A few readers might remember that several weeks ago I asked where the Associated Press got their Israel vs. Palestine casualty figures? Tech Central Station does a great analysis of such casualty numbers today.
Lotsa people like the Boss: NRO, John Poedhoertz. Reading these reviews makes me look forward to getting my hands on Springsteen's new album.
I added a few worthy blogs and guilty pleasures to my template tonight. The dreaded "Error 503: Archive not found" problem was fixed, but my weeks worth of missing archives have not reappeared. Trying to reset them now, but it's not working so far. It may be awhile before I fix it. I hope to post tomorrow evening, but after that illinigirl may be silent as I vacation in Florida. I'll update if possible though -- don't forget about me in the next 10 days!
Random thoughts on life, faith and current events, direct to you from a twenty-something conservative chick deep in the cornfields of Central Illinois
Wednesday, July 31, 2002
My Cheerios and blueberries were spoiled this morning when I turned on Fox & Friends to hear about the bombing within Hebrew University. My heart went out to all the victims, and then I got angry. This afternoon I was trying to explain to a work friend today why each Palestinian homicide bombing makes my blood boil. He pointed out that Israel's apartment bombings last week actually killed more people. I tried to make a distinction between military bombings that accidentally kill civilians in pursuit of a dangerous war leader and suicide bombings. Is there much difference? I'm sure the UN would say there isn't. Murder is murder, but I can't help feeling there is a difference. Killing of a few to prevent scores of needless deaths in the future, versus the killing of as many as possible to make a political statement and get revenge.
Wanted to post a link tonight to Wendy McElroy's column that was published over at FoxNews yesterday. I was reading it at work, and I kept thinking how much it relates to blogs. The ifeminists.com columnist is discussing how a return to "intellectual virtues" is long overdue in our current, hyper-sensitive poltically correct climate. She does a better job than I can describing these virtues, focusing most of her article on the art of actively listening. My mind wanders frequently during conversations, so I'm always interested in pointers on how to become a better listener. She discusses how we should consider not only a speaker's literal content but the tone of voice and body language that accompany an argument.
Therein lies the problem with online communication. The voice and body language interaction cannot occur over the Internet, and this leaves us and bloggers/readers at a disadvantage in trying to understand each others' comments. Obviously there's nothing we can do to change this to help with weblogging. However when discussing more sensitive and/or personal issues, I think we can try to give the blogger the benefit of the doubt. As McElroy notes, the author is already exhibiting another important intellectual virtue:
"Courage is the willingness to take a risk with ideas. When you reach out intellectually into the world to argue a point, you run the risk of being proven wrong or, worse, of appearing foolish. The fear of embarrassment silences many people who have valuable things to say."
I personally can relate to this one. Basically, I held off for months on starting up an opinion-based personal website/blog because I was a coward. I'm a huge perfectionist, and I didn't want to put out a sub-par product. I didn't want to have my ideas out there, ideas that could be proven wrong in the future, associated with my name, and cause me to appear foolish. Eventually though, I got tired of just reading other people's columns and blogs on a daily basis. I did think I had some valuable things to say, so here I am. Publishing under an anonymous blog like an extremely brave person :) I do hope some of my readers find it useful and/or interesting though. I invite you to come out and challenge my ideas or argue you with them on a regular basis in the comments section. Intellectual growth is what we're all here for, I think at least.
Therein lies the problem with online communication. The voice and body language interaction cannot occur over the Internet, and this leaves us and bloggers/readers at a disadvantage in trying to understand each others' comments. Obviously there's nothing we can do to change this to help with weblogging. However when discussing more sensitive and/or personal issues, I think we can try to give the blogger the benefit of the doubt. As McElroy notes, the author is already exhibiting another important intellectual virtue:
"Courage is the willingness to take a risk with ideas. When you reach out intellectually into the world to argue a point, you run the risk of being proven wrong or, worse, of appearing foolish. The fear of embarrassment silences many people who have valuable things to say."
I personally can relate to this one. Basically, I held off for months on starting up an opinion-based personal website/blog because I was a coward. I'm a huge perfectionist, and I didn't want to put out a sub-par product. I didn't want to have my ideas out there, ideas that could be proven wrong in the future, associated with my name, and cause me to appear foolish. Eventually though, I got tired of just reading other people's columns and blogs on a daily basis. I did think I had some valuable things to say, so here I am. Publishing under an anonymous blog like an extremely brave person :) I do hope some of my readers find it useful and/or interesting though. I invite you to come out and challenge my ideas or argue you with them on a regular basis in the comments section. Intellectual growth is what we're all here for, I think at least.
Tuesday, July 30, 2002
Day Late and a Dollar Short
Joshua Claybourn's R-rated post on Eminem and Nelly has caused quite a fuss last week in the Christian blogosphere. This post is several days behind, but I wanted to throw in my two cents on the issue.
It's too bad really, because these are catchy songs. Sadly enough, I think they are some of the best pop songs out there at the moment. Aside from John Mayer and a few generic songs by the Britney wannabes, I can't think of any other songs on Top 40 radio that cause me to hum along on a regular basis. However, I rarely buy CDs and only listen to the radio-edited versions of these songs. I personally had no idea what the "real" lyrics were like. There's nothing offensive about "This looks like a job for me, so everybody come just follow me. Cause we need a little (eh) controversy, because it feels so empty without me". It's a bit cocky and lacks any real meaning, but it's entertaining and innocent enough. I owe Josh though for warning me about the true lyrics, and I do agree with him that both songs have pretty terrible, condescending attitudes towards women.
However, I do think that MarcV and Mark Byron made a valid point in their responses. I feel their responses were taken a bit too critically by the blogosphere. Truly, I think they were just asking us to stop and consider what standards we as Christian bloggers should try to maintain. In day to day life, our ears are assaulted with crude language on a regular basis. Heck, I was singing along with Nelly last week before I realized the first line was "Good gracious, a** is bodacious". At which point I snapped out of my sing-along and asked myself when that became passable on commercial radio. Apparently by July 2002, it had worked its way into even the "clean" radio version of the song
In being exposed to such lyrics on a regular basis in the entertainment world, the shock value of such words dissipates. I personally enjoy some "down-to-earth" programs that regularly employ crude, rude, or otherwise obtuse language -- Six Feet Under, Sex and the City, and South Park are the primary culprits. However, I have noticed that when I've been watching such programs regularly, I start slipping up language-wise myself. I'll accidentally say a** instead of rear-end, or I will mention how someone wouldn't stop b****ing about their workload. I will catch myself doing this and get embarrassed, particularly if I am at work for one of two reasons:
A) It's not professional, appropriate language for the workplace
B) I'm regretful that I've spoken that way around co-workers who know that I am a Christian
Basically, I've tried to cut down on my exposure to such elements -- both in the television and music arenas. Personally, I think I do appreciate it when bloggers stick to a higher standard, because it makes it easier for me to do so as well. What Mark Byron wrote about Phillippians 4:8 makes sense to me. Just my personal two cents on the matter as someone who has grown up in an similar environment in the 1990s. I have been out of college for two years though, so I feel that I have a slightly different perspective on the issue.
I can relate to Kevin Holtsberry's comments on the nature of his "Christian" blog. Another good question to debate -- by definition, what is a Christian blog? Perhaps I'll provide thoughts on that some other time. By the way Kevin, I like your wife's taste. Gilmore Girls is a good show, imho.
Joshua Claybourn's R-rated post on Eminem and Nelly has caused quite a fuss last week in the Christian blogosphere. This post is several days behind, but I wanted to throw in my two cents on the issue.
It's too bad really, because these are catchy songs. Sadly enough, I think they are some of the best pop songs out there at the moment. Aside from John Mayer and a few generic songs by the Britney wannabes, I can't think of any other songs on Top 40 radio that cause me to hum along on a regular basis. However, I rarely buy CDs and only listen to the radio-edited versions of these songs. I personally had no idea what the "real" lyrics were like. There's nothing offensive about "This looks like a job for me, so everybody come just follow me. Cause we need a little (eh) controversy, because it feels so empty without me". It's a bit cocky and lacks any real meaning, but it's entertaining and innocent enough. I owe Josh though for warning me about the true lyrics, and I do agree with him that both songs have pretty terrible, condescending attitudes towards women.
However, I do think that MarcV and Mark Byron made a valid point in their responses. I feel their responses were taken a bit too critically by the blogosphere. Truly, I think they were just asking us to stop and consider what standards we as Christian bloggers should try to maintain. In day to day life, our ears are assaulted with crude language on a regular basis. Heck, I was singing along with Nelly last week before I realized the first line was "Good gracious, a** is bodacious". At which point I snapped out of my sing-along and asked myself when that became passable on commercial radio. Apparently by July 2002, it had worked its way into even the "clean" radio version of the song
In being exposed to such lyrics on a regular basis in the entertainment world, the shock value of such words dissipates. I personally enjoy some "down-to-earth" programs that regularly employ crude, rude, or otherwise obtuse language -- Six Feet Under, Sex and the City, and South Park are the primary culprits. However, I have noticed that when I've been watching such programs regularly, I start slipping up language-wise myself. I'll accidentally say a** instead of rear-end, or I will mention how someone wouldn't stop b****ing about their workload. I will catch myself doing this and get embarrassed, particularly if I am at work for one of two reasons:
A) It's not professional, appropriate language for the workplace
B) I'm regretful that I've spoken that way around co-workers who know that I am a Christian
Basically, I've tried to cut down on my exposure to such elements -- both in the television and music arenas. Personally, I think I do appreciate it when bloggers stick to a higher standard, because it makes it easier for me to do so as well. What Mark Byron wrote about Phillippians 4:8 makes sense to me. Just my personal two cents on the matter as someone who has grown up in an similar environment in the 1990s. I have been out of college for two years though, so I feel that I have a slightly different perspective on the issue.
I can relate to Kevin Holtsberry's comments on the nature of his "Christian" blog. Another good question to debate -- by definition, what is a Christian blog? Perhaps I'll provide thoughts on that some other time. By the way Kevin, I like your wife's taste. Gilmore Girls is a good show, imho.
I had heard that the Islamic Jihad was attempting to hack into American websites before today. This isn’t news to me. However, the sheer ingenuity that is going on in the American hacker community as they hack into Al-Qaeda websites makes me proud to be computer geek. Check out this James Robbins NRO article and scroll down to the last two paragraphs for the good stuff. Just a little morsel to tempt you here…
"Whenever a new terrorist-linked website appears, its address is listed in bulletin boards frequented by the hacker community, usually with a note appended such as "Have fun" or ";-)" — no surprise if the site goes down shortly thereafter. The terrorists should understand that Americans invented these systems, we know how they work from the BIOS up, and we have the smartest, best-educated, most imaginative geek population in the history of the world. "
Two high-quality columns on FrontPageMag that I stumbled across today. I rarely visit David Horowitz's online magazine, but if they reguarly have such high-quality Larry Elder columns, then I will be coming back regularly.
Chris Weinkopf -- What Leftists Hate Most
Larry Elder -- Glossary for the Liberal Media
"Whenever a new terrorist-linked website appears, its address is listed in bulletin boards frequented by the hacker community, usually with a note appended such as "Have fun" or ";-)" — no surprise if the site goes down shortly thereafter. The terrorists should understand that Americans invented these systems, we know how they work from the BIOS up, and we have the smartest, best-educated, most imaginative geek population in the history of the world. "
Two high-quality columns on FrontPageMag that I stumbled across today. I rarely visit David Horowitz's online magazine, but if they reguarly have such high-quality Larry Elder columns, then I will be coming back regularly.
Chris Weinkopf -- What Leftists Hate Most
Larry Elder -- Glossary for the Liberal Media
Sunday, July 28, 2002
Excellent weekend all in all. I spent quality time with my houseguests, finished off some wedding prep, and danced yesterday night away to my favorite 80s tunes. "Material Girl", "Walk Like an Egyptian", and "Come on Eileen" just to name a few. Sometimes I feel that I was born about ten years too late, but what can a girl do? Spent most of today catching up on my sleep and trying to prepare for my vacation. FYI dear readers, illinigirl will most likely be on hiatus August 3rd - August 11th unless I can find some internet cafes in Florida. This is my first full-week vacation since I started working two years ago, and it's desperately needed. Hopefully I will return refreshed, rejuvenated, and ready to do some serious posting.
Few interesting links here, hopefully my "vulgarity in pop culture" rant will be up tomorrow:
"What took you guys so long?" It just made my morning to see all nine miners pulled out alive. They spent 77 hours emerged in waist-deep freezing water and emerged with only slight hypothermia. Perhaps miracles still do happen. I just know it was really nice to see an encouraging, uplifting bit of news like that for a change.
"I just want to focus on my salad too" In today's column, Kathleen Parker writes that she knows how Martha feels. Chalk me up as another person suffering from TMI syndrome. It's enough to make a girl want to curl up on the couch and just watch Cosby reruns. However, this is the word we live in at the moment. As much as we may want to shy away, we have to figure out how to live in it and keep it safe for future generations.
Why did Alex McCloud turn the Trading Spaces reigns over to (Mindy) Paige Davis (Page)? Apparently she just got tired of spending three weeks a month in Holiday Inns. In other Trading Spaces gossip, some crack smoker has reported that Amy and Doug are dating. Interesting theory...
Stumbled across a blog that was discussing this "What's in a Name?" service. Give it a whirl, it's really pretty interesting stuff. My name report was pretty accurate, although its overall tone was a bit too negative and depressing for my taste. I will argue that they were wrong on the "little progress or financial accumulation" front, but they do have me pegged on the intense nature and stomach problems. Hit me with some comments if your "brief name report" turns out to be accurate.
"The influence of ****** makes you positive, self-assertive, and independent. You can be creative, inventive, and ingenious in practical matters, such as handicrafts. When you have the opportunity to pursue your own goals and interests free from interference, you can feel very agreeable and express a buoyant optimism. On the other hand, you can be impulsive and forceful when opposed, and act without due forethought and discretion. Hence you have many bitter experiences and generally rather unsettled conditions in your life, with little progress and financial accumulation. You cannot tolerate any domination by others, or circumstances that restrict your freedom and independence. You are inclined to make changes abruptly in your life as an escape from such conditions. When annoyed or offended, you can be very candid and sarcastic in your speech. Many disruptions in friendship and association have thus resulted. Verbal expression is difficult for you, and you can be forthright in situations requiring delicacy, even though it is not your intention to be. The intensity of your nature would cause you to suffer in the senses of the head, as well as with digestive problems. You also would have a sensitivity in your solar plexus. In extreme cases, mental turmoil, major stomach operations, and accidents of a serious nature could occur."
Few interesting links here, hopefully my "vulgarity in pop culture" rant will be up tomorrow:
"What took you guys so long?" It just made my morning to see all nine miners pulled out alive. They spent 77 hours emerged in waist-deep freezing water and emerged with only slight hypothermia. Perhaps miracles still do happen. I just know it was really nice to see an encouraging, uplifting bit of news like that for a change.
"I just want to focus on my salad too" In today's column, Kathleen Parker writes that she knows how Martha feels. Chalk me up as another person suffering from TMI syndrome. It's enough to make a girl want to curl up on the couch and just watch Cosby reruns. However, this is the word we live in at the moment. As much as we may want to shy away, we have to figure out how to live in it and keep it safe for future generations.
Why did Alex McCloud turn the Trading Spaces reigns over to (Mindy) Paige Davis (Page)? Apparently she just got tired of spending three weeks a month in Holiday Inns. In other Trading Spaces gossip, some crack smoker has reported that Amy and Doug are dating. Interesting theory...
Stumbled across a blog that was discussing this "What's in a Name?" service. Give it a whirl, it's really pretty interesting stuff. My name report was pretty accurate, although its overall tone was a bit too negative and depressing for my taste. I will argue that they were wrong on the "little progress or financial accumulation" front, but they do have me pegged on the intense nature and stomach problems. Hit me with some comments if your "brief name report" turns out to be accurate.
"The influence of ****** makes you positive, self-assertive, and independent. You can be creative, inventive, and ingenious in practical matters, such as handicrafts. When you have the opportunity to pursue your own goals and interests free from interference, you can feel very agreeable and express a buoyant optimism. On the other hand, you can be impulsive and forceful when opposed, and act without due forethought and discretion. Hence you have many bitter experiences and generally rather unsettled conditions in your life, with little progress and financial accumulation. You cannot tolerate any domination by others, or circumstances that restrict your freedom and independence. You are inclined to make changes abruptly in your life as an escape from such conditions. When annoyed or offended, you can be very candid and sarcastic in your speech. Many disruptions in friendship and association have thus resulted. Verbal expression is difficult for you, and you can be forthright in situations requiring delicacy, even though it is not your intention to be. The intensity of your nature would cause you to suffer in the senses of the head, as well as with digestive problems. You also would have a sensitivity in your solar plexus. In extreme cases, mental turmoil, major stomach operations, and accidents of a serious nature could occur."
Friday, July 26, 2002
Hooray it’s Friday! A rather uneventful week but I am just as glad to finally see this weekend. Company is arriving in a few hours, and we will be doing all sorts of swell things this weekend. Shopping for wedding accessories, eating at nice restaurants, dancing to some sweet bands and crazy 80’s music…that sort of thing. Don’t be surprised if posting is light. However I freakishly find it impossible to sleep past 8 am on weekends, and I’m guessing my company doesn’t share this affliction. Who knows - maybe I will blog and maybe I will loaf.
At the moment though, I am drained and need a nap. I was going to post links to a couple items of interest, but I couldn’t find any. Seriously, I am not interested in most of what’s out on the news sites tonight. The news is either too depressing (Pennsylvania miner rescue stalled, poor little girl found dead in St. Louis glass factory, Ft. Bragg domestic slayings epidemic, West Nile crows everywhere) or a silly entertainment piece that shouldn’t qualify as news (Liza’s reality show, Jacko’s money problems, Ozzy’s royalties). As Peggy Noonan said in a very interesting column this morning, we are living in very interesting times. Go read her column – it seems a bit flowy and trite, but she makes some great points I can relate to. It does seem that we are living in a fantasy world, still happily living our day to day lives and pretending that petty entertainment gossip matters while the world seems to be falling apart. Excuse me while I head off to the fridge for some Hagen-Dazs…(or Edy's as the case may be)...
At the moment though, I am drained and need a nap. I was going to post links to a couple items of interest, but I couldn’t find any. Seriously, I am not interested in most of what’s out on the news sites tonight. The news is either too depressing (Pennsylvania miner rescue stalled, poor little girl found dead in St. Louis glass factory, Ft. Bragg domestic slayings epidemic, West Nile crows everywhere) or a silly entertainment piece that shouldn’t qualify as news (Liza’s reality show, Jacko’s money problems, Ozzy’s royalties). As Peggy Noonan said in a very interesting column this morning, we are living in very interesting times. Go read her column – it seems a bit flowy and trite, but she makes some great points I can relate to. It does seem that we are living in a fantasy world, still happily living our day to day lives and pretending that petty entertainment gossip matters while the world seems to be falling apart. Excuse me while I head off to the fridge for some Hagen-Dazs…(or Edy's as the case may be)...
Thursday, July 25, 2002
A two-way messenger system exists between the following departments in a corporation: F and G, F and H, H and K, K and M, K and N, M and J, J and L.
There is also a one-way messenger system from department J to department G.
None of the messenger routes intersect one another except at the departments
There are no other departments or messenger routes in the corporation.
Messengers must follow the direction established for transit between departments.
Question: If the hallway between H and K is being resurfaced, making the route unusable, a messenger would NOT be able to travel from:
(A) G to F
(B) G to L
(C) J to M
(D) J to L
(E) K to F
Just as difficult, so much better. Who will post the correct answer in the Comments first? RIP gre analytical.
There is also a one-way messenger system from department J to department G.
None of the messenger routes intersect one another except at the departments
There are no other departments or messenger routes in the corporation.
Messengers must follow the direction established for transit between departments.
Question: If the hallway between H and K is being resurfaced, making the route unusable, a messenger would NOT be able to travel from:
(A) G to F
(B) G to L
(C) J to M
(D) J to L
(E) K to F
Just as difficult, so much better. Who will post the correct answer in the Comments first? RIP gre analytical.
Apologies for the sporadic, short and not-so-insightful postings this week. Busy days and nights have taken a toll on me. The political world does not interest me at the moment. I think the whole mess about Traficant is kind of funny, but I don't give a fig about the "investment scandals" at the moment. I just want my 401K to start up again, and I am not sure that new federal criminal regulations are the best way to make corporations shape up. Since politics are not of interest at the moment, I'll give you my take on a few cultural matters tonight. (Amended: I will actually write about one cultural/educational matter. I intend to offer my two cents on the small blogoversy over Joshua Claybourn's post on Eminem and Nelly, but I'm too tired and cannot finish it tonight.)
On The Corner this morning, Stanley Kurtz pointed out that changes to the GRE that will be occurring this fall are less innocuous than they might seem. For those who have no reason to know or care, the GRE is eliminating its analytical section in the fall in favor of an essay test. Or an essay screening if you will, where test-takers are asked to write an essay based on a particular package and to write an essay on their own opinions. Erin O'Connor has done a wonderful three-part piece on why this change is a bad idea. She points out that while GRE.org promises that essays will be evaluated from a politically-neutral viewpoint, the list of recommended topics suggests otherwise.
Some of my favorites include gems like:
1. "College and university education should be free for all students, fully financed by the government"
2. "No one can possibly achieve success in the world by conforming to conventional practices and conventional ways of thinking",
3. "In the age of television, reading books is not as important as it once was. People can learn as much by watching television as they can by reading books"
4. ” Education encourages students to question and criticize, and therefore does little to promote social harmony".
The first thing that struck me about these essay questions? How can the GRE people expect you to spend 45 minutes writing an essay on such a topic? As the official GRE site notes, the Present Your Perspective on an Issue task "states an opinion on an issue of general interest and asks test takers to address the issue from any perspective(s) they wish, as long as they provide relevant reasons and examples to explain and support their views". How in the world are you going to spend 45 minutes writing an essay on such a topic unless you write about your political beliefs? . While you may have some logic and reasoning behind your views, it's unlikely you will have specific examples that you can CITE in the proper format as you could in grad school -- author, title, year of publication, etc.
To be fair, there were a few innocuous, poltically neutral suggested topics. However, the vast majority of these statements would either be uttered by someone on the far right or far left of center. In writing an essay based on their own beliefs, the political leanings of the test-taker will become apparent to the scorer. As O'Connor notes, "One might argue that there are no right and wrong responses to these topics, and one could cite GRE.org's own promise that evaluation of the essay will be viewpoint neutral. But that would be naive. In certain academic disciplines, there absolutely are right and wrong approaches to these issues. The GRE analytical assessment seems specially crafted to determine whether the test taker knows what the proper approaches are, to see if she can adequately reproduce the accepted tenets of the postmodern, multicultural academy, and to score her accordingly."
I'm somewhat exhausted, so I will just leave you with the l inks to her column. (Part I - upcoming changes, Part II - testing politics, Part III - credibility of GRE/ETS). Read it and ponder whether we really want an academia with just one point of view, and ponder whether this latest change might get us there. And if you're heading off to grad school in the near future, consider taking the test before October 1st.
On The Corner this morning, Stanley Kurtz pointed out that changes to the GRE that will be occurring this fall are less innocuous than they might seem. For those who have no reason to know or care, the GRE is eliminating its analytical section in the fall in favor of an essay test. Or an essay screening if you will, where test-takers are asked to write an essay based on a particular package and to write an essay on their own opinions. Erin O'Connor has done a wonderful three-part piece on why this change is a bad idea. She points out that while GRE.org promises that essays will be evaluated from a politically-neutral viewpoint, the list of recommended topics suggests otherwise.
Some of my favorites include gems like:
1. "College and university education should be free for all students, fully financed by the government"
2. "No one can possibly achieve success in the world by conforming to conventional practices and conventional ways of thinking",
3. "In the age of television, reading books is not as important as it once was. People can learn as much by watching television as they can by reading books"
4. ” Education encourages students to question and criticize, and therefore does little to promote social harmony".
The first thing that struck me about these essay questions? How can the GRE people expect you to spend 45 minutes writing an essay on such a topic? As the official GRE site notes, the Present Your Perspective on an Issue task "states an opinion on an issue of general interest and asks test takers to address the issue from any perspective(s) they wish, as long as they provide relevant reasons and examples to explain and support their views". How in the world are you going to spend 45 minutes writing an essay on such a topic unless you write about your political beliefs? . While you may have some logic and reasoning behind your views, it's unlikely you will have specific examples that you can CITE in the proper format as you could in grad school -- author, title, year of publication, etc.
To be fair, there were a few innocuous, poltically neutral suggested topics. However, the vast majority of these statements would either be uttered by someone on the far right or far left of center. In writing an essay based on their own beliefs, the political leanings of the test-taker will become apparent to the scorer. As O'Connor notes, "One might argue that there are no right and wrong responses to these topics, and one could cite GRE.org's own promise that evaluation of the essay will be viewpoint neutral. But that would be naive. In certain academic disciplines, there absolutely are right and wrong approaches to these issues. The GRE analytical assessment seems specially crafted to determine whether the test taker knows what the proper approaches are, to see if she can adequately reproduce the accepted tenets of the postmodern, multicultural academy, and to score her accordingly."
I'm somewhat exhausted, so I will just leave you with the l inks to her column. (Part I - upcoming changes, Part II - testing politics, Part III - credibility of GRE/ETS). Read it and ponder whether we really want an academia with just one point of view, and ponder whether this latest change might get us there. And if you're heading off to grad school in the near future, consider taking the test before October 1st.
Wednesday, July 24, 2002
Random links to interesting news and commentary:
There is a difference between being mean and simply voicing your displeasure on topics of interest. Michael Kelly's priceless column this morning proves that he knows it well.
Nice quote from the House of Representatives via Fox News : "My name will appear on the ballot. I want the people back home to know that they can vote for me. And it would be an unusual situation in American history, the first in American history I think, and I'm going to make this statement: I can run. I can operate and function as effectively as any member of Congress from behind bars." — James Traficant, on his plans to seek re-election in the fall. As FoxNews notes, Traficant is only the second member to be banished since the Civil War. The vote to expel him was 420-1. The lone vote to keep Traficant was courtesy of our honorable representative Gary Condit, who just seems glad that someone beat him to the title. Isn't it ironic?
Sopranos rumors and spoilers for those who might be interested.
Meant to post a link to this article yesterday -- a study shows that women have better emotional memories than men. An acquaintance in college used to bemoan the fact that girls weren't more like guys in this respect. Men have a major blowup, begrudgingly decide to get together anyways, have a few drinks together, and all is forgiven. Women on the other hand, we never forget. Once we are burned, we seem much warier to forgive the past transgressions of an individual that has betrayed our trust.
Regardless of politics, you have to admire the gumption of Patricia Owens. Way to stand up for yourself when being attacked by the press and partisan hounds for political gain. Texas Republican women rock -- sometimes I think I need to move there. Back to Owens, I think she will make an outstanding appellate court judge. She would only represent Texas, Lousiana, and Mississippi though, so my vote doesn't count in this case. Consider contacting your senator today if yours does.
There is a difference between being mean and simply voicing your displeasure on topics of interest. Michael Kelly's priceless column this morning proves that he knows it well.
Nice quote from the House of Representatives via Fox News : "My name will appear on the ballot. I want the people back home to know that they can vote for me. And it would be an unusual situation in American history, the first in American history I think, and I'm going to make this statement: I can run. I can operate and function as effectively as any member of Congress from behind bars." — James Traficant, on his plans to seek re-election in the fall. As FoxNews notes, Traficant is only the second member to be banished since the Civil War. The vote to expel him was 420-1. The lone vote to keep Traficant was courtesy of our honorable representative Gary Condit, who just seems glad that someone beat him to the title. Isn't it ironic?
Sopranos rumors and spoilers for those who might be interested.
Meant to post a link to this article yesterday -- a study shows that women have better emotional memories than men. An acquaintance in college used to bemoan the fact that girls weren't more like guys in this respect. Men have a major blowup, begrudgingly decide to get together anyways, have a few drinks together, and all is forgiven. Women on the other hand, we never forget. Once we are burned, we seem much warier to forgive the past transgressions of an individual that has betrayed our trust.
Regardless of politics, you have to admire the gumption of Patricia Owens. Way to stand up for yourself when being attacked by the press and partisan hounds for political gain. Texas Republican women rock -- sometimes I think I need to move there. Back to Owens, I think she will make an outstanding appellate court judge. She would only represent Texas, Lousiana, and Mississippi though, so my vote doesn't count in this case. Consider contacting your senator today if yours does.
Tuesday, July 23, 2002
Something seems to have gone very awry with Blogspot tonight folks. Due to this and an ugly little tummyache I haven't been able to shake since lunch, illinigirl will not be offering any insightful commentary this evening. It is kind of a shame, because there were several items I wanted to comment on this evening -- such as my disappointment at the method of retaliation Israel chose to use against Hamas and the fact they have may have started up the cycle of violence again, my thoughts on this excellent WSJ piece describing problems with Canada's socialized medicine, pondering whether alpha females really exist, and a random assortment of other things I find interesting. Instead, it is off to sleepyland a bit early. Check back tomorrow though!
Illinigirl got herself some culture this evening and done went to an incredibly entertaining chamber music concert. (End of reprehensible country bumpkin English). She then spent an hour composing a great post on the idea of being uncomfortable within one's Christian denomination. Then she accidentally erased it. Drats. But she is a glutton for punishment and has attempted to recreate this post below. Do not be surprised if she edits/cleans up this post tomorrow.
On Christian Faith and Denominations
Came across an interesting post by HokiePundit last night, and I thought I would share some of my thoughts on it with you. He writes about his struggles with some of the points of view found within the Episcopalian church, and his thoughts as he mulls whether or not to leave for a different denomination. I love reading posts like this because it shows Christians actively considering the role that their denomination plays within their faith lives. I also really enjoy reading posts like this because I have undergone similar struggles lately.
Basically, I am a hard-core conservative and life-long United Methodist. As I really became a Christian and grew more involved within my faith the past few years, I have increasingly noticed the United Methodist Church adopting positions with which I vehemently disagree. Few random examples: a pro-choice stance on abortions that blatantly conflicts with the respect for life the church exhibits by opposing the death penalty, support of hate crime legislation that argues the lives of those within protected-classes are worth more than those of "regular" human beings, and especially the contemptible gift of $10,000 by the United Methodist's National Commission on Religion and Race to "aid in the elimination" of the University of Illinois's revered, respected, beloved mascot Chief Illiniwek.
Now while rational arguments can be made for some of these stances (Not Illiniwek!), the fact remains that they feel innately wrong to me. I have considered leaving the United Methodist church for another denomination. I have friends who are members of more right-wing denominatons that seem to look down their noses at conservatives like myself for remaining members of more liberal groups. I know others who think I am behaving hypocritically by remaining a United Methodist while I don't live strictly by its Social Principle guidelines on certain issues . However after much consideration, I have basically reached a conclusion similar to that reached by Robert Bauer on Sunday:
"It does help to remember that the church isn't what saves you, but faith in Christ and, by extension, the Trinity. The church is merely a means to advance understanding and knowledge, and not an end in and of itself. However, when a church does not fulfill its stated and obligatory goal, there must be a change, either from within or from without."
At this point, I remain in the United Methodist church because I have a wonderful church home in which I can still further my knowledge of Christ. I think it is entirely healthy for Christians to question and occasionally disagree with the social/political stances adopted by their respective denominations. In fact, I think they may only be growing within their faiths when they regularly do so.
On Christian Faith and Denominations
Came across an interesting post by HokiePundit last night, and I thought I would share some of my thoughts on it with you. He writes about his struggles with some of the points of view found within the Episcopalian church, and his thoughts as he mulls whether or not to leave for a different denomination. I love reading posts like this because it shows Christians actively considering the role that their denomination plays within their faith lives. I also really enjoy reading posts like this because I have undergone similar struggles lately.
Basically, I am a hard-core conservative and life-long United Methodist. As I really became a Christian and grew more involved within my faith the past few years, I have increasingly noticed the United Methodist Church adopting positions with which I vehemently disagree. Few random examples: a pro-choice stance on abortions that blatantly conflicts with the respect for life the church exhibits by opposing the death penalty, support of hate crime legislation that argues the lives of those within protected-classes are worth more than those of "regular" human beings, and especially the contemptible gift of $10,000 by the United Methodist's National Commission on Religion and Race to "aid in the elimination" of the University of Illinois's revered, respected, beloved mascot Chief Illiniwek.
Now while rational arguments can be made for some of these stances (Not Illiniwek!), the fact remains that they feel innately wrong to me. I have considered leaving the United Methodist church for another denomination. I have friends who are members of more right-wing denominatons that seem to look down their noses at conservatives like myself for remaining members of more liberal groups. I know others who think I am behaving hypocritically by remaining a United Methodist while I don't live strictly by its Social Principle guidelines on certain issues . However after much consideration, I have basically reached a conclusion similar to that reached by Robert Bauer on Sunday:
"It does help to remember that the church isn't what saves you, but faith in Christ and, by extension, the Trinity. The church is merely a means to advance understanding and knowledge, and not an end in and of itself. However, when a church does not fulfill its stated and obligatory goal, there must be a change, either from within or from without."
At this point, I remain in the United Methodist church because I have a wonderful church home in which I can still further my knowledge of Christ. I think it is entirely healthy for Christians to question and occasionally disagree with the social/political stances adopted by their respective denominations. In fact, I think they may only be growing within their faiths when they regularly do so.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)