12.30.2005
Christmas holiday was good. It's always nice to go back to Jackson to see friends and family. One of the friends I got to see was an old high school bud (my mom also taught him in first grade) who is now working the Mexico-U.S. border as a special agent in the Drug Enforcement Administration. How cool is that??? If I don't get a job teaching, maybe...
My nephew, Caleb, is now 19 months old--old enough to start getting in some really good playtime, of which we partook heartily last weekend. Here's a pic of me, my brother, and Caleb with Christmas presents that Santa brought my brother and me. Caleb wasn't quite sure what to make of uncle Bryan and his new chops.
My nephew, Caleb, is now 19 months old--old enough to start getting in some really good playtime, of which we partook heartily last weekend. Here's a pic of me, my brother, and Caleb with Christmas presents that Santa brought my brother and me. Caleb wasn't quite sure what to make of uncle Bryan and his new chops.
Hell's Grannies
Another mob beating in Milwaukee by teenagers. The article mentions that the city council plans on introducing an anti-gang ordinance that would let the police ticket "groups of people who loiter in a menacing fashion." Love it (the wording in the quotes, not the beating). Granted, this is the wording of the article, not the ordinance, but it's so ambiguous that it would likely apply to untargeted groups.
Reminds me of the hilarious Monty Python skit of the gang of old women donning straw hats with veils and little handbags wandering around wreaking havoc, beating up people in the park, and generally leaving a trail of fear (of retirees) in their wake.
Reminds me of the hilarious Monty Python skit of the gang of old women donning straw hats with veils and little handbags wandering around wreaking havoc, beating up people in the park, and generally leaving a trail of fear (of retirees) in their wake.
Voice Over: This is a frightened city. Over these houses, over these streets hangs a pall of fear. Fear of a new kind of violence which is terrorizing the city. Yes, gangs of old ladies attacking defenceless fit young men.
(Film of old ladies beating up two young men; then several grannies walking aggressively along street, pushing passers-by aside.)First Young Man: Well they come up to you, like, and push you - shove you off the pavement, like. There's usually four or five of them.
Second Young Man: Yeah, this used to be a nice neighbourhood before the old ladies started moving in. Nowadays some of us daren't even go down to the shops. '
Third Young Man: Well Mr Johnson's son Kevin, he don't go out any more. He comes back from wrestling and locks himself in his room.
(Film of grannies harassing an attractive girl.)
12.20.2005
And now that the semester is over, I rented a few movies. Well, two movies and something of a video documentary of one of my favorite bands, Galaxie 500.
I watched Rob Zombie's latest attempt The Devil's Rejects last night. Not a film for Everyman, that's for sure. Not for the feint of heart. (It even made me cringe a time or three.) A cross between The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (the original 1974 version, not the crappy remake done a couple of years ago) and Seven, with a little Tarantino-esque humor-in-the-midst-of-sadistic-violence mixed in. There are a few reasons why it reminded me of TCM: a gritty, low-budget feel; a sadistic, aggressively weird, murdering hillbilly family holed up in a dilapidated house with eerie trinkets of who-knows-what scattered about; and some classic late 1970s music (it was set in 1978). A realistically savage, brutal film. (Well, I guess it's realistic. I've never actually seen someone get smashed in the middle of the highway by a semi going 70 mph. Somehow I doubt that the body would be as mangled as the film depicted...) Much like many people took TCM to be a real story, this film was believable in an unbelievably harrowing and frightful way. I mean, what mind would make something like that up? Rob Zombie, for one.
Even so, with those necessary qualifications, I thought it was well-directed and very well-acted. (William Forsythe (of Raising Arizona fame), for instance, did a great job as the no-nonsense, Good Ol' Boy kick-ass sheriff.) The pieces fit, even if the puzzle is gruesome and demented.
I watched Rob Zombie's latest attempt The Devil's Rejects last night. Not a film for Everyman, that's for sure. Not for the feint of heart. (It even made me cringe a time or three.) A cross between The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (the original 1974 version, not the crappy remake done a couple of years ago) and Seven, with a little Tarantino-esque humor-in-the-midst-of-sadistic-violence mixed in. There are a few reasons why it reminded me of TCM: a gritty, low-budget feel; a sadistic, aggressively weird, murdering hillbilly family holed up in a dilapidated house with eerie trinkets of who-knows-what scattered about; and some classic late 1970s music (it was set in 1978). A realistically savage, brutal film. (Well, I guess it's realistic. I've never actually seen someone get smashed in the middle of the highway by a semi going 70 mph. Somehow I doubt that the body would be as mangled as the film depicted...) Much like many people took TCM to be a real story, this film was believable in an unbelievably harrowing and frightful way. I mean, what mind would make something like that up? Rob Zombie, for one.
Even so, with those necessary qualifications, I thought it was well-directed and very well-acted. (William Forsythe (of Raising Arizona fame), for instance, did a great job as the no-nonsense, Good Ol' Boy kick-ass sheriff.) The pieces fit, even if the puzzle is gruesome and demented.
Well, the semester is officially over. I uploaded the grades for my classes yesterday evening. Now to prepare for next semester! Things to accomplish before January 1:
- Finish editing a manuscript and mail to a journal editorial board
- Write a new manuscript and mail to a journal editorial board
- Syllabi for two courses for Spring semester
- Major revision of an Independent Distance Learning course I've been teaching
Intelligent Design, Religion, and The Constitution
Some Pennsylvania parents are protesting the teaching of "intelligent design" (ID) decided by the Dover Area School Board in October. There seem to be two main points of criticism in the protest: (1) teaching ID constitutes teaching religion (and teaching bad science) and (2) teaching religion is unconstitutional. Granted, I don't know that much about ID, but what I do know about it doesn't strike me as a religion at all. Sure, its main tenet (as the name implies) is that an intelligent designer had/has a hand in the development of organisms, and it is touted by creationists as a viable scientific alternative to evolution, but its conclusions seem too broad to constitute religious teaching. With a little maneuvering, it could be used as part of religious teaching: the "intelligent designer" could be construed as the Christian God (laying aside whether this could be consistently managed). But this seems a far cry from being religious teaching. Any characteristics of this rather abstract "intelligent designer," beyond being intelligent and being a designer, is left open.
Nonetheless, the potential association of ID with a particular religion (or religions) is enough to bother folks. In fact, some spokespersons of the protesters cite the religious intentions of the School Board as part of their argument against ID. Now, it may be that the School Board insisted on teaching ID because they wanted to make room for some sort of Christian teaching on origins, but the intentions behind introducing ID and the specific claims that ID constitutes religious teaching are two different issues and should not be lumped together. The protesters, on this point anyway, seem to be engaged more in guilt by association than in cogent criticism. When you've got the ACLU of Pennsylvania Legal Director Witold Walczak saying things like, "Intelligent design is a Trojan Horse for bringing religious creationism back into public school science classes" and a Philadelphia lawyer saying, "The members of this school board have made their own religious beliefs part of the high school's science curriculum," you don't have a criticism of ID but a criticism of the School Board--and one that attributes sneaky motives to the Board, at that. Just today a BBC article reports that a federal judge claims that "the secular purposes claimed by the board amount to a pretext for the board's real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom." Equating ID with the religious beliefs of the Board is just bad argumentation and comes dangerously close to an appeal to fear.
As for its being bad science or no science at all, this depends on how 'science' is defined. If by 'science' is meant a set of testable/falsifiable hypotheses or a set of statements at least some of which are testable/falsifiable, ID (as I understand it) could be considered scientific. My guess, however, is that the protesters (and most anyone else) consider anything scientific to be whatever is compatible with currently-accepted theory--in other words, whatever can fit with evolutionary theory. Of course, when you've got a working definition of science along these lines, ID isn't going to make it.
I suspect that the danger motivating these criticisms is the supposed consitutionality of the separation of church and state. The BBC article even states that "the separation of church and state is enshrined in the US constitution." Give me a break. There are few issues so enshrouded by misunderstanding and ignorance--well, misunderstanding and ignorance of the origins of the phrase 'separation of church and state' (which , BTW, does not occur anywhere in the Constitution). But the original intent of the phrase, like so many other constitutional issues, has been passed over for decades. Whereas it was originally offered by Jefferson to keep the State from promoting a State Religion, it is now used to remove anything that remotely smacks of the supernatural from anything that remotely smacks of public/civic property. The same concern with promoting religion remains, but the boundaries of what counts as promoting and what counts as religion (or, more accurately, religious) have changed considerably. Welcome to the consequences of a pluralistic society.
But it's not comprehensively pluralistic, now is it? Wouldn't pluralism mean that we would include a plurality of views in the so-called marketplace of ideas? There is a sense in which freedom of religion, for example, implies (at the very least, accomodates) a plurality of religious views among the populace. But when it comes to the realm of the government-sponsered/maintained/controlled, there is not the same room for plurality. For a view like ID to be allowed by the government (aka "public") schools amounts to its being promoted by the government schools. Since when did allowing a view to be offered amount to endorsement? Absurd.
The philosopher of science Paul Feyerabend once argued (in the 1950s) that a truly pluralistic society should allow any view to be put forward. And he meant any. He even argued that something like creationism should be allowed alongside evolution in science education. His anarchistic ("anything goes") view of science is not exactly in vogue among scientists or philosohers of science, but it has deep roots in competition. He saw scientific education as something of a battle royale: put everybody in the ring and, given enough time, someone would come out victorious. To be sure, he didn't think creationism would get the belt, but his point was that other views like evolution could only be made stronger when pitted against opponents--and the stronger the opponent, the better. Competition tests the mettle. What doesn't kill a view makes it stronger. I wonder if protesters of teaching ID in the public schools are worried that evolution wouldn't make the cut... Probably not. They probably are more worried that allowing something that even remotely resembles religion in the schools would turn into a coup by religious fundamentalists.
Nonetheless, the potential association of ID with a particular religion (or religions) is enough to bother folks. In fact, some spokespersons of the protesters cite the religious intentions of the School Board as part of their argument against ID. Now, it may be that the School Board insisted on teaching ID because they wanted to make room for some sort of Christian teaching on origins, but the intentions behind introducing ID and the specific claims that ID constitutes religious teaching are two different issues and should not be lumped together. The protesters, on this point anyway, seem to be engaged more in guilt by association than in cogent criticism. When you've got the ACLU of Pennsylvania Legal Director Witold Walczak saying things like, "Intelligent design is a Trojan Horse for bringing religious creationism back into public school science classes" and a Philadelphia lawyer saying, "The members of this school board have made their own religious beliefs part of the high school's science curriculum," you don't have a criticism of ID but a criticism of the School Board--and one that attributes sneaky motives to the Board, at that. Just today a BBC article reports that a federal judge claims that "the secular purposes claimed by the board amount to a pretext for the board's real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom." Equating ID with the religious beliefs of the Board is just bad argumentation and comes dangerously close to an appeal to fear.
As for its being bad science or no science at all, this depends on how 'science' is defined. If by 'science' is meant a set of testable/falsifiable hypotheses or a set of statements at least some of which are testable/falsifiable, ID (as I understand it) could be considered scientific. My guess, however, is that the protesters (and most anyone else) consider anything scientific to be whatever is compatible with currently-accepted theory--in other words, whatever can fit with evolutionary theory. Of course, when you've got a working definition of science along these lines, ID isn't going to make it.
I suspect that the danger motivating these criticisms is the supposed consitutionality of the separation of church and state. The BBC article even states that "the separation of church and state is enshrined in the US constitution." Give me a break. There are few issues so enshrouded by misunderstanding and ignorance--well, misunderstanding and ignorance of the origins of the phrase 'separation of church and state' (which , BTW, does not occur anywhere in the Constitution). But the original intent of the phrase, like so many other constitutional issues, has been passed over for decades. Whereas it was originally offered by Jefferson to keep the State from promoting a State Religion, it is now used to remove anything that remotely smacks of the supernatural from anything that remotely smacks of public/civic property. The same concern with promoting religion remains, but the boundaries of what counts as promoting and what counts as religion (or, more accurately, religious) have changed considerably. Welcome to the consequences of a pluralistic society.
But it's not comprehensively pluralistic, now is it? Wouldn't pluralism mean that we would include a plurality of views in the so-called marketplace of ideas? There is a sense in which freedom of religion, for example, implies (at the very least, accomodates) a plurality of religious views among the populace. But when it comes to the realm of the government-sponsered/maintained/controlled, there is not the same room for plurality. For a view like ID to be allowed by the government (aka "public") schools amounts to its being promoted by the government schools. Since when did allowing a view to be offered amount to endorsement? Absurd.
The philosopher of science Paul Feyerabend once argued (in the 1950s) that a truly pluralistic society should allow any view to be put forward. And he meant any. He even argued that something like creationism should be allowed alongside evolution in science education. His anarchistic ("anything goes") view of science is not exactly in vogue among scientists or philosohers of science, but it has deep roots in competition. He saw scientific education as something of a battle royale: put everybody in the ring and, given enough time, someone would come out victorious. To be sure, he didn't think creationism would get the belt, but his point was that other views like evolution could only be made stronger when pitted against opponents--and the stronger the opponent, the better. Competition tests the mettle. What doesn't kill a view makes it stronger. I wonder if protesters of teaching ID in the public schools are worried that evolution wouldn't make the cut... Probably not. They probably are more worried that allowing something that even remotely resembles religion in the schools would turn into a coup by religious fundamentalists.
12.13.2005
We christened the 6.5% pale at poker night tonight. Everyone (who had a pint or three) liked it.
Speaking of poker, I finished a little craft project this afternoon before the boys came over to play cards: I covered my dining table (which isn't much to look at, for those who have seen it) with green felt! Man, is it SWEET. What a nice table top to deal up cards and rake in chips. A friend had a gift card he let me have to a crafts store in town, so it only cost me $2 (and a couple of hours labor). Double sweet.
I used an adhesive spray to bond the felt on the table. (It probably won't hold for long; I'll just staple it to the underside of the table at some point.) I set up a little work station in the kitchen area and put newspaper around so the floor wouldn't get all sticky. Well, the newspaper got sticky with overspray. The newspaper stuck to my bare feet. I was busy with two jobs: sticking the felt on the table top and getting the newspaper unstuck from my feet! I'm sure it looked pretty hilarious--everytime I took a step, I had the front page following me around. Now the bottom of my feet are all black. I don't know how I'm going to get that gunk off...
Speaking of poker, I finished a little craft project this afternoon before the boys came over to play cards: I covered my dining table (which isn't much to look at, for those who have seen it) with green felt! Man, is it SWEET. What a nice table top to deal up cards and rake in chips. A friend had a gift card he let me have to a crafts store in town, so it only cost me $2 (and a couple of hours labor). Double sweet.
I used an adhesive spray to bond the felt on the table. (It probably won't hold for long; I'll just staple it to the underside of the table at some point.) I set up a little work station in the kitchen area and put newspaper around so the floor wouldn't get all sticky. Well, the newspaper got sticky with overspray. The newspaper stuck to my bare feet. I was busy with two jobs: sticking the felt on the table top and getting the newspaper unstuck from my feet! I'm sure it looked pretty hilarious--everytime I took a step, I had the front page following me around. Now the bottom of my feet are all black. I don't know how I'm going to get that gunk off...
I've been quite busy lately, end of the semester and all. Gave an exam today. Giving another Wednesday. My TA is giving the exam on Friday--there's no friggin way I'm going to be there at 8:00am just to watch a bunch of punk kids take an exam while I grade some of my own. I'm with Descartes on this one: stay in bed and work in your pajamas until noon or so. (He died while living in the harsh 1650 winter in Sweden, probably from having to get up at 5 o'clock in the morning to give philosophy lessons to Queen Christina!) I've also got two sets (around 50 total) of 7-page papers to grade before Monday (when grades are due). Ugh.
I kegged about 8 gallons of my recent pale ale last Wednesday. The first batch (which I brewed a month ago), about 3-4 gallons, got messed up--I mashed at too high of a temperature, which created a lot of unfermentable malt sugars. Being unfermentable, the yeast was unable to eat them up and produce alcohol. This makes for a sweeter, lower alcohol beer that will probably just make you fatter quicker. (For those of you not in the know, "mashing" is when you mix crushed grains--mostly malt grains--with water, holding it at a specific temperature (between 148F and 158F) for a specific amount of time. During mashing, enzymes that are naturally in the malt convert the grain starches into sugars, the fermentable ones being turned into alcohol by brewing yeast. When the mash is at lower temperatures, more fermentable sugars are converted, leading to a drier, lighter, more alcoholic beer; at higher temperatures, not as many sugars convert into fermentables, which means more unfermentable sugars, leading to a sweeter, more full-bodied, lower alcohol beer.)
Did I throw my batch out? Um, no. It's in the beer fridge, and will be drunk by someone at some point. But probably not by me--I think my gut is making a comeback...
Anyway, I made another batch a couple of weeks ago, about 4 gallons. It was the same recipe as the one I messed up, except I put more malt in it in order to create more fermentable sugars and bump up the alcohol level. You see, I was thinking that I'd mix the messed up batch with this one and, hopefully, end up with a decent beer. However, I changed my mind. (I added champagne yeast to the bad batch, hoping such a robust yeast would eat up every bit of fermentable sugars that the pale ale yeast might have missed. It didn't do any good, except to give a hint of off-flavors to the beer, so I didn't want to mix it with the recent good batch. Hopefully, the off-flavors will mellow out and become nigh unnoticable with age.) So now I have a 3.5% pale and a 6.5% pale.
I kegged about 8 gallons of my recent pale ale last Wednesday. The first batch (which I brewed a month ago), about 3-4 gallons, got messed up--I mashed at too high of a temperature, which created a lot of unfermentable malt sugars. Being unfermentable, the yeast was unable to eat them up and produce alcohol. This makes for a sweeter, lower alcohol beer that will probably just make you fatter quicker. (For those of you not in the know, "mashing" is when you mix crushed grains--mostly malt grains--with water, holding it at a specific temperature (between 148F and 158F) for a specific amount of time. During mashing, enzymes that are naturally in the malt convert the grain starches into sugars, the fermentable ones being turned into alcohol by brewing yeast. When the mash is at lower temperatures, more fermentable sugars are converted, leading to a drier, lighter, more alcoholic beer; at higher temperatures, not as many sugars convert into fermentables, which means more unfermentable sugars, leading to a sweeter, more full-bodied, lower alcohol beer.)
Did I throw my batch out? Um, no. It's in the beer fridge, and will be drunk by someone at some point. But probably not by me--I think my gut is making a comeback...
Anyway, I made another batch a couple of weeks ago, about 4 gallons. It was the same recipe as the one I messed up, except I put more malt in it in order to create more fermentable sugars and bump up the alcohol level. You see, I was thinking that I'd mix the messed up batch with this one and, hopefully, end up with a decent beer. However, I changed my mind. (I added champagne yeast to the bad batch, hoping such a robust yeast would eat up every bit of fermentable sugars that the pale ale yeast might have missed. It didn't do any good, except to give a hint of off-flavors to the beer, so I didn't want to mix it with the recent good batch. Hopefully, the off-flavors will mellow out and become nigh unnoticable with age.) So now I have a 3.5% pale and a 6.5% pale.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
