little signs of wealth

Craig and I have been going on walks through the snooty part of town. The lawns have a distinctly unfriendly feel, but this has been the best example thus far.











PS: Fafblog rocks:
FB: Now, back when your husband was president he cut nine million poor women and children off welfare. But now you're the candidate of women and poor people and poor workin women. So did you approve of what your husband did at the time, and if not are you going to reverse it as president and give all those poor people their money back?
CLINTON: Ha haaa! That's an excellent question, Fafnir, and the only way to answer it is with a hearty chuckle followed by a complete non sequitur!

yet more doodles!

I like having someone to watch the geese with. I also particularly like watching geese use their necks in odd ways, as though they are made of rubber and springs.














Aaarugh! A volcano!
With a cute little explosion!
Is she standing in a forest of seaweed? Talking to her twin sister, the water nymph? Wondering if the volcano is actually her hat? You decide.


















William James envisioned an alternative to the army that was remarkably similar to the Peace Corps, except that he argued that men who served in this army would find that the "women would value the men more highly." This, apparently, would be because they had proved themselves against the temptation toward "a world of clerks and teachers, of coeducation and zo-ophily, [...] feminism unabashed."

Zo-phily. It's fun to say.











This is a peaceful bird, unless you happen to be an olive branch. Then, it's a mindless, sap-thirsty mutilator.










I've had Jeremiah Was A Bullfrog in my head for a week. "Joy to the fishes in the deep blue sea."


















Ze ladeez, zay are dancing.




















Now begins the fashion show portion of this blog post.

Continued...

Hats are in this year, I hear.

















These are 'flying eyeballs,' although I'd be happy for someone to come up with a more creative name.

And, just a doodle:

cool phrase

Potemkin village \puh-TEM(P)-kin\, noun:
An impressive facade or display that hides an undesirable fact or state; a false front.

"A Potemkin village is so called after Grigori Aleksandrovich Potemkin, who had elaborate fake villages built in order to impress Catherine the Great on her tours of the Ukraine and the Crimea in the 18th century."

Link. My goal for the second half of today's class is to slide this phrase into the discussion of Carol Gilligan.

I don't want to dislike Sen. Clinton baselessly...

but she makes it so easy!

She also dismissed Democratic nominating rules requiring proportional allocation of delegates from primaries and caucuses, rather than the winner-take-all system used by the Republicans.

“If we had same rules as the Republicans, I would be the nominee right now,” she said.

Whatever the real merits of various plans to reform the Democratic nominating process might be, she ought to be able to give a better reason than 'but the Republicans do it this other way, which is more valid than ours!' Did she completely ignore all the talk about framing after the last election? Or does she just think it's acceptable to use Republican frames to attack Democrats?

More doodles!

Kohlberg!



















For all of my trash taking about Gilligan, she's a lot better than Kohlberg was.


Some doodle people:









This was from back in the Bonhoeffer seminar:










And, evidence of the occasional foray into sap, in part because Craig is away for the weekend:

ahh, intensives

I was impressed today by Piaget's term for his field of study: genetic epistemology. It sounds singularly important, even without knowing anything about his research. My new life goal is to come up with a similarly pretentious label for my doodles. Suggestions will be gladly accepted in the comments.
These doodles are from class.
Thinking about different kinds of hiding...




































and about awareness...












and original sin...












and just sketching - no names, but that's a paper clip on his tie.

things I like this spring:

Guava paste, blueberry incense, spinning seeds, sunshine, red socks, Turkish Delight, fidgeting, conditioner, the Mexican grocery store, walking, Jesus, flower trees, backrubs, baking cakes, Craig, leaning left, mowed grass smell, fancy cheese, glass beads, coffee, more coffee, drinking too much coffee, new leaves, geese, Craig's parents, teaching, sectarianism, sunglasses, Goodwill, lightening, gospel music, beetles.

(Image link.)

but those were MY rules!

Newt Gingrich:

Senate Republicans should mount an ongoing fight (including a filibuster of other activities if necessary) to get the American people to realize that liberals want to block all current judicial appointments in order to maximize the number of left wing radical judges they can appoint if they win the White House. [...] It shows the Democrats are not engaged in fair play.

Translation: I made up a bunch of meany-pants rules to restrict the minority in the legislature when I thought that the Republicans would be in control forever. But now we're not in control anymore, and it just doesn't seem fair that icky Demoncrats get to even approximate my level of unfairness. Waaah.
Question: Why does Gingrich suddenly seem like one of the more sensible Republicans on the public scene?

From the New York Times:

When the Pennsylvania returns rained down Tuesday night, the narrative became clear fast. The Democrats’ exit polls spelled disaster: Some 25 percent of the primary voters said they would defect to Mr. McCain or not vote at all if Barack Obama were the nominee. How could the party possibly survive this bitter, perhaps race-based civil war?

But as the doomsday alarm grew shrill, few noticed that on this same day in Pennsylvania, 27 percent of Republican primary voters didn’t just tell pollsters they would defect from their party’s standard-bearer; they went to the polls, gas prices be damned, to vote against Mr. McCain. Though ignored by every channel I surfed, there actually was a G.O.P. primary on Tuesday, open only to registered Republicans. And while it was superfluous in determining that party’s nominee, 220,000 Pennsylvania Republicans (out of their total turnout of 807,000) were moved to cast ballots for Mike Huckabee or, more numerously, Ron Paul. That’s more voters than the margin (215,000) that separated Hillary Clinton and Mr. Obama.

Those antiwar Paul voters are all potential defectors to the Democrats in November. Mr. Huckabee’s religious conservatives, who rejected Mr. McCain throughout the primary season, might also bolt or stay home. Given that the Democratic ticket beat Bush-Cheney in Pennsylvania by 205,000 votes in 2000 and 144,000 votes in 2004, these are 220,000 voters the G.O.P. can ill-afford to lose. Especially since there are now a million more registered Democrats than Republicans in Pennsylvania. (These figures don’t even include independents, who couldn’t vote in either primary on Tuesday and have been migrating toward the Democrats since 2006.)

(hat tip)

I hadn't heard that before, but just today at a polling station I saw a sign out for Ron Paul. He should be expected to do well in Indiana, right?

things I read during history class today

McCain: I Support Women's Rights...As Long As They're Meaningless
McCain the Women's Libber
“Fun Dads”, “Strict Moms”, the myth of male weakness and female anorexia: some further thoughts on Courtney Martin’s book
Crazy English
Wagering with Zeno
The Color of Plants on Other Worlds
Eviction Slip
Reading Herodotus

Hard To Get

"Did You forget about us after You had flown away
Well I memorized every word You said
Still I'm so scared, I'm holding my breath
While You're up there just playing hard to get
You who live in radiance
Hear the prayers of those of us who live in skin
We have a love that's not as patient as Yours was
Still we do love now and then..."
Rich Mullins

I hope it stays back this time.

Fafblog!

copy editor?

From the Earlham College newspaper, I just learned that the "sexual violence advocacy program" is unsustainable.
Frankly, I'm of the opinion that we have enough advocation of sexual violence as it is.

virginia is not on my short list...

...of places I'd like to live. Usually, asking anti-abortion activists how long a prison term they envision for women who end their pregnancies works as a rhetorical strategy. Gets folks rethinking the matter.

In Virginia, though, the answer is apparently "five years."

(link to picture)

Unrelatedly, this is more fun.

new definitions

“Rape, ladies and gentlemen, is not today what rape was. Rape, when I was learning these things, was the violation of a chaste woman, against her will, by some party not her spouse. Today it’s simply, ‘Let’s don’t go forward with this act.’” (Link)

You might have thought that defining rape more along the lines of 'sexual intercourse with someone by force,' and then saying that rape so defined is a bad thing, was a positive development. Clearly, this is because you are a godless liberal.

things I've read lately

You Like It, You Wear It
Obama's "Universal" Healthcare Deception
Anti-choicers still want to ban your contraception
Huckabee to Get Evangelical Leader's Nod
Dobson Endorses Huckabee
The Evangelicals' New Clothes

how big a geek am I?

...every congressional [district] attributes a number of delegates -- between three and eight. It is very difficult to get an extra delegate in an even-numbered district. For example, in a 4 delegate district, the candidate split the delegates 2-2 unless one of them breaks 62.5%, in which case the allocation is 3-1. In a 6 delegate district, the allocation is 3-3 unless a candidate breaks 58%, in which case it's 4-2. In odd delegate district, a one vote margin in that district gives the victor an extra delegate. So if a candidate gets 50.01% of the vote in a 5 delegate district, that already creates a delegate gap.

I thought this was a great article, that's how much.

I liked this snippet from a post supporting Sen. Clinton:
...in his effort to woo more conservative voters he's running to Clinton's right on health care and using right wing language on anything from Social Security to tax cuts. It used to matter to progressives how a candidate talks about issues; it still matters to me. It's not that I think Barack Obama isn't a progressive, certainly his voting record is, but the idea that he would run right to make distinctions from his opponent in a Democratic primary goes against everything we've been fighting against; and how else am I supposed to judge how he'll be as president than by the policies he's offering as a candidate? Whenever Obama does something questionable to progressives, it's fascinating to see the bending over backwards that goes on throughout the blogosphere to justify it. I don't think we should be trying so hard to look for signs that Barack Obama is a friend to the progressive movement even as he boasts about wanting to be the second coming of Ronald Reagan.

But I liked this, too, supporting Sen. Obama:
The problem with Clinton then is that she seems hopelessly frozen in these narratives – a byproduct of 1994 and coming of political age in Arkansas. Regardless of her disagreement with Republicans on individual issues, she cedes ultimate political victory to them because she accepts the terms of the debate they establish. Her stances on Iraq and Iran are objectionable to be sure, but what really concerns me is that they reveal a worldview that will result in more future bad decisions. Similarly, while her immigrant-bashing might help her tactically, it’s a long-term loser because it solidifies the view that (1) legal process is something one must earn; and (2) immigrants are bad. On the taxes front, her bashing of Obama’s payroll tax suggestion falls into this same category.

Actually, come to think of it, I've found two quotes that don't support either candidate. They're both negative. I miss Chris Dodd.

creeping racism

I haven't posted anything I've read lately, so here's a link: Link.

I'm not a big fan of Clinton, but...

When women say they support Hillary it's because they are irrationally supporting someone because of their gender. When men say they won't support Hillary it's because "she gives off the feeling that she despises them." If you even bring up the fact that there are men out there who will refuse to vote for any woman, you attacked for allegedly saying that men aren't decent people. Heads I win, tails you lose.
Link.
That makes me want to support her, war votes and all.

i knew it!