Proßt Neu Jahr 2009!

Herzliche Freunden, wir wunschen Ihnen ein Gutes Neues Jahr. --that's how the Viennese say it. As it it almost midnight in Wien even now, I suggest you go dig up your copy of the Blue Danube and prepare to waltz.

Closer to home, Family Mojo will be observing a quiet, more modest (in keeping with the times) passing of the old year. Pup-pup is esconced at the vet's so we don't have to worry about loud boom-booms upsetting her (and tempting her to make a jailbreak exit from the yard). We will probably watch Maazel conduct the New York Philharmonic, then make a mad dash to buy fireworks (legal in my front yard b/c I live in an unincorporated area).

Remember to stock up on black-eyed peas and cabbage BEFORE you head out tonight. Few things are as awkward as trying to find an open grocery store on New Year's Day, only to find that they are out-of-stock on such items.

The Hazards of Underground Poker

Short version: I was at one of my "haunts" last night and we got hijacked. Which is to say, two men forced their way into the room and pulled pistols and made off with all the available cash. No shots were fired and no one was seriously hurt --the door-minder got two scraped knees from wrestling at the entrance with the intruders. This is why I rarely carry cash to the games; if I lose, I go to the ATM at the end of the evening (never alone) and settle accounts post-haste. I lost no money personally.

Disturbing aspect: poker room robberies are never random acts. Someone knew that there was a game in that location, at that time. (As the holidays approach, some games shut down for lack of players.) As the game had only started very late and had tentatively broken up early in the evening, it had to be someone who had called in during the evening to see if a game was going on. Which means: someone everyone knows acted as a "scout" for these two gangsta clowns. I have my suspicions.

Cardinal Rule No. 1 of Underground Games: don't let in people you don't recognize.

Cardinal Rule No. 2 of Underground Games: see Cardinal Rule No. 1.

A serious question from a not-so-serious-but-very-intelligent atheist

Penn Jillette; slouching toward Bethlehem --not that I always agree with ol' Penn, but there's a money line in here:

“How much do you have to hate somebody to believe that everlasting life is possible, and not tell them that?” [emphasis added]

Words to ponder in the season celebrated as the Advent.

15 questions 9/11 ‘truthers’ now need to answer - Counterknowledge.com

15 questions 9/11 ‘truthers’ now need to answer - Counterknowledge.com: some good ammo to throw at your conspiracy enthusiasts.

The Leidenfrost Effect

Hurray for the Leidenfrost Effect: I have Been There and Done That. Sometimes it's good to be an absentminded professor...

I don't know what's more disheartening

Grade 'H'?! More Schools Flunk the 'F' in which we read of the Grand Rapids schools doing away with the "F". I don't know what's more disheartening: that the Grand Rapids superintendent actually believes the fertilizer that's being spread, or that so many comments on the thread agree with him.

"Oh there are lots of intelligent people who don't get good grades." Yes, they're called exceptions to the rule.

"We need to do more to signal the students that we care." It's called tough love. Telling the students that they can never fail makes them believe that theirs are lives of entitlement, e.g., "I deserve to pass because I'm a student."

For the record I hate incompletes, which is the functional equivalent of the "H". In my experience only a few of the students bother to follow through with the work. I dread to think of the pressure public school administrators will put on teachers to let students "make up" the work. Most students are bright enough to do the work, they just need to be held accountable from an early age. By the time they get to high school, however, many have indeed fallen through the cracks and have become so thoroughly conditioned that they won't work or make an effort. Don't get me wrong: any good teacher will recognize a student who wants to learn and will do whatever it takes to record the fact that the student did learn, including (on the college level) incompletes. What Grand Rapids proposes is the short path to making it the status quo and not the exception. Therein lies the road to perdition.

What I do over Christmas Break

Plagiarism strikes, I strike back!

It happened again: I busted a student for plagiarism this semester. I looked at the essay for the second exam and I thought, "Geez, this is obviously straight out of Wikipedia," so I did a text search and came up with the essay, word-for-word. Yet generosity and magnanimity overtook me, and I merely awarded zero points for that portion of the exam and wrote some straightforward comments to the student on what had happened. You'd think that the student would either drop the class or beg mercy --at which point I would've made the student rewrite the entire entry in the student's own words.

But no, the student did nothing. Worse than nothing: on the very next exam, the student committed even more blatant plagiarism! This time I wrote in the comments, "This is the second time you've plagiarized; didn't you bother reading what I wrote when I caught you the first time?!? Don't bother coming back to class, you've already earned an automatic 'F' for the course." And the student disappeared from sight without even bothering to cause a scene.

My syllabus is quite explicit: cheating (including plagiarism) will result in an automatic course grade of "F" and possible expulsion from school. And I include a rather specific definition of plagiarism as "taking someone else's words and presenting them as your own." (Courtesy of James Madison University.) So there was absolutely no doubt about things. But the sad truth is that the "F" is probably going to be the worst thing. Few colleges (especially two-year programs) willingly expel students for cheating anymore, unless it's part of a widespread plot. It's far more lucrative instructive to the learning community to make the student retake the course.

Obviously, I am not going to identify the specific individual involved, and here is why. But it does give me fresh material for next semester's orientation.

Comparing the Election of 2008 to ...1828

I've skipped a few elections along the way as being less-than optimal for comparison purposes. Also, 1828 is a significant election, as it marks the first election wherein a majority of the electors were chosen by "the people," i.e., state legislatures apportioned electoral votes according to popular vote tallies.

Unpopular incumbent. John Quincy Adams, the incumbent President, had managed to lose a significant amount of popularity by 1828. His vision of expanded federal exercise of power (particularly his ideas for creating a national university and astronomical observatory) had offended those who favored a more limited view of government. He was noted for being largely ineffective as a public speaker when addressing Congress. And, it should be noted, many felt his election was at the least tainted by the so-called "Corrupt Bargain" that gave Henry Clay the position of Secretary of State (then an important stepping-stone to the Presidency [HRC take note!]). Many of the same points could be about G.W. Bush in the recent election; the key point of difference here is that GWB was not running for re-election (claims of "McSame = 3rd Bush Term" notwithstanding) and JQA was standing for a second term.

Economic crisis. Both Andrew Jackson and Barack Obama benefitted from the appearance of a financial crisis at the time of the election. . JQA's decline in popularity (in particular his alienation of key Northern supporters such as Martin Van Buren) stemmed in part to his clueless handling of the debate over what was later termed the Tariff of Abominations. He had agreed to sign the tariff before the details were finalized; his opponents then tried to amend it to death, thus guaranteeing that there would be something in the final version to offend everyone (except for certain New England manufacturers). Jackson's people laid the blame for the ensuing rise in prices at JQA's feet. There may be a distinct parallel here to the subprime mortgage crisis, which some are blaming on Democratic legislators' efforts at pressuring banks into lending to "sub-optimal" clients, then blaming the Republican administration for failing to regulate the markets. (NB Jackson also blamed economic uncertainties on the existence of the Bank of the United States and excessive circulation of paper money, but those issues would not predominate until the 1832 campaign.)

Regional appeal. Jackson was a candidate of the fast-growing West and South. However, he was only able to win the election with the support of the Ohio Valley states and Pennsylvania --plus a majority of the then-proportionately-assigned New York electoral votes. Obama's regionalities have already been noted.

"Modern" campaign tactics. Jackson had spent the previous four years in the wilderness, letting his allies lay the groundwork for his 1828 attempt. John Eaton spent hours writing "anonymous" letters to friendly newspapers, calling Jackson the Washington of the West. Martin Van Buren (whom JQA had alienated) brought the tactics of internecine New York state politics to the national level, including the use of what Jackson would later call "rotation in office" --the spoils system. Jackson waged one of the most advanced campaigns of the antebellum era; JQA was at a disadvantage from the start. Jackson's people recognized the importance of mobilizing voter turnout. Obama spent years preparing to run and out-gunned all of his opponents in voter mobilization, particularly in the registration of new voters. Both candidates also were sure to use the endorsement of a former well-loved President to their advantage: Jackson's people used letters written by Jefferson in the early 1820s to bolster their case, while Obama's people --after the elimination of Hillary Clinton as a rival-- took pains to seem to court the opinion of Bill Clinton and use him in a more-or-less active campaign capacity (though not too active, lest he overshadow the current nominee).



"Democrats". Both candidates positioned themselves as the "people's candidate". For Jackson, this was especially significant in 1828, when for the first time a majority of white males over 21 were not only eligible to vote but had a direct role in choosing a state's electors. Jackson's margin of victory was 56% - 43%, a bit more than Obama's.

--Very busy of late. Had the house interior repainted to cover up the hurricane damage. Many arguments with the insurance company, then with Citimortgage over disbursement issues. Sick baby. Sick mommy. Sick Kaiser. Finals. Courses for next semester. Whiny students. All this and no duck hunting to balance my soul. Ugh ugh ugh.

University fires teacher for publicly identifying cheaters

The Daily Texan - University fires teacher : "The six students received F’s and were reported to the school, but their grades may not stand because of Young’s blog post [in which he publicly identified them]."

Not terribly long ago, at a school where I'm no longer on the active call-out roster, I busted a student for plagiarism. Dead to rights I caught the student, as in, "I took the last sentence of your essay and Googled it as a text-string search, and the only hit I got led me to your essay, verbatim, looking me in the face." When I went to my department chair, the first thing he asked me was whether or not I could document the cheating. Inside my head, my first response was, "Gee, you think I'd waste your time if I couldn't?" The second thing he asked me was if I felt inclined to give the student another chance. Out loud, I responded, "No, the students were specifically warned in my college-approved course syllabus that cheating would automatically result in a course grade of zero, no exceptions." And then he asked me if I was willing to let the student drop the course (W). I was astounded, and grew even more so when he then told me that unless I went immediately through the registrar to fail the student, the student could (via a not-so-roundabout process) drop my class without penalty and without my approval or comment!

This is the crux: students are no longer in any way held accountable for their actions. It starts in the public schools, where it's an open secret that teachers aren't allowed to fail more than X% of their students (and they have to document that they bent over backwards to help/assist the student, notified the parents multiple times, etc.), and that if every little step to "re-teach" hasn't been taken, the failing grade can (and often will) be overridden. Knowing this, students are quite confident in doing no work and/or cheating, because the onus is not on them but on their teachers to justify the grades. "You can't fail all of us, even though no one did the work, because if you do, you will get in trouble, not us." And yes, this even goes down to something as simple as doing worksheets!

In this professor's case, the students will probably end up getting course credit because, parallel to the public teachers, the professor did not follow proper procedure. And while violating FERPA is a huge no-no and the university is justified in not rehiring that adjunct, giving the students credit for cheating sends entirely the wrong signal here. They were warned that this could happen, why are they surprised and/or angry when it does?!? But because the entire education establishment is now "learner-centered," as in, "we need the learners in the seats so that we can get money," they know that they will now be rewarded, not punished.

But it's just plagiarism. The worst that can happen is that you end up Vice President.

Comparing the Election of 2008 to... Part I: 1800

[okay, I never did get the graphics issue resolved to my satisfaction, so I'm going to just write it out long-hand. And because I'm doing that, I might as well start with...]

Two parties that cannot stand each other, hurling mud and invective against the other faction's candidate. False charges, threats of violence, even revolution if the wrong person wins. A lot of fuss for two men in powdered wigs, but that's 1800.

Senator Obama's elevation to the White House is a big deal. Considering the long history of black Americans, for one to win a presidential election is a milestone, one that cannot be ignored. We can ruminate on the current significance of that in some future conversation; right now, it's time to play History Lesson and put this election into its proper historical context. And for our purposes here, that means forgoing the race angle as much as possible; race is simply too much of a non sequitur to be brought up at every turn and twist. Thus, apologies now to everyone who wants to harp on that point.

Let's look at the big points of comparison between the two elections, 1800 and 2008:

1. Unpopularity of the sitting President --without a doubt this played a major role in the elections of both Jefferson and Obama. John Adams's Federalists had come close to bringing the nation into a war to which a significant number of Americans objected. To pay for this war, taxes had been increased, further angering opponents of the war. Worried about the effect that opposition newspapers were having on volatile electorates, the Congress passed the Sedition Act of 1798, effectively criminalizing anti-government speech. Ironically, the Sedition Act had the effect of galvanizing the Republican opposition instead of stifling it. When the Quasi-War hysteria passed, many supporters of the Federalist faction began second-guessing the Adams Administration. In the 2008 election, we had a president who (evidently, according to Gallup) is the most unpopular president ever recorded, an economy with rising unemployment and much anxiety about the financial infrastructure. Oh, and said president led the nation into a once-popular-but-now-not-so-much-even-though-most-Americans-now-think-we've-won-or-are-winning war.


2. Regional appeal of the opposing candidates. Jefferson's support came solidly from the South and the trans-Appalachian states, but he only won the election because he carried the swing states of Pennsylvania, Ohio and New York. Obama's support is perimeterial in nature (is that even a word? It is now, heh), with the coastal states and the Great Lakes solidly lining up behind him, and key swing states --including Pennsylvania, Ohio and New York-- also coming into line. Obama also picked up support in other traditional (last 30 years) Republican areas, so in that sense, he is much less a creature of the regions than Jefferson.


3. Nastiness of the campaign. In both elections, the candidates themselves eschewed the sort of negative attacks that Americans find distasteful from their presidents, but love to see from their subordinates. McCain was noticeably more negative as the campaign wore on, and some believe that it held him back (while others consider it his fatal flaw that he didn't "go negative" sooner). The attacks on Jefferson and Adams by their respective opponents are the stuff of legend. Federalists warned that Jefferson would import the guillotine from France and begin executions of his opponents. Republicans warned that Adams wanted to institute a hereditary monarchy and aristocracy. Both sides' supporters published false, malicious and/or misleading statements about the other guy --in fact, this was used by the Federalists as continued justification for the Sedition Act. In that sense, nothing much has changed in over 200 years, although the number of Republicans demanding the jailing of the New York Times staff remains quite small. (NB there is a real sense, on the other hand, that an Obama Administration may punish those perceived to be "hostile"; witness the bumping of reporters from Obama One is the closing days from papers whose editorial pages supported McCain.)


4. Congressional coattails. In 1800 the Republicans rode the wave of dissatisfaction to commanding leads in both chambers of the Congress, with a 68-38 majority in the House but only a 17-15 majority in the Senate (one vacant House seat, two vacant Senate seats). While the Democrats already controlled both chambers going into the 2008 elections, they have managed to increase their margin to fifty-odd votes in the House (435 members total) and are close to 59 seats in the Senate (including the two independents who caucus with them; also depending on the final vote tally in the Minnesota race). Significantly, though, Jefferson may have had the better deal, as the Senatorial filibuster had not yet come into existence and debate could be closed by a simple majority vote. In the end, there would be limits to Jefferson's power over Congress, such as the rise of the "Tertium Quids" who ultimately out-Jeffersoned Jefferson in their adherence to strict constructionalism. Party unity in the present day, however, is generally much more structured, although the Blue Dog faction in the House may yet pose problems for Obama and his close ally, House Speaker Pelosi. (Aside: the grand irony is that Jefferson's coattails almost did him no good, as this election was an electoral tie owing to shenanigans involving Republican electors and rumors that Aaron Burr, the designated running mate, may have actually wanted to be at the head of the ticket. As such, the outgoing Federalist-dominated House actually decided the election, ultimately choosing Jefferson as the "known" devil over the "ambitious" Burr.)


5. Ramifications for the judiciary. I doubt severely that we will see the kind of repercussions in the judiciary in the modern day that the nation saw in the wake of the 1800 election. The court system was simply far too small and limited to have any real impact --or so it would seem. Yet Federalists so feared the Republican take-over that they deliberately stacked the judiciary in an attempt to limit the power of the Republican government. From this came the case of Marbury vs Madison,from which I take great pleasure in discussing how Chief Justice John Marshall out-constructed Jefferson and Madison and argued that an ultra-strict reading of the Constitution actually gave the Court the power to deny itself an ability (mandamus), yet in so doing achieve the greater power of interpreting the Constitution, even to the point of being able to nullify acts of the Congress which it felt violated the Constitution. Jefferson and his allies would then spend the next few years targeting judges for impeachment, ultimately with very limited success. Given the nature of Senate procedure today, especially the reluctance of the Senate to formally adjourn (thus giving the President the opportunity to make recess appointments), there will be no similar court-packing today.
   
   6. The popular vote. Not that it mattered in Jefferson's time, since the vast majority of the electors were chosen by the state legislatures (Electoral College 1.5, as I like to call it), nevertheless Jefferson won about 68% of the popular vote in those areas where electors were thus chosen. Obama's margin is much much smaller, on the order of 53% or so.

--okay, I think that will do for a start. Comments are most welcome. Coming next time: the election of 1824.

But...but...there's only so much Farsi I can learn before they go broke!

#115 Promising to Learn a New Language

It's no great secret that a significant number of poker players in my area are foreign-born. In fact, it makes things much more interesting. The casino-standard rule "English-only at the tables during a hand" has started many heated arguments.

A good many of my acquaintances are Persian-born, exiles from the Islamic revolution of 1978-9. So I am s-l-o-w-l-y learning conversational Farsi --which, not coincidentally, is a good way to learn to swear and order drinks in most Middle Eastern bars. It's also fun because I become a source of much amusement when I mangle pronunciations...

Shedding Potential Kos/Huff Cooties

You know you you are, and you know why you're here, so let me spell out the other side for the sake of balance:

Suppose McCain/Palin wins the election, but the Senator from Arizona is Unavailable before December 15, the date of the formal election of the President via the Electoral College ballots. Republican electors have two options: to honor the spirit of the Constitution's Article II and the 20th Amendment and vote Gov. Palin as President-Elect; or to select a candidate of their own choosing, perhaps at the behest of the Republican National Committee. YOUR worst-case scenario, worse than Newt, worse than Cheney, even worse than Huckabee: Tom Delay is elected President. Remember: he's not a convicted felon, and it's looking a lot like all the charges will end up being dismissed in the end anyway.

[This post relates to a comment I made on The Volokh Conspiracy regarding what might happen should the Senator from Illinois win the election but decede before December 15.}

The Folly of Temper

It may come as a surprise to some (but not to those really close to me) that I actually have a very nasty temper. It was much worse when I was younger (testosterone?), and I have made many long strides in the last ten years in bringing it to a manageable level. It still shows itself in verbal slips now and again, but that just adds to my curmudgeonly charm. It's when It (that's what I call the beast) surfaces when things can quickly get ugly.

Wednesday night, after a particularly questionable hand of poker, It emerged. Its immediate target was an innocent, inanimate cocktail table. I attempted to place-kick it across the room. Left-footed --that's how upset I was. Unfortunately, said table proved to be much heavier than it looked. I did knock it over, but at the cost of a broken severely bruised big toe. The next day, I was unable to do any serious walking. And the day after that. And today.

It was today when I really regretted my folly, because Mrs. declared it was such a nice day that she wanted to take the Wee One to the zoo for the very first time. After some protests, I gave in and walked all over the park with my family. The Wee One enjoyed it and my wife now adores me (again). I managed to walk slowly without putting weight on that toe --which inordinately stressed the calf of that leg as a consequence, and so I'm back to limping at half-speed anyway.

Bright spot: I can still lift at the gym and do cardio, so the workouts continue apace. I'm glad I'm no longer doing free-weight squats.

Why Tuesday? Plus, Voting Reform

Why Do We Vote On Tuesday? --short answer is that farmers liked it that way. Lots of bellyaching in the comments about how voting procedures need to be modified to allow more inclusiveness.

Shying away from What We Expect Mojo To Say (i.e., "Making it easier to vote inevitably will lead to people taking voting for granted," or even, "Why do we want everyone to vote? "), let me take a different tack --one that WordPress inexplicably refused to let me post (?):

[In response to the idea that Election Day should be a national holiday] NO! to a holiday for voting. I submit that making it a holiday will actually depress voter turnout rather than enhance it. Consider: the pressure would be enormous to make the holiday on either a Monday or a Friday to avoid (further) disrupting the work week. How many people take Memorial Day Monday to go pay their respect to the war dead, hm? How many people go on Labor Day to see the unions parade? Voting Day would turn into another wasted workday, with added absenteeism before and afterwards (honk if you've ever taken off Friday before a Monday holiday weekend, or Thursday before a Friday holiday weekend). And since voting wouldn't take all day, retail stores would be encouraged to run sales to attract the off-work consumers (screwing the employees who have to work that day, natch). The easier and cheapest solution across the board is to extend voting hours in all jurisdictions to 24 hours beginning 5AM EST on Voting Tuesday.