I Think We're In A Contest In Our Society, The Goal Of Which Is To Say The Stupidest Thing And Get People To Pretend They Believe It.

While still a drip, drip, drip compared to what rains from the humanities, leftie professors at universities are jockeying to try to get math, science, and engineering fields into the "white supremacy" game:

Three British professors recently claimed that statistical analyses have been weaponized to “serve white racial interests” within academia and beyond.

Led by David Gillborn, a professor at the University of Birmingham, the professors argue that math serves white interests because it can “frequently encode racist perspectives beneath the facade of supposed quantitative objectivity.”

“Contrary to popular belief, and the assertions of many quantitative researchers, numbers are neither objective nor color-blind,” Gillborn and his team assert in their article for the journal Race, Ethnicity, and Education.

To address the racism numbers reinforce, the professors advocate for the adoption of “QuantCrit”—a portmanteau for “quantitative analysis” and “critical race theory.” Quantcrit, they say, has five key tenets, including that “numbers are not neutral.”

Numbers are not neutral because “quantitative data is often gathered and analyzed in ways that reflect the interests, assumptions, and perceptions of White elites,” they contend, adding that even so-called objective analysis fails to take the pervasiveness of racism into account...

“Numbers are social constructs and likely to embody the dominant (racist) assumptions that shape contemporary society,” they write. As a consequence, they assert that “in many cases, numbers speak for White racial interests.”

Two points about the above quote.

First, this is the second time in a week I've read the term "portmanteau".  Is that becoming "a thing"?  Is jamming words together the new "in" thing, like putting capital letters in the middle of a word (e.g., iPhone, AirLand Battle Doctrine) or putting "e" at the beginning of a word in technical circles?

Second, 5.  There it is, a number.  5.  Is it a white number?  Is it a black number?  Is it an Asian number?  Is it a Hispanic number?  Whose interests does it serve?  I'm a white man; would it mean something different if an American Indian woman had typed that number?

Just because you say something stupid, that doesn't mean I have to take it (or you) seriously.

What Kind Of Feminist Am I?

I've long said that I'm a feminist of the Camille Paglia mold, believing that women have the same legal rights as men because they have agency, that they shouldn't be or act like victims, that they share responsibility for how they are treated in society, that they're entitled to no more and no less than they earn.  That seems pretty fair to me.

It seems I'm also a Margaret Atwood-style feminist:

My fundamental position is that women are human beings, with the full range of saintly and demonic behaviours this entails, including criminal ones. They're not angels, incapable of wrongdoing. If they were, we wouldn't need a legal system.

Nor do I believe that women are children, incapable of agency or of making moral decisions. If they were, we're back to the 19th century, and women should not own property, have credit cards, have access to higher education, control their own reproduction or vote. There are powerful groups in North America pushing this agenda, but they are not usually considered feminists.

Furthermore, I believe that in order to have civil and human rights for women there have to be civil and human rights, period, including the right to fundamental justice, just as for women to have the vote, there has to be a vote...

She seems perfectly reasonable to me.

No Means No!

Or does no mean no unless even higher leftie ideals are at stake?

Tolerance is no longer about tolerating; now it is about engaging in the issue at hand. For example, you're now considered an intolerant transphobe for refusing to make out with a transgender person.

Ginuwine found this out first hand.

The R&B singer, appearing on the U.K. reality show "Big Brother," is being slammed as a transphobe for refusing to kiss his male-to-female transgender co-star India Willoughby on live TV.

When discussing dating, Willoughby complained that Ginuwine would date women but not him, claiming he really is a woman. When Ginuwine conceded that he would not date Willoughby if he knew he were trans, things escalated.

"I'm a woman, right," said Willoughby. "Forget about any 't's, or anything in front of it. So, on that score, you would date me, wouldn't you?"

"Not if you told me you was trans," replied Ginuwine.

"No, no, I'm not telling you I'm trans," Willoughby insisted. "I'm a woman."

"A woman? Yeah," answered the "Pony" singer.

This, for some reason, promoted Willoughby to grab Ginuwine's neck and lean in for a kiss. Ginuwine appeared to be extremely uncomfortable at this moment and quickly pulled away.

Ginuwine's rejection of the advances came with backlash; he's now being accused of transphobia.

You know how the saying goes, "No means no — unless a transgender person is making the advances, then you better comply or you'll be labeled a transphobic bigot."

If a man assaulted a woman that way, he'd be rightly attacked--not made the victim, as Willoughby has been.

The Tolerant Left

Leftists are very tolerant people--just ask them!--except when it comes to views with which they disagree.  And people with whom they disagree (usually conservatives) are, in lefties' minds, clearly intolerant, giving lefties the opportunity to announce that they "won't tolerate intolerance".  It's a very convenient circular argument, constantly reinforcing itself as well as the leftie's smugness and sense of superiority.

That smugness and superiority--heck, even their claim of being tolerant--is all an illusion, as this Instapundit post demonstrates:

How The Other Half Thinks

My favorite "math author" is Sherman Stein.  I have a couple of his books, both of which I recommend.  The first one I read is called Strength In Numbers, and the second is How The Other Half Thinks.  I met Stein one time at his home, and also went to a book signing he did once. A retired math professor, he was exceedingly able not only to talk about math, but also to explain it to people for whom math does not come easily.

How The Other Half Thinks is a book that, in a clear and interesting way, explains mathematical thought processes to "words people".  I had a reverse "How The Other Half Thinks moment" today. 

In my pre-calculus class we are beginning trigonometry, and today we discussed (among other things) the topic of coterminal angles.  If it's been awhile since you studied angles, an example of coterminal angles would be a 30 degree angle and a 390 degree angle--angles that are a revolution (or multiple revolutions) apart, but both have the same sine, the same cosine, the same tangent, etc.  One girl was having a difficult time with the concept, and then the lightbulb seemed to go on.  "So, in words, they're kind of like synonyms?"

That's one of the awesome-est non-math explanations of a math concept I've ever heard!

Making It Look Easy

So many people think teaching is easy.  It's not.  But good teachers make it look easy.

I have a student teacher this year.  She is in 2 "lower level" classes with another teacher and a relatively "upper level" class with me, and the three of us share a common prep period.  She transitioned into teaching the two other classes, but only started actually teaching my class today.  Her planning was exceptional, her content knowledge impressive.

When I have a student teacher, I don't just leave.  How can I observe, evaluate, and coach, if I'm not there?  Sure, eventually I'll leave the class, even all period, but it won't be all period every day.   So today, our students' first day of the new semester, she taught while I sat in the back of class.

She's going to be an awesome teacher.  I can just tell, she's going to be great at this.  But as I sat in the back of the class, I noticed a couple things that she can improve on.  Common rookie things.

There is so much more to teaching than just content knowledge. You have to know how to convey that content knowledge to others who don't have your background knowledge and extensive education.  You have to convey the content in an understandable, neat, legible manner.  You have to interact with the students, not just lecture to or at them.  And it's usually better to have some prior planning rather than just try to wing it--counting on your own vast content knowledge and abilities to gloss over an obvious lack of preparation.

For those of you who are not teachers, have you ever had someone try to explain something to you, perhaps at a meeting?  Or how about tech support people on the phone?  Or presenters?  Have you ever seen someone who probably knows their stuff but explains it to you poorly?  That person might have plenty of knowledge but is not a good teacher.

And don't even get me started on people who read their PowerPoint slides (yes, I know teachers do that, too, sometimes)!

So as I sat in that back of class during that one class period today, I saw a teacher with tremendous potential.  She's already not bad, but she can be so much better.

Good teachers make teaching look easy (just as experts in any field make their work look easy).  But it's not.  It is a craft that must be learned, practiced, and honed.

Improvement

In the summer of 2010 I started a dieting and exercise regimen that resulted in my losing almost 25 pounds in 4 months.  The exercise part of that regimen included a walk after work each day and 20 minutes on my elliptical trainer each morning.

Eventually I set an arbitrary goal of 200 calories burned in that 20 minute run--who doesn't like nice, round numbers?!  After awhile I got to where I was burning 220-228 calories each morning.  No, that isn't much, but it's better than not burning them.  And the improvement in cardiovascular health was significant.

After 4 years I'd pretty much gained all that weight back, and now it's all back and then some.  I haven't resumed the dieting or the afternoon walks, but when school started in August I started back on the elliptical trainer each morning.  The first week of school I did 12 minutes a morning, the next week 13 minutes, etc., until I made it back to 20 minutes, and then I stayed at 20 minutes per morning.  And, with the exception of only a handful of days last semester, I was on that elliptical trainer every "work morning".  Being older and weighing more, though, I didn't get back to that magic 200 calories in 20 minutes. 

Until today.

Maybe it was having 2+ weeks off, I don't know, but at the end of the workout this morning the meter read 211 calories.  So I'm still not back up to where I was, but for the first time this school year I passed that psychological barrier of 200.

Improvement.

Supreme Court Rulings

If we're honest, most of us would probably admit that we treat the Supreme Court like referees in a football game--wise and unbiased when they rule the way we like, and completely wrong if not crazy when they rule the other way.  I admit to respecting the Court, and I even accept their "bad" decisions as the law of the land, even when I think they're grossly mistaken (e.g., Obamacare, Kelo, Roe v. Wade, etc.).

There are many people in this country, including a sitting senator from Colorado who should know better, disparaging the Attorney General for having the audacity to state that he will enforce federal law in this country, including marijuana laws.  You many not agree with the law--I wouldn't be too disappointed if Congress and the president legalized marijuana--but the Attorney General isn't the right target for such an outcry.  In fact, the author of this piece at Reason suggests that the Supreme Court deserves some of the opprobrium:

What gives the federal government the authority to target legal state pot? The answer is not the Constitution. This federal power grab is the product of two awful Supreme Court precedents.

In 1942 the federal government brought sanctions against an Ohio farmer named Roscoe Filburn. His crime? He grew twice the amount of wheat that he was permitted to grow under the terms of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938. That sweeping federal law, ostensibly passed as part of Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce, sought to raise agricultural prices by limiting the supply of crops.

Filburn defended himself from the feds by pointing out that his extra wheat never once entered the stream of interstate commerce. In fact, he noted, that extra wheat never even left his Ohio farm. He used it to feed his livestock and to make flour for use in his family's kitchen.

But the Supreme Court ruled against him on Commerce Clause grounds anyway. Filburn's extra wheat may not have crossed state lines, the Court conceded in Wickard v. Filburn, but it still had a "substantial economic effect" on the interstate wheat market. As a result, Congress had every right to regulate Filburn and other farmers in this manner.

Six decades later, in the case of Gonzales v. Raich (2005), the Supreme Court applied and extended the Filburn precedent by upholding the federal ban on marijuana, even as applied to plants that were cultivated and consumed by patients for their own doctor-prescribed use in states where medical cannabis was perfectly legal. "The [Controlled Substances Act] is a valid exercise of federal power," declared the majority opinion of Justice John Paul Stevens, "even as applied to the troubling facts of this case."

Writing in dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas spelled out the disastrous impact of the Wickard/Raich doctrine in plain English: "By holding that Congress may regulate activity that is neither interstate nor commerce under the Interstate Commerce Clause, the Court abandons any attempt to enforce the Constitution's limits on federal power."

Sometimes, the law is an ass.  But it's still the law.

So how do we fix this?

Good-bye, Boomer

We got Boomer as a shelter dog; given his approximate age at that time, I always considered January 1st to be his birthday.  So a few days ago he turned 13.

While his age was showing, he seemed in great health, especially for a dog of his age.  Today, though, he started having seizures.  By late afternoon he didn't know who I was, he didn't understand his surroundings, he didn't understand basic commands or the rules of the house (e.g., don't go in there); later this evening, I don't think he could even see.  The seizure tonight didn't stop, so a friend and I rushed him to a vet hospital.  Even though they understood what was going on, they gave me a few options.  

As he lie on the table I made the decision, staying with him until he was at last calm, and in the land of infinite squirrels and treats and walkies.

He's at rest, and not hurting.  I'm the one hurting now.  Except for the first month or two, I haven't lived in this house without him.  It's emptier tonight.

Diversity Training

Two recent stories at Campus Reform shed some light on what should be obvious about mandatory diversity training:  it doesn't work, either in education or in business.

Let's tackle education first.  Yes, I admit I'm really stretching here, using one data point from which to extrapolate to an entire population.  But if you can find a study showing that certain programs "work", then please mention them in the comments.

A professor at East Carolina University recently discovered that the diversity course she teaches isn’t actually “effective” in changing students’ racial or gender biases.

Dr. Michele Stacey, who teaches criminal justice at ECU, assessed the efficacy of the school’s diversity course by surveying 288 criminal justice students’ attitudes towards women and minorities both before and after taking the course, publishing her findings in the latest issue of the Journal of Criminal Justice Education.

Race, Gender, and Special Populations in the Criminal Justice System is a three-credit course that is required for the ECU major and minor in criminal justice. Aimed at educating students about the challenges of minorities in the criminal justice system, the course covers a variety of topics, including Native Americans and African Americans.

But while the course is also offered in the spirit of helping to reduce student’s bias towards these groups, Stacey discovered something interesting.

After assessing the bias of students before and after the course—using prompts such as “a woman should worry less about their rights and more about becoming good wives and mothers” and “if blacks would only try harder they could be just as well off as whites”—Stacey found that the course hadn’t altered students’ attitudes towards race or gender.

Only their attitudes towards homosexuality had changed, she found.

“The results of the t-test indicate that the only significant change over time in the scales was in attitudes toward homosexuality generally,” Stacey reports. “This would suggest that the course has no effect on [attitudes towards women], symbolic racism, or attitudes toward gays/lesbians specifically.”

“Overall, the results of the current study suggest that diversity courses do not have a significant impact on attitudes toward racial and gender minorities among criminal justice students,” she concludes.

Perhaps part of the reason for that is explained by the Harvard Business Review in its article about diversity in the workplace:

Administrators across the country are folding to student demands for more diversity, but a recent study out of Harvard suggests that mandatory diversity trainings are actually making schools less diverse, not more.

A survey in the current edition of the Harvard Business Review based on over three decades’ worth of data from more than 800 U.S. businesses shows that most diversity programs aren’t actually increasing diversity. In fact, the data suggest that diversity programs like the ones seen all over America’s campuses are having exactly the opposite effect.

The study’s authors, sociology professors Frank Dobbin of Harvard and Alexandra Kalev of Tel Aviv University, tracked the effect of diversity trainings on the actual growth of minority populations in businesses over a five-year period, but found that “after instituting required training for managers, companies saw no improvement in the proportion of white women, black men, and Hispanics in management, and the share of black women actually decreased by 9 percent, on average, while the ranks of Asian-American men and women shrank by 4 percent to 5 percent.”

The reason, the Review argues, is that managers, business executives, and employees in general are less likely to agree with a position if it is presented to them under mandatory circumstances. Indeed, the Review is not alone in its thinking, citing three other studies supporting the claim that compulsory diversity trainings are met with “resistance and anger” and that “many participants actually report more animosity toward other groups afterwards.”

That doesn't surprise me at all.  In general, people don't like being called racists (or most other -ist, for that matter), and let's be blunt, that's what happens in so-called diversity trainings.  I recall the 3 hours I spent in "unconscious bias" training, only to learn 2 years later that the test used to find such bias is deeply flawed.  As I stated at the latter link, "I've already identified why it (the implicit bias test) became the darling--because it told leftists exactly what they wanted to hear."

Oh, The Inhumanity Of It All

I call B.S. on this story, as I'm assured that all the good socialist business owners in Canada are happy to pay employees more, offer them great benefits, and subsidize national health care via crazy-high taxes:

Employees who work at Tim Hortons locations in Canada owned by the co-founders’ children will reportedly see their benefits reduced along with paid breaks over the country’s $2.40 increase to minimum wage.

The Toronto Star reported Wednesday that employees at some of the Canadian-based coffee chain’s stores received a letter about the policy changes.

The letter from Jeri Horton-Joyce and Ron Joyce Jr. reportedly informed the employees that they will need to pay for a portion of their dental and health benefits.

"These changes are due to the increase of wages to $14.00 minimum wage on January 1, 2018, then $15.00 per hour on January 1, 2019, as well as the lack of assistance and financial help from our Head Office and from the Government," the letter read...

Tim Hortons issued a statement to CBC News, stating, "Almost all of our restaurants in Canada are independently owned and operated by small business Owners who are responsible for handling all employment matters, including all policies for benefits and wages, for their restaurants."

I guess the laws of economics still operate north of the border.

A Cloudy Day on College Campuses?

Marijuana is illegal in the United States but "legal" in a few states, including California.  I think it's perhaps more correct to say that possession and use of certain amounts of pot are not against state law in California; California is still (nominally?) part of the Union, and hence pot is illegal in California.

Having said that, how about pot on California's campuses?

Anybody 21 or older can legally buy recreational marijuana in California starting Monday. But they still can’t take it to school.

Officials from the Sacramento-area campuses of Los Rios Community College District, the University of California and California State University say school policies barring marijuana on campus and at school-sponsored events have not changed since California voters passed Proposition 64, which legalized recreational cannabis.

The colleges all have similar drug policies saying possession or use of illegal drugs, including marijuana, on campus could result in disciplinary action ranging from treatment programs to dismissal.

“While marijuana is regulated differently in California, the federal government still considers it illegal,” said Anita Fitzhugh, a spokeswoman for California State University, Sacramento. “As a state entity receiving federal funding, Sacramento State is obligated to follow federal laws regarding drugs.”

Odd that California gets federal monies but doesn't feel obligated to follow federal law.

Update, 1/5/18:  In related news, the following screenshot comes from Instapundit:

This is exactly correct. It is not up to the states to determine which federal laws they will comply with, and neither should a sitting senator expect the President and his administration not to enforce federal laws--when making sure the laws are faithfully enforced is the very definition of the President's responsibilities.  If the senator doesn't like the law, he should exercise his Article I prerogative and change the law.

Cory Gardner is clearly an idiot.

If You Support the Constitution, How Can You Support This?

The last time Democratic states seceded from the Union, it didn't go well for them:

Supporters of California’s newly-minted status as a sanctuary state for illegal aliens have predictably hailed the move as an act of compassion. However, it’s time to call this what it truly is: an act of rebellion by a state against the authority of the federal government that will endanger the lives of law enforcement officials and California residents.

SB 54, the landmark bill which was passed last October and went into effect this month, bans local officials from asking about a person’s immigration status. Golden State law enforcement will only be allowed to cooperate with federal authorities regarding individuals who have been convicted of committing a specified list of felonies or misdemeanors.

I honestly don't see how people can support this except as a cynical political move.

Grandpa's Candy Closet

I'm one of the lucky ones.  Most of my life, my grandparents were just a short drive away.  All of them.  I had all my grandparents while I was growing up, and didn't lose the first one until I was in my 30s.  I got to see them frequently.

Both my grandmothers adored me.  Grandma always called me "number one grandson" and it certainly wasn't because I was her oldest, because I wasn't the oldest.  Nana made all my birthday cakes for me when I was young and had an "I love my cadet" bumper sticker on her car when I got older.  My grandfathers were from that "greatest generation" and weren't very expressive with their emotions.  I loved them, and I know they loved me, but what I really would like to know is if I impressed them.  If I were to judge only from the big picture taken on graduation day at West Point, I know that at least I made them proud.

Nana and grandpa bought their house in late 1961.  They were the first owners.  I'm the second owner; grandpa died over 20 years ago now, and when nana's Alzheimer's got bad enough, I bought the house.  I've lived here a dozen years last summer.

Gawd, I loved coming here as a child.  I adored my grandparents, and they deserved it.  But there was always a special treat at nana and grandpa's.  See, the coat closet at the front of the hallway has a low shelf in it, and that's where grandpa kept his candy.  Grandpa had a sweet tooth, and I inherited it from him.  My dad's wife didn't allow us to eat candy at home when I was growing up, but we could always have a treat at nana and grandpa's.  We'd raid that closet!  And even when I got older, whenever I visited I'd make at least one trip to the "candy closet".  Even after grandpa was gone, nana kept candy there.  Most often she kept a large bag of Skittles in there, the better to refill the candy dish that was always on the coffee table in the front room.

That candy shelf in the front closet now holds light bulbs, furniture polish, air freshener, stuff like that.  I keep a small amount of candy in a container in a kitchen cupboard.  I got some candy for Christmas, and a few times tonight I went into the kitchen to get a piece.  That's where I've kept the candy since moving in here over 12 years ago, in that kitchen cupboard.

So why, on my last trip to get a piece of candy, did I head to grandpa's candy closet?

How Does This Shoe Feel?

This author is considering what it's like when the shoe is on the other foot--only because the shoe is now on the other foot:

Until recently, George Ciccariello-Maher was an anonymous political science professor at Drexel University in Philadelphia. However, of late a white-hot mob has threatened him -- and his child -- so gravely that he is now teaching via a video feed. This week he announced he's resigning out of concern for his family's safety: "My situation has become unsustainable," he explained on his Facebook account.

Surely Ciccariello-Maher said something racist or, to use the dominant term of art, white supremacist? No -- the people issuing a fountain of death threats against him all year have been from the right.

A year ago, Ciccariello-Maher tweeted a wry joke -- "All I Want for Christmas is White Genocide" -- in the vein of the self-critical "That's so white" meme now popular among Blue Americans. He said the tweet was a "satirical jab at a certain paranoid racist fantasy and that white genocide does not exist."

A few months later, he tweeted that it made him want to vomit watching someone give up their first-class airline seat to a soldier. In October, he tweeted that "Trumpism" and the "narrative of white victimization" were to blame for the lethal mass shooting in Las Vegas.

In other words, the professor's critics now feel "injured," by someone they thus deem unfit for human society.

Their forcing someone into hiding for just writing some stuff is unforgivable. But it should make us think about when the shoe is on the other foot.

As is often said on Instapundit, the Left isn't going to like having to play by the new rules they themselves have created.  The author realizes this:

However, there is no conception of justice or truth that makes it somehow pardonable "collateral damage" when the left behaves this way -- which it does too frequently. The behaviors are mirror-image parallels...

I suspect that many horrified by the Drexel professor's situation will stick to a basic idea that the left is right and the right is wrong, and thus tarring and feathering the right-winger is progress while tarring and feathering the left-winger is injustice.

Yet just as many will -- one hopes -- understand that this view is too short-sighted, privileging the gut over the brain.

We'll see if anyone on the left heeds the author's words.  I will not be holding my breath.

I Thought Liberals Liked Undercover Operations

Almost everybody likes watching someone get a well-deserved come-uppance.  60 Minutes, which has been on TV since I was a toddler, is an example of a tv show well known for ambushing people with questions they'd rather not answer.  Do something wrong, pay a penalty.  In the past, liberals seemed to believe in this view (they especially like leaks from the Trump White House).

But not with Project Veritas.  James O'Keefe and his crew expose things about liberal organizations that they'd rather no one else know, and liberals try every trick in the book to stop him.  This time they succeeded, but only temporarily:

A federal judge in Detroit on Wednesday lifted the temporary restraining order a major teachers union won against the conservative group Project Veritas and denied a request for a preliminary injunction.

A Wayne County circuit judge in September blocked Project Veritas, a group run by provocateur James O’Keefe, from disclosing videos of other information it obtained in an undercover operation carried out against the American Federation of Teachers chapter in Detroit.

AFT Michigan alleged that Project Veritas operative Marisa Jorge used the name Marissa Perez and posed as a University of Michigan student to gain access to the chapter as an intern. The group claimed Jorge “unlawfully accessed and transmitted proprietary and confidential information and engaged in unlawful and unauthorized surveillance of” employees.

AFT Michigan had sought an injunction citing a strong likelihood of success with respect to violations of the Michigan Uniform Trade Secrets Act, the Michigan Eavesdropping Act and Jorge’s breach of fiduciary duty, all of which failed to hold up in court.

U.S. District Court Judge Linda Parker ruled that the AFT failed to meet the proper criteria for issuance of a preliminary injunction.

WHAT?  She used a fake name?  The horror!

The court did concede that AFT Michigan had a likelihood to succeed on the merits of its breach of duty of loyalty claim, though. But it also found that a preliminary injunction would raise First Amendment concerns, cautioning that the course of action would “most certainly … infringe upon Defendants’ First Amendment right.”

Much like in every other human endeavor, if you're doing something you want to keep secret because you think it will make you look bad if people found out about it, Option 1 might be to stop doing it.  While that advice doesn't work 100% of the time, it works often enough to be considered.

Weingarten and Hecker slammed what they called O’Keefe’s war on teachers, students and families, as well as his reliance on “secret infiltration and lies, heavily edited videos and spurious claims” to advance a political agenda.

Randi, Randi, Randi.  You know what?  That one's too fun to comment on; I'll just let it sit here in the sun so everyone can relish the rampant hypocrisy.

Sacramento Yesterday

2nd Chance In A Lifetime

After Justice Scalia died and the Friedrichs case was decided by a 4-4 vote of the remaining Supreme Court justices, I lamented that "Friedrichs is probably the last time in my life I'll get a chance to be free of forced unionism as a teacher, and now that chance has suffered a body blow."  I was quite invested in Friedrichs, being a signatory to not one but two amicus briefs in that case.

I'm glad to have been mistaken; in February the Supreme Court will hear another case, Janus, that many believe will end forced unionism in this country.  And, as with Friedrichs, I'm a signatory to an amicus brief.

Social studies lesson:  there are many ways you can influence our government, students.  You can vote.  You can write letters to the editor of the paper, you can write your congressman and senator.  You can start an organization or a non-profit.  You can also try to influence the Supreme Court.  All that stuff you learn in civics/government class?  It's real.

Larry Sand, president of the California Teachers Empowerment Network, wrote:

Two months from today, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in the Janus v AFSCME case, with a decision scheduled to be announced in June. If successful, it would free public employees in 22 states from having to pay any money to a union as a condition of employment.

Many union leaders are beside themselves with the thought that their days of collecting forced dues payments may well be numbered. And in an attempt to convince anyone who will listen to them, the lies and whines are flowing like raw sewage. Perhaps Numero Uno on the BS meter is Mr. Eric Heins, president of the California Teachers Association. In the current issue of California Educator, the union’s magazine, Heins spews some whoppers that would make Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton blush.

Larry isn't one to pull any punches, go read the whole thing if you're so inclined.

And in what can only be described as a major turnaround for the US government, the US Justice Department now opposes forced unionism and its associated agency fee payments to unions:

The Department of Justice is recommending that the Supreme Court rule that public sector employees cannot be forced to contribute dues to unions, even when they're not members.

The decision to submit an amicus brief supporting the employee in Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31 reverses the Justice Department's previous position under President Barack Obama.

Second time in my life.  Two months from today.  This is for all the marbles.

Liberals: Lying About Racial Attacks Doesn't Help Your Cause

Daisy Lundy's story goes way back, so here are some 2017 examples of racial hoaxes:

Over the last year, it seems as if more campus hate crimes turned out to be hoaxes than legitimate acts of hate. Schools tended to be fertile ground for overzealous students looking to prove there is hate where none exists. These 17 examples show 2017 continued to be a year in which hate-crime hoaxes are an epidemic with no end in sight.

Some anecdotes are fallout from post-election antics spawned in late November 2016 in the wake of the Donald Trump presidency. The rest originated in apparent desperate attempts to push a progressive narrative.

If you have to make stories up in order to "bring awareness" to an issue, perhaps it's your perception of this issue that is at odds with reality, and you need to take stock of your own beliefs and biases.

How sad that a web site like this even needs to exist.

And I see where that last sentence is headed: some liberal is going to point to the Megan's Law web site or any crime database and say it's sad that those exist, too, as if we live in a world of unicorns and rainbows.  And while I agree that it's sad that people commit crimes and harm others, it's somehow worse in my mind not to be a victim while lying to get others in trouble while you wear the mantle of victim.  It's the lying.

Christmas Is Over For Me

My son just left, he's got to get back to Washington and start his outprocessing so he can report to his new duty station on Oahu.

Another Christmas Present

Rasmussen Poll shows Trump at 46% APPROVE this morning, with 53% DISAPPROVE...

What about Obama at same exact date first year in presidency?? 46% APPROVE, 53% DISAPPROVE! pic.twitter.com/tKaruSdrpv

— MATT DRUDGE (@DRUDGE) December 28, 2017

It Must Be Miserable To Hate This Much

I don't see how a person, especially an educated person, can think this way.  I just can't:

A professor recently encouraged students to break the law in order to “destroy” the system of “white democracy,” saying the American flag doesn’t even represent about half of them.

Video footage obtained by The Red Elephants purports to show Diablo Valley College professor Albert Ponce lecturing on “white supremacy in the USA,” at one point suggesting that not all students should get up for the Pledge of Allegiance...

Ponce argued that Americans “exist in a white supremacist, patriarchal, heteronormative, capitalist system,” and that citizens should be violating laws that they believe perpetuate those conditions.

I wonder how Ponce would feel about those who want to violate laws that allow haters like him to spout their venom without fear of physical retribution from normal people.  You've gotta think stuff like this through, Ponce.

A Champion, Not A Genius

When I saw "If you can get 12/12 on this you're a vocabulary GENIUS", I had to give it a try.

The result?

Not horrible, I guess.

Whatever Happened To...

...all that 2009 porkulus package money, about $800 billion worth, that was spent on "shovel-ready" projects?  Am I supposed to forget that it was all squandered, but trust government to have mended its ways by now and to have an excellent plan for not wasting taxpayer money today?

The Trump administration is expected to unveil an infrastructure package in the new year, after putting the issue on the sidelines amid other GOP priorities in 2017.

The White House is working to release a roughly 70-page infrastructure proposal sometime in January for members of Congress to use as a cornerstone for drafting the legislation in 2018...

Although the administration is working to address the nation’s infrastructure, several major question marks hang over the plan, such as funding.

“The cost is going to be an issue, that’s going to be a large topic of debate,” a senior committee aide told the Washington Examiner.

This spring, the administration called for using $200 billion in direct federal spending over the next 10 years. This was intended to spur $800 billion in spending by states, localities and private investors.

“I think the biggest sticking point will be funding, paying for the plan,” said Michael Sargent, transportation and infrastructure policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation. “Where does this $200 billion come from?”

Where, indeed.

Merry Christmas!

I hope you're enjoying your day as much as I'm enjoying mine.

What A Great Season For Army Football

Two weeks ago Army football pulled out a win in a nailbiter against Navy, 14-13.  I think Navy was favored by 3, and they wouldn't have covered the spread even if they had made that last second field goal.

Today Army played San Diego State in the Armed Forces Bowl.  SDSU was favored by 6 1/2 and came in with a record of 10-2, Army came in with a record of 9-3 but I saw only one prediction that Army might win.  Both teams are running teams--in fact, Army's offense, SDSU's special teams (which returned a kickoff for a touchdown), and halftime kept SDSU's offense off the field for over 45 minutes of real time.  Army received the kickoff to open the 3rd quarter and kept the ball for over 11 minutes, coming away with no points.  SDSU had a player ejected in the first quarter for unsportsmanlike conduct, a call that was made against them at least 2 more times in the game.  Combined, there were only 14 passes attempted, and no punts or field goals.  Both teams were stingy with turnovers--until the last seconds of the game.

Until the last seconds, Army had only led once in the game, going up 21-14 with :18 left in the half.  However, with :05 left, SDSU tied it up with a kickoff return for touchdown.  Late in the 4th, Army was down 35-28, but with less than 2 dozen seconds left in regulation, scored.  35-34.  Will the nation's top rushing team tie it up, or go for 2?  With seconds left in the game, Army led 36-35.

But the game wasn't over yet!  Having to go the length of the field with 5 seconds left, SDSU tried some razzle-dazzle, 1982 Cal-Stanford style.  The  running and lateral-ing continued until the clock ran out, but the ball was still in play.  In a last gasp to avoid being tackled, an SDSU player threw the ball across the field--where it was intercepted by an Army player, who ran it in for a touchdown!  Army wins 42-35!  I don't know how long ESPN will keep the video up, but to see that last play, click here, and scroll across to the video labeled Army Spoils SDSU's Last-gasp Play With Insane TD.  That play is going to make the post-season highlight reel for sure, maybe the entire NCAA football 2017 season highlight reel.  (And if you want to see another defensive play that will make the season highlight reels, scroll to :35 in the video labeled Army Beats San Diego State In Wild Ending.)  Both teams ended the season 10-3.

You know what I really liked about this game?  Seeing the players from both teams help each other up at the end of a play.  That's class, and it was shown by both sides.  I like that.

It was a great season.  I'm glad to see Army play well again, 20 years is too long!

I'm Happy The Fish Are Enjoying Themselves

Good thing we have all these scientists studying the important things on our planet:

A species of Mexican fish amasses in reproductive orgies so loud they can deafen other sea animals, awed scientists have said, calling for preservation of the “spectacle” threatened by overfishing.

An individual spawning Gulf corvina, say the researchers, utters a mating call resembling “a really loud machine gun” with multiple rapid sound pulses.

And when hundreds of thousands of fish get together to spawn once a year “the collective chorus sounds like a crowd cheering at a stadium or perhaps a really loud beehive”, said study co-author Timothy Rowell from the University of San Diego.

“The sound levels generated by chorusing is loud enough to cause at least temporary if not permanent hearing loss in marine mammals that were observed preying on the fish.

People Don't Want To Work At The EPA Anymore?

They report this like it's a bad thing:

More than 700 people have left the Environmental Protection Agency since President Trump took office, a wave of departures that puts the administration nearly a quarter of the way toward its goal of shrinking the agency to levels last seen during the Reagan administration.

Of the employees who have quit, retired or taken a buyout package since the beginning of the year, more than 200 are scientists. An additional 96 are environmental protection specialists, a broad category that includes scientists as well as others experienced in investigating and analyzing pollution levels. Nine department directors have departed the agency as well as dozens of attorneys and program managers. Most of the employees who have left are not being replaced.

The departures reflect poor morale and a sense of grievance at the agency, which has been criticized by President Trump and top Republicans in Congress as bloated and guilty of regulatory overreach. That unease is likely to deepen following revelations that Republican campaign operatives were using the Freedom of Information Act to request copies of emails from E.P.A. officials suspected of opposing Mr. Trump and his agenda.

That last paragraph says it all.  If you want to act like the opposition, be prepared to be treated like the opposition.  Duh.

“To me it’s not necessarily a sign of catastrophe,” said David M. Kreutzer, a senior researcher at the Heritage Foundation who advised Mr. Trump on the E.P.A. during the transition. He said the agency under President Obama was engaged in “phenomenal overreach” and that the Trump administration’s efforts were aimed at correcting that.

Something like that, yes.

(EPA Administrator) Mr. Pruitt’s office has described the current buyout process as a continuation of Obama administration efforts to ensure that payroll expenses do not overtake funding for environmental programs. 

If President Obama did it, it must be good.  So doing more of what Obama did is bad?  Hm...  Consistency has never been a strong suit of lefties.

This Is Almost The Right Way To Handle This

Students staged a 2-month sit-in in the administrative offices of Reed College in Portland, Oregon (where else).  They didn't get what they wanted:

Student protesters at Reed College spent weeks occupying its administrative building, demanding the school cut its tie with Wells Fargo. Their activism wasn’t enough.

The college’s Investment Committee announced Tuesday it would reject the request from Reedies Against Racism to divest from the financial services giant...

In a flyer hung up on campus and posted on Facebook, protesters allege Reed College President John Kroger told two of the activists that they should transfer out of the college if they find it “so morally reprehensible.”

I hope he did. In fact, he should go further and kick them out of school.

All of them.

College students of today need to learn the right and the wrong ways to protest.  They should also learn that there are consequences to acting inappropriately.

“As long as their demonstrations do not interrupt college business, including classes and lectures, or run afoul of college policies it will be allowed. Dissent is a form of free speech and we are believers in academic freedom and free speech,” he said.

That is entirely the right way to handle things.  What's important is to follow through on the requirement about "run(ning) afoul of college policies".

College is a place to learn?  Learn the right way and the wrong way to challenge authority.  If you're going to do it the wrong way, you'd better win--or else face the penalties associated with misbehavior.

Another Math App

First there was Wolfram Alpha, now there's this app:

Based on the promo clip, PhotoMath, dubbed a “smart camera calculator,” appears to use smartphone cameras to scan a photo of a math equation in a textbook and display the answer instantly — similar to apps that scan barcodes and takes users to a link in a web browser. It looks like the app can also show step-by-step instructions for solving the problem.

Update: it solved a 3x3 system of equations in less than 2 seconds. That's faster than I can do it :-)  I clicked on "Steps" and learned that it solved the system using Cramer's Rule.  It also solved trigonometric equations.

Feel-Good Story of the Day

The one question I have that wasn't answered in the video:  what happened to his sister?

A high school football coach invited a homeless player to live with him and his family. CNN's Dianne Gallagher reports.

1st Day of Break

I didn't stay up too late last night; sure, I was up later than I would have been if I had had to work today, but not unreasonably late.  And I woke up at my usual time, but got to stay in bed and enjoy the quiet and relaxation for a couple hours. 

Haven't graded any of the final exams I brought home from my last class, but I have plenty of time to grade them.  I can spend several minutes a day over the course of several days grading them--do all the first pages one day, do all the second pages another day, and before long I'll have them all graded and it won't feel like I spent any time at all on them.

My Christmas shopping has been complete for quite some time, but I think I'm still going to go out today, just because.  I don't think I'm going to hit the day after Christmas sales, as I can't think of anything that I just have to have.  If I learn of something, though....

It's nice to be able to relax and unwind.  Two weeks off at Christmastime is absolutely one of the perks of being a teacher.

It's A Christmas Miracle!

Today was the last day of final exams--I don't have to go back to school until after New Year's!  And I go back that Monday, my students get an extra day off while I enter grades, make copies, and do the million other things that occupy a teacher's time when we're not actually teaching.

I gave finals in each of my two classes scheduled for today, and got little Christmas miracles in each one.

In the first class, one of my students has already received a scholarship to college.  He's put money down on housing, he's ready to go.  All he has to do is maintain his GPA during his senior year.  Can you see where this story is going?  Of course you can!  He let his grade drop to a C going into the final, and he needs a B in the course to maintain his GPA.  Also, he calculated that he needed 94% on the final exam to get his grade back into the B range.  As a little encouragement, I told him I'd award him a B- if he earned 90% or more on the final.  I'm not giving away much; after all, what's the probability that he'd score 90-93%?  Actually, since the final was worth 50 points and I don't award half-points, he'd get the B- if he scored a 90% or a 92%, and he'd earn a B- outright if he scored 94% or above.

45, 46, or 47+ points.

He studied, I know he did.  He asked clarifying questions during the final exam today.  I'm told he spent over $100 on tutors in the last week or so.

I grade tests a class at a time, a page at a time.  So once I've graded everyone's Page 1, I turn the paper over and grade everyone's Page 2.  This has some powerful advantages, including significant consistency in the awarding of partial credit as well as my not knowing whose paper I'm grading (after the first page).  After everyone had turned in his/her test, I started correcting.

I correct papers very quickly, I have a system.  With over two hours in which to give the final exam, I had plenty of time to grade the papers after the last had been turned in.

After I'd graded everybody's Page 4, it was time to add up the scores.  I start from the back page and work my way forward, adding up missed points along the way, until I get to the front page, the one with the name on it, and that's when I write the score.

47 points.  94%.  He earned the grade on his own.  Perhaps he now understands the sentiment behind the motivational statement I've had written on the board all week:

In my next class, one of my students gave me a gag gift.  Attached to it was a note:

I've learned more in this 1 semester than in my prior 2 years of math.  Thanks for the knowledge.

I think the note was the real gift.

Third Time's A Charm

My son is home on leave and came to see me at school a couple days ago.  He couldn't remember which room was mine, felt a bit conspicuous at school, and didn't want to go to the office to ask!

Yesterday, armed with the location of my classroom, he tried again.  On the way there his tire died (actually, cracked rim caused the tire to deflate almost immediately).  He didn't make it.

Today he made it.  We had a staff potluck after finals today, so he came in and ate with us while proud dad got to show him off a little.  One of our teachers had him as a student back in 7th grade--he's a bit taller now, and the teacher didn't even recognize him.  Then again, it's been, what, 8 1/2 years or so?

Nice way for me to spend some time with him.

My massage chair here at home finally got repaired today.  He's in it right now, enjoying life.  I'm enjoying having him here.

How Much Am I Willing To Pay For A Life Change?

Holy crap.

I just went to the CalSTRS retirement calendar and ran two different calculations; the first involved my monthly retirement check if I "retire" in 2020 and go teach in an international school, and the second was my monthly retirement check if I actually wait until 2028 to retire (and forego the international school route).  In the first place my monthly retirement pay would be about $2000/month, in the second place it was $5000/month.

Granted, in theory I could put that entire $2000/month into an IRA and not draw on it until I actually retire in 2028 or so, but dang, I'm gambling with 60% of my retirement.

What to do?

Slow But Steady Progress

What's the word that means slow but unstoppable?  I'll know it when I hear it.  Anyway, that word seems to apply here:

A new survey of 461 colleges and universities around the country found that roughly one in three schools still maintain policies that drastically limit free speech on campus.

According to an annual study conducted by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), 32.3 percent of colleges and universities surveyed “received FIRE’s lowest, red light rating for maintaining speech codes that clearly and substantially restrict freedom of speech.”

The “Spotlight on Speech Codes” report, however, notes that the percentage of red light institutions has been consistently shrinking throughout the last decade, pointing out that “This year’s figure is seven percentage points lower than last year and almost 42 percentage points lower than in FIRE’s 2009 report.”

I Wonder Why This Is

From the major Sacramento newspaper:

Sacramento County students have the worst chronic absentee rate in the region and a higher rate than all but two of the other 20 largest counties in California – Sonoma and San Joaquin.

According to new state data, 14.8 percent of Sacramento County students missed one-tenth of their classes last school year. By comparison, 10.8 percent of students statewide missed that many classes.

A chart accompanying the article showed that the worst district attendance-wise at 20.1% of its students miss at least 10% of their classes last school year.  The smallest percentage shown was an elementary school district with only 5.8% of its students missing 10% or more of their classes; with the exception of that one elementary district, the 9 other districts on the chart were either unified or high school districts.

My Christmas Present

Last night around midnight my son woke me up--to let me know he made it home.  He'd been driving all day from Washington.

And since my elliptical trainer is in his room, I don't have to get up early this week to run on it.  Merry Christmas to me!  :-)

This Is Why It's Hard To Take The Press Seriously Anymore

Does anyone genuinely honestly truly think this is anti-Semitic?

CNN political commentator Hilary Rosen accused a Georgetown student of anti-semitism and bigotry because he wore a bacon-themed onesie to a basketball game.

“Look at the guy in the ‘bacon suit,'” Rosen tweeted with a photo of the Georgetown student section. “This is a Georgetown #Hoyas fans anti-Semitic smear to the Syracuse team.”

Jews have a religious objection to eating bacon (although I knew a Jew whose favorite food was pepperoni pizza!), not to the existence of pigs and bacon.  And who are the Jews the Georgetown student was targeting?  Is the Syracuse team made up of Jews?  And even if they were, is wearing a bacon suit truly anti-Semitic?  Since Muslims also don't eat bacon, couldn't one just as easily say this was an anti-Muslim, and hence pro-Jew, commentary?  Sheesh.

Rosen is clearly an idiot.

Power Nap Class?

Throughout my undergraduate years I tried to live by the motto, "Well rested, well tested."  It seemed to work for me.

I didn't need a class to figure that out, though, and neither did I need mama West Point to hang hammocks around the cadet area--although, if she had, I have no doubt we'd have used them!

UC Davis wants its students to sleep at school.

University staff have hung hammocks, handed out eye masks and even started a power nap class to disrupt a student culture that prioritizes study over sleep.

“For some reason, there is a culture on campus that, in order to be academically successful, our wellness needs to go out the door,” said Brian Luu, who teaches the Power Nap class.

Lack of sleep is one of the top three negative impacts on academic performance for college students nationally, said Emilia Aguirre, a mental health specialist at the university. 

We weren't allowed to sleep during class.  If we got tired, we stood behind our chair.  On the other hand, we weren't given as much free rein as students at Davis are.  While we could stay up past taps and study, at least there was taps and the associated sleeping time from 11:30 pm to early morning, which after my plebe year was usually 6:30 or 6:45 or so.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/education/article189889174.html#storylink=cpy

Making Me Proud

In a few hours I'll be going to a party--not a Christmas party, but a graduation party.  One of my former students is graduating from a local university with a degree in math.

Nice.

Just A Reminder That The Test Is Flawed

If you're in education and you haven't encountered this yet, you soon will.  Arm yourself with knowledge:

The concept of “implicit bias,” where individuals experience and act upon unconscious feelings of prejudice, has become a ubiquitous part of popular culture. But the basis for the theory of “implicit bias”—a test that purported to prove to people that they were unknowingly prejudiced toward certain groups—has recently had its validity called into serious question.

At The New Yorker earlier this year, Jesse Singal exposed the serious shortcomings and flaws with the Implicit Association Test, a testing mechanism created from professors from Harvard and the University of Washington. And again at The New Yorker last week, Singal offered up more evidence that the test does not deliver on its promises, citing a report from Olivia Goldhill at Quartz.

Don't let them cow you by telling you the test "was created at Harvard". If it's flawed, it's flawed--no matter where it was made.

I wrote about this last April, too.

Double Standard

If a man said what this woman Democrat said, he’d be accused of blaming the victim:

PERHAPS, GIVEN OUR NEW SENSITIVITY TO “TRIGGERING,” REVEALING ATTIRE IS SEXUAL HARASSMENT, OF MEN: Dem congresswoman says revealing clothing invites sexual harassment. “Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio), the longest-serving woman in the House, said Wednesday that some congresswomen and staffers dress so inappropriately that their clothing is ‘an invitation’ to sexual harassment. . . . Kaptur also said she thinks the Hill should have a stricter dress code for females.”

If you want a prim, sexless workplace, it probably involves prim, sexless attire.

A Crack In the Math/Science/Engineering Wall

Should idiocy like this take hold, higher education will fall apart.  Real, normal people will not agree to fund such nonsense with their tax dollars:

The leader of Purdue University’s School of Engineering Education recently declared that academic “rigor” reinforces “white male heterosexual privilege.”

Donna Riley, who previously taught engineering at Smith College for 13 years, published an article in the most recent issue of the journal Engineering Education, arguing that academic rigor is a “dirty deed” that upholds “white male heterosexual privilege.

Defining rigor as “the aspirational quality academics apply to disciplinary standards of quality,” Riley asserts that “rigor is used to maintain disciplinary boundaries, with exclusionary implications for marginalized groups and marginalized ways of knowing.”

Note that the author previously taught at Smith College. 'Nuf said.

They Can't Be Too Worried About Global Warming

Pay attention not to what they say, but what they do:

This weekend, 25,000 Earth, Sun, and planetary scientists from across the US and abroad flew to New Orleans for the annual American Geophysical Union’s Fall Meeting. These scientists study the impact global warming is having on Earth. Unfortunately, their air travel to and from the meeting will contribute to that warming by emitting around 30,000 tonnes of CO2.

As an Earth scientist and AGU member myself, I know the importance of their work. Still, there’s something wrong with this picture. As scientists, our work informs us – with dreadful clarity and urgency – that burning fossil fuel is destroying the life support systems on our planet. There’s already more than enough science to know we need to stop. Yet most scientists burn more than the average American, simply because they fly more.

Milton Friedman Discusses Hayek's Road To Serfdom

Here's The Road to Serfdom in 5 minutes.

Heard On The Radio On The Way To Work This Morning

An accident was causing a traffic backup, an accident between a car and--a mountain lion.

Yes, boys and girls, we still have mountain lions here in California.

My school abuts a greenbelt along a river.  It's well known that mountain lions--which almost never attack humans--live, breed, and hunt in that greenbelt.  It's wild to think that such animals live in our urban and suburban areas, but they do. 

The accident this morning occurred in a semi-rural area, one of those areas that used to be rural but has been developed in the last decade or so to have neighborhoods of large houses for the well-to-do.

Never Thought of This Before

A good and brief point about the next Star Wars movie:

STEPHEN L. CARTER: Star Wars’ Gross Galactic Product Problem: Something to ponder during “The Last Jedi”: Why did this technologically advanced society have such poverty and slavery?. Because it was dreamed up by Hollywood folks, who are feudalists at heart?

Liveblogging Today's Army-Navy Game

There appears to be a dusting of snow on the ground in Philadelphia.  I don't recall being at an Army-Navy game with snow, but that would just add to the fun, no?  OK, probably not for the people in the stands, but for two option teams, I'm wondering if the ball will be slippery enough not to risk even the few passes both teams might attempt.

Of course I'm rooting for Army to win.  Everything I've read gives Army the slightest advantage.  But anything can happen in this game, and often does.  I want a good game--and I want an Army victory.  I want many opportunities to jump up and yell my two favorite words, TOUCHDOWN ARMY!

I'll periodically update this throughout the game.  I haven't been to a game in many years, and this is as close as I'll get for awhile.  At least I'll get to enjoy it in the temperate environment of Northern California as opposed to the cold of the eastern seaboard.  Bring it on, and BEAT NAVY!

(all times PST)
12:00  What an awesome invocation!

12:03  Good job on the national anthem by the combined glee clubs.  Snow's falling lightly but steadily.  The announcers say it's supposed to get worse as the game progresses.

12:12  I think Navy wins with uniform battle.  Heck, you can't even see the army team on the field, what with the snow and Army's ghost-white 10th Mountain Division uniforms!

12:17  Whew, Army gets a 1st down on their first possession.  And then a long run down the right sideline!

12:21  4th and 1 on the 5, first and goal!!!

12:22  TOUCHDOWN ARMY!!!

12:29  Navy quarterback keeps getting good yardage on his runs from scrimmage.

12:33  Navy converts on 4th and 1.

12:35  4th down again, about 2 yards to go, inside the red zone.  What will Navy do?  Timeout....

12:38  With less than a minute left in the 1st quarter, Army leads 7-3.  There hasn't been a penalty yet on either side.

12:44  I brought up the penalty issue, then the announcers did--and then a Navy defender held, which gave Army a first down.

12:51  Navy defense holds, the punt is short, Navy takes over on about their own 25.

12:56  Damn, Navy quarterback runs 68 yards for a touchdown.

1:04  Navy held again, good punt, Navy's ball.

1:12  Too gimicky a play, Navy punts and downs it at the Army 37-yard line.

1:16  The long overcoats on the cadets in the stands look soaked.  They're going to smell like wet sheep for awhile.

1:18  3rd and 6, the Army quarterback slips and falls for a loss.  Gotta punt again.

1:19  5:22 left in the half, Navy 1st and 10 on the 20.

1:22 Army defense holds, bringing up 4th and 2.  And damn, Army gets its first penalty--giving Navy a 1st down.  As the president would say, YUGE.

1:24  Army defense brings up 4th down again.  Navy tried to draw Army offsides, but that isn't gonna work twice.  Navy takes it's last timeout with just over a dozen seconds left in the half.  Remember, though, that Navy receives the kickoff in the 2nd half.

1:27  Navy punt almost dies at the 1, but it's a touchback.  9 seconds remaining.

1:29  An 8-yard run by Army ends the half.  Navy leads 10-7.

Halftime

1:52  Navy starts off the half with good runs, just like the last half.

1:54  Another long run for Navy, looks like 1st and goal at the 10.

1:57  4th and 6, defense holds, field goal is good from 24.  Navy 13-7.

2:00  Army kickoff returner runs into a brick wall at the 20.  1st and 10.

2:06  Holy crap, Army completes a pass for a 1st down!

2:07  Good long run by the Army quarterback, 1st and 10 on the 35.  FB then runs for 9 more.  Showing some spark for the first time since the 1st quarter.

2:11  Army is just being tough up front.  1st and 10 at the 11.

2:13  Damn.  False start, 3rd and 13.  Really bad time for a penalty.

2:14  Timeout in place of another penalty.  Geez.  Choking here, Army!  Recover during this timeout, come back and score.  It's been too long since I've gotten to yell my two favorite words

2:17  End around loses yards, gonna try for the field goal.

2:17  Third quarter ends with Navy leading 13-7.

2:22  35 or so yard field goal is about a yard to the right.  What a letdown after such a strong drive.

2:26  It's not much, but I'll take a false start on Navy's first possession of the 4th quarter.  Then it was the Navy runner's turn to run into a brick wall!

2:28  Defense does a good job.  4th and long, Navy will punt.

2:29  Army tried to block the punt so there was no return, 1st and 10 Army from about their own 30.

2:33  Army offense is showing toughness up front again.

2:34  4 plays, 3 first downs.  Not bad.

2:36  Army back in the red zone!

2:38  First and goal!

2:39  Darn near the first option play for Army, almost dropped for a loss, down at the 1!!!

2:42  After a lengthy review, the ball is placed at the 1/2 yard line.  3rd and goal.

2:43  Took a long time for the officials to undo the pile, but when they did, TOUCHDOWN ARMY!  And with the PAT, army leads 14-13 with 5:10 left in the game.

2:46  It's still commercials, ugh.  I'm glad I don't have a blood pressure problem, because if I did, this game would cause my heart to explode!

2:48  Bad kick goes out of bounds, 1st and 10 at the 35.

2:52  There hasn't been a turnover yet in this game.  In snow.  That's pretty impressive.  And geez, the announcer just made the same comment about turnovers!

2:53  Almost just had the first one.  Navy center snaps the ball to no one, quick thinking by the quarterback (?) resulted in a loss of only 2 yards.

2:56  In one play, Navy got a 1st down.  Sheesh.

2:57  3rd and 4.  Come on, defense, HOLD!

2:58  Excellent tackle! 4th and a few, this could be for all the marbles.  If Army gets the ball back here, they might could run the clock out.

3:00  Army takes a timeout.  Both teams are now down to 1 timeout apiece.  Still 4th and 3.

3:02  Holy crap.  QB bobbled the ball, the play breaks down--and he still gets a 1st down.  1st and 10 at the 25.

3:04  Two false starts for Navy now has them at 3rd and 16.  Would be a long field goal....

3:06  The clock showed over 20 minutes left in the 4th quarter, now it's fixed at only 20 seconds left.  Army held, Navy will kick a field goal with 3 seconds left.

3:09  NO GOOD!  NO GOOD!  NO GOOD!

3:14  Time for Army's Alma Mater, and then, for the first time in over 20 years, Army will receive the Commander-in-Chief's Trophy.

3:15  Good lord, different groups of cadets were singing on their own cadence.  The words weren't matching the music.  How embarrassing.

3:17  Are these guys going to get to visit President Trump to receive the trophy?  So much better than seeing his predecessor!!!

3:21  When did this "sing second" become a thing?  While I'm sure the winning team probably sang second back in my day, I don't remember it being "a thing".  We just sang when the band played our Alma Mater.

What a great game.  I'm starting to get my breath back.  So many text messages coming in.  Whew, total nailbiter!  Great game.

How Long Have I Been Warning About This?

From the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board:

Republican plans to slash the state-and-local tax deduction are already reaping benefits in high-tax states. Democrats in the Northeast say they’re having second thoughts about raising taxes. And lo and behold, California Gov. Jerry Brown is arguing that public pensions aren’t ironclad...

Republicans in high-tax states say that abolishing the state-and-local tax deduction is unfair since lawmakers are legally barred from reducing government pensions and thus have no choice but to raise taxes to pay for them. But nearly every state court faced with the issue has upheld modifications.

The real problem is political, not legal. Democrats don’t want to renege on promises to their union friends and financiers. Mr. Brown isn’t running for re-election, so he may feel liberated. But perhaps other Democrats will be more motivated if their wealthy denizens raise a ruckus and leave their states.  (boldface mine--Darren)

If more teachers understood this, perhaps they wouldn't be so reflexively socialist, would celebrate the stock market, and would want businesses to do well--because our retirement is invested in the stock market.  Click here to read many of the posts I've written about California's Teacher Retirement System.

If you don't want to sign in at the WSJ to read the editorial excerpted above, read the whole thing here.

This Will Not Be On My Amazon Wish List

You've got to be kidding me:

According to one U.K. company, your Christmas decorations just aren't complete without an "angel" at the top of your Christmas tree — and why settle for a regular blessed harbinger of the Word of God when you can have....Hillary Clinton?

The company, Women To Look Up To, considers itself a brand that "shines a light on modern female role models,” and to that extent, they've developed a line of "She-Ro" tree toppers, so that you can literally look up to a handful of "badass women" that they think deserve to sit at the top of your Christmas tree more than the Holy chorus that announced the birth of the Christ child.

The line already included tennis pro Serena Williams and pop icon Beyonce, but a contest for the next edition, held earlier this year, produced the Clinton angel, which is available from Women To Look Up To for around fifty bucks.

They Will Keep Asking The Question Until We Give The Answer They Want Us To Give

A few years ago, after California adopted the Common Core standards, our district suits pondered whether we should keep our traditional algebra-geometry-algebra pathway or change to an integrated math pathway.  Actually, they didn't ponder at all, the decision was made as soon as someone came up with the idea, but I'll come back to that.  Anyway, a meeting was held at the district office, and dozens of math teachers from our middle and high schools came.  Only three teachers voted to change to the integrated pathway--two from our lowest performing school, saying, "Our kids are so low we're willing to try anything", and one who liked the old CPM program and wanted to return to it.  The rest of us were adamant:  NO.

The rationale given for the "potential" change was this:  "If we switch to Common Core but keep the traditional pathway, our teachers won't change the way they teach.  If we make this major switch, they might be more willing to change how they teach."

Right there, that's two slaps in the face for the math teachers in our district.  Everything's the teachers' fault.

Last year there was a "listening circle" in which students in Integrated Math 1 were brought in to discuss what might be done to improve the program.  The students were clear, they wanted a real textbook, as opposed to the paperback fill-in-the-blank monstrosities we issue them.  That comment, the most common comment from students, was conveniently left out of the listening circle's summary report.

Another slap in the face.

This week all the math teachers in my district got an email from a district suit.  We were told that our district is contracting with an organization that will help determine what is wrong with the math program in our district, and we need to click on a link and take a survey from this vendor.  Did they ask the math teachers what would help improve things?  When I was a manufacturing manager, if we had quality problems on a particular line, I'd ask the operator what the problem was.  They could usually tell me, and as often as not would provide a solution. But my district didn't ask the math teachers what can be done, they went straight to a consultant.

That's a fourth slap in the face.

The survey itself was a treat.  The questions included gems like, "What professional development do you need in order to do a better job?" and "Do you feel competent to teach ?"

At the end was the perfunctory "Please put in any additional comments here" box, and boy, did I.  The problem is that no one will read it, and no one will care.  My comments are not wanted or needed, because whatever they're going to do, the decision has already been made.  My district has made me cynical enough to believe that whatever it is they're doing, it's only window dressing so they can say they're "doing something".

Our integrated math program is a shambles, but I don't think it's because our district's math teachers are bad teachers.  Partly it's because integrated math makes about as much sense as integrated science or integrated foreign language, part of is because our textbook adoption process is an abomination, partly it's because the rules imposed on us (e.g., all Integrated 1, 2, and 3 books must come from the same publisher) force us to buy lousy books, and partly it's because the math isn't as "integrated" as it is "hodge-podge".

They've told me to dig a hole, but only gave me a screwdriver with which to do it.  Now they're asking what professional development I need in order to do a better job at digging holes with screwdrivers.

Will A Lawsuit Change Anything?

I don't know enough about California's ELA standards which, if they're like the math standards, are Common Core standards with extra California goodies grafted onto them.  Neither do I know what the problem is, why so many California students can't read:

A group of prominent lawyers representing teachers and students from poor performing schools sued California on Tuesday, arguing that the state has done nothing about a high number of schoolchildren who do not know how to read.

The advocacy law firm, Public Counsel, filed the lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court to demand the California Department of Education address its "literacy crisis." The state has not followed suggestions from its own report on the problem five years ago, the lawsuit said.

"When it comes to literacy and the delivery of basic education, California is dragging down the nation," said Public Counsel lawyer Mark Rosenbaum, who sued along with the law firm Morrison & Foerster.

Assessments found less than half of California students from third grade to fifth grade have met statewide literacy standards since 2015. Both traditional and charter schools are failing, Rosenbaum said.

Of the 26 lowest-performing districts in the nation, 11 are in California, according to the lawsuit. Texas, the largest state after California, has only one district among the 26.

Of course, this lack of knowledge won't prevent me from offering up a few ideas!  While the problem clearly starts in elementary school, our high school teachers don't get a pass on it.  I remember learning grammar all the way through high school, but grammar isn't sexy enough today.  No, we need to keep reading and writing, not doing the grunt work of actually teaching the construction of our language. 

Don't forget that California went whole hog into "whole language" in the 1990s; how many of our teachers, school and district administrators, and state level education workers still buy into that discredited philosophy?

Is teaching to the state standards a requirement or is it merely strongly encouraged?

Do too many teachers see themselves as social workers first and teachers second?

How many teachers practice "the soft bigotry of low expectations", especially for minority and/or poor students?

So that's a lot of digs at my own profession.  How about a few ideas regarding tying our hands behind our backs?

I wrote recently about suspending, or rather not suspending, misbehaving students.  How big a role does lack of discipline in schools have in a lack of education?

How big a problem is not having "newcomer" classes for recent immigrants?  Just like you couldn't plop me down in a school in Uzbekistan and expect me to do well--no matter how much "realia" the instructor used, or no matter how much vocabulary the instructor "previewed"--it's not reasonable to put newcomers into classes (especially in high school!) and somehow, magically, expect the student's hard work and the teacher's charisma to somehow generate effective education!  Sorry, but Google Translate isn't a good option here.  Give the kids a fighting chance, teach them some English before you put them in classes (again, especially in high school).

Are we being compelled to use techniques besides direct instruction to teach reading?

It's darned embarrassing that California has several of the lowest performing districts in the nation, far more than our fair share.  Something is wrong, but correcting it would require someone to admit a political mistake, and good luck with that ever happening.  (Gerund rule?  Sounds too stilted.)

Leftie Tolerance

No one who's paid attention is surprised by this.  Heck, I'm not even surprised she said it publicly:

Isn't it funny how top Democrats love to talk about "tolerance" and "compassion" when they are, in fact, the least tolerant and least compassionate people out there? Take this tweet from Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi for instance:

I want every single California Republican to understand this. Your ideology doesn’t come first. Your party doesn’t come first. The PEOPLE come first. If you fail to recognize that, you don’t belong here. https://t.co/xjbyOTI2MC

— Nancy Pelosi (@NancyPelosi) December 5, 2017

It's always wonderful to see liberals talk about the people as if they were some kind of collective with shared interests. That's nonsense, of course. Some people benefit from this policy, others from that one. The belief that "the people" are somehow one — and united — has caused major suffering worldwide. Just think about North Korea. The Soviet Union. Mao's China. "Modern" Venezuela. And Cuba. In every single one of those countries, leaders talk about "the people" constantly, while expanding their own personal power. One of their favorite tools? Sending opponents off to the gulag/prison/concentration camps.

It should come as no surprise, therefore, that Pelosi tells California Republicans who dare support President Trump's tax bill to leave the state. Stalin, Mao, Castro, Kim, and Chavez would have agreed. Send them off to the gulag!

On Many Campuses, Anti-racism = Racism

From a "student of color and the gay son of refugee immigrants":

Even though the event was billed as a day of anti-racism, what I witnessed was, quite frankly, racism. Until that day, I’d never seen people overtly dehumanized and treated as racialized objects – amplified through the use of words like “bodies” to refer to people of color. I left the event wondering if the sum of my worth was on an identity I was born into.

Since continuing my education, I’ve come to quickly learn that on campuses today, racism no longer means what I understood it to be all my life. According to critical race theorists, who permeate academe and its administration, racism is not ethnic prejudice and discrimination but rather prejudice and institutional power. Because whites have institutionalized privilege, they say it is impossible for them to be victims of racism. In this worldview, I should be alarmed when prejudicial sentiment is hurled at some, but not all, of my peers.

I demurred...

As I’ve witnessed in 2015 and have seen repeated countless times since then, the lack of any ideological counterpoise has created a vacuum where ideas have no mechanism or incentive for moderation.

No one who's paid attention is surprised by this.