Untitled Post

I’m shocked — shocked! — to find that Kevin Drum has looked at Arnold Schwarzenegger as a gubernatorial candidate and found him wanting. It’s always fun to see how these out-of-left-field candidates fare. Some, like Arnold, profess that they won’t be beholden to anyone or any “special interests” at all, but proceed to pretty much do just that. Others, like Ross Perot, turn out to be crazy. (“I’m dropping out because George Bush’s flunkies plotted to sabotage my daughter’s wedding….”) It’s perenially fascinating, really. And there are the Jesse Venturas of the world, who vacillate between crazy and actually competent.

But anyway, someone in Kevin’s comments section makes the point that Arnold is qualified because he was a successful businessman before he became a huge film star. Now, my knowledge of the particulars of Arnold’s pre-Hollywood business career is limited to what this commenter says: that he invested his bodybuilding money in real estate and made a killing. I guess that’s one possible definition of “successful businessman” — i.e., “a person who takes a small amount of money and parlays it into a large amount of money”. But really, is that enough? Is investing in the right opportunity at the right time really sufficient to be considered a successful businessman? I’m not sure that it does. What was made out of that investment? Who benefitted? What other wealth was created?

Really, I’m totally ignorant here on the particulars of Arnold Schwarzenegger’s business acumen. But I have a hard time judging someone’s business success by the just the amount of money they have now versus the amount of money they had five or ten years ago. It’s kind of like that guy, Al Dunlap, who made a career of “improving earnings” at various companies by firing huge chunks of their workforces. Is there a point at which the scorched earth upon which one stands speaks louder than the number of zeroes in that person’s bank balance?

Share This Post

Untitled Post

Random notes:

:: Morat posted a few recommendations of good children’s lit from the fantasy realm. I haven’t read the Cooper, but the others are all first-rate.

:: Francisco the Fearless points out the long-awaited arrival on DVD of Errol Flynn’s The Adventures of Robin Hood, which is really one of the very best adventure films ever made (even if The Sea Hawk just slightly edges it, in my view). I should also point out that a new rerecording of Erich Wolfgang Korngold’s fantastic score is being issued any day now, on the Marco Polo label (Naxos’s sister label).

:: Now, that’s how you do a spoiler warning!

:: Andrew Cory answers his five questions, and thus gets to cross the Bridge of Fate.

(EDIT: Link fixed to Andrew’s site.)

Share This Post

Untitled Post

My current form of blog-based depression is counting the days until the brand-new group-run liberal blog Corrente exceeds my own hit-count. They’re about two weeks old, and as of this writing they’re about halfway to my hit-total. Aieee!!

Corrente is run by the folks who stood in recently for Atrios, and thus they enter the fray with a pretty-much built-in audience (as well as helpful pointers from Atrios himself). Judging by their apprenticeship over on Eschaton, I think they have some work to do in developing their own voice. It seemed a bit like they were mildly torn between echoing Atrios’s tone and doing their own thing; hopefully now that they’re on their own, they will gravitate toward the latter.

In other traffic-related babbling, my four-day hiatus last week was enough to send me plummeting through the Ecosystem, where I had been a marsupial but am now once again a flappy bird. I’ve started the upward climb again, though. And, as long as you find folks keep on visiting, I may hit 20,000 hits by the end of the week.

And finally, a fine lefty-blog that I’ve visited sporadically for a while, PLA by Dwight Meredith, is apparently now closed for business. I occasionally show no shame whatsoever in link-whoring in this space, so all you folks who have been linking PLA and are now looking for someone else to link, well….

Share This Post

Untitled Post

Michael of 2Blowhards has some thoughts on current feminine youth fashion. I have to admit that I am probably moving into “fuddy-duddyism”, because I am increasingly tiring of sex as the overriding theme in fashion, advertising, storytelling, and just about everything else these days. Instead, I am finding myself more and more drawn to things like elegance, charm and wit. Our society seems to be strongly gravitating toward titillation in place of emotion, but I find titillation without emotion hollow and useless. We’ve come to see “passion” as a physical thing, a function of hormonal activity, and maybe in some part it is. But passion is also an emotion, and I think that in a lot of ways we either are forgetting that or have already done so.

Share This Post

Untitled Post

Here’s a fascinating solution to the problem of how to keep freeways from neatly bisecting neighborhoods. The overpass in this case is being constructed to support buildings with shops and sidewalks, so that a pedestrian has the illusion of never crossing the busy highway below. This might be an idea of which Buffalo should take note.

Downtown Buffalo is located very near the shores of Lake Erie, as are the downtowns of many cities. But years ago, Buffalo erected a freeway, Interstate 190, that connects downtown to the New York State Thruway, I-90 (which is known locally as “the mainline 90”). I-190 also leads to the Peace Bridge to Canada, and serves as a route to Niagara Falls. It’s an important, and necessary, highway. The problem is that it was built right between downtown and the Lake Erie waterfront, resulting in a disconnection between the city and the waterfront that was once its economic raison d’etre.

Some in Buffalo have suggested a project on the scale of Boston’s “Big Dig” to put the 190 underground, thus allowing downtown an unbroken physical connection with the water once again. I doubt very much if there is likely to be money available here for such a project any time in the next, oh, fifteen years, but perhaps this overpass-idea might be a way to go intermediately. It would still be terribly expensive, though, as the downtown section of the 190 already is an overpass, about four miles long; also, someone over on City Comforts speculated that car exhaust might be a problem for the businesses on the overpass. But this is the kind of thinking — creative and geared toward linking disparate parts together — that Buffalo needs.

Share This Post

Untitled Post

Oh, cool! There are a lot of neat metaphorical names out there for the collected efforts of we bloggers, e-journal writers, and online essayists. “The Blogosphere” is the most popular, obviously. Along that line, I would prefer “The Blogiverse”, personally, but ultimately my favorite is “Blogistan”, the suffix of which characterizes blogs as a kind of realm-unto-themselves where outside concerns might not matter as much, and where there is constant “battling” among camps (although blogger battles are infinitely preferable to the kind you find in real-life places whose names end with “stan”). But I’ve just come across a really nifty new one, based not on cosmology or geography but on biology:

The Islets of Bloggerhans.

Now that is a terrific metaphor! It comes from the Islets of Langerhans, which are the groups of cells scattered throughout the pancreas that make insulin and other enzymes essential to digestion. It’s also one of the few poetically-named biological features; the name sounds more like a place that Gulliver should have visited on one of his travels.

(The article in which I see this term for the first time is a takedown of Glenn Reynolds and the whole “Cruz Bustamante is a racist” thing that I’m not paying much attention to, because I’m not in California.)

Share This Post

Untitled Post

Education has been on the mind a bit lately, both from Blogistan (such as this fine education-centered blog) and from the fact that my kid will be entering some kind of schooling quite soon. It’s pretty much an article of faith that our schools don’t do well enough, and no, they probably don’t. We’re constantly being told that test scores are down, we’re always hearing horrific anecdotes about the kids who identified Montana as our enemy in World War II or who spell “rabbit” with three M’s. We hear about schools being used to inculcate certain values that not everyone wants their kids to have. We hear about sex in schools, and I personally am troubled by all of the arts and sports-program cutting that goes on. (It depresses me to no end to see parents complain to TV cameras at the school board meetings when those programs are cut, when those same parents voted down tax increases in the last election that would have kept those programs going.)

But then, I see America right now, and we’re still the world’s wealthiest nation, we’re still the main economic engine for this planet, we’re still producing musicians and novelists and painters and filmmakers. No, kids don’t know all the stuff that I’d like them to know. But a lot of ’em know stuff that I never knew. So maybe the kids are morons, and it’s just taking them a long time to put our country on the rocks. Or maybe they’re not morons at all, and we need to lighten up or rethink what we consider to be moronic. Or maybe the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Most likely, everybody is a moron. Now, that is a democratic view.

Ultimately, I think the proper purpose of education is best described as “minimizing stupidity”. Unfortunately, we seem to be in an era in which identifying stupidity just isn’t done; and anyway, I’m lately wondering if stupidity is hardwired into the human condition.

I’ve also been thinking a bit lately about homeschooling, and I’m pretty certain that I don’t want to do it. And I get worried when I read things like this post by Holly Lisle, in which she blatantly states that everybody should be homeschooling. I’m sorry, but I can’t get behind that. I really can’t. I think the option should be there, but I see no reason to assume that the legions of people out there who would be homeschooling are a priori better teachers than the people employed by the schools. Good teaching is a skill, and not everybody has it. I really don’t think that a dramatic upswing in homeschooling would really have the effect that its adherents think it would. I don’t know if it would be a complete trainwreck either, but I keep returning to a point made facetiously by George Carlin: “Kids are like anyone else. There’s a few winners, and a whole lot of losers.” Well, it seems to me that would apply to homeschoolers as well. (But not you, if you’re teaching your kid at home. You are brilliant. It’s the other folks.) And I think that we need to really consider hard the reasons people may have for homeschooling their kids. If the local school system is really that bad, and it could well be, that’s one thing. If you don’t want your kid learning about evolution, though, that’s something else.

(ASIDE: Maybe it’s because I am a liberal, but my eyes tend to glaze over whenever someone from the conservative or libertarian sphere characterizes public schools as a massive liberal values indoctrination program. First of all, judging by the political climate these days, it doesn’t really seem that the great liberal scheme to use schools to trot out armies of identically-thinking liberals is working particularly well. Secondly, it’s not usually all that clear just which “liberal” values are being foisted, anyway. “They just want to turn all kids into little liberals” is, pretty much, twaddle.)

Another odd thing about teachers is that I’m less and less convinced that there’s much we can do, quantitatively, to see how “good” they are, except probably through test scores of their classes over time. I remember some teachers fondly because, to me, they were great teachers; they reached me on some level and taught me something I haven’t forgotten. Other students, encountering the exact same teacher, might not have liked them nearly as well, or not at all. There were teachers I loved whom classmates of mine couldn’t stand, and there was one very popular teacher in my high school whom I absolutely hated. As far as I was concerned, the woman was the nexus of all evil in our county, and I’m pretty sure she thought the same of me.

I also recall my eighth grade English teacher, who was just godawful. She was stiff and dull, she constantly gave us creative writing assignments that were better suited to fourth graders, she did our grammar lessons in robotic fashion, not one of the books she required us to read has stuck in my memory in the slightest degree…just horrible. When I later learned, on my first day of my senior year, that she would be my AP English teacher, my heart sank in the expectation of more drudgery and boredom. It turned out, though, that she was much more at ease with teaching seniors; it allowed her to indulge her real interests in literature as opposed to the stuff she’d done with us four years before. Just four years difference, teaching the same subject, made all the difference to her. I’m still amazed at the difference.

I’m not really sure if I have a point in all this, except that I’d like it if we could somehow find that balance between making sure kids know what they’re going to need to know to function in this world, and not choking the love of learning from them. Kids have to be taught to hate learning. If we could somehow figure out how to get them to never ask “Is this gonna be on the test?” or “Why do I gotta learn this?” again, I think a lot of our educational problems might go away. I had a prof in college (just for one class though, which was a pity because I liked the guy) who said he hated the “card game” approach to teaching, which you find everywhere. It’s when the teacher throws down a card (test question), and if the student wants to pass, he’d better have the right card to respond to each of the teacher’s cards. I worry that in the rush to do all this testing, we’re exacerbating the “card game” approach to education.

Share This Post

Untitled Post

Here’s a DVD technical question: As I’ve noted before, I use the Buffalo and Erie County Library system for a lot of my DVD viewing, because they have a great collection and I can request DVDs from anywhere in the library system and have them delivered right to my local branch, which is perfect, especially for older films or even foreign movies that aren’t stocked at the local BlockBuster. (People who live in big metro areas and don’t use their libraries might as well move to rural Montana.)

But, the B&ECPL has a practice of putting their nice, thick cataloging barcode labels right on the face of the DVDs themselves. This doesn’t seem to interfere with playback at all, except that while watching any DVD I check out of the library my player makes a “buzzing” noise that I suspect is the wobbling of the disc as it rotates at high speed, with said wobble resulting from that label’s weight throwing the disc out of balance. (These labels are thick.) I’m 98% certain that the labels are the cause of the buzz, because I never hear it when playing my own DVDs or ones I rent.

So, is there any possibility that playing these unbalanced DVDs can hurt my player, or is that buzzing just a minor annoyance?

Share This Post

ForgottenStars.net

The official site of Kelly Sedinger: Reader, writer, photographer, and dreamer

Skip to content ↓