My mom's birthday was Friday, January 27th. (Everybody say it with me now...)
Happy birthday, Mom!!
Sunday, January 29, 2006
Monday, January 23, 2006
They're coming for me next
The next target in the vast right-wing conspiracy is me.
Well, me and everyone like me.
As I understand the conservative "revolution," about 30 or 40 years ago there was a broad movement to start getting Republicans elected to school boards and other local offices, in order to cultivate a hothouse of new seedling candidates ready to advance up the trellis of state and local government. (Metaphor too heavy-handed?) It was enormously successful. Eisenhower railed against the creation of the military-industrial complex; even Nixon was one of the most environmentally-progressive presidents we've ever had. And yet these views would seem far left today, when the Republican party is dominated by ultra-conservatives. More important, the (federal) government is dominated by the Republican party, with the executive and both houses of Congress in conservative hands. Even the Supreme Court is being pushed toward the conservative.
I think we can call their governmental strategy a success.
During this period, conservatives began to organize think tanks that could package their ideas into parsimonious visions to guide the movement. This gave them intellectual traction.
In the late 80s, we saw the first incursion into the media, as hard-right blowhards started to occupy the radio dial and create a following of folks concerned about the country and previously confounded by the complexity of political discussion. That early presence, of course, exploded in the 90s, reaching its zenith with the ascendance of Fox News and other networks' rush (no pun) to install imitators.
A crucial element of the conservative strategy in media has been its vociferous complaint that the media are stridently and unswervingly leftist. Books have been written and advocacy groups founded to highlight the instances of "liberal bias." And this has been phenomenally effective in two ways: first, of course, it creates public skepticism about anything reported by media that didn't bear the seal of approval. No longer should we believe what's told to us by NBC or CNN or (gasp!) the New York Times. So we are left rudderless in the effort to gauge truth, or even reliable reporting.
More insidiously, it caused members of the media themselves to second-guess their coverage and to bend over backwards to demonstrate a lack of liberal bias. As such, I contend, it facilitated the rise in conservative bias. The run-up to the Iraq War was perhaps the most vivid (and egregious) example of the media's failure to do anything resembling their job, as they tumbled over themselves to avoid seeming to challenge the president and his conservative views.
I will acknowledge that the media have recently shown signs of life again. But it's really too late. We now have a vast populace of people who do not evaluate news or knowledge based on science, fact, quality of reporting, or even their own independent investigation of what is reported. Instead, we have people who identify with a particular opinionist, and accept everything he says without question. This means that any dissenting view is immediately rejected, and it is rejected as a matter of rejecting the source--the person offering it--rather than the content of what is said. There is no weighing the relative merits of different views. Instead, if Rush says I shouldn't believe it, well hell, I don't.
Doesn't this seem a fantastic argument? I am literally suggesting that people do not think at all in any critical manner, but instead could be manipulated as blatantly as in 1984. Yes, I am saying that. I see this in my students. I have these people among my own family and closer acquaintances. And I know of others who have them, as well.
OK, I'm getting there. Now that government and the media are all sewn up (and I don't think we needed to question whether "the church" would climb on board--what's shocking is how much the conservatives even court churches with traditionally unsympathetic congregants), it is time to move to...
...the universities. David Horowitz, oddly appealing-looking for someone for whom I have great antipathy, is releasing a book guaranteed to make my job title the new slander against Liberal Elites: The Professors. (Think "the trial attorneys," "the media"... .)
I first became aware of the new targeting of universities last year, with the coincidence of the Ward Churchill story and a bill in the Colorado Legislature to impose sanctions on professors who were keeping conservative viewpoints out of the classroom. News coverage at the time (will link when possible) quoted students saying that they were disturbed by having to listen to material that they did not like in semi-required classes. (Rejoinder: if you don't like hearing it and I say it, that is not bias. If there is science and reason to back up statements made in a classroom setting, that is not necessarily bias. Too many conservatives want to create a Fox News-like cocoon around their entire lives, and not be threatened by mere exposure to a different worldview. Here's an example of the type.)
Horowitz is energetic. His fingerprints are all over this movement. And his latest touch came in the LA Times, which published his opinion piece promoting bills for "academic freedom"--which, essentially, establish the legislative foundation for taking outside control of universities through legal action.
As evidence that there is a problem requiring such legal redress, he offers the following:
These are the only actual data provided. So we are to assume that the imbalance in numbers is sufficient to create raging bias in classrooms. First, this presumes that no one can identify with a political orientation and not suffuse all their activities with that orientation. Second, this presumes that the professors in question were politically identified first, and then went into academia to proselytize. What about the alternative hypothesis that academic work, with its emphasis on empiricism and logic, tends to lead to conclusions more associated with liberal politics? In psychology, certainly, the field is ruled by the scientific method. And while individual politics may, I agree, influence the questions studied and the methods chosen for the study, we simply see over and over that the results of our studies do not comport with an ideologically conservative view of the world. Many of us identify as "liberal" simply because that is the political group that recognizes what our science suggests is more accurate.
(Of course, science itself is so under attack now that I recognize why this is no defense in the eyes of conservatives.)
The same week that Horowitz's piece appeared, we saw an article about a new organization that is looking for examples of leftist teaching at UCLA. (A targeted professor responds here.) The group was paying current students to turn in taped lectures and incriminating information about professors seen as too liberal, and these were in turn posted on the group's website. (I won't link to it here because I don't want to increase its impact counts, but the group name is "Bruin Alumni Association" for those who want to google.) nb, the kid heading this venture used to work with--you guessed it--David Horowitz.
In short, the conservatives have done an exceptional job of shaping and maintaining the American public's view of reality. The government and right-wing media provide a seamless story about truth. Unfortunately, science and education have continued to emphasize empirical inquiry and the ascendancy of reliability and validity, not ideology, as tests of truth. So now science and education must be brought in line. That's why I am the next target.
Well, me and everyone like me.
As I understand the conservative "revolution," about 30 or 40 years ago there was a broad movement to start getting Republicans elected to school boards and other local offices, in order to cultivate a hothouse of new seedling candidates ready to advance up the trellis of state and local government. (Metaphor too heavy-handed?) It was enormously successful. Eisenhower railed against the creation of the military-industrial complex; even Nixon was one of the most environmentally-progressive presidents we've ever had. And yet these views would seem far left today, when the Republican party is dominated by ultra-conservatives. More important, the (federal) government is dominated by the Republican party, with the executive and both houses of Congress in conservative hands. Even the Supreme Court is being pushed toward the conservative.
I think we can call their governmental strategy a success.
During this period, conservatives began to organize think tanks that could package their ideas into parsimonious visions to guide the movement. This gave them intellectual traction.
In the late 80s, we saw the first incursion into the media, as hard-right blowhards started to occupy the radio dial and create a following of folks concerned about the country and previously confounded by the complexity of political discussion. That early presence, of course, exploded in the 90s, reaching its zenith with the ascendance of Fox News and other networks' rush (no pun) to install imitators.
A crucial element of the conservative strategy in media has been its vociferous complaint that the media are stridently and unswervingly leftist. Books have been written and advocacy groups founded to highlight the instances of "liberal bias." And this has been phenomenally effective in two ways: first, of course, it creates public skepticism about anything reported by media that didn't bear the seal of approval. No longer should we believe what's told to us by NBC or CNN or (gasp!) the New York Times. So we are left rudderless in the effort to gauge truth, or even reliable reporting.
More insidiously, it caused members of the media themselves to second-guess their coverage and to bend over backwards to demonstrate a lack of liberal bias. As such, I contend, it facilitated the rise in conservative bias. The run-up to the Iraq War was perhaps the most vivid (and egregious) example of the media's failure to do anything resembling their job, as they tumbled over themselves to avoid seeming to challenge the president and his conservative views.
I will acknowledge that the media have recently shown signs of life again. But it's really too late. We now have a vast populace of people who do not evaluate news or knowledge based on science, fact, quality of reporting, or even their own independent investigation of what is reported. Instead, we have people who identify with a particular opinionist, and accept everything he says without question. This means that any dissenting view is immediately rejected, and it is rejected as a matter of rejecting the source--the person offering it--rather than the content of what is said. There is no weighing the relative merits of different views. Instead, if Rush says I shouldn't believe it, well hell, I don't.
Doesn't this seem a fantastic argument? I am literally suggesting that people do not think at all in any critical manner, but instead could be manipulated as blatantly as in 1984. Yes, I am saying that. I see this in my students. I have these people among my own family and closer acquaintances. And I know of others who have them, as well.
OK, I'm getting there. Now that government and the media are all sewn up (and I don't think we needed to question whether "the church" would climb on board--what's shocking is how much the conservatives even court churches with traditionally unsympathetic congregants), it is time to move to...
...the universities. David Horowitz, oddly appealing-looking for someone for whom I have great antipathy, is releasing a book guaranteed to make my job title the new slander against Liberal Elites: The Professors. (Think "the trial attorneys," "the media"... .)
I first became aware of the new targeting of universities last year, with the coincidence of the Ward Churchill story and a bill in the Colorado Legislature to impose sanctions on professors who were keeping conservative viewpoints out of the classroom. News coverage at the time (will link when possible) quoted students saying that they were disturbed by having to listen to material that they did not like in semi-required classes. (Rejoinder: if you don't like hearing it and I say it, that is not bias. If there is science and reason to back up statements made in a classroom setting, that is not necessarily bias. Too many conservatives want to create a Fox News-like cocoon around their entire lives, and not be threatened by mere exposure to a different worldview. Here's an example of the type.)
Horowitz is energetic. His fingerprints are all over this movement. And his latest touch came in the LA Times, which published his opinion piece promoting bills for "academic freedom"--which, essentially, establish the legislative foundation for taking outside control of universities through legal action.
As evidence that there is a problem requiring such legal redress, he offers the following:
...the one-sided nature of university faculties has now been the subject of several academic studies. A 2003 study by professor Daniel Klein of Santa Clara University, for instance, found that around the country Democrats outnumbered Republicans about 30 to 1 in the field of anthropology, about 28 to 1 in sociology, and about 7 to 1 in political science.
Another study, conducted by professors at Smith College, the University of Toronto and George Mason University, looked at data from a large national sample of professors and found that professors of English who identified themselves as leaning left outnumbered their conservative-leaning colleagues by 30 to 1; professors of political science by 40 to 1; and professors of history by 8 to 1.
These are the only actual data provided. So we are to assume that the imbalance in numbers is sufficient to create raging bias in classrooms. First, this presumes that no one can identify with a political orientation and not suffuse all their activities with that orientation. Second, this presumes that the professors in question were politically identified first, and then went into academia to proselytize. What about the alternative hypothesis that academic work, with its emphasis on empiricism and logic, tends to lead to conclusions more associated with liberal politics? In psychology, certainly, the field is ruled by the scientific method. And while individual politics may, I agree, influence the questions studied and the methods chosen for the study, we simply see over and over that the results of our studies do not comport with an ideologically conservative view of the world. Many of us identify as "liberal" simply because that is the political group that recognizes what our science suggests is more accurate.
(Of course, science itself is so under attack now that I recognize why this is no defense in the eyes of conservatives.)
The same week that Horowitz's piece appeared, we saw an article about a new organization that is looking for examples of leftist teaching at UCLA. (A targeted professor responds here.) The group was paying current students to turn in taped lectures and incriminating information about professors seen as too liberal, and these were in turn posted on the group's website. (I won't link to it here because I don't want to increase its impact counts, but the group name is "Bruin Alumni Association" for those who want to google.) nb, the kid heading this venture used to work with--you guessed it--David Horowitz.
In short, the conservatives have done an exceptional job of shaping and maintaining the American public's view of reality. The government and right-wing media provide a seamless story about truth. Unfortunately, science and education have continued to emphasize empirical inquiry and the ascendancy of reliability and validity, not ideology, as tests of truth. So now science and education must be brought in line. That's why I am the next target.
Thursday, January 19, 2006
Thought of the day (er, week)
1. I was about to distance myself from Katha Pollitt (because, you know, everyone just associates us so closely with one another) for being kind of a nutjob. But then it turned out I was confusing her with Susan Estrich. And when I googled "Katha Pollitt" and "Michael Kinsley" to be sure I had the story right (note: I didn't), I found this piece by Pollitt that I really like too. So forget the distance--Yay Katha Pollitt!!
2. The actual thought of the day, which is really the thought of the week since now that I'm teaching and trying to write two papers (or portions thereof), I am apparently just posting on Thursdays. (Before I get to the thought itself, I'll just mention that the Thursday-posting pattern must be because I feel self-indulgent after teaching negotiation on Wednesdays and graduate methods on Thursday afternoons, and can sit down and think my own thoughts for a while!)
Anyway, no links for this one. I heard an interesting quote on the radio the other day (sorry, forgot when/where) about how retirement will be particularly difficult for many boomer-ish executives because they do not realize how much their expense accounts have been subsidizing their lifestyles. True, isn't it? Even for me, I get to eat in fancy restaurants because I am part of the recruiting committee; to stay in high-priced hotels because it's just "expected" of b-school types when we go to conferences; and to travel around the world in ways I couldn't afford because I can arrange to present my research in Spain and Hawaii and Prague.
If a decent-sized chunk of the populace wants to continue reaping these kinds of benefits, then perhaps it's no wonder that we tolerate the privileging of corporate interests over people's interests, of company health over labor vitality.
But isn't it a bit perverse that, while the folks at the top (yes, I too) are being subsidized by the company, the pattern at the bottom goes in reverse. People in hourly jobs are often forced to work off the clock--so they give up the one exchangeable resource they have (their time) for free. Companies continually cut the health coverage of their low-level workers in the name of the bottom line. These workers pay for coverage themselves, or just go uninsured. But the company has all those dollars now! All those millions of low-level, uneducated, powerless workers just happy they are holding on to minimum wage--they are subsidizing the company.
Hierarchical systems work, and are stable, because the folks at the bottom apply their muscle, follow orders, and work hard to keep things running; and the folks at the top are better equipped to plan and direct. In all hierarchies, benefits accrue to the top. They get lots of privileges and, well, stuff. But the key is that they also have to take care of the folks at the bottom--the hierarchy is all about keeping the whole group going strong together. And these guys are ridiculously easy to please. Thank them, act like you really owe them, and be sure they aren't paralyzed with fear because they can't pay the grocery bill, or the heating bill, or the bill for their cancer treatment. It's called noblesse oblige, and it's been around forever.
When the privileged forget about noblesse oblige, bad things happen. Think Marie Antoinette. It takes a while for people to realize they're getting screwed, but once they do--look out.
And so here we are, a society in which we not only blow off taking care of the people at the bottom, but we require them to subsidize our companies, and then the companies subsidize those of us who think it's normal to just eat cake.
The kicker? Having said all of this, I should be running to the dean to ask that my salary be cut and the surplus reallocated to one of the janitors. Guess how fast I'm doing that?
Edited to add: GREAT related post here.
And then...AHA! :The Magic Number"--Found it.
2. The actual thought of the day, which is really the thought of the week since now that I'm teaching and trying to write two papers (or portions thereof), I am apparently just posting on Thursdays. (Before I get to the thought itself, I'll just mention that the Thursday-posting pattern must be because I feel self-indulgent after teaching negotiation on Wednesdays and graduate methods on Thursday afternoons, and can sit down and think my own thoughts for a while!)
Anyway, no links for this one. I heard an interesting quote on the radio the other day (sorry, forgot when/where) about how retirement will be particularly difficult for many boomer-ish executives because they do not realize how much their expense accounts have been subsidizing their lifestyles. True, isn't it? Even for me, I get to eat in fancy restaurants because I am part of the recruiting committee; to stay in high-priced hotels because it's just "expected" of b-school types when we go to conferences; and to travel around the world in ways I couldn't afford because I can arrange to present my research in Spain and Hawaii and Prague.
If a decent-sized chunk of the populace wants to continue reaping these kinds of benefits, then perhaps it's no wonder that we tolerate the privileging of corporate interests over people's interests, of company health over labor vitality.
But isn't it a bit perverse that, while the folks at the top (yes, I too) are being subsidized by the company, the pattern at the bottom goes in reverse. People in hourly jobs are often forced to work off the clock--so they give up the one exchangeable resource they have (their time) for free. Companies continually cut the health coverage of their low-level workers in the name of the bottom line. These workers pay for coverage themselves, or just go uninsured. But the company has all those dollars now! All those millions of low-level, uneducated, powerless workers just happy they are holding on to minimum wage--they are subsidizing the company.
Hierarchical systems work, and are stable, because the folks at the bottom apply their muscle, follow orders, and work hard to keep things running; and the folks at the top are better equipped to plan and direct. In all hierarchies, benefits accrue to the top. They get lots of privileges and, well, stuff. But the key is that they also have to take care of the folks at the bottom--the hierarchy is all about keeping the whole group going strong together. And these guys are ridiculously easy to please. Thank them, act like you really owe them, and be sure they aren't paralyzed with fear because they can't pay the grocery bill, or the heating bill, or the bill for their cancer treatment. It's called noblesse oblige, and it's been around forever.
When the privileged forget about noblesse oblige, bad things happen. Think Marie Antoinette. It takes a while for people to realize they're getting screwed, but once they do--look out.
And so here we are, a society in which we not only blow off taking care of the people at the bottom, but we require them to subsidize our companies, and then the companies subsidize those of us who think it's normal to just eat cake.
The kicker? Having said all of this, I should be running to the dean to ask that my salary be cut and the surplus reallocated to one of the janitors. Guess how fast I'm doing that?
Edited to add: GREAT related post here.
And then...AHA! :The Magic Number"--Found it.
Thursday, January 12, 2006
Girls & Boys
I found this opinion piece from the Nation quite interesting. Katha Pollitt is countering the arguments of conservatives who say that gender bias in schools has now reversed. She recounts anecdotes from her own child's schooling, and from facebook.com, to argue that the charge of "feminization" of education is a myth.
I agree. This is the War on Christmas transferred to schools. The core complaint cited by Pollitt is that elementary and high schools have
In short? Pplllllllllllllllfff. Another maelstrom that's just so much hot air.
In other news, dear readers, classes started this week. I'm teaching (2 sections with MBAs, one with PhDs) and so my blogging time and attention have taken a hit. Sorry for the longer times between updates!
Edited to add: I just realized that I'm part of the problem! Here I am talking about feminization of education, and then I, a mere slip of a girl, toddle off in my kitten heels to dare to teach business to graduate students! The horror!
I agree. This is the War on Christmas transferred to schools. The core complaint cited by Pollitt is that elementary and high schools have
too many female teachers, too much sitting quietly, not enough sports and a feminist-friendly curriculum that forces boys to read--oh no!--books by women.Pollitt's own arguments aside, do conservatives really know so little about the times to which they harken so longingly? They should leaf through a Little Colonel book once in a while (The Little Colonel in Arizona has some relevant scenes). These tomes--paragons of the way things used to be circa 1910, when girls stayed out of politics and Blacks stayed in the servants' quarters--include some fascinating schoolhouse anthropology. Female teachers? Plenty of them. Sitting quietly? Much more quietly, and much more motionlessly, than anyone would accept today. (And the girls were just as fidgety as the boys.) Sports and extracurriculars? Little suggestion that they existed. Books by women? Hard to say, but I suspect the conservatives are right on that one.
In short? Pplllllllllllllllfff. Another maelstrom that's just so much hot air.
In other news, dear readers, classes started this week. I'm teaching (2 sections with MBAs, one with PhDs) and so my blogging time and attention have taken a hit. Sorry for the longer times between updates!
Edited to add: I just realized that I'm part of the problem! Here I am talking about feminization of education, and then I, a mere slip of a girl, toddle off in my kitten heels to dare to teach business to graduate students! The horror!
But just to keep score. Among tenured faculty in my program: Male, 8; Female, 1. And she's been living in Ireland for the past five years.
Thursday, January 05, 2006
Gah...
What a great day in political news!
Most of my favorite news sources (especially salon.com, Newsweek, and the Nation) carry items that ring in the New Year like a funeral dirge.
On salon, Sidney Blumenthal writes about the expansion of powers in the Bush presidency (call this article "Imperial Presidency #1"). He points out the familiar pattern of the administration in ignoring any input from federal agencies that doesn't support the predetermined conclusion. (Somewhat new to me were the repeated firings or career-ruining smearings of guys with "boots on the ground" in Baghdad, who dared to report that we hadn't been greeted with flowers.)
Truly scary, though: Bush adds his own caveats to congressional bills upon signing:
Imperial Presidency #2 (also in salon) contains this nugget, which reminds me of some of my more paranoid late-night conversations ("What if Bush declared that it was unsafe to change presidents in 2008 and suspended the elections?"):
And I won't even go into the possibility that Bush et al. tapped the phones of the wife of a Kerry campaign operative, bringing the ghosts of Watergate screeching back in as literal a manifestation as you could want.
* * *
On another note: the parallel headlines at CNN.com today. Ariel Sharon lies under sedation in Israel, unlikely to survive. A West Virginia miner lies in a coma in the US; no word on whether he'll recover. Two men suspended between living and dying. They could exchange places and recognize each other quite well. Their human experience at this moment is fundamentally equivalent. And yet the consequences for the world are so different, the meanings they represent more distant than the two locations, across the globe, where they sleep. Which is the larger meaning: the vigil around a hospital bed, the loved ones, the mechanical rise and fall of assisted lungs? Or the geopolitical stage, and the roles--one grand and crucial, one small like a speck of coal dust--that each has played?
Most of my favorite news sources (especially salon.com, Newsweek, and the Nation) carry items that ring in the New Year like a funeral dirge.
On salon, Sidney Blumenthal writes about the expansion of powers in the Bush presidency (call this article "Imperial Presidency #1"). He points out the familiar pattern of the administration in ignoring any input from federal agencies that doesn't support the predetermined conclusion. (Somewhat new to me were the repeated firings or career-ruining smearings of guys with "boots on the ground" in Baghdad, who dared to report that we hadn't been greeted with flowers.)
Truly scary, though: Bush adds his own caveats to congressional bills upon signing:
During his first term, President Bush issued an unprecedented 108 statements upon signing bills of legislation that expressed his own version of their content. He has countermanded the legislative history, which legally establishes the foundation of their meaning, by executive diktat. In particular, he has rejected parts of legislation that he considered stepped on his power in national security matters. In effect, Bush engages in presidential nullification of any law he sees fit. He then acts as if his gesture supersedes whatever Congress has done.Once my chin's off the floor, I can whisper: "So what is the meaning of 'rule of law,' anymore?"
Imperial Presidency #2 (also in salon) contains this nugget, which reminds me of some of my more paranoid late-night conversations ("What if Bush declared that it was unsafe to change presidents in 2008 and suspended the elections?"):
After all, if you can establish a presidential right to order torture (no matter how you manage to redefine it) as well as to hold captives under a category of warfare dredged up from the legal dustbin of history in prisons especially established to be beyond the reach of the law or the oversight of anyone but those under your command, you've established a presidential right to do just about anything imaginable.The imperial theme is echoed hesitantly in this week's issue of Newsweek, and in a more partisan piece on the Nation's website. The latter article argues that Bush needs to give up his imperialism or leave office, offering the following goad to those who lean Democratic (pun, if you call it that, intended):
The deeper challenge Bush has thrown down, therefore, is whether the country wants to embrace the new form of government he is creating by executive fiat or to continue with the old constitutional form. He is now in effect saying, "Yes, I am above the law--I am the law, which is nothing more than what I and my hired lawyers say it is--and if you don't like it, I dare you to do something about it."Now, this all seems quite separate from the issue of the Supreme Court (which, after all, connotes a separation of powers). But no. As Blumenthal points out in the first piece, above,
Not coincidentally, the legal author of this presidential strategy for accreting power was none other than the young Samuel Alito, in 1986 deputy assistant attorney general in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel. Alito's view on unfettered executive power, many close observers believe, was decisive in Bush's nomination of him to the Supreme Court.Strikes me that it's not Roe v Wade at stake in this nomination fight. It's constitutional democracy. Bush can recast laws as he signs them, can choose which ones to follow, can ignore those that are inconvenient. He can reject information from his own executive branch when it does not simply endorse his course of action. (Today, he can meet with a Who's Who of security advisers and blow them off as soon as he's pretended to listen.) He can act without regard to Congress. And with the right justices, he can do every bit of it with the blessing of the Supreme Court.
And I won't even go into the possibility that Bush et al. tapped the phones of the wife of a Kerry campaign operative, bringing the ghosts of Watergate screeching back in as literal a manifestation as you could want.
* * *
On another note: the parallel headlines at CNN.com today. Ariel Sharon lies under sedation in Israel, unlikely to survive. A West Virginia miner lies in a coma in the US; no word on whether he'll recover. Two men suspended between living and dying. They could exchange places and recognize each other quite well. Their human experience at this moment is fundamentally equivalent. And yet the consequences for the world are so different, the meanings they represent more distant than the two locations, across the globe, where they sleep. Which is the larger meaning: the vigil around a hospital bed, the loved ones, the mechanical rise and fall of assisted lungs? Or the geopolitical stage, and the roles--one grand and crucial, one small like a speck of coal dust--that each has played?
Wednesday, January 04, 2006
Rose Bowl, about to begin
The game's gonna start in a few minutes. And I admit it--I care about the Rose Bowl. I really want SC to win. I've avoided getting sucked into the identity of a school I just work for, especially when that school used to embarrass ASU when I was growing up.
But so what. I care.
USC, 28-24. Let's see what happens.
Edited to add: Well, that was a bit optimistic. Texas, 41-38. Exciting game, though!
But so what. I care.
USC, 28-24. Let's see what happens.
Edited to add: Well, that was a bit optimistic. Texas, 41-38. Exciting game, though!
Monday, January 02, 2006
Smoothie recipe
Since Sarah liked my soup recipe so much (see her blog), I thought I'd post another favorite. Not soup, this time. This is one of my favorite breakfasts.
Cherry-chocolate smoothie
Throw (softly!) into a blender the following, in order:
And this was partly just an excuse to use my new categories feature. We'll see if it works.
Cherry-chocolate smoothie
Throw (softly!) into a blender the following, in order:
- About 1.5 c of frozen cherries
- 1 scoop of soy protein powder (my favorite is SpiruTein chocolate, but Trader Joe's plain is cheaper)
- if you're feeling extra-chocoholic, some choc syrup or a scoop of Ghirardelli powdered chocolate
- 1 sm-med banana, broken into chunks and frozen at least a day
- 1 container yogurt (black cherry, vanilla, or plain--depending on how virtuous you want to be)
- chocolate soymilk up to the top of the cherries
- cherry juice (available at Trader Joes) to just below the top of the yogurt. If you can't get cherry juice--which I keep typing as "cheery juice," and that seems appropriate--then just use more soymilk.
And this was partly just an excuse to use my new categories feature. We'll see if it works.
Sunday, January 01, 2006
Good spyware instructions
Computer was acting funny yesterday--while I typed in Word, the window kept becoming inactive. I'd look at the screen after typing a sentence or two, and see that only the first word was actually there. I had to click back in the page to make it active again. Very frustrating.
Google led me to this page, where I saw the advice to do a big spyware/virus scan. The instructions from Chevy, about halfway down, are very useful, particularly in combination with the page referred to at greyknight17.com.
In short, the process (I've modified slightly) is: run Ad-Aware (program #1) then run SpyBot (program #2), and run the local virus scanner then an online virus scanner called TrendMicro. (All of these are free downloads.)
So far the problem has not recurred, and my wireless connection is a little more stable than usual. I'm blogging this so that I'll remember, next time, but hope this helps someone else.
Google led me to this page, where I saw the advice to do a big spyware/virus scan. The instructions from Chevy, about halfway down, are very useful, particularly in combination with the page referred to at greyknight17.com.
In short, the process (I've modified slightly) is: run Ad-Aware (program #1) then run SpyBot (program #2), and run the local virus scanner then an online virus scanner called TrendMicro. (All of these are free downloads.)
So far the problem has not recurred, and my wireless connection is a little more stable than usual. I'm blogging this so that I'll remember, next time, but hope this helps someone else.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)