Autism, Visual Thinking, and Justifying the Humanities

You may recall that Fosco has been interested in the question of whether Ben's cat Isis (and all cats, for that matter) is essentially autistic. Fosco got this idea from animal researcher Temple Grandin, who is herself autistic and finds that her condition allows her to understand animals better than neurotypical observers. (Additionally, Fosco is actually pretty impressed with Dr. Grandin's jaunty style, as seen in accompanying picture.)

Well, a couple of weeks ago, Fosco picked up (at his local library!) one of Grandin's books, Animals in Translation. Grandin makes some pretty fascinating claims in the book, relying on both her experiences and insights from neuroscience. For one thing, she provides a model of animal perception that can account for some of the stranger aspects of animal behavior (although not all of them--she still can't explain why slowly-moving fans creep out cows).

One of Grandin's claims is that she and animals both think entirely in pictures (this is not a surprise for animals--what else would they think in? Words?). Grandin tries to explain what it is like for her to do complex human cognition entirely in pictures. It all sounds completely horrible to Fosco, who is highly verbal and cannot imagine trying to do justice to Derrida or Levinas without making use of words and abstract concepts. However, Grandin wants to argue that there are indeed benefits to entirely visual thinking:

Other times thinking in pictures is an advantage. During the 1990s I knew all the dot-coms would go to hell, because when I thought about them the only images I saw were rented office space and computers that would be obsolete in two years. There wasn't anything real I could picture; the companies had no hard assets. My stockbroker asked me how I knew the two stock market crashes would happen, and I told him, 'When the Monopoly play money starts jerking around the real money you're in trouble.'

This is a cute story, of course (although maybe not one I would have left in the manuscript were I Grandin's editor). I suspect that Grandin may have profited handsomely from our recent economic troubles as well--there are certainly no good mental pictures that can represent hedge funds and credit default swaps (although: most of this bubble seems to have been based on the housing market and houses are indeed "real" and easily pictured).

But I think this anecdote raises an interesting question: in what ways is it possible to value non-concrete (i.e., not easily pictured) things? Sure, the original dot-com bubble did burst; however, this didn't mean that the web itself is completely worthless. There are still plenty of companies that are "nothing" but office space and soon-to-be-obsolete computers (like Google, perhaps)--and while Google may (or may not) be overvalued, the services it provides are not valueless.

And yet, at the same time, there is clearly an anxiety about the possibility of valuing things like knowledge, information, content, etc.--and not just for autistic people or visual thinkers. As someone who is (supposedly) in the "knowledge business," I think these issues are worth meditating on, especially as the humanities are increasingly called upon to "justify their worth" in the modern world.

You can purchase several Temple Grandin books by following these links.



Fosco will receive a small percentage and will be grateful.

submit to reddit

America's Most Backward State: Oklahoma!

Last week, Fosco was outraged by the head of the Texas State Board of Education and his love for a book that claims to disprove evolution. Because what kind of state allows that kind of moron to be in charge of education? Well, then Oklahoma had to go one better (thereby winning the appellation "America's Most Backward State").

As Fosco's favorite cyber-crusader, Jonathan Turley, notes:

It appears that Oklahoma legislators are continuing their attempted crackdown on University of Oklahoma for the outrage of allowing evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins of Oxford University speak to its students. After proposing two resolutions denouncing the scheduled appearance, legislators are now demanding answers about the funding and communications with Dawkins.

For those of you who don't know, Richard Dawkins is one of the foremost evolutionary biologists. His writings on evolution for a popular audience are well-written and impeccably reasoned. He is one of the most persuasive theorists of evolution (and a frequent critic of creationism and religious fundamentalism). He is also, by any conceivable measurement, smarter and better educated that every single member of the Oklahoma State Legislature (or does that go without saying?). Oh, and if the above photo is to be believed, he is Buffy's Watcher.

But because some morons aren't happy unless they're fucking things up for everyone else, Oklahoma State Representative Rebecca Hamilton (apparently, in some sort of bizarro Oklahoma universe, a Democrat) tried to force the University to cancel Dawkins's speech. Dawkins was invited to speak to celebrate Darwin's 200th birthday. Hamilton (who is most certainly not a LILF and, as far as Fosco can tell, probably did descend from monkeys) first tried to squelch Dawkins's speech with two resolutions, one of which contained this paragraph:

WHEREAS, not only has the Department of Zoology at the University of Oklahoma been engaged in one-sided indoctrination of an unproven and unpopular theory but has made an effort to brand all thinking in dissent of this theory as anti-intellectual and backward rather than nurturing such free thinking and allowing a free discussion of all ideas which is the primary purpose of a university;

The "unproven and unpopular" part is certainly a hoot. Even if that were true (outside of Ms. Hamilton's church, that is), should we really be making decisions about scientific veracity based on popularity? As for making dissent seem "anti-intellectual and backward," I don't really think the Department of Zoology needs to do much work--Ms. Hamilton has done a good job of making her own dissent seem both anti-intellectual and backward (not to mention petty).

But because the University decided NOT to cave in to Ms. Hamilton's demands that they cancel Professor Dawkins's talk, she's moved on to Plan B: hound the OU administration to the extent that future "controversial" speakers don't seem worth the hassle. As Jonathan Turley notes:

Hamilton has reportedly demanded information relating to the speech from Vice President for Governmental Relations Danny Hilliard, including a list of all money paid to Dawkins and the entities, public or private, the total cost to the university, and an account of any “faculty time spent promoting this event.”

One can only imagine how she intends to use this information. However, I don't think you need to be a strict fundamentalist about academic freedom to recognize that a legislator has absolutely no business inquiring into the scholarly pursuits of any member of the university faculty (including any time they spend "promoting" an academic event). This is a blatantly transparent attempt to produce a chilling effect on scholarship at the University of Oklahoma (a place that, frankly, can use all the scholarship it can get).

I'm starting to think that, sometime in the last twenty years, large swaths of the American public (mostly, but not exclusively, in the "Bible belt") not only became complete idiots about science, but also lost track of what universities are supposed to do. Granted, beating Texas in football every year is an important goal for any institution of higher education; however, Oklahomans need to realize that there is actually a bit more involved in running a university. Nitwits.

submit to reddit

"Let's Go to the Phones... Anyone? Please?"

Here's your monthly Fosco Lives! update from the narrow, narrow world of sports.

Today's story is kinda sad, actually. The head basketball coach at one of Fosco's previous academic pitstops, the venereal venerable University of Virginia, has resigned after the team's worst season since the late 1960s. Yes, Mr. Jefferson's basketball coach, Dave Leitao, is finally done in Charlottesville. Leitao's tenure was hardly legendary, with a 63-60 record over four years.

But whatever, right? Why should you (or Fosco) care? Well, mainly because of this pathetic little nugget from the ESPN article (italics added for extra pathos):

The Cavaliers routinely trailed by double figures at halftime, even at John Paul Jones Arena, where they went 9-8, and fan interest waned as the team's difficulties continued. The $130 million arena, opened just three years ago, seats more than 14,000 for basketball, but drew an average of just over 10,000 this season. Apathy was more apparent during Leitao's weekly hourlong radio show, which more than once attracted no callers.

That's right: a weekly hourlong radio show with a Division IA head coach in a marquis sport that more than once attracted no callers.

While it's true that we're not talking about a basketball powerhouse like Duke or IU, UVa is still a member of the basketball-crazy Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC). And when Fosco was on campus (pre-Leitao), there was still some interest in what (even then) was a pretty mediocre basketball team. Fosco recalls walking past a dorm block one year during a UVa upset of Duke and hearing a giant synchronized cheer of celebration from hundreds of individual student rooms.

And now, six years later, the UVa basketball coach can hold an hourlong radio program and have no callers. That's the kind of thing that makes you feel sorry for the poor guy.

Well, except for the fact that, despite resigning, Leitao will still receive $2.1 million. I don't know what's next for Coach Leitao, but I think AIG might be his kind of place. Come to think of it, the American public has been getting hosed by "failure bonuses" for years: they're just usually called "buyouts" and tend to be given to underperforming coaches of college football and basketball. (And indeed, it is often taxpayers who foot the bill.)

Is it any wonder that Fosco never responds to UVa's fundraising requests?


submit to reddit

Who wants to go to Cornell?

Like any good progressive, Fosco loves Keith Olbermann and loathes skeletal oddity Ann Coulter. And even though nine times out of eight, Coulter is best ignored, an Olbermann-Coulter argument could well be entertaining. Of course, in an actual fight I would put my money on Olbermann, because he's a big tall guy. Although, come to think of it, Coulter is also a big tall guy.

However, this Olbermann-Coulter skirmish isn't so interesting. As reported by HuffPo:

Ann Coulter and Keith Olbermann are engaged in a bizarre but real feud over their alma mater, Cornell University.

Earlier this week, Coulter wrote a column trashing Olbermann and alleging that he didn't attend "the real Cornell" because he went to one of the University's state schools, the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences (known as the Ag School).

Coulter wrote that Olbermann "is constantly lying about his nonexistent 'Ivy League' education" despite the fact that he "didn't go to the Ivy League Cornell; he went to the Old MacDonald Cornell."

Of course, what's strange here is that anyone would be fighting to claim a Cornell degree. Fosco tends to think a Cornell B.A. is a lot like a nutmeg grater: it possibly could be useful someday, but it's never something you would brag about. Really, Ann and Keith: can't you both just agree that neither of you has a good degree and get on with things?

But, if we're really going to be picky, it seems that Keith is probably more correct here: Cornell is indeed (for now) an Ivy League school, whether you attend the private part or the state-funded part, whether you study philosophy or hotel and restaurant management. Besides, it's not like either Keith or Ann is in a business where an Ivy League degree matters much: Keith is essentially a political sportscaster and Ann is, ummm... some kind of clown?

You know what could bring Keith and Ann together? The one thing that all Cornellians could be proud of (if Ivy League sports were something to be proud of): a kickass basketball team.


[N.B., Fosco is actually not as much of a dick as he seems in this post. There is a long tradition of this kind of faux snobbery between the Ivy League schools and their students/alumni. It's just a rivalry thing--don't take it too seriously.]

submit to reddit

My Favorite Palin

Fosco has surprised himself recently with the depth of his anger at conservatives who believe that abstinence education has any relation to teen pregnancy (hint: it doesn't). Whether or not babies are a blessing (and Fosco's jury is still out on that one), I just don't understand how people can refuse to support sex education programs that would help women to have babies when they want to. If we all agree that babies should be born into stable homes and relationships (and I don't know who can disagree with that), then I just don't see how this "abstinence only" charade or the "virginity pledge" fraud can be allowed to continue.

The most famous know-nothing on this subject, of course, is Governero Sarah Palin, whose support for abstinence-only programs has famously come home to roost in the uterus of her teen daughter Bristol. But how does Bristol feel about all of this? Is her head in the sand too (next to her mother's)?

Well, thanks to everyone's favorite Bell's palsy-ed lesbian, Greta Van Susteren, we now have the definitive interview with Sarah Palin's SportsCenter-named daughter. And here's the surprise: Bristol Palin isn't as stupid as her mother. And believe it or not, she even speaks in complete sentences (more or less)!

Let's go to the transcript. Now things start out a little rocky for our Bristol. She clearly needs a little time to warm up to her message:

VAN SUSTEREN: You know, it always is sort of a difficult thing, you know, when it's a question of youth, and no one ever really knows what to say to a young person in your situation.
BRISTOL: Yes. I don't know. I just -- I hope that people learn from my story and just, like, I don't know, prevent teen pregnancy, I guess.

As slogans go, this one lacks some punch. I don't really see this on a T-shirt: The Bristol Palin Foundation: Working to just, like, I don't know, prevent teen pregnancy, I guess. I think she needs to talk to some PR people.

But then Bristol starts to get more interesting. Like in this exchange, when she talks about her "choice" to have her baby:

VAN SUSTEREN: What didn't anybody get? What didn't people understand?
BRISTOL: That -- there's a lot of things. They thought that, like, my mom was going to make me have the baby, and it was my choice to have the baby. And it's just -- that kind of stuff just bothered me.
VAN SUSTEREN: And in terms of your mother making you have the baby, I mean, the whole issue of, I guess, the right -- the right to life and choice and things like that.
BRISTOL: Yes. Yes.
VAN SUSTEREN: But this is your issue. This is your decision.
BRISTOL: Yes. And would have -- doesn't matter what my mom's views are on it. It was my decision, and I wish people would realize that, too.

Wait a minute--is Bristol Palin saying that she (as a woman) had a choice about whether to have her baby? She talks like that's a constitutional right or something! Women aren't supposed to have that--not in Palin's America!

A little farther into the interview, Bristol has made some progress with her slogan:

VAN SUSTEREN: What do your parents say about teen pregnancy?
BRISTOL: It's not something to strive for, I guess. It's just -- I don't know. I'm not the first person that it's happened to and I'm not going to be the last. But I don't know. I'd love for -- to be an advocate to prevent teen pregnancy because it's not, like, a situation that you want to strive for, I guess.

"Teen Pregnancy: It's not, like, a situation that you want to strive for, I guess." That's a little better. Still could use the touch of a good PR person, though.

But I've been saving the best exchange for last. It starts when Greta Van Pervert asks for some explicit Bristol-Levi sex details:

VAN SUSTEREN: I don't want to pry to personally, but I mean, actually, contraception is an issue here. Is that something that you were just lazy about or not interested, or do you have a philosophical or religious opposition to it or...
BRISTOL: No. I don't want to get into detail about that. But I think abstinence is, like -- like, the -- I don't know how to put it -- like, the main -- everyone should be abstinent or whatever, but it's not realistic at all.
VAN SUSTEREN: Why?
BRISTOL: Because -- I don't want to get into details on this.
VAN SUSTEREN: Well, no, I don't mean personally, just big picture, not -- not necessarily about you, but...
BRISTOL: Because it's more and more accepted now.
VAN SUSTEREN: Among your classmates and kids your age?
BRISTOL: Among -- yes, among kids my age.

If you can get past Greta's question about Levi's condom use (and who wouldn't want to know what size he wears), you may notice that Bristol Palin points out that abstinence is "not realistic at all." Finally, I think Bristol Palin has said (badly) something worth saying: ABSTINENCE (or whatever) IS JUST NOT REALISTIC. AT ALL.

And by this point in the interview, perhaps you, like Fosco, are wondering whether Bristol's realization here also signals a shift in Sarah's thinking about abstinence. Has the pregnancy of her beloved teen daughter actually made her rethink her "abstinence-only" approach to sex ed? Has real life experience made a dent in her thick, ignorant cranium? Luckily, this is about the point when Sarah Palin herself "pops in" to answer a few Van Susteren questions. And we are treated to another titbit of Sarah Palin's nuanced worldview:

SARAH PALIN: Exactly. Exactly. So you get behind that, that ideal of, yes, abstinence, you know? Hey, don't get pregnant. Well, get beyond that when it happens, and then you deal with it. Life happens. Life happens and you deal with it, and Bristol's dealing with it wonderfully.

First of all, this woman's grammatical skill makes her daughter Bristol sound like Winston Churchill. But assuming that I'm parsing Sarah's "sentences" correctly, I read her meaning as follows: "First, you teach abstinence until it fails and then you deal with it. Because shit happens." Even purely as a parenting philosophy, this seems like sheer idiocy. But as public policy? You have got to be fucking kidding me. This woman shouldn't be running a 7-11, much less an American state.

And so, on behalf of America, I'd like to apologize to Bristol Palin. Bristol, I'm sorry your mom is a hillbilly idiot who didn't want you to learn about how not to get pregnant. And I'm sorry that people like your mom were in charge of your education in the state of Alaska, thereby preventing you from receiving meaningful sex ed. And as much you love being a mother (and as rewarding as it no doubt is for you--and I sincerely believe that it is rewarding), I am sorry that you didn't get to make that choice ten years from now--when you had a career and a stable relationship and a life.

See you in hell, Sarah Palin.

Senate Republicans: We Like America Dumb.

From the CNN.com list of items cut from the Senate version of the stimulus bill:

• $1 billion for Head Start/Early Start
  
• $600 million for Title I (No Child Left Behind)
  
• $16 billion for school construction
  
• $3.5 billion for higher education construction
  
• $100 million for distance learning
  
• $200 million for National Science Foundation
  

Apparently, at some point, some morons decided that education funding="pork." And besides, it's not like education has any tangible economic stimulus benefits. (Nor will I mention that undereducation has the added benefit of making most of the American public docile and easily governed... Well, I guess I just did mention it.)

Here's hoping some of that education funding makes it back into the bill in conference.

Wasillans Welcome

Fosco mentioned early last week that he was proud and excited to log his first Fosco Lives! visitors from China. Well, he's had one more Chinese hit since then (so much for his strategy to get blocked by Chinese censors). But, this excitement pales in comparison to Fosco's absolute thrill to see a visit last week from Governor MooseMunch's illustrious hometown, Wasilla, Alaska! It's true! Here's the relevant portion of Fosco's site traffic report:


To tell the truth, Fosco is a bit obsessed with Wasilla. After all, it's the location of so many important sites in recent political history, such as

• Wasilla Public Library, where then-mayor Sarah Palin tried to have this list of books banned (including the Harry Potter series).
  
• The Wasilla Assembly of God, where Governor Palin was anointed by an African witch hunter who drove an old lady "witch" out of her Kenyan village. Hey, remember when we used to do that here? That was fun.
  
• The snazzily-named Wasilla Multi-Use Sports Complex, which Palin raised the city sales tax to pay for. Oh, and she made a seriously expensive legal error. Plus, the contractors for that sports complex may have built the Palin house for free.
  

But Wasilla isn't just great for its tour of Palin idiocy. Apparently, they have some other idiots as well. The town was the 2003 Duct Tape Capital of the World, after the Wasilla WalMart sold more duct tape in 2002 than any other WalMart in the world. I would hate to speculate why a town of seven thousand people would need so much duct tape, but I suspect it has something to do with meth labs, taxidermy, and incest.

Oh, and did I mention that Wasilla is beautiful? I didn't? That's because it's not. Here is the splash page of the official City of Wasilla website:


Go ahead, click on the picture and look at it full size. And then tell me what you see. As far as Fosco can tell from this picture, Wasilla is a traffic light, a Burger King sign, and some sort of factory.

Why in the world would any city choose that picture to represent itself on its official website? Fosco has lived in (or near) some hellholes in his peripatetic life, but even the worst of them have (misleadingly) beautiful pictures on their official websites. Even if your town isn't beautiful and you don't want to lie, you could still put up pictures of snowmobiles or something. Or the Wasilla Multi-Use Sports Complex. I mean, hasn't Wasilla learned the most important lesson of Sarah Palin? You can polish a turd.

And to think, this is the town that Governor MooseMunch proudly claims as the "real America." [Fosco shudders.]

Of course, Wasilla residents are always welcome here at Fosco Lives! Maybe this site can provide a public service by offering a window into the world of books, art, and urban life. Fosco would also like to extend a special welcome to the queer youth of Wasilla: there is a world outside of Wasilla. Come join us.

From the "Priorities" File

Posted without further comment:

Censorship at BY"U"

[Thanks to a tip from Mere.]

You may remember Fosco's feelings about Mormon higher education. Well, here's another troubling story.

J. Michael Wiltbank, a student at BY"U", submitted a final project for an art class that contained photographs of gay BY"U" students and their supportive friends. As Wiltbank explained the project:

I am not telling the viewer who identifies themselves as homosexual, because I hope the viewer will realize that placing a label with the portrait only creates divisions in our society and furthers stereotypes. It is my hope this body of work can be a vehicle for tolerance, support, love and change.

You can find some photographs from this project here.

According to his blog, BY"U" decided to take down his contribution to the show:

Apparently the topic of homosexuality is a bit much for the BYU audience and my part of our Fine Art Classes show was taken down today. It seems that censorship is favored over support and love. This really saddens me.

Luckily, after Wiltbank blogged about the censorship, BY"U" allowed his photos to be displayed, blaming their original removal on a "miscommunication" (HA!). Wiltbank (who strikes me as a genuinely generous person) is encouraged by this:

I think the administration's action has been a good example of that increased understanding.

Like I said, Wiltbank seems generous.

From where Fosco is sitting (some 800 miles away and 50-60 years in the future), the whole thing still seems somewhat sad. Think about it: all Wiltbank wanted to display were photographs of young Mormon men, some of whom self-identify as gay. The photos are not naked, sexually explicit, anti-religious, or provocative in any way--except, of course, that they show nice, normal-looking Mormon kids who just happen to be almost as sinful as murderers. (And we all know that there is nothing more "normal-looking" than a Mormon.)

This isn't about BY"U" condoning/condemning gay sex or gay marriage or gay parenthood (or any of those other activities that drive the LDS crazy and make them want to ship tons of money out of state); rather, what BY"U" tried to do here, even for a little while, was to efface the existence of Gay Mormons altogether. And that makes Fosco angry.

May Become?

From an article in the NYTimes:

If you doubt this, Fosco can let you talk to any number of his students (and they are students in California, which is one of the few states with relatively affordable higher ed.).

For a more well-considered take on all of this, read KFR's commentary.

Also from the Times, a story about how college students are working on applied town planning in rural Vermont. Maybe if other communities realized that their local colleges and universities could be resources for improving everyday civic life. Maybe there would be less resentment toward public universities (and the concomitant unwillingness to adequately fund them) if people realized that public universities can help to improve everyday life in very local ways.

Cornell is great. Also poor.

A great piece this week from Michael Roth at the HuffPo on the benefits of a liberal arts education. As Roth notes, a liberal arts education (like the one you could receive at, say, Cornell) is excellent preparation for changing the world:

A quick look at several members of President-elect Obama's leadership team can stand as an example of how those with a liberal arts education are shaping the future of our society.

Of course, a liberal arts education ain't what it used to be, as the financial crisis hits even the most sterling Ivy League institutions. Even super-studly Harvard University (pictured at right) is in trouble. According to Fosco's old patron, the Harvard Crimson, Harvard's gargantuan endowment lost 22 percent this year (which translates to 8 billion dollars). Sadly, this means major budget cuts and austerity measures to be enacted by Harvard President Peri Gilpin Drew Gilpin Faust (who, by all accounts, does not deserve such an unpleasant and thankless duty). As the Crimson reports:

The Faculty of Arts and Sciences placed a freeze on staff hiring last week, following a cautionary letter from Faust a month earlier that warned of cutbacks ahead.

Sadly, this probably means that Harvard will have to lay off former president and Chinese water heater tycoon "Bell Johnson."

Of course, even in this time of crisis, the Crimson cannot resist a subtle dig at other, lesser universities. As the article notes,

The decline, which amounts to more than $8 billion, is larger than the endowments of all but four other universities—Yale, Princeton, Stanford, and MIT.

That's right, Cornell: Harvard lost more money this year than your university is worth. Pwned!

How to educate a generation on $10 a day

Well, it looks like Harvard is almost broke. Apparently, the once mighty endowment is down 25-30%! Even worse, the university

is also reportedly trying to dump 1/3 of its private equity holdings to raise cash, which would be a seriously distressed move.

If these rumors are true, we should expect to see:

1. A giant "Harvard Yard SALE!"
   Everything must go!
   
   
2. A slowdown in construction of Harvard's new Allston Campus (as seen below).
   
   
3. More pesky fundraising letters to Harvard alums. Sorry, alma mater, I gave all my extra money to fight Prop 8.

Alas, it is not just the storied Ivy League that is in trouble. Here at UCSC, we were informed by email today that the UCSC Provost has

advised principal officers to implement a $4.5 million budget reduction for our campus.

According to the same email:

In the meantime, I've directed principal officers to implement all reasonable cost-saving measures and to engage their staffs in identifying creative ways to invest limited resources as efficiently as possible. I invite you to share with them your thoughts and questions, as well as your own suggestions for belt-tightening. We will thoughtfully consider every reasonable suggestion.

In keeping with the spirit of "reasonable suggestion[s]" for "invest[ing] limited resources," we received a message four hours later from UC President Mark G. Yudof. President Yudof invites us to join him for a discussion of "the value of public education." Oh, but here's the good part:

Why, that's just crazy enough to work!

What does Sarah Palin know?

When Fosco was in high school, his American History teacher was (behind-his-back) nicknamed Captain Video, because he showed films in class four days a week (yes, Fosco went to public school). While this may account for why Fosco has only a vague understanding of World War I, it does mean that Fosco has a particularly vivid historical imagination (although that imagination tends to be populated by the likes of Matthew Broderick and LeVar Burton).

Anyway, on the one day a week that we didn't watch a movie in class, Captain Video would sometimes give a "current events quiz." The desk behind me was assigned to a girl I'll call Jenny R. Jenny R. was a transfer student (from Alaska, coincidentally...). She was pretty, popular, and dumb as an air mattress (not the only thing she had in common with an air mattress... ZING!). Now because Captain V. preferred to do as little work as possible, he had us grade each others' current events quizzes (usually by having us pass them one seat forward). And so Fosco usually ended up grading Jenny R.'s quizzes.

During this time, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was being debated in the US (yes, Fosco is that old). So, in that week's "current events" quiz, Captain Video asked the following question:

NAFTA has been in the news this week. It is a trade agreement between the United States, Canada, and Mexico. On what continent are those three countries?

I'll pause a moment to let that question sink in. Yes, my high school history teacher asked us which continent we lived on.

I think you know the punchline already.

That's right: Jenny R. got the answer wrong.

I was reminded of this story this evening when I read about another dimwit from Alaska who, based on recent reports from inside the McCain campaign, "was unable to name all the nations in North America."

The report also notes that

[Palin did not] understand that Africa was a continent rather than a single country.

Although, in her defense, I must admit that this map is rather confusing.

Of course, one of the greatest pleasures of the next week will be discovering more juicy titbits of ignorance from Governor Moosemunch (titbits that are now available as the Walnuts campaign decides to blame her for everything). But is this fair? Aren't there probably a lot of things that Sarah Palin does know about geography?

Things Sarah Palin Does Know about Geography

1. The way to San Jose. Woh-woh-woh-woh-woh-woh-woh-woh-woh.
   
2. Greenland is a lot smaller than it looks on a map.
   
3. Argentina speaks Spanish. Brazil speaks Portuguese. Chile primarily speaks sign language.
   
4. Real America is often left off maps, but you can find it by following the scent of cornbread and Believe.
   
5. Go to world 1-2. At the end of the level, there is a pipe, and some bricks. You must smash the second to last brick and the third to last brick as seen to the left. Now you must stand on the edge of the pipe, duck, and face left. Now jump to the right towards the one block that you didn't break, while facing left. You should slide right through the bricks. Go into the first pipe when you get to the other side. You should be warped to the minus world, the level is -1.
   
6. In Australia, kangaroos are called "roos." Although sometimes they are called "kangas."
   
7. That island on Lost is no longer where it used to be.
   
8. "Wait. There's a New Mexico?"

And I'm sure that there are at least dozens more facts in Sarah Palin's head! Stay tuned for new discoveries.

Alternative Mindset List

Every fall, Beloit College publishes its Mindset List, attempting to capture the life experience of the incoming first-year college students to a much older faculty. This year's list assumes that the future Class of 2011er was born in 1989. In previous years, Fosco has found this list to be moderately interesting, in a "damn I'm old!" kind of way.

This year's list is quite disappointing. For example, look at #4: incoming firstyears "never 'rolled down' a car window." Really? Fosco was still driving a car with manual windows until 2002. What cars were these kids riding in? And as for #58 ("They get much more information from Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert than from the newspaper."), I don't think that's limited to just 18-yr-olds. Fosco has gone through long periods of time when that was true for him. And he refuses to be ashamed of that fact.

Count Fosco would like to offer some additions to the list. For the Class of 2011:

1. "George Bush" is a popular name for presidents.
   
2. Zebra mussels have always lived in the Great Lakes.
   
3. The hypothetical actions of Jesus have been a source of curiosity.
   
4. There's only been one war in Afghanistan.
   
5. Wrigley Field has always had night games.
   
6. The Olsen Twins have always been sexually intriguing.
   
7. Tacos have always been a popular dinner option.
   
8. Kirstie Alley has always weighed more than fifty pounds.
   
9. Everyone has made out with (or will make out with) someone named Jessica, Ashley, or Brittany.
   
10. The Pope has always been an old white man.
    
11. Queer theory has always existed.
    
12. Candles have always been scented.
    
13. Hooking up is a popular way to show affection.
    
14. Corpses have always been comedy gold.

Yikes. Who are these kids?

From the Annals of Not Blogging

Why was Fosco absent from blogging for so long? He has promised some explanations. Here's one now.

Fosco couldn't blog because he was busy... writing student narrative evaluations. Here's the thing. When it was created by a bunch of hippie academics, UC Santa Cruz did not use letter grades! The policy was described in an assessment conducted in 1994:

UCSC opened in 1965 during a time of unprecedented university growth, student protest, and introspection. The founding faculty, dissatisfied with traditional forms of grading, opted for a system that was intended to provide a better understanding of what a student had achieved in a course, while downplaying the competitive aspects of learning. Faculty-authored narrative evaluations were adopted in lieu of letter grades. UCSC instructors would write a personalized narrative evaluation of each student's academic performance in all courses in which the student earned credit.

How progressive! How admirable! How... much work for the instructors!

Because, of course, guess who writes the narrative evals...

If you answered "the TAs," you are correct.

Wait. It gets dopier. In 2000, UCSC added mandatory letter grades for its undergraduates... in addition to narrative evaluations. So, as a TA you have to prepare TWO different types of evaluation for each student: a letter grade and a written narrative evaluation.

Now Fosco hates to complain about life as a TA (after all, isn't it all part of the apprenticeship process?) But it does take a remarkable amount of time to sum up the performance of a student in a narrative, especially since an evaluation has to

• contain enough detail about the student's work in the course to make it clear that you know who he or she is.
  
• follow a specific format (there must be a sentence describing each major assignment in the course).
  
• avoid making any reference to personal attributes of the student or your impressions of the student's behavior. You can only talk about the work itself.
  

In the end, you write extremely formulaic evaluations that you attempt to enliven with novel adjectives. The Thesaurus is a good friend during eval writing.

What makes this process even worse is that throughout it you have the gray feeling that no one (not the student nor any prospective employer of said student) will EVER read this evaluation.

Are you curious? Here's a sample:

Lindsay's performance in the course was generally quite good. She attended lecture and section almost without fail and occasionally participated in section discussion. Her first paper, a comparison of Captain Singleton and Oroonoko, showed good close reading skills and evidenced room for improvement in argument development. Her second paper showed great improvement in extending a close reading; however, the thesis was not as strong as it could have been. Lindsay’s final exam was her best work of the quarter and showed a deep understanding of the course material.

This one took about, say... 30 minutes to write. Ouch.

Protest This: A cri de coeur.

Well, it wasn't exactly the March on Washington, was it?

Wednesday's protest by UCSC students on the occasion of the visit of the UC Regents, garnered some media attention, with an article in the San Francisco Chronicle in addition to the analysis in the local Santa Cruz Sentinel. In Fosco's original post on the matter, he poked some gentle(?) fun at the protesters because, well, it all seemed a bit silly.

But the more Fosco reads about the protest and the fallout, the less silly it seems. Rather, it is becoming clear that this protest was colossally stupid.

"Yeah, yeah," you say, "Fosco is totally in league with The Man." He's "corrupted by White Upper Class Privilege." He's "scared to Fight the Power." He's "gone soft" in academia, where he is "complicit with State Interests." I would disagree (although maybe not completely), but it's a pointless exercise for me to try to convince this critic of my leftist credentials. I think it's enough to say these two things:

• I don't approve of many things that the UC Regents do (or have done).
  
• I am willing to nonviolently protest against specific policies (and have done so many times in my life).

Therefore, while I may not be leftist enough, I certainly can be considered generally sympathetic to leftish causes (and not just in an armchair way). And that's why I'm pissed off about this protest.

This is the big problem with the protest: why were the students protesting? Now, I know that there are tons of potential issues that could have been the cause of this protest and I am sympathetic to all of them: student fee hikes (non-Californians, did you know that, by law, the University of California cannot charge tuition? It gets around this problem by charging "fees." Sneaky, eh?), the funding of nuclear weapons research, cuts to humanities programs, a living wage for UC custodial workers, etc. I would love to hold the Regents accountable for all those things. But here's the problem: no one seemed to be protesting those things!

You don't believe me? Let's listen to the students (from the Sentinel article):

"I agree it wasn't the most successful protest, but at least it is a step away from our image as apathetic youth. For your readers blinded by upper class stability (something I admittedly enjoy), I ask that they recognize us as idealistic human beings, raised in their world, but willing to shed our egos and join together for a better world through a fairer distribution of power."

"These people [the Regents] smile real smug like they got your number and it's real frustrating."

"What we did accomplish is making ourselves known," activist Tomasso Boggia said. "We're here and really pissed off."

What the fuck? These kids tried to surround the UC Regents and (some of them) entered into violent confrontations with police officers because the Regents are smug? Or, to prove that they're not apathetic? This is ridiculous.


This protest lacked the two things that make a protest coherent: a leader (or spokesperson) and a message. To me, this seems like Protest 101 (which, if it were going to be taught on any university campus, would probably be taught here...). Where was the message? Who was speaking for these protesters (and if it was the people quoted above, they need to be fired)? Oh and what about some chants? "We're here and really pissed off!" just doesn't have the same ring to it as "We're here, we're queer, get used to it!" (N.B., the queer one has the additional benefit of offering an actual demand.)

And here's the bigger problem: when UCSC Acting Chancellor Blumenthal sent out his campuswide email today deploring the protest, I (and, I suspect, a lot of other people) actually agreed with it. I don't think this is a good thing--I don't like agreeing with the administration. But when the Chancellor says,

What was both unexpected and completely unacceptable was pushing, kicking, biting, spitting, heaping verbal abuse, and throwing bottles and decayed fruit at staff and visitors, as occurred on Wednesday. Staff members, including our police officers, were verbally abused and physically injured. Guests from the community were pushed and spat upon. [...] Students, faculty, staff (including UCSC police), and visitors are all members of our community and are entitled to civil and respectful treatment.

it's hard to disagree.

Ah, my radical little Banana Slugs... I hate to say it, but maybe you could take a lesson from your compatriots at UC Berkeley. This is how they spent their Wednesday afternoon.

As we embark on another school year...

In his peripatetic academic career, Fosco has taught at a range of academic institutions--from top liberal arts institutions to local commuter colleges. Consequently, he feels he has a pretty good grasp of the variance between the top and bottom tiers of college students. Even so, he was floored by this New York Times article. One of the most upsetting revelations was this:

California State set an ambitious goal to cut the proportion of unprepared freshmen to 10 percent by 2007, largely by testing them as high school juniors and having them make up for deficiencies in the 12th grade.

Cal State appears nowhere close to its goal. In reading alone, nearly half the high school juniors appear unprepared for college-level work.

Half of high school juniors are unprepared for college-level work? What in the name of Mavis Beacon is going on in high school? Is it now just a big four-year orgy?

Now, Fosco doesn't want to be a bad liberal or an elitist or anything, but is it possible that too many people are going to college? Of course, Fosco is in favor of everyone learning the necessary math and reading skills to negotiate everyday life. But what if that could be done in one or two-year trade schools? If we stopped requiring a bachelor's degree for entry-level employment, maybe our colleges wouldn't be overstuffed with unprepared students.

We're here, we're queer, and we're looking for Matt LeBlanc

When Fosco was choosing a college in the early 1990s, how was he to know which university would serve as the best incubator of his latent queerness? All he had to rely on were publications like the Spartacus Guide (pictured left), which strictly speaking, aren't even college guides at all (despite the potentially-misleading cover). Fosco feels for you, his deceived queer brethren, who embarked on a four-year course of study at Rim U, hoping to meet the handsome varsity athlete pictured on the cover of the 90/91 Spartacus Guide. Fosco can imagine your sense of betrayal when, a few years later, you finally find the missing cover boy on "Must See TV" and discover that he is probably not (?) gay.

But now, college-bound queers need not suffer for lack of information, thanks to the The Advocate College Guide for LGBT Students.

As Fosco is A) well past college age, B) no longer willing to date high school students (so stop calling, Casey), and C) on a budget, he has no intention of actually purchasing a copy of this guide. However, he is quite curious about its contents, especially concerning his current academic affiliation, his various previous academic pit stops, and his alma mater...

For understandable reasons, the promotional material for the guide is very tight-lipped about the rankings, although they do list the Top 20 (unranked in alphabetical order). Gratifyingly, UCSC is one of three UC schools to make the top 20. There are a few surprises, I would suggest: Duke? Princeton? Clearly the East Coast preppy establishment has changed a bit in the last decade or so (or has it?). I mean sure, Duke used to have an exceptional Queer Theory contingent, but (last time I checked) the school is located somewhere in North Carolina (the exact location is unavailable at press time).

Luckily, local broadsheet Metro Santa Cruz has revealed some of the rankings within the Top 20, and this is where things get interesting. Ranked higher than UC Santa Cruz is... El Ohio State University. WTF?

Now, Fosco is willing to do a little (a very little) research and he has discovered that the campus resources for LGBT students at OSU do appear to be excellent. There is also the fact that OSU boasts the best-funded scholarship program for LGBT students in the nation. Sounds good... maybe even better than UCSC, but what about when you want to leave campus?

When you're a young queer, would you really want to go to a college (even a very gay-friendly college) in a place with

• this organization?
  
• this lizard?
  
• or this law?
  

Case closed.

And what of Fosco's Crimsonish alma mater? According to Metro, the Big H

didn't make it into The Advocate's guide at all this time around, partially due to the absence of an anti-discrimination policy that applies to transgender students at the time the book went to press. Harvard has since changed its policy.

Well, that sounds about right.