coming their father’s house — in order to get around the state’s Guest Statute. The Delaware Guest Statute, 25 Del. C. § 1501, provides:

No person who enters onto private residential or farm premises owned or occupied by another person, either as a guest without payment or as a trespasser, shall have a cause of action against the owner or occupier of such premises for any injuries or damages sustained by such person while on the premises unless such accident was intentional on the part of the owner or occupier or was caused [*4] by the wilful or wanton disregard of the rights of others.

The daughters, however, claimed that “since Crystal would have been unable to perform the cleaning [*6] services for her father unless she could bring Velvin with her and have Mr. Dennis babysit him, he has received a benefit. Further, the Plaintiffs assert that Crystal was a business invitee 10 and that status should be imputed onto Velvin.”

Outcome: The Court was not convinced and found the lawsuit against the father to be properly dismissed.

————————————————————-
SAMSON v. REISING
62 Wis. 2d 698 (1974)

The underlying facts show that on Tuesday, February 6, 1968, Pearl Samson attended a luncheon, which was put on by the Wauwatosa High School Band Mothers Association (an organization organized to give support to the high school band) at the Wauwatosa Trinity Episcopal Church. Pearl Samson paid $ 1.25 and ate a luncheon consisting of turkey salad and dessert. On Wednesday evening she became nauseated. She was unable to work on Thursday and Friday.

The symptoms subsided, and she returned to work on Monday, February 12th. A few days later, however, she again was obliged to miss work because of her illness. After these symptoms recurred every few days, she visited her doctor, who was unable to help her, and in the nine-month period following the luncheon she lost 22 pounds and periodically suffered from diarrhea, vomiting, cramps, and stomach pain. Eventually she was referred to a specialist, who determined that Pearl Samson’s condition was the result of salmonella food poisoning and that, as a consequence, she suffered a deficiency of the lactase enzyme in her intestinal tract.

This enzyme is necessary to properly digest foods with a lactose base, such as milk and dairy products. She claims that her illness recurs whenever she ingests foods which contain milk products. There was testimony that she found it impossible to be sure that the food she ate contained no such products and that she became severely ill sometimes twice a month. Her physician testified that this condition is permanent.

There is evidence that the turkey salad eaten at the luncheon was contaminated with salmonella bacteria. Dorothy G. Wood, one of the defendants, testified that she had taken some of the leftover salad home for her family to eat. Her family ate some of that salad and had no ill effects. When she received reports that some of the guests at the luncheon had become ill, she notified the chief sanitarian of the Wauwatosa Health Department. He submitted the sample of the remaining salad to the Milwaukee Food Laboratory. The report from the laboratory indicated the presence of the salmonella bacteria.

There was testimony by Dorothy G. Wood that she and Marjorie E. Borror were co-chairmen in charge of the luncheon, that approximately a month before the luncheon they purchased nine frozen turkeys from Kohl’s and had them stored in Kohl’s freezer until they were needed. Before the date of the luncheon, Dorothy Wood picked up the frozen turkeys and delivered them to other members of the luncheon committee. She named eight members of the committee to whom she delivered the turkeys to be cooked in their own homes. She stated that she delivered the turkeys to Margarette H. Hoffman, Charlotte G. Soleski, Violet E. Gullicksen, Betty Randa, Grace A. Kerler, Marjorie E. Borror, Ruth E. Johnson, Jane Frances, and one other. Each of these persons are defendants in the instant lawsuit. In addition, Audrey Riesing and Phillis Gill, together with Dorothy Wood, are named as defendants.

Dorothy Wood stated that she did not cook a turkey, but that nine ladies, one of whom she could not name, cooked them sometime between the day she delivered the turkeys and the afternoon of February 5, 1968, when the ladies brought the cooked turkeys to the Trinity Episcopal Church kitchen. The turkey salad was prepared in the Trinity Episcopal Church kitchen.

After the salad was prepared, it was taken to a refrigerator located at the Methodist Church. The turkey salad was returned to the Trinity Episcopal Church at 10 a. m. on Tuesday, February 6th. The salad received no refrigeration from the time it was taken from the Methodist Church. Prior to the time of serving, the turkey salad was held in large containers, which had been obtained from the Methodist Church. Dorothy Wood testified that the church kitchen in which the salad was prepared was “clean.”

At trial, Joseph D. Gorski, the chief sanitarian for the Wauwatosa Health Department, testified that salmonella is a bacteria common to the intestinal tracts of fowl. He said that food containing salmonella bacteria can be rendered safe for eating by exposure to heat and that a meat temperature of 146 degrees Fahrenheit for thirty minutes or 161 degrees for thirty seconds would kill the organism. Properly cooking a turkey would render it free from salmonella bacteria.

However, even though a turkey were properly cooked, it could be contaminated if it came in contact with utensils or other objects which touched the raw contaminated turkey. Gary V. Doern, a bacteriologist, also testified that some individuals are unknowing carriers of the salmonella bacteria and can contaminate food products by touching them.

. . . In this case nine turkeys were cooked, each by one of nine defendants, but not all of the 11 defendants cooked the turkeys. It does appear, however, that all of them participated in the preparation of the salad.

Outcome: This case ultimately turned on the court’s interpretation of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur used to prove such cases with a paucity of proof. The doctrine requires “(1) The event or accident in question be of the kind which does not ordinarily occur in the absence of someone’s negligence; and (2) the agency or instrumentality causing the harm must have been within the exclusive control of the defendant.”

The court found that first criteria satisfied but ruled that it failed on the second criteria of exclusive control. They could not prove which of the band mother’s Turkeys was the culprit so all of the band mothers walked.

University of the Philippines Visayas
Division of Social Sciences
College of Arts and Sciences

Political Science 193
(Modern Political Theory)

Instructor: Brian C. Ventura
Term: Second Semester AY 2009-2010
Class Meeting: TF 8:30-10:00 Room: CF AV106
Consultation Hours: MTh 2:45-3:45, TF 10:300-11:30, 1:00-4:00 or by appointment
Prerequisite: None Section:1 Credits: 3 Units
E-mail Address: brian.c.ventura@gmail.com
Office: Division of Social Sciences Faculty Room CAS Building

He that is to govern a whole nation must read in himself, not this or that particular man, but mankind…
……Hobbes
If you want to have peace of mind, have faith. If you want to be a disciple of truth, search.
…..Nietzsche

General Course Description:

This course will endeavor to understand selected modern political theories from Machiavelli to Alexis de Tocqueville.

Prerequisites:

It is necessary that students who will enroll in this subject have a good sense of, if not interest in world history. This is needed so students could visualize the time and space of the thinkers and their ideas to help in further comprehension. It is also important that students have interest in astutely dissecting voluminous readings to uncover the thoughts buried behind the philosophers’ works.
Course Objective:

What is the purpose of reading, carefully understanding and applying the ideas of political thinkers who lived centuries ago to a student of political science? There are many reasons. One reason is that the importance of ideas and topics that they have presented transcends the boundary of time and space. Another is the manner of their presentation of these ideas. By manner I pertain to the seemingly impenetrable way they structured their arguments that lead them into a certain conclusion about issues that are of central importance to the study and practice of politics. As much as we would attempt to provide answers to some of the points that the philosophers raised, it is correspondingly important to ask intelligent and intelligible questions for us to probe deeper into their ideas. Why did they think about what they thought? What do they hope to achieve by the articulation of ideas and practical (or probably impractical) prescription that they have provided? These will be the interest of the class in this course.

More importantly this course will go beyond merely repeating and verbalizing the ideas of these thinkers. The class will be introduced into thinking that philosophers’ ideas are product of the investigation and interpretation of the condition where they are contextualized. The class will be conducted in a manner where everybody’s task at hand is to participate, and hopefully contribute, in the continuous examination and construction and/or destruction of the spectacles employed to the study of politics.

Specifically the course will endeavor to achieve the following objectives:

• identify and understand the key concepts (like human nature, liberty, equality, democracy, justice, domination, power, revolution and relationships between individual and society and government and economy) that the thinkers are addressed
• locate the thinkers and their ideas of in their respective historical and spatial context
• explore the contemporary forms, applications and impacts of the thinkers’ ideas
• develop among students the skill of articulating, constructing and critiquing arguments based on the works of the political thinkers

Assessment Scheme:

Assessment of students’ performance in this class will be based on the following;

Components Grade percentage
Class participation 20%
Final Paper 30%
Comprehensive Oral Examination 30%
Quizzes and Assignments 20%
Total grade 100%

Class Participation: It is expected that students are prepared when coming to class every meeting. This means that he/she has read, reread, and dissected the assigned reading/s before entering the class. Coming to class means you are interested to contribute and learn in classroom activities. Class time will not be wasted by discussing the basic details in the assigned reading/s that could be understood by students upon reading. Participation in discussion means raising pertinent and well grounded points or questions and not merely reading the book in front of your teacher and classmates. Names will be called based on random picking from the class list, unless there are volunteers. It should be noted that class participation includes not only answering but asking pertinent and discussion worthy questions as well. You will also engage in informal debates and argumentation, therefore skill in construction, defense, and offense of argument is important. However, it is imperative that exchange of ideas should always be in a cordial and non-antagonistic manner. If you disagree to a certain idea, disagree in an agreeable manner. Monosyllabic answers should be avoided.

Quizzes and Assignments: Quizzes are not announced. They are given to check whether you have done your reading assignments or not. It is always in essay form. Assignments will be given either individually or as a group. It is important that when group assignments are given you should thoroughly discuss it with your co-members. Make sure that the group has understood both the instruction and the group output. Quizzes can be given to only one member of the group but the score will be credited for the whole. Peer learning is a valuable learning strategy. You should learn how to practice it.

Final Paper: Students will be asked submit a paper as an assessment of how they employ the theory in analyzing particular political phenomenon or of how they can effectively integrate concepts, construct arguments and communicate ideas in writing. Generally, the paper is expected to fall in at least one of these categories;
a.) pointing out anomalies or contradiction on the ideas or concepts that the philosopher developed, and proposing how to resolve or to clarify this anomaly or contradiction;
b.) comparing or contrasting the ideas of two or more thinkers and developing assessment criteria for judging who has a better position;
c.) examining the historical, social or political context that can help better explain the ideas of the philosopher;
d.) proposing a more contemporary understanding of certain ideas and or concept raised by philosophers discussed in class
e.) assessing the contemporary usefulness or the decline in popularity of the concepts or proposals advanced by the philosopher/s

The Final Paper must be submitted in three formats, a hard copy, a soft copy in Microsoft word or its Linux Open Office equivalent, and a PDF copy. The paper should be from 5,000 to 6,000 words in length, in Times New Roman (font size 11-12) or its Open Office equivalent. It must have a minimum of seven cited sources. Citations should be within texts (ex. Ebenstein 2000, 234 or Ebenstein 2000). For the list of cited literature format see the Reference section of this course outline.

The soft copies are to be submitted to the email address provided above. Follow this format in labeling your file attachment: Course, Surname, Title (ex. Pol. Sci. 193-Reyes; The Utility of Religion According to Machiavelli). Use this labeling format for both the Word and PDF files. Take note of the following important dates for the Final Paper;

End of Consultation for the Topic Outline Friday February 27, 2009, on or before 5:00 pm; due date for the Final Paper Thursday March 12, 2009, on or before 5:00 pm.

Be reminded that it is highly unlikely to have your topic outlines approved after the first consultation, it is therefore expected that by the time of the deadline for consultation all topic outlines have already undergone from two to four revisions.

Comprehensive Oral Examination: After discussing the readings students’ understanding and ability to analyze and evaluate the basic concepts discussed in the class will be assessed in a comprehensive oral examination. Students are expected to provide appropriate explanation and defense of their answers articulately. It is important that you will carefully understand the instructions for the oral exam because failure to follow the instruction will result to a grade of 5. The schedule of the examination will be announced near the end of the term. Depending on time availability, the exam may last from 30 minutes to 1 hour.

For effective studying take note of three levels of familiarity that you will need in order to succeed in the Comprehensive Oral Examination. The First Level is familiarity of the concepts, arguments and proposals of a philosopher and how they relate with each other. The Second Level is familiarity of how ideas of various philosophers relate with each other, be it obvious similarity, implied agreement or direct opposition. The Third Level is familiarity of how the ideas of the philosophers relate with their own milieu and with the issues and problems facing the study and practice of politics today.

Rating Scale and Grading Policy: Since due dates are nonnegotiable no grade of “INC” will be given in this class. Those who are unable to submit the requirement/s in due time will have a corresponding grade of “5.0” for that specific component. Conversion of the percentage grade into the final grade will follow this matrix.

Percentage Final Grade
Equivalent
100% 1.0
95-99% 1.25
90-94% 1.5
85-89% 1.75
80-84% 2.0
75-79% 2.25
70-74% 2.5
65-69% 2.75
60-64% 3.0
55-59% 4.0
54% and below 5.0

General Class Rules:

Attendance and Tardiness: Students with more than six unexcused absences will be automatically given a grade of five (5) unless he or she has formally dropped the course. It is the responsibility of the students to apply for dropping, not the course instructor’s prerogative. Arriving fifteen minutes (15 min.) after the start of the class is considered late. Arriving half an hour after the start of the class is considered as absent. Three late marks are equivalent to one absent mark. Being absent on the previous meeting/s means that it is your responsibility to review the discussion on the day/s when you were absent. You are an important participant in learning therefore your contribution in class room learning is highly valued.

Rule for Mobile Phones: Mobile phones should be set in silent mode inside the class. If you need to make an important SMS, MMS conversation, or phone call, you should excuse yourself from the class and conduct your business outside.

Due dates: Submission schedules for this class should be promptly observed. Late submissions of assigned works will not be accepted. It will be helpful if you finish and print assigned papers at least 24 hours before the due time. Be alert with any possible change of schedule so you won’t be confused with the exact due date. Do not hesitate to ask the Instructor if you are confused about schedules or formats of any assigned work. It is better to be sure than sorry.

Class Discussion: Names will be called based on random picking from the class list. Once your name is called the right and the duty to contribute to class discussion is yours. Refrain from asking impertinent, pointless, and elementary questions for you may only annoy the class and disturb the momentum of the discussion. Language is not a barrier for articulating ideas so long as mutual understanding is guaranteed. It is however highly encouraged that class discussions is to be conducted in English.

Student Responsibility: It is expected that students are reading and understanding the literatures assigned to or pertinent with the topic before coming to class. The role of the instructor is only to assess students’ performance. Grades are not made but only calculated by the course instructor based on the set of given provided by the students’ performance.

Course Schedule: The discussion will follow the sequence as outlined below. In case of any unforeseeable and unavoidable interruptions a make up class or a substitution class will be scheduled in a mutually convenient and feasible time and place.

Academic Honesty: Plagiarism is a serious academic offense punishable by a grade of 5.0 or expulsion. Students are expected to observe proper rules in citing sources and to provide appropriate credits to borrowed ideas. Cheating during examination and quizzes will also be subject to similar rules.

Consultation: In case you are not available during the consultation hours provided above you may arrange for an alternative schedule ahead of time. During consultation only the group or the person consulting is allowed inside the faculty room. You should wait outside if the instructor is not yet around or if it is not yet your turn for consultation. Observe proper decorum when you are inside the faculty room.

Points for better learning experience in this class:

On dealing with the literature: Not all the literatures are easy to comprehend. In order to better understand what the philosophers mean you need to read and reread their works. Reading it once is obviously insufficient. It will also be helpful if you consult various sources for different interpretations of the text. However, reading the interpretation of other authors must not be treated as a substitute to reading the original text. The list of references provided in this outline is not exhaustive. The library and the world wide wed have more books and other literatures that can help you in achieving the objectives of this class. The supplementary articles provided below may be useful for your paper. Inform the class instructor ahead of time if you need a copy.

Always have with you a dictionary to help in defining words and concepts in the philosophers’ texts that are still unfamiliar to you. It is wrong to assume that by repeatedly reading a concept that you can’t understand you will eventually get its meaning. Having such an assumption will prevent you from understanding some key concepts that are being addressed by a philosophers work. Remember that the goal of the class is to comprehend and analyze the theories and not just reread and repeat it.

About the Class Paper and other written assignment: Let the following serve as your guide in writing your paper. Demonstrate in your paper that you have thoroughly read and comprehended the assigned readings, cited literatures and class room discussion; organize your paper properly, take note of the flow of ideas; present an argument and demonstrate insights and capacity to evaluate and synthesize ideas, show interrelationships, explain cause-and-effect and incorporate a thorough library research; and lastly submit a neatly written paper free from grammatical and spelling errors, and ball point pen and whiteout corrections. To avoid loss of file save it in multiple disks and e-mail it to your address so you could check it anywhere you go with internet connection.

Topic Outline

A. Introductory Lecture
a. Political Philosophy and Political Theory

B. Niccolo Machiavelli
a. Introduction
b. The Prince and the Discourses
1. The Art of Politics
2. The Political Value of Religion
3. The Liberation of Italy
4. The Establishment and Maintenance of Rome

C. Thomas Hobbes
a. Introduction
b. The Leviathan
1. The State of Nature
2. The Social Contract
3. The Commonwealth
4. Rights of the Sovereign
5. Liberty of the Subject
6. Civil Law and Natural Law
7. Subversive Political Doctrines

D. John Locke
a. Introduction
b. Two Treatises of Civil Government
1. The State of Nature
2. The State of War
3. Slavery and Property
4. Political Society
5. The End and Limits of Government
6. The Right to Rebel

E. Jean Jacques. Rousseau
a. Introduction
b. The Social Contract
1. The Nature of Man
2. The Right of the Strongest and Slavery
3. The First Convention of Society
4. The Social Compact
5. The Sovereign and the Civil State
6. The Inalienability and Indivisibility of Sovereignty
7. The Infallibility of the General Will and the Limits of Sovereign Power
8. Law and the Legislator
9. The People and Government in General
10. Democracy, Deputies or Representatives and Voting

F. Adam Smith
a. Introduction
b. The Wealth of the Nations
1. The Division of Labor
2. Economic Value
3. Role of the Government

G. Marx and Engels
a. Introduction
b. The Communist Manifesto
1. Bourgeois and Proletariats
2. Proletarians and Communists
Socialist and Communist Literature

H. Friedrich Nietzsche
a. Introduction
b. The Antichrist
1. Revaluation of all Values
2. Attempts at a Critique of Christianity
b. The Genealogy of Morals

I. Alexis de Tocqueville
a. a. Introduction
b. Introduction Democracy in America
1. Tyranny of the Majority and the Power of the Majority Over Public Opinion
2. Democratic Nation’s Love of Equality more than Liberty 3. Equality, Free Institutions and Centralization of Political Power
4. Democracy and Despotism
5. The Coming Era of World Democracy

J. Concluding Discussion
a. In Defense of Politics
b. Political Theory and Political Philosophy

References:

Primary Texts:

Collins, Randal and Makowsky, Michael. The Discovery of Society Fifth Edition McGraw-Hill, Inc. USA, 1993

Curtis, Michael. The Great Political Thinkers vol. 1 and vol. 2 Avon Books New York 1981,

Ebenstein William and Ebenstein, Alan. Great Political Thinkers. Plato to the Present Sixth Edition Thompson Wadsworth Singapore 2000

Smith, Steven B. “Political Science and Political Philosophy: An Uneasy Relation” PS: Political Science and Politics, Vol. 33, No. 2, June 2000

Supplementary articles:

Affeldt, Steven G. “The Force of Freedom: Rousseau on Forcing to be Free,” Political Theory Vol. 27, No. 3, June 1999

Baumgold, Deborah. “Hobbe’s and Locke’s Contract Theories: Political not Metaphysical,” Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, Vol. 8, No. 3, September 2005

Bryson, Valerie. “Marxism and feminism: Can the ‘unhappy marriage’ be saved?” Journal of Political Ideologies, Vol. 9, No. 1, February 2004

Campbell, Sally Howard, and Scott, John T. “Rousseau’s Politic Argument in the Discourse on the Sciences and Arts,” American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 49, No. 4, October 2005

Forde, Steven. “International Realism and the Science of Politics: Thucydides, Machiavelli, and Neorealism,” International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 39, No. 2, June 1995

______________. ”Natural Law, Theology, and Morality in Locke,” American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 45, No. 2, April 2001

Friedlander, Eli. “Chambery, 12, June 1754: Rousseau’s Writing on Inequality,” Political Theory, Vol. 28, No. 2, April 2000

Glenn, Paul E. “The Politics of Truth: Power in Nietzsche’s Epistemology,” Political Research Quarterly Vol. 57, No. 4, December 2004

Grofman, Bernard, and Feld, Scott L. “Rousseau’s General Will: A Condorcetian Perspective,” The American Political Science Review, Vol. 82, No. 2, June 1988

Hoffman, Stanley. “Rousseau on War and Peace,” The American Political Science Review Vol. 57, No. 2, June 1963

Knutsen, Torbjorn L. “Re-Reading in the Post-Cold War World,” Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 31, No. 3, August 1994

Kraynak, Robert, P. “Tocqueville’s Constitutionalism,” The American Political Science Review, Vol. 81, No. 4, December 1987

Langton, John, and Deitz, Mary G. ”Machiavelli’s Paradox: Trapping or Teaching the Prince,” The American Political Science Review, Vol. 81, No. 4, December 1987

Lorenzo, David, J. “Tradition and Prudence in Locke’s Exceptions to Toleration,” American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 47, No. 2, April 2003

Lukes, Timothy J. “Lionizing Machiavelli,” The American Political Science Review, Vol. 95, No. 3, September 2001

Maletz, Donald J. “Tocqueville on Mores and the Preservation of Republics,” American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 49, No. 1, January 2005

Picket Brent L. “Nietzsche’s Ethics,” The Journal of Politics, Vol. 59, No. 2, May 1997

Putterman, Ethan. “Rousseau on the People as Legislative Gatekeeper, Not Framers,” The American Political Science Review Vol. 99, No. 1, February 2005

Sabl, Andrew. “Community Organizing as a Tocquevillean Politics: The Art, Practice, and Ethos of Association,” American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 46, No. 1, January 2002

Scott, John T. “Rousseau’s Anti-Agenda-Setting Agenda and Contemporary Democratic Theory,” American Political Science Review, Vol. 99, No. 1, February 2005

Skinner, Quentin, et. al. “Political Philosophy: The View From Cambridge,” The Journal of Political Philosophy Vol. 10, No. 1, 2002

Steger, Manfred B. “Ideologies of globalization,” Journal of Political Ideologies, Vol. 10, No. 1, February 2005

Steinberger, Peter J. ”Hobbesian Resistance,” American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 46, No. 4, October 2002
Talshir, Gayil. “Knowing right from left: The politics of identity between the radical left and the far right,” Journal of Political Ideologies, Vol. 10, No. 3, October 2005

Tetsuzo, Fuwa. ”Marxism and the 21st Century World,” Lecture at the Communist Party of China’s Academy of Social Sciences in Beijing, Japan Press Weekly, Special Issue August 2006

Thomas, Paul. “Review: Four Books on Rousseau (And Another for Good Measure),” Political Theory, Vol. 29, No. 1, February 2001

Tuckness, Alex. “Rethinking the Intolerant Locke,” American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 46, No. 2, April 2002

Weaver, David R. “Leadership, Locke and the Federalist,” American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 41, No. 2, April 1997

Williams, Michael C. “Hobbes and International Relations: A Reconsideration,” International Organization, Vol. 50, No. 2, Spring 1996

Wingrove, Elizabeth, “Review: Interpretive Practices and Political Designs: Reading Authenticity, Integrity, and Reform in Jean-Jacques Rousseau,” Political Theory, Vol. 29, No. 1, February 2001

Young, T.R. “Marxism and Social Movements: Theory and Practice for Social Justice,” Contemporary Sociology, Vol. 28, No. 3, May 1999

I am going to open with how very happy I am to have finished my paper for my history class. It is officially the longest French paper I’ve ever written, with actual text topping out at 8 pages (if it were double-spaced). The topic was French colonization in South America. I am so glad that I will (hopefully) never again have to find sources for stuff like that. The French didn’t really do much in South America, and most of what they did do has fallen into obscurity, except French Guiana.

Tomorrow is Thanksgiving (duh), and I am excited like you wouldn’t believe. Three friends and I are doing an a cappella version of Fly Me to the Moon, and it is going to be rockin’. My friend Meyanna is going to play piano, too, and I am happy to be able to hear her perform for an audience of more than four or five people. I also hope that the teachers from the elementary school come… it would be fun for them to have Thanksgiving with a bunch of Americans.

Additionally, I am coming home in less than four weeks (three and half). It feels especially short because really I only have one more writing assignment: the equivalent of a four-page double-spaced paper talking about my educational experiences and things. Not so hard. I think I’ll be ready to  be home, and when the time comes, I think I’ll be ready to be back in Nantes.

My host sister in Paris had her baby earlier this week, so my host mom is going to Paris for a week tomorrow to see her first grandchild. I’ve seen pictures, and Faustine (the new baby) is really adorable. I do not think all babies are adorable, but Faustine certainly is. She doesn’t have that angry-at-the-world look yet.

All that said, pretty much all I’ve done recently has been to work on my paper and study. I did go see a really hilarious play, though, called Les Fiancés de Loches. It is about three country bumpkins who go to Paris to get married, but, instead of going to the marriage agency, they go to a domestic help placement agency. Over the course of the play, three women think they’re engaged to one man, two men don’t know who they’re engaged to, there are some crazy people, and the last act takes place in a sanatorium. The play was super funny, and in the end they used two firehoses to fill two giant baths. I think the first three rows of the audience got splashed, but ah well that is what you get for not having to sit on a tiny fold-down chair on the end of a row (I am not bitter).

Tomorrow with the 5th graders, I’m doing a word-search for Thanksgiving. I did the same one with the 4th graders yesterday, and it was one of the best ideas I’ve ever had. They were relatively quiet and peaceful and I hope they learned a lot of words. With the kindergarteners, I am going to play ring-around-the-rosie because frankly I am not in the mood for their shenanigans. We might color, too, and talk about elephants.

Something I told a friend recently is that, “it’s like I am several different people, and we all like different things, and one of those things happens to be techno remixes of songs.” I think it is one of my life goals to learn how to make techno remixes of stuff because I really enjoy them. This will join my life goals of learning how to paint (oil and watercolor) and learn at least some more music theory. Even after just a few months of more piano-playing, I can tell that my ear is getting back to where it was back when I studied a lot of music.

So we’ll end on a funny story I already told a couple people: at dinner last night, it was the whole family (that is, host mom and dad, as well as both host brothers). Jean, my 17-year-old host brother was saying something weird about how he would save the world by preventing some other guy from having kids, I don’t know, I was kind of spacing out. Then all of a sudden, he pointed at me and my 23-year-old brother Louis-Marie and said “you two…” and I think I said “oh no” because I kind of knew what was coming, and then he pronounced us man and wife. My host mom protested because she didn’t know if I had a boyfriend or not, and then she told me she wouldn’t be mad if I hit him or something. I am so glad I’m staying with this host family next semester, too. I love them.

I also give you a link to an excellent video. Check it out if you can; it’s about a leopard seal with surprisingly strong maternal tendencies. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zxa6P73Awcg&feature=player_embedded

picture from newsweek.com

Being that I am a frequent reader of Bill Maxwell’s column in the St. Petersburg Times, I have stumbled upon this recent column that debates the worth of a college education..

Maxwell brings up some important questions in this column.

Do we have a moral obligation as a society to send as many young adults to college as possible?

The column states that many educators and parents feel differently about the issue.

Hard-line conservatives, such as Charles Murray, political scientist and scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, do not believe everyone should go to college who wants to go. Best known for his positions on race and intelligence, Murray argues that we should listen to the research.

“It has been empirically demonstrated,” he writes, “that doing well (B average or better) in a traditional college major in the arts and sciences requires levels of linguistic and logical/mathematical ability that only 10 to 15 percent of the nation’s youth possess. That doesn’t mean that only 10 to 15 percent should get more than a high school education. It does mean that the four-year residential program leading to a B.A. is the wrong model for a large majority of young people.”

Though this opinion, like any thoughtful opinion should, is based upon fact, I’m not sure that students should give up a college opportunity because their linguistic and mathematical skills aren’t up to par. I think that students, no matter their intelligence or skill level, should strive to learn as much about the world as they can. College isn’t solely about academic learning, it is also about social growth. It is often the coupling of a new social experience and academic rigor that can incite new potential for learning.

The two camps sharply disagree on whether we have a moral obligation as a society to send as many students as we can to college.

“We do have a moral obligation, emerging from several centuries of concern with equity in a highly inequitable country, to make access to and completion of college more equitable,” he writes. “But rather than proclaiming College for All, we should be stressing High School Graduation for All, emphasizing that such completion requires either college readiness or readiness for sustained employment — or for the combination of the two that has become so common.”

As a society we have a moral obligation to encourage the pursuit of a college education. We should never undervalue the importance of higher knowledge and new experiences. The human mind is a vast landscape left mostly untapped. If we encourage all students to pursue a higher level of education, we are encouraging them to expand their minds, which will ultimately alter the way they view the world. College is a great vehicle for the expansion of consciousness, as I said before, because it is a social experience as well as an academic one. It should not be looked at solely as a degree-providing institution that will land you a job that pays well. Money, though important, is not essential in the construction of character.

What do you think readers, do we have a moral obligation to send as many students to college as possible? What is a college education worth?

So, a specter that has been looming over me recently has been my obligation to go abroad as a part of my studies. I’ve been scouring circles of friendship, professional networks, and the ever-expanding internet. I’ve talked with Kim about what I can afford to do – both for financial and physical/emotional (my/her) safety.  I’ve sectioned off parts of the world and am following up with all sorts of potential groups.

I’m getting close to being six months out now, and have run into a lot of disheartening dead ends.  I will continue to wheedle my way through the channels of Invisible Children and Resolve Uganda to get my way there. But in the mean time, I’ve found a plethora of internships that are no-gos. The high courts in The Netherlands, Sierra Leone and Tanzania have all turned me down. Cambodia is still a possibility.  The Australian Human Rights Commission has turned me down. I’m still waiting to hear back from a few others. State Department decisions go out in December. And I’ll be hitting up some research groups in East Africa asking them to shorten their internship requirements. I need to work with Gisela to figure out what I can do. Maybe I can just go work at Huruma in Nairobi.

I just want to find something that I’m interested in that will actually work out with everything going on here at home. Africa would be nice. Research or aid would be nice. But who knows? Maybe I’ll end up teaching English to a bunch of Austrians or something. I’ll probably end up talking to my friend Kevin about getting help from AISEC. Hopefully they can put me in touch with a development group. Here’s to a decisive next month or so in figuring all of this out!

They don’t all need glasses.

But if you always suspected basketball referees are biased ” well, you’re right, according to a couple of professors who’ve studied the matter. Refs favor the home team, the academics say. They’re big on “make-up” calls. The professors studied 365 college games during the 2004-05 season and found that refs …

Source:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091123/ap_on_sp_co_ne/bkc_referee_bias

I’ve recently found a manageable practice for maintaining my language skills. Presently, I’m mostly concerned with German and Greek, because my knowledge of French has never been anything but superficial (meaning that it can likely be recovered with little effort) and my Spanish is well-sedimented in the crypts of 5th period adolescent angst (accompanying so much emotional baggage seems to aid the memory); unfortunately I’ve more or less abandoned the year of Hebrew I took at Regent, though I imagine that too might be recoverable.

At the beginning of the day I’ll sit down with a passage of Scripture in both German and Greek and read through them together without the aid of a dictionary or English translation. I spend about 15 or 20 minutes reading between the two texts. When the syntax or vocabulary is obscure in one language, I’m usually able to parse it out using the other (and my own familiarity with the text as well). The main benefit here is that I’m not clarifying every confusion by mediating it through English—when I’m stuck in Greek, I’m improving my German in the process of getting unmired.

This is only a strategy for bare-bones maintenance of the facility that I’ve gained with these languages; I don’t think that I’m actually gaining in vocabulary or translation skill. But, I haven’t previously found a strategy that would allow me to maintain several languages at once without devoting an inordinate amount of time or alternating between languages (which translates into an unrealistic “habit” dropped before it’s ever formed). This is also far more effective and enjoyable than the periodic cram sessions where I try to regain what I’ve lost over the last six months through a few intense weeks of remorseful rededication.

Anyone else have practices of language maintenance?

It’s the night before Thanksgiving day here in Asia. I’ll be spending my Thanksgiving morning in an airplane flying from Busan to Osaka. As anyone who has read the past few entries knows, I’ve signed up to take the GRE there the morning after that. So while people in America are turning off the final NFL game and falling into a tryptophan-induced slumber, I’ll be waking up to take a 4-hour standardized examination. Fun for me.

The good news is that after that, I have four days to explore the Kansai region. I’ve booked five nights total in Osaka. I hoped to base myself in Kyoto, but everything was booked up by the time I got around to planning places to stay. So I will take day trips there and to Nara, if all goes well.

This whole journey has kind of a lonely feeling to it. Part of it is the knowledge that it’s obligatory. It’s not really vacation; I’m going there because I have to. But it’s also the solo travel aspect. I don’t mind traveling alone, but I prefer the company of others. It gives you someone to share experiences with, laugh at absurdities, and discuss options. Soaking up a Blade-Runner-esque nighttime cityscape or a lush, green temple setting is nice to experience solely through one’s own eyes and ears, but it’s also nice at some point to turn to someone and say “cool, huh?”

But I’m excited. I don’t care about the GRE. I’ve studied as much as I care to, and that whole structure can go to hell. I’ll get whatever score I get. But I’m looking forward to the rest of it. I know very little about Japan and didn’t do much research, so I do feel woefully under-prepared for the vacation aspect. The one time I was there was for a Fukuoka visa-run that lasted all of 24 hours. That trip, only two weeks into my Korea experience oh so long ago, felt simply like an extension of Busan. So this feels like my first time. And I’m always up for a first of anything.

“Did you know that if a butterfly flaps its wings in Tokyo, you’ll hear a boring description of chaos theory in NY?”

- @colsonwhitehead -> 11/19/09