I am fucking gobsmacked

Are you fucking kidding me?

"...you could make a case for college..."

YOU COULD MAKE A CASE FOR COLLEGE?!?!?!

I can't even begin to address all the epic fail featured in this video. But here goes nothin'...

No, Fox News, this study (just like everything you hold dear) is flawed. Disgustingly flawed.

To be fair, I have to read the study before I can pass informed judgement on it. However, going just by what Fox News has told me (which is never a good idea, but still), here are my conclusions. First of all, this test lacks any and all internal validity - it does not test what it was intended to test. If you want to test how students' political views have changed, you test them when they first start college, and then you test them again periodically until they graduate. Even then, if their views have changed, you can only conclude that there was a correlation between political stance and college education. I have taken enough psych classes to know that correlation does not equal causation (also to know how to conduct a scientifically responsible study). It may not have been the courses that "turned students liberal," it may have been exposure to peers that were more liberal, or getting away from fundie, fox-news-watchin' parents, or, heavens, perhaps they just thought about the issues and came to more liberal conclusions on their own. Or, since there are so many flaws in that argument and it didn't bother to test students' political views before college, they may have all been liberal in the first place. This study is so riddled with holes, I can only conclude that it was a victim of the Valentine's Day Massacre.

While I am ashamed, but not surprised, that that so many students can't answer basic, common knowledge questions, I have to say that that is not college's fault. Unless every one of the 14,000 students tested took some kind of US government class in college, there's no reason to have talked about that in any class. Nor does failure to learn those facts completely invalidate opinions. PS, do you suppose the study took into account that an equal number of high schoolers can't pass a basic citizenship test (even though US government classes are pretty standard for public high school curricula)? Or that (and I'm only guessing here) even fewer non-college graduates could pass said test?


I do have to say that I love the bottom line of this video: More educated people tend to be liberal.

I know I'm a little late with this one, but I got into a discussion about it yesterday, and, well, it's my damn blog.


I was talking to a friend the other day who told me something to the effect of, "If Hilary had become president, I would have fled the country." This friend is not a hard-line republican, or a macho dude - on the contrary, this friend is an independent, intelligent, politically-moderate, ballet-dancin' woman. This friend also told me that she knows Hilary is a competent, unbelievably intelligent politician, but for reasons unknown, she is also "evil," and therefore, she should never be president. I can honestly say that I don't care about my politicians as people. I'll never meet them, let alone become buddies with them, so I don't care if they're manipulative, controlling, whatever. Take nice-guy President Carter: a lot of people consider him a failure as president (I personally think he was fairly lackluster, but not an embarrassment). Then take FDR who was, by all accounts, a really crappy human being - manipulative, secretive, dishonest, adulterous, and one of the greatest US presidents ever.

Hilary Clinton is the most divisive figure in the Democratic Party. Fact. And I think I know why. I used to think that it's because she's a woman and that people are frightened of powerful women, blah, blah, blah. But then Sarah Palin came onto the scene, and lots of people (even Man-types!) like her. So Hilary's vagina is clearly not the problem here. So, then, what could it be?

My guess is that people are put off by the fact that Hilary is not particularly feminine. At least, not in a traditional sense. She doesn't use her child for photo-ops, she doesn't rack up huge bills buying clothes, and she actually understands important issues. Sarah Palin, however, creates a far more feminine image of herself, i.e., she constantly plays the dutiful wife and mother and she's pretty.

So why does it matter so much if Hilary would probably not make a great shopping buddy? Because the bottom line is that the American people, maybe even most people everywhere, can accept a powerful woman, so long as she is a woman first and powerful second.

***While this little anecdote does deal with the same stuff, it's not really relevant to my argument.

A couple of years ago, when it was still between Hilary and Obama, my history teacher asked the class if they would not vote for Hilary because she is a woman. More than half the class raised their hands, including several girls. One lad, who surely has a blindingly bright future ahead of him, pointed out that she would be a terrible president because, as he put it, "...every month, she'd try to start a nuclear war with somebody!"

Not that I expect that cretin to ever read this blog, but here's what I would have liked to have said:
"First of all, it's not that easy to start a nuclear war. Secondly, I'm positive that Hilary does not menstruate any more. Finally, the stereotype that woman become irritable and irrational while menstruating is largely not true, but is propagated by men who are so frightened of people with vaginas that they feel the need to categorically discredit the actions, emotions, and opinions of women. Please go get castrated now."

Then I'd probably have to tell him what "propagated," "categorically," and "castrate" mean.

Police cite 81 people at underage party near IU -- chicagotribune.com

Police cite 81 people at underage party near IU -- chicagotribune.com

Posted using ShareThis

Now, I could go on a rant about drinking laws in this country...that they are impractical and puritanical, and that the BPD have much better things to do with their time than bust 18-20 year-olds who really aren't causing any trouble, but I won't. I will say, though, that I was one of the 100+ people to get breathalyzed, but I was not one of the 78 minors to get cited. In short...

I am a total badass.

So friends, I have a job now. Yes, a real job! In fact, it's what I've always done, but now I'm paid to do it...I work on the stage crew at the IU MAC.

I love it. It's probably to early to say how I feel about it definitively, but...well, I love it right now.

Everyone I work with is helpful, nice, hilarious...we're all theater people, and as anyone who deals with theater people a lot knows, theaters EVERYWHERE attract the same types of people. Opera houses are no different.

I bitch and moan about going to work early in the morning, and giving up weekends, but secretly, there's little else I'd rather do.

If you find yourself in the Bloomington area some weekend soon and feel the need to absorb some high-falutin' culture, this weekend is the Fall Ballet and then two weeks later is Romeo and Juliet.

Youtube continues to make life worth living.

So, I watch "Weeds." I really liked it for about three seasons, but, for me, it has jumped the shark. Not in a terribly humiliating way, but enough for me to be disappointed.

Their biggest mistake was in changing the location. Having Nancy in the suburbs was central to the show. It was satire on upper-class, suburban life. It has now turned into a show about putting all the characters through crazy situations to see what they will do next. I'm really unhappy with the character development this season. Nancy has given up almost all pretense of being a concerned mother (she gets upset when the lives of her children are threatened, but that seems to be the extent of her maternal instinct). Shane has turned completely emo - he even tries to make his pain sound poetic. Doug, who was once a lovable screw-up, has turned into an annoying, asshole screw-up. Back when the racial insensitivity, drug-use, and general crassness were occasional, I liked Doug and thought he was funny. Now he's just sad.

I do like the way they've dealt with Silas. In fact, I thought it was kind of cool how they matured him at the same time they made Shane the problem-child. I like that Silas is trying to start his own legal business and that he is becoming the voice of reason. I also still like Andy. Not the whole business of him being in love with Nancy (Sidenote: The writers had to take a beautiful, platonic friendship between a straight man and an unrelated, straight woman and inject some sexual tension into it. That makes me angry; how often do you see friendships like that that work and don't have the sexual tension? I loved that the writers were not taking that very obvious route, but no longer. Just because two straight people of the opposite sex are friends does NOT mean that they want to, or inevitably are going to jump each other!), but I like that they have stayed true to the concept of his character. He's another lovable screw-up, but he always had more substance than Doug. And now he wants to do something with his life. Kudos, Andy!

The thing that bothers me most, though, is the part of the show that is hitting too close to home for me. Nancy has started a relationship with Esteban, a Mexican drug lord/politician. First of all, I don't see why they are in love and it feels like a telling and not showing thing to me, but it really bothers me that Nancy has gone off and remarried. For anyone who doesn't watch the show, Nancy's husband, Judah, died just before the events of the show. He's never mentioned anymore. Andy is his brother, and he doesn't even mention him. It's like he doesn't matter to Nancy, Andy, or the boys at all. And now she has a new husband who she presumably loves; the boys have a step-father and Nancy no longer has any formal relationship with Andy (if brother/sister-in-law is considered formal...) I just don't understand how they can all be so comfortable with ignoring their former lives. I hate Nancy for that more than anything else.

Forget Michael Jackson...

Two magnificent men of words died this weekend: Walter Cronkite (November 4th, 1916 - July 17th, 2009) and Frank McCourt (August 19th, 1930 - July 19th, 2009).