For those of you who read regularly, I'm sorry I haven't posted in a while. Teaching as an adjunct doesn't pay shit, and one is left to take whatever irregular work comes one's way. So I was subbing for another professor while teaching my own classes and in addition working at a Sylvan Center. All of this on top of tryin to organize our belated honeymoon that we'll be taking in just a few short days. SO, that means I won't be writing for a while. I probably won't be back in town until January 4th. But man, I have some stories to tell about work. Let me just ask anyone out there if this makes sense to *anyone*: Our faculty advisory committee is co-chaired by an adminstrator. ?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!! And when I raise the question, I'm looked at as though I'm Satan and people talk about how nice the admin. is. No one seems to see the ethical problem, the conflict of interest, or hear a rational argument when it is given. Ugh, too much more to say about this, but I need to go to bed and tend to my wife-with-a-cold. Hasta.

This little story pretty much sums it up:

A woman in a hot air balloon realized she was lost. She reduced altitude and spotted a man below. She descended a bit more and shouted "Excuse me, can you help? I promised a friend I would meet him an hour ago, but I don't know where I am."

The man below replied, "You are in a hot air balloon, hovering approximately 10 metres above the ground. You are between 40 and 41 degrees north latitude and between 59 and 60 degrees west longitude."

"You must be an engineer," said the balloonist.

"I am," he replied, "how did you know?"

"Well," answered the balloonist, "everything you told me is technically correct, but I have no idea what to make of your information, and the fact is, I am still lost. Frankly, you've not been much help so far."

The man responded, "you must be in management."

"I am," she replied, "but how did you know?"

"Well," said the man, "you don't know where you are, or where you are going. You have risen to where you are due to a large quantity of hot air. You made a promise, which you have no idea how to keep, and you expect people beneath you to solve your problems. The fact is, you are in exactly the same position you were in before we met, but now, somehow, it's my fault."

I have nothing very exciting to report other than our bedroom is now a butter-yellow color. For what might very well be the first time since my wife and I got married, we had time to just lounge around. No place to which to travel, no other commitments we needed to tend to. We spent Thanksgiving at home by ourselves, which was very nice. We then headed to a friend's for some desert and coffee. Not the usual Thanksgiving stresses. The next couple of days we spent playing Go and Backgammon many, many times, watched movies and episodes of The Sopranos and Absolutely Fabulous on DVD, took our dog to an off-leash preserve, and participated in general lounging around the house. We got a bit fidgety and decided in the last coupe of days to finally paint our bedroom something other than white.

I am subbing for another professor this week, and fortunately her class is the same course as mine and is a day behind mine, which means no extra prep. Tomorrow is review in my class and Tuesday is an exam, so I don't even have to prep tonight. These past few days have been sorely needed and exceptionally rejuvenating.

On a final note, I give a huge shout out to my buddy Luke who just successfully defended his doctoral thesis. Congrats, Doctor Luke! You deserve those three letters that follow your name after all that hard work and bullshit.

If we consider that inflation hovers around 2.6% on average, to cover the falling purchasing power of the dollar, one must get a raise of at least the rate of inflation to make, in adjusted dollars, exactly what they made the year before. So, for example, if inflation some year is 3.0%, and your employer offers you a 3.0% "raise", you really haven't earned a raise in terms of the buying power of your salary. You will be no richer or poorer than you were the year before. If inflation in a given year is 3.0%, and your employer gives you a raise of 2.5%, you actually come out 0.5% poorer the following year.

Most unions bargain for salary increases annually that act as a COLA - cost of living adjustment. These annual increases are to offset inflation and changes in cost of living, so that at the very least, employees don't get poorer the longer they work for a company. For comparison (and example), the 2006 Social Security COLA is set at 4.1% (http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/latestCOLA.html).

Raises in salary must take into consideration not only inflation, but they must also take into consideration fluctuations in cost of living. Changes in what consumers pay for certain goods are reflected in the CPI - consumer price index (http://www.bls.gov/cpi/home.htm). The CPI is then used to calculate a Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA). The distinction between a COLA and the CPI is stated on the Bureau of Labor Statistics website:

"The CPI frequently is called a cost-of-living index, but it differs in important ways from a complete cost-of-living measure. BLS has for some time used a cost-of-living framework in making practical decisions about questions that arise in constructing the CPI. A cost-of-living index is a conceptual measurement goal, however, not a straightforward alternative to the CPI. A cost-of-living index would measure changes over time in the amount that consumers need to spend to reach a certain utility level or standard of living. Both the CPI and a cost-of-living index would reflect changes in the prices of goods and services, such as food and clothing that are directly purchased in the marketplace; but a complete cost-of-living index would go beyond this to also take into account changes in other governmental or environmental factors that affect consumers' well- being. It is very difficult to determine the proper treatment of public goods, such as safety and education, and other broad concerns, such as health, water quality, and crime that would constitute a complete cost-of-living framework."

SO, if we want people who work for a company to maintain their standard of living, i.e. not get poorer every year they work for said company, they must demand COLAs at bare minimum (which one could quickly figure is at least the inflation rate). A raise below the set COLA is in actuality a pay-cut.

COLAs - good for people who work for a living.

One more thing. From the Economic Policy Institute:

"In 1979, a woman working at the minimum wage earned 70% of the hourly wage of the median female worker (the woman right in the middle of the female wage scale). By 1998, that ratio had fallen to 52%. Similarly, in 1979 a single mother working full time at the minimum wage earned enough to lift a family of three (herself and two children) above the poverty line. By 1998, however, the same family would be 18% below the poverty line."

In addition, if a dollar bill was worth $1.00 in 1980, it's pruchasing power today would be $0.48.

Many people argue against progressive taxation, because they don't understand how federal income taxation works in the first place. Unfortunately, this ignorance is only perpetuated by the mass of websites and software programs that dumb down the information. Here is amore accurate description found at Moneychimp.com

"Your tax bracket is the rate you pay on the "last dollar" you earn; but as a percentage of your income, your tax rate is generally less than that. To take an example, suppose your taxable income was exactly $100,000 in 2003 and your status was Married filing separately; then your tax would be calculated like this:

(	$ 7,000 -	0 )	x .10 :	$ 700
(	28,400 -	7,000 )	x .15 :	3,210
(	57,325 -	28,400 )	x .25 :	7,231
(	87,350 -	57,325 )	x .28 :	8,407
(	100,000 -	87,350 )	x .33 :	4,175
	Total:	$ 23,723

This puts you in the 33% tax bracket; but as a percentage of your income, your tax is about 23.7%."

What this means is that the poorest of the poor are taxed at the same rate as the richest of the rich on the first $7,000. Although, overall, the person in the example above is taxed at an average rate 23.7, each person (wealthy and dirt poor) is taxed equivalently for the amount of money each has in each tax bracket. In essence, although our tax code looks progressive, it isn't. If we skimp out on the details and just look at broad averages, it can look deceivingly like the rich are taxed more on their money. This is not necessarily true, as the poorest of the poor can't participate in the 35% tax rate, because he or she never earns enough income to be taxed at that rate, and the richest person that does have income in that bracket does not pay that rate (35%) for his/her entire income. Rather, the rich guy only pays on how much of the income leaks into that bracket. Remember that his first $7,000 is taxed at the same rate as the lowest taxed person, the same holds true for the next chunk of his change that ends up in the second tax bracket.

Now that we understand why I don't weep at the rich woman's tax rate, let's look at a couple other things the wealthy have going for them. The first is that they get to deduct more because they spend more. Someone who earns $7,000 per annum will never spend enough to make deductions on his tax form. The woman who earns $200,000 will end up spending enough that she can deduct thousands, if not tens of thousands from her tax filing. What this means in many cases is that, after deductions, the wealthier individuals end up paying, LESS a percentage of their income in taxes than the poor.

Finally, let's talk about capital gains tax. Capital gains are the monies earned in interest from investments. Capital gains in 2000 were taxed at 10% for the first bracket and 20% for the second bracket (there only being two brackets, unlike income tax). Now, let's compare the people who earn their bread through work and those who earn it through investment, sippin' on their martinis. The person who works for a living will get taxed at the tax rates listed in the example above from moneychimp. The person who earns their income from capital gains while sitting back playing polo and drinking fine scotch will actually pay less in taxes than the person who earns the same amount from working. For example, in 2000, for two people each earning $100,000 a year, one from work and one from investments, the one earning her wage from working will pay approximately $29,600 in taxes. The one earning their $100,000 from capital gains will only pay approximately $19,600 in taxes. The person who earned her $100,000 from work will pay a tax rate 50% higher than the person who doesn't work and just collects from capital gains. THIS IS ASS-BACKWARDS. The only place where capital gains taxes exceed federal income taxes happen only in the case that the person working earns less than $28,000. But, of course, the comparison is irrelevant for that person, because he's only making $28,000 from work can't afford to invest and make income on capital gains; he's barely paying the bills. He's not even in the game for there to be any comparison.

In short, the less one makes, the more of one's income one might pay in taxes. Likewise, if one earns one's income through work, one pays more of one's income in taxes than the guy who does shit and just collects on capital gains. As you can hopefully begin to see from this small window into the world of taxation, the poor get fornicated by paying the larger percentage of their income in order to support the habits of the avarice-inflicted of society - those who do not work and get richer for just sitting on their asses (and collecting on capital gains). Workers of the world unite!

A comment from one of my readers:

When you are asked, "How are you" it is indeed correct to
reply, "I am good," not because you are saying that you are
morally good, but because "am" is a linking verb, and with
linking verbs, the adjective is preferred over the adverb.
That's how I understand it, at least. "Well" is used in
reference to health. 

The debate continues . . .

I still don't understand why it is that a PhD is required to teach at an undergraduate liberal arts college. Why does one need a research credential if one won't be training researchers or doing research? Let's not forget that before the PhD even existed, people with Masters degrees taught college, and people were just as smart and successful back then. Furthermore, why would a community college want a PhD? It doesn't make any sense to me considering that Community College is the farthest thing from a research university, and community colleges seem to place its greatest emphasis on teaching. Those of us who have been to college at any level know how terrible an academically credentialed person can be as a teacher. I actually think that in most cases the relationship between academic credentials and teaching talent is inversely proportional. There's become such hype about academic credentialing, when in actuality credentials mean very little as far as teaching ability goes. This also holds true for public school teachers that are required to get masters degrees. Why? One can be filled to the skull with theory and not have an idea of how to teach. I've taken classes with plenty of Dr.'s in education that had no idea how to teach at all. They were damned good researchers, though!

So, here I am - someone who has a BS in Physics from a good college, an MA in Education from an ivy league, and I can't get a job teaching physics at a community college, because I don't have a masters in Physics. Here's the kicker: every physics course taught at the community college level I've taught to high school students in very difficult circumstances, and my students did very well - 80% of them passed the calculus-based physics AP test (with an 80% or higher), the highest physics course offered at all of the community colleges I've looked at.

But I'm not allowed to teach full-time at the community college level, because I don't have some credential which is completely irrelevant to any courses I'll be teaching. Do I really need a graduate course in quantum mechanics to teach students about Newton's Laws and Freshman-level electromagnetism? Puh-lease.

This credential craze is just hype. It's keeping good teachers out of higher education and bad one's in.

I recently interviewed at a liberal arts college so that I might cover for one of their doctors that teaches calculus. Guess what? They took me. Why? Because of my extensive teaching experience. They were convinced because of my previous teaching experience with AP Physics: C that I could teach Calculus (I had to do it for the physics students), and they cared more about the fact that I could teach the material, not that I had taken 20 credits of math beyond Calculus.

Granted, in order to teach Calculus, someone has to have taken it and understood it. But does one need a Masters degree or PhD in Mathematics to teach Calculus? Many high school teachers teach calculus (and do it well)! It would be asinine for them to have required such a credential for such a job at the liberal arts college, and fortunately they saw this.

Now, granted, I understand that if I were to be hire full-time as a math professor at a 4-year college, a Masters degree should be required, But I still argue that a PhD is superfluous for all professoriate except those that will be teaching at a research university.

Note to journalists: May implies permission, might implies probability.

"I'd like to ask another question if I might" (NPR Interview). Well, of course you might ask another question. As a matter of fact, considering you're doing an interview, it is very likely. What is correct to say is "If I may", because you are implicitly asking the interviewee if he or she would take another question.

Likewise, "Do you think you'll make it to the party tonight?" "I may go". Of course you may go, otherwise you wouldn't have been invited. You already have permission, and that's obvious. What is more accurate is to say "I might go", i.e. there is a probability you will go.

How many times do I need to see and hear these errors in the NEW YORK TIMES AND NPR before I start writing nasty letters to the Editor? You people are JOURNALISTS. Did you not take English classes? How many times does a second grade teacher have to say "You may go to the bathroom." when you ask "Can I go to the bathroom?" MAY IMPLIES PERMISSION IS GRANTED.

Another one: good and well. "How are you?" "I am good." Really? Good is a what. What are you? I am good. Good implies virtuous or (morally) right. Well means better than bad. When speaking of corporate share holders, David McReynolds made this distinction, saying, "Shareholders don't want to do good, they want to do well". Doing good for society is not the same as doing well for society. "I am doing good" is not the same as "I am doing well". The former means you are performing acts of goodness. The latter means you are not feeling ill or anxious or afraid, etc. In the above example well means doing well financially. An example of doing good financially would be to donate money to a food bank.

Lesson over.

A CNN poll: Do you think France is doing enough to stop the violence. My answer: NO. Do you know why I say no before you start calling me a fascist and promoter of police violence? I say NO, because sending out the Property Guards (police) does NOthing to help the violence. So I'm saying that France isn't doing enough, because what it is doing does nothing. Let me explain further. Addressing the topical symptoms of a larger, root (or radical) problem does not actually cure any part of the problem, rather it only eliminated the symptoms, and because the symptoms seem to hjave disappeared, people think the problem has disappeared, and then the problem continues to grow under the surface until even worse symptoms appear later.

If you are using a pressure cooker and the top blows off, using excessive force to put the cover back on might stop the steam from coming out for a couple of minutes, but if you don't turn the fire off that heats the pressure-cooker, the top will blow off again, and next time with even greater force.

So does sending in the French police and enacting curfews help stop the problem? NO, it stops the symptom . . . temporarily, and, in fact, makes the problem worse. So are the French doing enough to stop the violence? Well, in the short term, yes. In the long term they are making it worse.

It's been some time since I've written. Between two "paying" jobs, being a delegate for my union, job applications, and trying to make last-minute plans for our 2-week honeymoon in the Caribbean, I'm totally scattered. My day planner isn't even helping me much. Of course, when I'm driving in my car I have many of those you-know-what-really-grinds-my-gears? moments, but when I get home I have long forgotten about it or have to take care of a gazillion other things. Man, and we don't even have kids! You know who America's hardest workers are? Single parent wage-slaves. Fuck all those CEOs makin' millions off the sweat of others' labor. The moms and dads that works two or three jobs on a crappy wage just to support her/himself and a child (or more) to take care of - those are the American heroes. The fortitude and stamina these people must have is superhuman.

If I hear "incentivize" one more time I'm going to slit my wrists. Whoever made that word up and all the buzzword addicts should be shot. Incentivize. Puh-lease. "yes, yes, input incentive 5x +$500 - job stress = increased output. . . all humans are machines all humans are machines". Incentivizing the labor force sounds like "increase the current on those robots". Ugh. fascists suck.

"When they have the right temperament, [pit bulls] are really averse to biting people, almost to the point of appearing cowardly when confronted by a human . . . [o]ne of the most important qualities in organized dog fighting was that no matter how frenzied the dogs became in their excitement, they could never, ever bite the handler." (Dogfancy, October 2005)

That's right all you idiots thinking you've got a tough guard dog: your dog was BRED TO BE PASSIVE TOWARDS HUMANS. So all you gangsta's out there: you're dumb. And you give my loving dog a bad name.

So why all the pit bull bites? Because it's the same morons that buy these dogs as guard dogs that also abuse them. And, ANY dog, no matter what breed, becomes aggressive when abused - even a Lhasa Apsu or Poodle. So the Joe Q. Public's emotion toward the breed is ironically the opposite what it should be, no thanks to the drama queens on the local network news and the idiots that take what they say as Truth. Oh yeah, and no thanks to the imbeciles who abuse these dogs because they actually think they've got a tough guard dog. Actually, Mr. Toughguy, you're dog is a wuss and coward when it comes to humans. You might as well be walking a Pomeranian down the block: "[t]he American Temperament Test Society, Inc. breed statistics as of December 2004 show an 83.4% passing rate for the [pit bull] as compared to an 81% overall pass rate" (Wikipedia).

You take a breed that has one of the most loving dispositions towards humans and you abuse that love to the point of making the dog aggressive. That doesn't make you tough; it adds cowardice to your stupidity. Why don't you try abusing a dog that really isn't so willing to take your abuse, a dog that actually is "tough" when it comes to humans? Try and pull your abusive stunts on it. Then, unlike the loving and passive pit bull, who will do anything to please its master, you'll have your hand bit off like it should be, and maybe, if we're lucky, your dog will kill you in your sleep and save you from your own misery and the pit bull from a bad reputation. But, of course, you're too much of a coward to try that now, aren't you?

For Autumn:

After the harvest,
The razed corn lies,
Like surrendered battalions
Calling out to the winds:
"Come, cover me in winter's breath"

"As of 2001, the most recent year for which data are available, part-time appointments accounted for 45% of all faculty positions, and another 19% of faculty were employed full-time, but off the tenure track. Together, such contingent appointments [ones without any long-term commitment made by the institution] make up more than half of all faculty appointments in American higher education. Just 36% of faculty held the full-time tenured or tenure-track appointments that used to be the norm."
- American Association of University Professors
--

On part-time and adjunct professors:

"The [Coalition on the Academic Workforce] survey tears away the veil of lies about the new economy - that if you get a good education and become an expert in the knowledge economy, you will get a good job," comments AAUP staff member Richard Moser. "Here we have some of the most highly educated professionals in the country, and they're barely making a minimum wage."
- Chronicle of Higher Education, December 1, 2000

Haiku for Sentient Beings:

When standing in the dark
You mistake a rope for a snake
How embarrassed you are

I don't think I've ever been witness to such a beautiful day. The weather is absolutely perfect: 67 degrees, clear skies, cool breeze, fall foliage.

I was given teaching assignments next semester (2 courses - which is as much as they can give me as an adjunct). So I have a full adjunct load. That means I'm 1 credit hour short of being half time, and the pay still reflects this (my annualized salary is about $12,000/year with no benefits), but nonetheless, it's good to know there's work next semester. Being an adjunct means you never know when the semester you're teaching will be your last.

According to the October 2005 Industrial Worker, using complied data from the Economic Policy Institute (www.epinet.org):

With the US Census bureau setting poverty at $19,307, poverty rate in 2004 was 12.7%, and 17.8% of all American children live in poverty.

In 2004 19% or all workers are without health insurance.

There many more interesting statistics in the article, demonstrating how the lower 60% of Americans are losing income, while the top are gaining, and how the top 20% of American households now earn 50.1% of all income.

But I would like to take a second to note the following:

If national unemployment in October 2004 was approximately 5.1% (US Dept. of Labor), and the poverty rate was 12.7%, this means that 7.6% of Americans living in poverty were not "unemployed". There are two possibilities for this: 1) they fell of the rolls - this means that after some time, people who are unemployed are no longer considered unemployed, because they give up looking for a job (even though they still might not have one), or 2) they are working and poor. So of the total number of people living in poverty, over half have either given up after months of searching or they are working and still living in poverty. To be honest, if I knew that most of the people in my impoverished boat, when finding a job, still live in poverty, I might give up and fall off the rolls myself.

The American dream of busting your tail and working up "the ladder" is a hoax. Plenty of people bust their tail working at a job and fall farther and farther into debt and poverty as they are working. Middle class workers are coming to realize that as a commodity (as Human Resources departments sees labor - just look at the title, "Human Resources". Humans are treated like gasoline or paper - just one other resource for production), they are expendable and will be cut off when downsizing takes place in order to maximize profit margins to make richer those who were rich enough to invest in stock to begin with.

And for those of you who like to bitch about federal taxes, Human Resources takes about 34 cents on the federal tax dollar, and the military takes about 48 cents on the dollar. That 34 cents? That's not just welfare, buddy. That's: Education, Health/Human Services, HUD, Food/Nutrition programs, Labor Department and the Soc. Sec. Admin (http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm) And the military still outspends all of that.

Something else to consider (from a 1996 report by the National Center for Policy Analysis):

"# Only 43 percent of all poor families receive food stamps . . .

# Only 19 percent of all poor families live in public housing or receive housing subsidies . . .

# Only 41 percent of all poor families are covered by Medicaid . . .

# Amazingly, 46 percent of all poor families receive no means-tested benefit of any kind from government . . ."

So if your going to bitch about taxes, then go picket the Pentagon. Or better yet, go picket your local Enron. According to the Libertarian group, _The Cato Institute_, in their report for the 105th Congress:

"There are more than 100 such corporate subsidy programs in the federal budget today, with annual expenditures of roughly $75 billion. Terminating those programs could save taxpayers more than $400 billion over the next five years."

Maybe instead of corporate subsidy, Bush can give the American impoverished worker a bigger tax break.

Bush has started pushing rhetoric reminiscent of the Vietnam war: that if the insurgents control Iraq, it will lead to a domino effect where other country may fall victim to "the terrorists". What a bizarre way to admit that he got us into another Vietnam. A total contortion of responsibility. For years, we've heard that this will not be another Vietnam, that it *is* not another Vietnam, but instead of now admitting that it is, the President has ramped up the Vietnam/Cold-War rhetoric invoking the Domino theory. In one swift move, he admitted that Iraq is another Vietnam while he pushed everyone else's attention away from the fact that he did just that. Once again, the left was correct, and now the President agrees: we're in another Vietnam - another ideological war against dominos falling in favor of an ideology we disagree with - a war in which there is no end in sight and in which we've see no improvement over the past 3 years. If anything, things have progressively gotten worse. And this war, from generals' testimonies, is anticipated to last at least 9 years. Shock and Awe, baby. We're going to go in there and they will throw roses at us and hail us as their liberators. Yeah, right. And I'm the profit Mohammed.

While the Bush administration is doing what it does best, distracting everybody from the issue-at-hand, don't forget that Bin Laden is still at large, we're wrapped in another Vietnam, the fuck-ups regarding Katrina still have to be dealt with, and we have a man who doesn't believe in the UN as our representative there.

Or, um. Wait. I forgot: all the drama queens are now leeching onto Bush's new nominee. Oh, all the woe we spilled for New Orleans. Well, we don't care about you now. We cut a check for Red Cross, now you're on your own. Now I have to talk about Bush's nominee, the judge who was never a judge.

WTF is up with that anyway? Bush is going to put someone who has NEVER been a judge on the highest legal body of our nation? Are you on fucking crack? The Roberts thing was one thing, but this. . . this is pure stupidity. This is a "he he, I'm the fucking president, I'll do whatever I like, even if it's dumb and flouts this nations principles". At least Roberts had been a judge. I mean, why not nominate me? I think I'd do pretty well at judging things.

Being an attorney is different than being a judge. And only a numbskull like Bush would think one is just a promotion from the other. A Supreme Court judge has to actually account for, and articulate convincingly, both sides of an argument - a philosophical argument. This is unlike the attorney, who has to argue a factual case and only represent one side, strategizing *at the expense of the other side*. This woman is also a politician.

So, Mr. Bush, what was that about not legislating from the bench? You're going to take a politician - a former city-counsel woman and "Bush loyalist" - a lawyer with no judging experience and one who attends a conservative evangelical church and put her on the Supreme Court? a) She does not represent even close to a majority of America b) SHE'S NOT A JUDGE and c) SHE'S A PARTISIAN.

Oh, and this is the kicker. She was on Bush's committee for finding nominees. And she didn't recuse herself from the committee when she was being sussed out for their nomination. Now THAT's *real* integrity. Roberts makes me nervous. This woman is dangerous.

We almost lost our dog yesterday. It was the longest and most terrifying two hours of my recent history. My wife and I were camping in a Wisconsin State Park, and after a beautiful afternoon and night, we decided to do one more hike the following morning before heading back home. We took Roscoe and started out on what we thought would be a quick 2-hour, 3-mile hike. Roscoe has a habit of leading in front of us, sniffing out the trail and occasionally heading off the trail for a romp, but he was never more than 100 feet from me or farther away from earshot or eyesight. I've hiked and backpacked with Roscoe on populated trails and in the backcountry of the Cascade Mountains in winter. He's never disappeared. But about 2.5 miles into our hike, we hadn't seen Roscoe for a few minutes. He loves to swim, and we were near the Wisconsin River, so we assumed he went in for a swim. But he didn't come when we called him. Nothing. We didn't hear him run off to chase anything. We didn't hear him bark or get into an altercation. Nothing. It was like a silent alien abduction. He just disappeared. It was so bizarre. I raised him since he was 8 weeks old, and he's off-leash 95% of the time, and he's only run off once when there was a storm. But out hiking he's the trail dog, he found our way back to a trail when I had gotten lost once in the wilderness. He's good. And smart. It just didn't make sense. Stephanie couldn't make sense of it. Did coyotes eat him up? Did he drown? He wouldn't just up and go; numerous times before, when he was ahead, we would find him waiting for us at a fork in the trail wanting to know which way to go. He would come back down the trail to see where we were if he hadn't see us in a while. Where would he have gone and why? For two hours we ruminated over these questions. Stephanie and I backtracked, the split up at the fork where we lost him, thinking he probably went up one or the other. We met back at the car having not found him, and then we went back down to where we lost him to try one last time.

He still was not there.

We hiked back to the car, slowly, sadly and wondered if we had seen our dog for the last time. I knew that if Roscoe didn't find his way to people by nightfall he probably was gone for good. I knew he wouldn't be lost, but I knew that he could be dead.

When we arrived back at our car, exhausted, thirsty and hungry Stephanie checked the cell phone, and there was a message from the welcome center: Roscoe had found his way to the manager's garage, and he was tied up out front of his house. We have no idea how her got there, but he was happy to see us. Somehow he got away from us. Was it the rain; did it spook him? Did he chase an animal so far that he was no longer in earshot?

Regardless, I kneeled in front of my dog and cried all of the tears I was anxiously holding and repressing when I knew there was a very good chance we lost him. Of course, the Ranger who was waiting for us so that he could give us a citation decided that now was the opportune time to lecture us on why they have a leash law at the park. Not once did he do this, but three times. Now, I understand the guy has a job to do, and I understand that I'll need to pay a fine. But lecturing me on a leash law isn't going to be what puts Roscoe on a leash next time. It's the fact that I almost lost him. I told the Ranger that I didn't need a lecture on leash laws at that time, and that I'll just pay the fine, to which he responded "Well, I think you do." You think a grown man crying about the fact that he almost lost his dog needs a lecture about leash laws? I think god gave me that lecture quite clearly when Roscoe disappeared. Oh, this was the other doozy: "this is a perfect example of why we have a leash law." No, idiot. You have a leash law because the State of Wisconsin doesn’t want to be held liable for passively condoning dogs being off-leash. The State of Wisconsin doesn't give a shit whether or not I loose my dog, which was exemplified by the Ranger's total inability to help us find him when we reported Roscoe lost. So don't lecture me about your revenue-generating, cover-our-ass law as if you actually give a shit about my dog or me. My wife and I were going to give a generous donation to the park, because we felt bad for placing such a burden on the employees, but after being treated so poorly by a Ranger, whose only concern was maintaing a power trip, we decided that the citation will be all we donate. What an asshole.

BUT. All of this is really is insignificant. It wouldn't be a post if I didn't rant about something, now would it. We're just glad to have Roscoe back. We would have paid any amount to have him found. Now here he lies, on our living room carpet, silently sleeping and dreaming of the deer he chased that cloudy afternoon on the Wisconsin River. We know one day Roscoe will have to leave us, but we pray that it will be from old age.

New York Times, October 1, 2005:

"In a blistering report, the investigators, from the Government Accountability Office, said the [G. W. Bush] administration had disseminated "covert propaganda" in the United States, in violation of a statutory ban."

Why does it take professional journalists 4 years to figure out what the left has been saying for years?

The left was correct about there being no WMDs. The left was correct that the administration would use 9/11 as an excuse to attack Iraq (this was circulating well before Bush made his plans public). The left was correct about Iraq turning into a Vietnam. The left was correct about the war creating a greater terrorist threat. The left was right about the social security crisis being manufactured as a means of distracting from Iraq.

But no one wants to listen to the "crazy left". Let me correct that: no one wants to believe the left, so they stand in denial. They stand in denial until the truth is standing in front of them hammering away on their skulls.

If all the drama queens rushing to the aid of Katrina victims so they can feel better about themselves actually gave a shit about people losing their homes, they would spend their extra time fighting homelessness. They would donate annually to their local homeless shelter. If they cared about people who have no food, they would fight poverty and donate regularly to their local food banks. But you know what? People don't. It takes a tragedy that everyone saw coming to create a drama for everyone to participate in so they can once again escape their own nothingness. So you donated money to the Red Ross? Good for you. It'll pay for some guy's salary. You're just putting a band-aid on a systemic problem that deserves more than your one-time "I did something now I can go back to my normal life of bitching about taxes". A $100 a plate dinner to raise funds for the Red Cross? Bah. Donate that to a local homeless shelter (or even one in Baton Rouge) if you really want the most bang for your buck. But no, you just want an easy way to assuage your guilty conscience. So go ahead, write that check, and forget about the people who lose their homes every day, or the people who are starving every day, or the people who lose everything due to corporate "downsizing" or lose their retirement plans dues to corporate "bankruptcy". THEY are the victims, not of Mother Nature, but of the system we all participate in and perpetuate. But perhaps that would be too frightening an issue for you to confront. It's easier to vicariously live through someone else's suffering than to realize that every time you buy at Wal-Mart you create it. I hope you feel good about yourselves. Hypocrites.

Look for the Northern Lights tonight and tomorrow night.

Just a small reminder on this fourth anniversary of 9/11:

OSAMA BIN LADEN IS STILL AT LARGE.

(and we're stuck in Iraq after "looking" for WMD that never existed).

My heart goes out to all those who lost loved ones on 9/11, and to those who have lost and will lose loved ones in Iraq (both American and Iraqi, for we all love and mourn the same).

A-fricken-men, brother:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8866.htm

At the bottom, you will see a link for the full video. If you have 47 minutes, you should watch it. God bless you, Mr. George Galloway.

I can't believe our fe'ral [sic] government is using the head of FEMA as their fall guy. I could understand the President doing that, because he won't take blame for anything, but Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic Minority Leader? Puh-lease. FEMA has been relegated to some perfunctory organization headed by the Department of Vaterland Security, and its budget has been perpetually cut. What's the head of FEMA to do when his hands are tied both in responsibility and in budget? The fact of the matter is that we've known for years and years that N.O. was going to go under water, and that it was only a matter of time, but regardless of the "please" [or pleas] from LA politicians and engineers, the fer'al government ignored the threat (sound familiar?). And it wasn't ignored by FEMA. The federal budget (created by the president and approved by congress) has never had "room" to deal with protecting the Big Easy from the inevitable. You know who deserves blame? The President and Congress - NOT FEMA.

This is why I am so reluctant to donate money. I give money to the federal government every year, and had it been up to me, I would have started allocating money for the N.O. project years ago when I first learned that it was going to go under. But my government decided rather to spend the money on corporate tax breaks and a floundering war in Iraq. If I give money, it will only perpetuate the habits of our government. Bush's "wave of compassion" is what he depends on. Why should he lobby for funding schools and FEMA when he knows that such things will tug on the heart strings of America in such a way that people will open their coffers, and he won't have to worry about raising taxes. You see? The education crisis is manufactured. We have money to fix schools, but our government chooses not to. It would be much easier to allocate money for things the public does not support (like the War), and then allow the remaining vacuum in the budget to be filled by the "compassion" of others donating their bake sales as an "incidental tax" that never becomes formal. Similarly, why should government officials have spent money on protecting N.O. if they knew that people would voluntarily excise an "incidental tax" to Red Cross if such a disaster hit.

So, in the big picture of things, are we really helping by donating money to Red Cross? I personally think everyone who is donating money to Red Cross should put that money into a campaign to reconstitute our government with people who will actually heed the warnings of those who know best. Every time we pick up the tab that our government refuses to pay, they have an excuse to do it again. and again. and again.

Our (my wife and I) home is open to university faculty looking to relocate, we've volunteerd to foster a dog that has been rescued from N.O., but we're not sending any money. I sent money last year in my tax statement. But those on capital hill aren't giving it to the Red Cross as I would have it. I don't want to donate money now; I want the government to do what's right with the money I donated last year.

Well done:
http://www.markfiore.com/animation/gras.html

Bush is nominating a person who has never sat on the Supreme Court to be its Chief Justice? Is he really that stupid? If I were a Republican I would be appalled. Nominate Thomas or Scalia or something, at least those nut balls have experience on the Court. The only other thing this could amount to is an opportunity for more dissent regarding Roberts' nomination. If there was some hesitation last week, there will certainly be more now. So Roberts was a clerk for Rehnquist. So what? Any jackass can learn to look up cases on a database and type up someone else's dictation. A justice must be able to THINK, and placing someone with no experience for the culture of the Supreme Court into its position of leadership is dangerous and can only amount to confusion and upheaval in the Court.

I honestly think Bush has just given up on trying to be political, because he's come to realize, a) he is incapable of compromise or rational discourse and b) he's comfortably in his second term. He doesn't give a shit about the reputation of the Republican Party or what the populace thinks. He figures he's in his second term, he's got all of his buddies in positions of power, and he'll just set everything up to his liking now that he is in a practically untouchable position. The members of his party should be protesting. Bush has shown and angry, violent disregard for common sense and American democratic values. Bush's motto should be "Ask not what you can do what your country, but what your country can do for you!" Asshole.

I finally have some breathing room. I was in Chicago last weekend after my fist week of teaching a couple of sections of Intermediate Algebra at the college. I was really beat from that first week and then I found myself in the car with Stephanie as we drove 4 hours to Chicago on a Friday afternoon right after I finished teaching. Sunday afternoon, we were back on the road driving another 4 hours back home, only this time in separate cars (I just bought my sister's 10 year old Nissan). After getting back into Iowa Sunday night at around 7, I had to prep for Monday's classes. We also got new furniture, and on Monday, I spent all afternoon and evening putting it together, saving myself an hour at night to prep. The next day, more furniture, a dinner party with Stephanie's department, and then back home at 9 and more prep to do. By the time I hit the pillow last night, I hadn't slept well nor had a moment's rest for almost a week. Finally, today I feel like I can breath. I got about 8 hours of sleep, which was the most I had had lately, and am caught up with course work and the furniture is finished (for now).

Nonetheless, Stephanie and I will leave on Friday, after my classes, to fly to MA for our East Coast marriage celebration, meaning these next few days we are again cramming ourselves into tighter schedules to make sure that when we get back on Monday we will be able to breath a bit before diving back into teaching. I still have a couple more pieces of furniture to look forward to, but at least, they will not be imposing themselves on me in the midst of other stressful events and goings-on.

Over and out.

Soooooo tired. Too many things happening in such a short time frame.

Spalding Gray swam to Cambodia, and Garrison Keillor will likely soon retire to Lake Wobegone. Who will be left to tell America stories? I mourn the day when the story-tellers disappear and no one is waiting to follow in their tradition. A mournful day it will be.

First I get a letter from the TC alumni association asking me for money, now I get a mail with my registration code to register for courses. Now, I'm either a student or an alumni. Which is it? I still don't have my diploma yet, and no matter how many times I phone or email, I still get announcements as if I'm a student. Next thing you know, they'll start drafting Federal Student loans in my name. You couldn't pay me enough to go back there, let alone convince me to give money. You'd find greater efficacy in a Stalinist Russia bread line. Bah.

Four years ago I was denied health insurance due to "history of depression", now I apply for health insurance, and I am denied dues to "history of asthma and allergies with multiple medication and elevated liver function". First off, doesn't it seem odd that people deny you health insurance, because you actually NEED it? It is more Orwellian doublespeak than Orwell. Second, what percentage of the population in this country has asthma and allergies? Probably at least 30%, and anyone who has it takes meds for it. As for the liver thing, they did a biopsy and found that every thing was fine. Just because my liver likes to work harder than every one else's is no reason to deny health insurance.

So I call Iowa State for their we-cover-the-uninsured-program. $300-400 a month! Now, if someone is calling the State for health insurance, because they can't get insurance elsewhere, chances are they won't be able to pay $300-400/month! This county is so fucked up. Take the profit out of healthcare!!!! National Healthcare for all! Read the August 2nd and 3rd posts by me about England's healthcare here:

http://seamusinindia.blogspot.com/

We need a for-profit medical industry like we need another Enron.

We went to Madison over the weekend, which was an excellent idea proposed by our friend who lives there. We needed to get out of here. The phone has been ringing nonstop with well-wishers, and, although we love it, it is a lot of communicating for the both of us. We've been trying to plan two celebrations with our parents and some friends, and things just get messier and messier. It seems that the whole purpose of eloping may have flown right out the window. A "hey we should see my parents" has nearly turned into a wedding reception . . . for both. I'm not complaining; I'm just surprised how confusing it all can become, even though we quietly eloped. Anyway, we hopped into the car, drove a couple of hours to Madison, stayed up until 5 AM talking, and good conversation was had by all. I also saw a good friend of mine that I hadn't seen in at least a year who showed up unexpected (to me - my other friend had planned it as such). We found out that he is engaged as well. I'm exhausted, and thus I am not very sharp-witted right now. I apologize for the matter-of-fact form that this post takes.

PS - Our bug light (the yellow bulbs one can buy) attracts more bugs than our white floodlight. The moths don't come near it, but hundreds of these other odd flying insects have arrived in droves. Go figure.

Stephanie and I mailed out our marriage announcments to our parents on Saturday. My parents got it in less than one business day and ended up knowing that we eloped before we had done it. Stephanie's parents' announcement was lost in the mail!!! I love the US Postal Service -- always unpredictable when you need them to be.

Stephanie and I eloped today. I'm not kidding.

A gross example of the ills of our society lies with its obsession over technology. In thinking about funding in universities and the knowledge mill that universities have become, is it any wonder that sciences have come to rule? I do not mean to imply that the sciences in no way deserve funding, but they do not receive funding because our society values science qua science - knowledge for the sake of pursuing knowledge or of becoming learned. Rather, science is valued, because of its direct influence on material production and our abilities to not only manipulate our material environment, but, as psychology has become the handmaiden of positivist research, to also manipulate our fellow human beings.

It is no surprise that university departments are funded largely by foundations. No different is the case of universities being driven in the direction of market forces, as is the case of medical research funded by a pharmaceutical company perpetually in favor of pharmaceutical research. The fact that the physical and biological sciences receive the most amount of funding in our university system is indicative of our societies bias toward those areas of research, or the value our society places on it. We must, though, be determined to maintain the distinction between scientific research and technological research. Most people care about new gadgets, a new pill to make their ailments disappear, or the ability to explain and thus manipulate their environment. The lack of funding for the social sciences and humanities in our society only demonstrates the poverty in our values. We value pseudo-objectivity of science rather than to the common-sense world of the humanities. We care less about wisdom and more about manipulation. We care less about learning and more about regurgitating, less about the pursuit of truth and more about the construction of it, less about finding the joy in life and more about maximizing pleasure. We clutter our lives with nonsense and gadgetry only to quickly become bored and find something new. This perpetual unease with stability and ourselves forces a longing into us that mandates an ever-flashier world. Instead of looking at what we have and dwelling in the meanings and objects of the day, we actively pursue temporary distractions from our pain and create new objects to obsess over. That obsession soon looses novelty, and we seek something new. This insatiable capricious curiosity demands the manufacture, materially or ideologically, of new distractions. This creates a market demand, or rather the market exploits this need, and produces technology to feed such hunger. This market requires constant knowledge production from scientists, it demands nothing of the meaning-makers and wisdom-seekers of the humanities.

The social sciences really differ little in their cow-towing to the masters of manipulation. Psychology and social theory only recently became "scientized" – a hundred years ago the philosophers were those who studies the psyche as well as society. Now both courses of study have become impoverished and limited to the use of mathematics and statistics under the pretense that these methods are grounded in some sort of permanent Platonic ideal. Math is created, people. Some guy makes up a few axioms and then starts writing theorems. Applying math to society might give us a means of looking at the psyche or society, but we must realize that math arises out of that which it claims to study – namely the psyche, which is formed in part by social bonds. The eyeball cannot see itself perfectly, the razor cannot cut itself, and scientific studies on the human are nothing more than an approximation.

How do we convince humanity that the study of humanity is important? How ironic that humanity is fascinated with the material world only in so far as it satiates their neurosis rather than facinated with study of the neurosis itself? This perhaps was the impetus behind's Plato's ideal of the philosopher kings ruling society – without the value of wisdom, we become thoughtless hedonists. The banality of Modern America is grounded in humanity's obsession with technology.

Some summer fun for all my NYC friends:

http://www.iww.org/en/node/1157

If you are thinking of going to graduate school (either for Master's or PhD) I recommend this book highly (it was recommended to me by a friend who had it recommended to him by a friend, and so it goes):

_Getting What You Came For: The Smart Student's Guide to Earning a Master's or Ph.D._, by Robert L. Peters, Ph.D.

If you are thinking of getting your Ph.D. to become an academic (especially in the social sciences or humanities), this is also an excellent book to read prior to embarking:

_We Scholars: Changing the Culture of the University_, by David Damrosch, Professor of English and Comp. Lit at Columbia University in NYC.


Here's a stat from the former book:

"A study by Ramiro Valdez at a northeastern school of social welfare found that, on a standardized scale where 100 equaled the amount of stress experienced by someone whose spouse had just died, doctoral students in their first year scored an average of 313 points."

President Bush: "I do not support the further destruction of human life" [but I'm fine killing tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians, putting our own population at risk by reneging on environmental laws, maintaining a nuclear arsenal, destroying the quality of life of the working in poor in my own country, and murdering the integrity of my country, etc, etc]. What a jackass. Actually, I think anyone who supports this man or thinks he does any good for this country is a jackass. I have yet to hear a cogent argument supporting anything Bush does. Most of it is banal ideological rhetoric. Freedom! Yeah, we love freedom! If they paused for a moment to ask themselves what freedom is, exactly, I don't think they'd come up with a better definition (or lack thereof) than any of the most brilliant minds of our species have come up with since the beginning of out history. The most pernicious enemy of democracy is groupthink.

I called TC, because my diploma was never mailed. Of course, the turn it around on me and say "well, we never got your paparework." Naturally, they never got the approriate paperwork becausew they never sent it to me to fill out in the first place. So I ask for the fax number so I can fax the necessary request. I type up a request, print it out, spend an hour trying to get it faxed, and following all natural laws of TC ability, the fax machine on thheir end never picked up. My God. Things ran better in the third world countries Ive been to. Seriously.

I just got hired as an adjunt math professor at the local community college. Math isn't really my passion, but it will be good experience. The job is half-time (2 classes per term) and pays 12k a year salary with no benifits. Fortunately, that's above norm salary for adjunt professors (believe it or not). There's room to become a full-time professor there after about a year, if I decide that's what I want to do. I would probably end up becomeing a full-time physics professor (as that was my major), but in order to be a full-time professor there, I would need 10-12 hours of graduate credit in my area. This means that I would once again have to get into a masters program, but this time in physics and at the local University. I'm still waiting to hear back from another part-time job at the local university, and I need to find a way to get medical insurance. God Bless Amerika.

Unfortunately, the PhD does not make one a philosopher or theorist in this country; it makes one a scholar of the subject. Instead of going the ing of the subject, PhD's have become professional academics, i.e. they have become professional *commentators* on their fields. I never found people philosophizing in my philosophy classes. Rather I heard people talk about other philosophers and quoting someone who wrote something about someone else.

I think the case might vary in the hard sciences, where one must be a scientist in order to earn one's PhD (as far as I know). But you do not have to be a sociologist to get your PhD in Sociology or a philosopher to get a PhD in philosophy. Basically, it only means you can BS about your subject ad infinitum and ad nauseum and on cue. We must be cautious not to jump to a common logical error and assume that because the PhD only proves the above that one cannot *also* be an excellent intellectual as a sociologist or philosopher. But I make the distinction between academic and intellectual, between scholar, whose job it becomes to publish publish publish publish about commentary on other people's work, even if its crap, under the pressures of market forces and modern competitive marketplace of the universities; and the person who truly seeks knowledge, wisdom and wonderment in the world. Again, academic and intellectual not mutually exclusive, but also not necessarily coupled.

Time for The Daily Show with John Stewart. Now there's a sharp guy whose intellect can put anybody to shame.

I just phoned TC, because I have yet to receive my diploma in the mail. As usual, they immediately started to blame me, "did you send back the form with the label? did you change your address?" I haven't heard from them since May except to beg me for money. Remember what I was saying about incompetence there? It's bad. One giant epitome of why people hate bureaucracy.

I read an article in Academe, the magazine of AAUP, about social class in elite universities and how it is completely ignored on the discourse on diversity:

http://www.aaup.org/publications/Academe/2005/05ja/05jacase.htm

I was happy to read it (and happy it was written), because I made a similar argument (although not as eloquently) on a fellowship application I sent in. You see, neither of my parents ever earned their Bachelor's degree, and, although by the time I hit high school we were comfortably middle-class or even upper-middle-class, my most formative years were cut from the stalk of urban working class culture. In my summer (and winter and spring) job I worked with ex-cons and druggies, my father never lost his social class roots, no matter how much he tried to hide it in a big car and a country club membership, and I felt an awkwardness unlike any other when I ended up in graduate school at an Ivey League. People spoke differently, carried themselves differently, most had parents with graduate degrees . . . many even being academics themselves.

I felt like I had to act like a different person when I was there. There were large communication barriers between me and my advisors or colleagues, and it took all of my intelligence and many hours of focused self-consciousness to adjust my entire habitus to that of the social elite. It was somewhat relieving to leave there. I feel like I can wear my union and work gear without having to wonder whether others thought I was being "ironic", and I can let fly a cuss word every other utterance. I felt like my whole being was being ripped in two when I was there. Two of me living in one body – the slowly forming academic from a socially elite university, and the ingrained existential habits of someone whose been working since he was 14 (in school or not) and whose parents are part of the "uneducated".

The article I read also confirmed for me why it was I had such difficulty getting my parents to understand education for it's own sake. You see, that is something only the social elite could ever really afford as a luxury. To most working-class people, education is how you move up the social latter, it's how you get a high-paying job, it's where you go to learn job skills. I mean what the hell are you going to do with a graduate degree in the humanities????? I always had to frame my education goals in the context of a job and making money, otherwise there would be little understanding or even support from my family. Not that they cognitively decided to be unsupportive, rather they didn't truley understand in an empathetic way, because their lives provided them with a horizon that cannot understand education for-its-own-sake. I didn't come to really start understanding it until after 6 years of higher education. It's like asking someone to understand something you said in Cajun. Fat chance they're going to get it.

I just got a call from a community college for an interview for an adjunct position. Cross your appendages.

The heat index here is currently 107 degrees! Raw temp is 95. India follows me!

I've been looking for jobs, but the labor market out here in Iowa isn't the most energetic. I've applied for an adjunct math position at the community college and as a labor educator for an outreach program through the local University. The latter job would be great, as I have experience and interest in labor organizing and I have a lot of experience and interest in education, so we'll see what happens. Unfortunately, I think jobs like these are often publicly advertised, but they often already have someone in mind through connections in-house. Only a couple of new jobs around there area are posted per week, so competition is stiff, I'm sure. I also applied to three jobs for a teasing agency, but I have yet to hear from them.

I thought now might be a good time to get involved with the IWW agin, so I volunteered to be a delegate.

Not much else going on out here.

Gee whiz. You know, I started to withdraw from U-C, then I get an email telling me to wait, because some jobs might be opening up. So I put the job applications on hold, once agin shift existential gears to accpet the possibility that I might be moving, and wait. What do I get? A professor who tells me that a TA section is opening up, but never gets back to me about it in the time frame she gave, and others forward me job postings. Why ask me to wait? I've aready been applying for jobs on campus and haven't got any. That's why I decided that that given the lack of funding offers and the lack of job offers that it was most prudent for me to withdraw in the first place. Why ask me to hang on if there's nothing concrete to offer? I have a life. I have to worry about my medical insurance expiring in three weeks. Not only does this put me through the roller-coaster, but it also puts my girlfriend through it as well. And, to be honest, this all has probably been harder on her as me. Don't get someone's hopes up unless you have something to offer. I am human, you know? I'm not some object to be manipulated to one's desires. So, one week has passed, another week of being strung along on the intimation of a promise of a potential, and nothing. I'm not waiting any longer; this is rediculous. I emailed and formally requested to defer my enrollment until next fall. Maybe by then I will have paid off some debt and they will have found funding for me.

Now at least I stop trying to live in two worlds at once and can focus on one world: my world in Iowa.

A friend of mine just emailed this to me. It's from the book _Getting What You Came For_ by Robert Peters, Ph.D., and it Seems to be pretty spot-on:

Lester H. Bodian (1987), a psychologist, did his PhD on factors that influence success at getting a PhD. Here's what he found was correlated with success (with explanations by the author of the book, Dr. Robert Peters, on further examination of Bodian's psychological studies):

Being married - Married students are less likely to drop out, probably because they receive more support and encouragement.

Being on schedule - People who take longer to finish their master's programs tend not to finish their Ph.D.s

Being in the hard/natural sciences - Physical scientists and biologists are most likely to finish, social scientists lie somewhere in the middle, and students in the humanities are most likely to drop out. This pattern reflects higher levels of both collaborative research and funding in the sciences.

Being financially secure - Financial support is particularly important in determining attrition, and students who work full-time, for example, have high attrition rates.

Having clarity of purpose - Studies show that students have a better chance of finishing if they have concrete career goals and their future jobs depend on attaining the degree. Thus, doctoral students headed for university teaching are more apt to get their Ph.D.s than are students who want to teach on lower levels where a master's degree would suffice.

Having a good relationship with your advisor.

Need I say more?

So the offer is still tentative, as they are not sure whether of not the position will open. You know, this is really unfair, playing with peoples lives like this. Going into a doctorate program is a huge life decision. When I made the decision to withdraw, I started making other plans in my life, applying for jobs, connecting with old contacts for jobs and asking favors, telling friends and family that I was going to stay in Iowa, etc. I agonized over the decision, then made it swiftly and decisively. It was difficult enough for me to give up on my PhD at Columbia, because of funding issues. Do people have no idea that people have lives and commitments in their lives, and that they can't just switch gears every couple of weeks and expect people to give themselves existential whiplash over their whims and indecisiveness? And what happens if I do take the offer? Will it disappear next year in the same whimsical manner it appeared this year? How is one to trust what one is told about funding, when you've been mislead before? I don't feel like I can trust any answer I get from any university dept. regarding funding. This time I was told that the offer "usually" stands for 2 years. So does the "usually" give them a legal out if they decide they don't want to fund me the next year? Is their saying such a thing just said to play on my wishful thinking and get me to agree to something I would not otherwise agree to? I know that many departments can't afford to give every doc student funding. That's fine. That does seem to be confined by budget constraints. But some integrity and honesty has to be restored to this process, and in order to do so departments need to create concrete procedures for offering funding. This whole time I've felt like I've been dealing with used car salesmen that are trying to get me to spend the most money possible, and not telling me "how low they can go". You have to walk out the door for real before they come running after stating, "OK, OK, we'll give you the discount!" The grad student should say "this is what I need to survive" and the program says "we can" or "we can't" and that's then end of story. Putting people through the emotional ringer be keeping them strung along on un-guaranteed possibilities, wavering back and forth about what they can and cannot offer is unfair and cruel. I'm tired of this game already, and I haven't even started.

For those of you thinking about getting a PhD, do so only under at least one of the following circumstances:

a) You will graduate and make lots of money (unlikely if you're going to be an academic).
b) You are full funded by the University (ask, and get it in writing!!).
c) You are independently wealthy.
d) You want your first act as doctor/professor to be filing a Chapter 13 bankruptcy.
e) You're crazy.

Don't believe me? Play around with this site:

http://www.finaid.org/calculators/loanpayments.phtml

If unfunded, figure you will spend about $25,000 a year total costs (tuition, housing, books, etc.) for an in-state University and upwards of $50,000 a year for a place like Columbia University. VIVA AMERIKA - where we don't give a shit about the education or the health of the nation!

Sour Grapes. Yeah, yeah. Whatever. An amazing calm has come over me since making the decision to postpose my doctoral work. No more financial stress or the added existential stress of traveling back and forth to IA and being away from Stephanie and Roscoe for two years. So I don't get a six year study session. It wouldn't have been one anyway if I was working most of the time to pay the rent in some squalid roach-infested shithole I forced to live in because I had no money. Who in their right mind would PAY $25-50,000 to leave a home, loved one, and best dog in the world just to live at half the quality of living and read things they could read on one's own and write about on the weekends. C'mon, now.

As for my last spit of fire, I should say that I know plenty of people in the PhD world who are brilliant, excellent scholars, and good people. I just also know that plenty aren't, and having a PhD is no guarantee of any of the aforementioned qualities.

The dog gets a teeth-cleaning tomorrow. Now THAT'S excitement!

CUDE, Wilfred, The Ph.D. Trap, West Bay (NS), Medicine Label Press, 1987, 136 p.
This critical appraisal of North American doctoral programs contends that the degree is a seriously flawed
academic institution. Recent scholarship and personal experiences are utilized to illustrate the contention that
doctoral programs are inflexible, cumbersome, restrictive and wasteful, and, in most fields, do more harm than
good. The history of the Ph.D. degree is traced, with an emphasis on the Canadian experience, and three major
problems are identified: the length of time such programs take, the paucity of successful candidates, and rewards
that are not commensurate with the time, energy and money involved in obtaining the degree. The crisis is
considered to be particularly acute in the social sciences and humanities, partly because of variant and imprecise
methodologies that delay doctoral committees and doctoral candidates. Because of the values and skills required to
succeed in such programs, they may, it is felt, be undermining scholarly excellence. Three appendices are
provided: a summary of the most recent findings (subsequent to the first printing of the book), "The Grad School
Numbers Game" (a comment on costs and enrollments), and "The Rejuvenated Mastership." References are
provided at the conclusion of each chapter.

Nietzsche even made the same argument. Being unnecessary for teaching in the universities until the late 1800s (and I don't think it is a coincidence that it coincides with the industrial revolution and the formalization of schooling), the PhD has really become a means for people to have PhD's to require other people to have PhD's, in order that they might keep their jobs producing more PhD's, a credential that's only use is to somehow prove you are capable of teaching at a university or college, especially for the humanities. You don't need a PhD to start a University or to write a book or become an inventor. Unless one is thinking of becoming a professor, then the PhD serves little purpose. Unless you are thinking of becoming a professional researcher or going into one of those odd trades that require a doctorate (medical practice or law), few other types of doctorate degrees is necessary. As a credential, they really don't prove anything more than a HS degree proves: time spent in an institution and the appropriate hoops jumped. You don't have to be bright to have a PhD (I've met some real dolts), just know how to play the obsequious game. And, of course, this game is reserved for the economically privileged in this country as an extended vacation to read books and pontificate in order to reinforce the sense of privilege they already harbor, rather than to promote good scholarship, or it is used to make sure that only the already wealthy are allowed into the jobs already possessed by the wealthy, such as economics research.

And if the State wants educationally qualified teachers in their schools, their going to have to shell out the cash to pay for it. If someone is going into a lifetime of teaching, they are likely not of high socio-economic status to begin with, and we all know that teachers' wages are paltry, so how is it that the State thinks it can force upon its teachers to pay from $40,000 to $100,000 just for a Masters degree? Like teachers can shell out that kind of cash.

Dear legislators: WAKE THE FUCK UP.

We just watched "Outfoxed". That movie gets better age, because it offers retrospection and reminders to us. Other recommended political movies:

The Corporation
Fog of War
Control Room
Trials of Henry Kissinger

Stephanie and I went to U-C to check out housing. After we crunched some numbers regarding rent, utilities, the expense of traveling back and forth to Iowa, the cost of owning a car, and paying someone to look after the dog when she visits me, I decided that there is no way I can afford to attend without funding. What gets my goat is that I have a lot of accomplished experience in both educational leadership and teaching, I was in a doctoral program at Columbia that offered me $12,000 to stay, my GRE scores are exceptionally high, and yet my own state university couldn't find me a dime. . . and I know other students got funding. I'm not trying to be conceited, but I really can't image who else would be more qualified for funding than I. It really doesn't make any sense. There are MASTERS students there that have funding. What the crap? It all seems pretty fishy, doesn't it? Something makes me wonder if there some deal where programs don't want to seem eager to take doc students from other universities, so they don't offer them money or something. Regardless, I'm not willing to pull out another 25k in loans for a program that doesn't want to fund me. I'm a talented guy; I'll find sustenance and joy in life elsewhere. I can read Heidegger and Nietzsche and write on the weekends, if I want. I don't need to spend the next 6 years of my life struggling financially so I can have some privileged academic give my ego some sort of approval that I'm "smart" and can "do things", just because they hold some sort of arbitrary title of tutelage. ANGER! GRRRRRRR!

On a positive note, this means that Stephanie and I won't be separated, and we can finally live under the same roof after being apart for over a year. I also get to see my dog every day. A lot of talented and bright people never go into academia or leave it, for precisely this reason. It's too bad, really. So we're not only the only industrialied western nation that doesn't offer healthcare to all of it citizens, but post-secondary education is still reserved for the welath in this country (unlike every other western industrialized nation). Things that should not be for profit and subsidized by the state: health care and education (all of it).

I'm so glad that the American news is abuzz with the shuttle delay. I mean, what more important news could there be? Perhaps the Downing Street memo? Or the fact that Karl Rove, one of Bush's top men, leaked the name a CIA agency operative as political payback? The fact that Cheney's remark about the "last throes of the insurgency" is a far cry from what military commanders on the ground are saying [that the insurgency is just as strong as it was when we started the debacle]. No, no. That's old news. Let's talk about a busted fuel gauge in the shuttle! We had one day where the White House Press corps acted like "the press" instead of the lapdogs of the White House Department of Truth, and then we're back to bullocks as normal. Good job, everyone. What, did McLellan later threaten to take away the Christmas party if you kept being so rambunctious and questioning the wisdom of the WH Press Secretary? C'mon, it didn't hurt that bad to stick together and actually act like reporters for once. Although, to give them some credit, I think this WH crew is so full of lies the press doesn't even know where to start sometimes. By the time the real press starts hounding the administration on something, some other monstrosity of the admin. Comes out. Anyone seeking the truth is just kept on a perpetual hunt of BS acting as a decoy for other BS, and the switching takes place so rapidly, no one can actually get anywhere with any particular statement from the US Department of Truth. Ugh. This is why I hate watching "the news". One giant circus.

London is now saying that the bombings there were suicide bombers and that they had "blown themselves up". If that's true, then the bombers would have been on the trains and busses when the things blew. Considering that two unexploded bombs were found, that would mean that the perps for those two bombs a) either left on the bus or train implying that they were NOT suicide bombers or b) they were sitting there right next to their bomb bag waiting for it to go when the cops showed up, which did not happen considering it took a few days to get an arrest. You know what I think? BULLSHIT propaganda. Too many holes in THAT story. Fear sells, people. And with the ratings on the war in Iraq along with Bush and Blair's popularity considering the action have been dropping drastically, why not blame Al-Queda (of course, they nonetheless STILL had nothing to do with our decision to invade Iraq)?

"People are much more susceptible to the big lie than to the small one, for they already tell little lies every day. They cannot imagine that someone would actually fabricate a colossal lie." - Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf.

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."
-- Joseph Goebbels, German Minister of Propaganda, 1933-1945

Let's take a few lessons from Goebbels, shall we?

6. To be perceived, propaganda must evoke the interest of an audience and must be transmitted through an attention-getting communications medium. [news broadcasts]

7. Credibility alone must determine whether propaganda output should be true or false. [doesn't matter how factual it is]

14. Propaganda must label events and people with distinctive phrases or slogans. [liberal, evil-doers, attack on freedom, 9/11 etc.]

a. They must evoke desired responses which the audience previously possesses [fear, anxiety, anger]

b. They must be capable of being easily learned

c. They must be utilized again and again, but only in appropriate situations [uhhhh, no comment]

d. They must be boomerang-proof [what? You don't love freedom?]

16. Propaganda to the home front must create an optimum anxiety level. [Terrorist level is now at Orange]

a. Propaganda must reinforce anxiety concerning the consequences of defeat [if we pull out of Iraq , "the terrorists" {you know them. . . uhhh, those guys, the eveil-doers, yeah, them, all of them} "win"] (whatever the hell that means). Winning an ideological war necessitates propaganda, now doesn't it?)

b. Propaganda must diminish anxiety (other than concerning the consequences of defeat) which is too high and which cannot be reduced by people themselves. [The economy is great, keep consuming so the terrorists don't win!]

Ah, yes. We've learned well, haven't we? The neocons might not be Nazis, but they are certainly, strictly speaking, fascists: advocates of the Corporate State.

From the Doctrine of Fascism, 1932:

"Fascism is definitely and absolutely opposed to the doctrines of liberalism, both in the political and economic sphere. (p. 32)"

"The corporate State considers that private enterprise in the sphere of production is the most effective and usefu [sic] [typo-should be: useful] instrument in the interest of the nation. In view of the fact that private organisation of production is a function of national concern, the organiser of the enterprise is responsible to the State for the direction given to production.
State intervention in economic production arises only when private initiative is lacking or insufficient, or when the political interests of the State are involved. This intervention may take the form of control, assistance or direct management. (pp. 135-136)"

However, to the neocons the distiction between State and private enterprise becomes blurred, to them the state ought not idctate what is necessary for proper private economic development, but the private sphere ought to dictate to the state what it needs to maximize profits.

Boy, do we have a short-term memory problem in this country.

I just learned that the longest sentence in the English language using only one word is:

Buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo.

Yes, that's right:

Buffalo (NY) buffalo (the animal) buffalo (tr. verb meaning to intimidate, deceive or confuse) Buffalo (NY) buffalo (animal).

Pretty cool.

You know what I love? No one has claimed responsibility for the bombings in London, but all the news idiots and talking heads have already pinned it on Al Queda. Now, I'm not saying it isn't highly probably that that's who's responsible, but if intelligence and police forces aren't willing to say that's who did it, why do the talking heads feel like they would know? Of course, the connection slowly leaks into the discourse and before you know it (just like the false Iraq-9/11 connection) people take it as truth. For all we know, the bombing could have been the IRA or the UVF or Timothy McVeigh's buddy.

What is interesting about this discourse is that now we hear of "Al-Queda inspired" bombings. What does that mean? Well, it makes it quite convincing to link ANY bombing to Al-Queda. I bet had McVeigh bombed after 9/11, he would be considered an Al-Queda operative, as it surely would then have been "Al-Queda inspired". It seems to me that people who were inspired by Al-Queda would blow themselves up in the process, sending themselves to heaven as martys; they would not have used timed bombs and tried to excape their own salvation and martyrdom! These diots who carried out these bombings are more likely copycat bombers than "Al-Queda inspired" bombers whio become inspired by the "bravery and martyrdom" of Al-Queda suicide bombers.

The other night, Stephanie and I watched The Molly Maguires. It is a film based on a true story about one of the first successful unions in the USA. It was started by a group within a secret society of Irishmen that worked in the coal mines of Pen. It was a great film except there was this lame romance subplot runnning through the entire thing.

I've seen lots of IWW stuff around lately, which is a good sighn. S bought me "Woblies! A Graphic History of the Industrial Workers of the World" (highly recommended) - it has a work in there by Harvey Pekar! Yesterday I bought a recent biographical novel by Wallace Stenger about Joe Hill, the famous IWW bard.

My dog Roscoe has been really diobedient lately. I don't know what it is, but he's really being irritating. We normally let him run off leash in this huge field behind S's house so he can chase rabbits and birds and sprint around. He usually comes when called, but last night he was too busy doin his own thing, and when I opened the door last night as we were leaving, instead of waiting for a command, he just took off after nothing and almost got hit by a car.

Anyone who has an IRA and wants to put their money in socially responsible mutual funds should read this article:

http://news.morningstar.com/doc/article/1,,135405,00.html?pgid=pfnewsbt

One fund that isn't mentioned, but should have been in my opinion (only because SRI funds are few and far between) is Parnassus Equity Income Fund: PRBLX

Stephanie and I are back in Iowa after out trip to Sedona and the Grand Canyon with her family. We also got to visit my parents in Chicago, which was nice. I've had serious bloating issues for a long time. I've been to doctors and Chinese herbalists. I've tried diets and supplements. The two things that helped the most: Garden of Life Primary Defense HMO Probiotics:

http://www.gardenoflife.com/detail_primal_defense.shtml

and a DNFT Chiropractor. Mine is Dr. Mark Will in Deerfield, IL:

http://www.drlighttouch.com/

I ended up throwing my back out in Sedona while I was climbing into bed, which, although extremely painful at the time, is now hilarious. It wasn't like I was engaged in some serious manly physical activity - I was climbing into bed. Now that's a way for your body to scream "Happy 31st!" I went to the chiropractor to deal with that, and it seemed to also help with the inflammation in my gut. Could be coincidence, though.

The corn is now at about 7 feet in Iowa. Stephanie is working on her book prospectus, and she is nearing the finish line. I am getting this set up for U-C. I've registered for classes already, and this weekend, Stephanie and I will be heading down there to look at apartments. Class schedule: Contemporary Philosophies of Education; Topics in Educational Policy; and Philosophy of Language and Education. I've been able to get all of my classes in on just Tuesday and Wednesday, which will give me greater freedom to come and go as I please, and for Stephanie and I to better coordinate our schedules.

The best thing about all of this is that instead of holding a full-time job, a part-time job, and trying to be a full-time doctoral student, as I was at Columbia, I can now afford to *be a student* and *study*, to spend time learning well and knowing what the hell it is I am doing, rather than just checking off requirements in a perfunctory manner and not learning a thing, because I have no time to study material.

So I decided to make this blog, which was once a failing personal journal, into a public means of keeping friends and family updated on my doings (and publicize my political ranting). If you want to read all of the previous posts before this, you can read all about my diet and bloating issues and the weird vivid dreams I had a couple of years ago. So. . . I am in Iowa with Stephanie, and we will be leaving tomorrow to first to Chicago for a couple of days and then to Sedona with her parents. We've been painting a lot around here, walls, tables, shelving units. . . trying to make her new and sterile condo a little more cozy and more like a home. The color scheme for the main room is red, yellow and black. We think it's great.

Roscoe found a bunny nest the other day. He didn't eat them, surprisingly. I don't think he really knew what to do with them. He would pick them up in his mouth, take them out of the next and then drop them on the ground. There was no harm done to them. I put them back in the nest to let the bunny mother do her job, and we'll be keeping Roscoe away from there for a while.

I just volunteered to do a book review for a website that specializes in reviews of education books, well. . . that's all they do, actually. So we'll see if they take me up on my offer. It's an easy first-publish. I also just got my laptop up and running, so I plan on working on my Master's essay so that I can submit it for the Philosophy of Education Society conference next year. Stephanie has been working a couple hours a day on her book, either writing or looking for publishers. She's normally up before I am, so she spends a couple of hours writing in silence until I get up a couple of hours later and start coming up with crazy ideas like painting all of her blinds red.

When we get back from Sedona, I'll have to make a trip to U-C to start looking for housing. The summer is moving quickly. U-C seems to be on top of things. I already have an ID number, an email address, and regular mailings from the department. At Teachers College, I didn't have a clue what was going on with email and registration and the like until the first week of classes. TC is seriously one of the most incompetent bureaucracies I have ever come across. Doing anything there is like trying to get something done at the NYC DMV. I've dealt with California State, Beloit College, the School for International Training, the University of Texas, University of Illinois, and TC. . . and TC ranks the worst as far as institutional competence.

Stephanie and I are off to Iowa City to make some returns. I bought a bottle of probiotics, and its seal was broken. Weird.