It's a forgone conclusion that I am unhappy about income tax, generally. So I'll not belabor that point.
I do want to say a word or two about the state income tax in North Carolina, however.
NC's tax rate in our bracket is not as high as, say, California's. That is as it should be. It's only slightly lower than Oregon's--a place I would very much prefer to live, if we ever manage to land two jobs there--though it is worth noting that Oregon has no sales tax (it's 7% here), which I imagine puts Oregon ahead overall.
It is noteworthy that NC's rates (in our bracket at least) are higher than both "Taxechusetts" and New York. For the life of me, I don't know what I get for it. It certainly isn't forward-thinking transportation infrastructure, or a pleasant and efficient DMV.
To be sure, income tax isn't everything (see the example of Oregon, above.) Property taxes, gas taxes (NC's are the highest in the southeastern US), etc., also make a big difference; my observations here are by no means a complete assessment of the relative tax burden of the several states.
But what really gets me is the sheer retardedness of NC's D-400-TC form, which clocks in at a whopping 6 pages, sends you flipping back and forth to do calculations that could be handled in a much more straightforward manner, and (to top it all off) won't give you .pdf file in which you can save changes. And to add insult to injury, they instruct you to add a "consumer use tax" to recapture the sales tax they assume you would have otherwise paid on money you had the temerity to spend somewhere other than North Carolina. (There's a table that's essentially a straight percentage of your income. Then it says you can make an adjustment if you feel you owe more or less. Guess what I adjust mine to?)
I love Durham, and will miss it when I'm gone. But the State of North Carolina leaves much to be desired. I look forward to taking my income elsewhere.
Showing posts with label sedition. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sedition. Show all posts
4.15.2009
2.11.2009
feet to the fire
Perhaps a more appropriate title for this post would be "hot stinging liquid ... poured into open wounds on [the] penis".
The Obama administration has had its first opportunity to make good on promises to review use of the (bullshit) state secrets privilege as cover for the use of torture. And failed miserably.
This continuation of Bush policy is perhaps most disconcerting because the stakes for the government here are, in relative terms, pretty damn low. The suit in question is actually against Boeing for providing air transport for extraordinary rendition of a suspect (against whom charges have been dropped) who reports being tortured. The fact that torture has occurred under the aegis of the United States government in the last decade is already a matter of public record, pretty much beyond dispute. All this represents is a naked attempt to deny a man his day in court to seek restitution for what was done to him illegally.
Mr. Obama campaigned on a lot of pretty promises about restoring our moral standing in the world. This a spectacular departure from those promises.
A country that behaves no better than its enemies is not worth defending, regardless of who's in charge of it.
The Obama administration has had its first opportunity to make good on promises to review use of the (bullshit) state secrets privilege as cover for the use of torture. And failed miserably.
This continuation of Bush policy is perhaps most disconcerting because the stakes for the government here are, in relative terms, pretty damn low. The suit in question is actually against Boeing for providing air transport for extraordinary rendition of a suspect (against whom charges have been dropped) who reports being tortured. The fact that torture has occurred under the aegis of the United States government in the last decade is already a matter of public record, pretty much beyond dispute. All this represents is a naked attempt to deny a man his day in court to seek restitution for what was done to him illegally.
Mr. Obama campaigned on a lot of pretty promises about restoring our moral standing in the world. This a spectacular departure from those promises.
A country that behaves no better than its enemies is not worth defending, regardless of who's in charge of it.
2.02.2009
michael phelps succumbs to peer pressure...
...and apologizes publicly for something that's none of your goddamned business.
That's right, you can now add multi-medal winning human/dolphin hybrid Michael Phelps to the long list of people who will never amount to anything because they enjoy the recreational use of marijuana. A list that includes (at least) two Presidents, the mayor of New York, Nobel Prize-winning scientists, CEOs, doctors, lawyers, and every musician from about 1920 onward that's worth listening to.
Yeah, stay away from that stuff, kids. It'll ruin your life!!!
That's right, you can now add multi-medal winning human/dolphin hybrid Michael Phelps to the long list of people who will never amount to anything because they enjoy the recreational use of marijuana. A list that includes (at least) two Presidents, the mayor of New York, Nobel Prize-winning scientists, CEOs, doctors, lawyers, and every musician from about 1920 onward that's worth listening to.
Yeah, stay away from that stuff, kids. It'll ruin your life!!!
1.15.2009
cum hoc ergo propter hoc
It's really pretty astonishing that there is so much crime in Jackson, MS, what with the leadership they've got over there:
I think this is roughly equivalent to treating AIDS with collagen injections.
What's even better is that there is actually discussion over the constitutionality of the ordinance, leading the mayor to remark that "I certainly respect the Constitution, but we have some issues that are much bigger than the Constitution." Note that His Honor is not arguing that, you know, the Constitution is pretty much mute on the issue of whether the waistband of your skivvies is showing (go ahead, call me a strict constructionist), but that this issue is bigger than the United States Constitution.
We tend to get the government we deserve.
(via)
Councilman Kenneth Stokes sponsored the saggy-pants ordinance. He said many of the young men who wear saggy pants also get in trouble at school or with police.
He said the ordinance was an attempt to "save all the children we can."
I think this is roughly equivalent to treating AIDS with collagen injections.
What's even better is that there is actually discussion over the constitutionality of the ordinance, leading the mayor to remark that "I certainly respect the Constitution, but we have some issues that are much bigger than the Constitution." Note that His Honor is not arguing that, you know, the Constitution is pretty much mute on the issue of whether the waistband of your skivvies is showing (go ahead, call me a strict constructionist), but that this issue is bigger than the United States Constitution.
We tend to get the government we deserve.
(via)
8.04.2008
(in which i quote myself)
8.01.2008
nothing to see here...
So just as the FBI is about to charge the (latest) alleged mastermind behind the post-9/11 anthrax mailings, he offs himself. Just some things to think about:
1) Speaking as a scientist with access to stuff a lot less carefully monitored than anthrax, I'm pretty sure I could get my hands on a much more pleasant way to kill myself than Tylenol with codiene, were that my inclination, and since I wouldn't plan on sticking around for the consequences, probably wouldn't hesitate to do it, either.
2) The FBI has a pretty spotty record of settling on the wrong suspect in high-profile cases, including this one.
3) The narrative of a troubled scientist with access to the stuff being responsible for the mailings, and electing to kill himself at the news of impending prosecution, naturally, makes complete sense, and may very well reflect reality. The only reason I (and I suspect many others) feel skeptical about all of this is because our government has lied to us repeatedly about any and all things relating to terrorism for the better part of the last decade.
I'm just sayin'.
1) Speaking as a scientist with access to stuff a lot less carefully monitored than anthrax, I'm pretty sure I could get my hands on a much more pleasant way to kill myself than Tylenol with codiene, were that my inclination, and since I wouldn't plan on sticking around for the consequences, probably wouldn't hesitate to do it, either.
2) The FBI has a pretty spotty record of settling on the wrong suspect in high-profile cases, including this one.
3) The narrative of a troubled scientist with access to the stuff being responsible for the mailings, and electing to kill himself at the news of impending prosecution, naturally, makes complete sense, and may very well reflect reality. The only reason I (and I suspect many others) feel skeptical about all of this is because our government has lied to us repeatedly about any and all things relating to terrorism for the better part of the last decade.
I'm just sayin'.
2.01.2008
the tsa has a blog
Really.
You can comment and everything.
Comments are, surprisingly, moderated. Who wants to bet on how long it will take to crash the site?
UPDATE--Perhaps against my better judgment, I submitted the following (under a different handle, naturally):
Which--to their credit--has been posted.
You can comment and everything.
Comments are, surprisingly, moderated. Who wants to bet on how long it will take to crash the site?
UPDATE--Perhaps against my better judgment, I submitted the following (under a different handle, naturally):
Al Qaida never has to hijack another plane--ever--to have its impact felt.
Every time I pass thorough a metal detector shoeless, pants falling down, clutching my boarding pass in one hand, eyeballing my laptop as it comes down the belt while trying to respond politely to the orders being screamed at me by a surly agent; every time I reassemble myself into something publicly presentable in the middle of a busy concourse; every time I arrive at the hotel without contact solution; every time I do the mental calculation of whether driving 6 hours might actually be preferable to flying 1...I am intensely aware of Al Qaida's impact on the world.
And I cannot help but think that the "no risk is the only acceptable level of risk" mentality that seems to drive the TSA's policies and their implementation has a great deal more to do with this than any actual existential threat I face from Islamic extremists.
What is lacking is any serious consideration of the tradeoffs between marginal increases in security against statistically improbable (albeit newsworthy) events, and the significant costs imposed on an integral component of our economy and culture. After all, in a nation--indeed, in a world--as large, dynamic, and interconnected as this one is, mobility is fundamental.
You say we're on the same side. I know you believe this, and sincerely. But please take time to consider the possibility that such a disproportionate response to a remote threat may actually further the goals of those that have employed such morally reprehensible tactics.
Thank you for your time, and I look forward to seeing whether this passes the comment moderation process.
Which--to their credit--has been posted.
8.26.2007
grandpa's gold bond makes me feel numb
The streets of D-town are definitely safer now that this menace is behind bars. (I especially like how the police spokesperson says she "assumes" police had information that drug-related activity was taking place in the 93-year-old's house. Because we all know that the cops never raid the wrong house or anything.)
4.03.2007
the art of the possible
"Democrat leaders in Congress seem more interested in fighting political battles in Washington than in providing our troops what they need to fight the battles in Iraq."
--President Bush, today (quote via the SFC)
This statement reveals more than intended. The phrase "fighting political battles" is a calculated counterweight to "providing our troops what they need". "Politics" has an intrinsically negative connotation because it is, after all, an unsavory enterprise. It is petty, crude, demoralizing, depraved, and ugly.
It also happens to be the way we reconcile our differences in a civilized society. Because the alternatives--while expedient--are much uglier.
Six years with a rubber-stamp congress on foreign policy (the Democratic contributions to which were by no means trivial--Ms. Clinton, I am looking in your general direction) have left Mr. Bush with the impression that they exist to pay for whatever the hell he wants. That the Democrats are making even the weakest gesture (and it is pretty weak, really) of opposition is heartening, if only a little. Of course, one of them has to go wobbly and say something like this:
"Americans want compromise, not a cowboy-style showdown," said House Majority Whip James Clyburn, D-S.C.
For the record, this American doesn't want "compromise", he wants to see a goddamned political bloodbath. I want to see the president forced to veto bill after bill with deadline after deadline attached and for the people in "The People's House" to reflect what "the people" actually, really want. I want to see it unfold week after week like, like--well, like some sort of awful, intractible conflict without any clear force for good involved where the sides are just going to keep killing each other until they run out of bullets or one of them is just not there anymore.
For example.
After all, metaphorical blood running down the white marble steps of Washington beats the hell out of the real stuff pooling in the streets of Baghdad.
3.17.2007
watching control room in 2007
Today I finally got around to watching the documentary Control Room, which is about Al Jazeera's coverage of the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. (I had kicked around the idea of driving down to Fayetteville today, but this was much easier.) In addition to being something that everyone in this country ought to see just because of what it depicts, it's also an exceedingly well-done film, focused like a laser beam and superbly edited. (I think most documentaries falter under the weight of footage the director just can't let go.) I couldn't decide whether to laugh or cry at all the clips of Rumsfeld pontificating about manipulation of the facts to press an agenda.
One of the more fascinating aspects of the film is the arc of Marine Lt. Josh Rushing. You see him early on, sticking to the talking points that it was his job to deliver, even as he awkwardly fields pointed questions from Al Jazeera's Hassan Ibrahim. As the film develops, he continues to do his job like a Marine, but the inner turmoil he experiences about what the U.S. is doing and how the American media in particular are portraying it is written all over his face. The exchanges between him and Ibrahim are both heartening and heartbreaking.
An interesting coda to the film: Rushing left the Marine Corps a few months after the film's release, in part because he had been ordered not to talk about it. He has since been hired by Al Jazeera International, the English-language service that I would happily trade Fox, CNN, and MSNBC for in a heartbeat, if for no other reason than their reporters don't let anyone spout off bullshit unchallenged.
Among the most disturbing parts is the footage of reporter Tareq Ayyoub on the roof of Al Jazeera's Baghdad offices, just before an American A-10 launches air-to-ground missiles at the building, killing Ayyoub. The military has always claimed that they were taking fire from that location, but there really is no evidence of this. If that was happening, it wasn't happening anywhere close to Ayyoub, who for his part looked more like Micheal Dukakis in his flack helmet than anything. Except utterly terrified. Add to that the fact that Al Jazeera had relayed the coordinates of their offices in Iraq to the DoD, that Abu Dabi TV was hit the same day, and it becomes very difficult to think that this was an accident.
(That, and the memo leaked in the UK in 2005 indicating that Bush had discussed the possibility of bombing Al Jazeera's headquarters in Doha--the most generous interpretation of which is that the President of the United States made a really, really inappropriate joke about using the military to attack members of the press, especially in light of all the evidence that he had, in fact, used the military to attack members of the press. For those of you keeping score at home, deliberate targeting of civilian non-combatants is a war crime by pretty much any standard you wish to apply.)
I could go on and on--but I just realized that I've now spent more time thinking and writing about the movie, as well as reading up on related topics, than I spent actually watching it. Which is about as good an endorsement of a documentary as I can think of.
One of the more fascinating aspects of the film is the arc of Marine Lt. Josh Rushing. You see him early on, sticking to the talking points that it was his job to deliver, even as he awkwardly fields pointed questions from Al Jazeera's Hassan Ibrahim. As the film develops, he continues to do his job like a Marine, but the inner turmoil he experiences about what the U.S. is doing and how the American media in particular are portraying it is written all over his face. The exchanges between him and Ibrahim are both heartening and heartbreaking.
An interesting coda to the film: Rushing left the Marine Corps a few months after the film's release, in part because he had been ordered not to talk about it. He has since been hired by Al Jazeera International, the English-language service that I would happily trade Fox, CNN, and MSNBC for in a heartbeat, if for no other reason than their reporters don't let anyone spout off bullshit unchallenged.
Among the most disturbing parts is the footage of reporter Tareq Ayyoub on the roof of Al Jazeera's Baghdad offices, just before an American A-10 launches air-to-ground missiles at the building, killing Ayyoub. The military has always claimed that they were taking fire from that location, but there really is no evidence of this. If that was happening, it wasn't happening anywhere close to Ayyoub, who for his part looked more like Micheal Dukakis in his flack helmet than anything. Except utterly terrified. Add to that the fact that Al Jazeera had relayed the coordinates of their offices in Iraq to the DoD, that Abu Dabi TV was hit the same day, and it becomes very difficult to think that this was an accident.
(That, and the memo leaked in the UK in 2005 indicating that Bush had discussed the possibility of bombing Al Jazeera's headquarters in Doha--the most generous interpretation of which is that the President of the United States made a really, really inappropriate joke about using the military to attack members of the press, especially in light of all the evidence that he had, in fact, used the military to attack members of the press. For those of you keeping score at home, deliberate targeting of civilian non-combatants is a war crime by pretty much any standard you wish to apply.)
I could go on and on--but I just realized that I've now spent more time thinking and writing about the movie, as well as reading up on related topics, than I spent actually watching it. Which is about as good an endorsement of a documentary as I can think of.
3.15.2007
i can't think of a title for this one
Between Walter Reed, the firing of US Attorneys, and that whole Iraq "thing" it seems that the Bush administration is actually suffering from Three Stooges Syndrome.
3.13.2007
this is why i didn't bother voting
Democratic leaders are stripping from a military spending bill for the war in Iraq a requirement that President Bush gain approval from Congress before moving against Iran.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and other leaders agreed to remove the requirement concerning Iran after conservative Democrats as well as other lawmakers worried about its possible impact on Israel, officials said Monday.
...
The measure provides nearly $100 billion to pay for two wars and includes more money than Bush had requested [emphasis added] for operations in Afghanistan and what Democrats called training and equipment shortages.
(link)
The whole "end the war by defunding it" thing is dead in the water--and always was--because the Republicans can't bring themselves to spend less on the military, and the Democrats can't bring themselves to spend less on anything.
(I know--that's funding for Afghanistan, but the same thing will happen in Iraq. In six months, we will be spending more, not less. If anyone wants to place a wager on that let me know...I need to cover my inevitable losses in the NCAA tournament.)
One more war-related point, that I heard over the weekend. You know we've stepped into it foreign policy-wise when the most sensible criticism comes freaking Iran:
"We are in fact facing a vicious cycle in Iraq. The presence of foreign forces justifies violence ... and violence is used to justify the presence of foreign forces."
2.28.2007
nc ruins night out
Today I've had my first collision with North Carolina's Notoriously Stupid Liquor Laws*. What kills me about this is that I wasn't even trying to get liquor. Or even a beer, for that matter, though at this point I sure could use one...
There's a show that recently debuted on Cartoon Network's Adult Swim, called Tim and Eric Awesome Show, Great Job. It defies easy explanation--the best I can come up with is: think "Mr. Show", but with less narrative coherence and possibly written by precocious but likely stoned 8-year-olds. And if that doesn't make any sense to you, you'll probably never want to watch it, anyway.
To tell the truth, I'm not even sure that I like it, but I find it interesting enough that when I noticed the guys who do the show are out on tour, and that tour is stopping in Chapel Hill tonight, and that tickets to said show in Chapel Hill are a mere $10 advance and $12 at the door, I figured why not check it out? It's bound to be more edifying than the equivalent amount of time in front of the TV. (These days, what isn't?)
Anyway.
Enter North Carolina's Notoriously Stupid Liquor Laws. The show is at Local 506, a club I didn't even bother looking up until today, because I'd passed it two weeks ago while M and I were out for Valentine's Day. I knew where it was on Franklin St. (everything in Chapel Hill is on Franklin St.) so all I needed to know was what time the show started and if tickets were still available.
If you've already followed the link above, you already know where this is heading. On the club's front page, I find:
OK, no problem, these membership fees are usually nominal (in this case, $3) just enough to keep the great unwashed from wandering in off the street. I click on the link and find:
This is not a thorough and complete investigation of the relevant statute, but my understanding after poking around a bit is that for an establishment to serve liquor, it either has to serve food or be a private club, and part of being a private club means that you can't be issued a membership until at least 3 days after submission of your application for membership.
I suppose the "logic" at work here is that you can't go on an impulse bender in public unless there's at least the possibility of the place being able to offer you some soakage. Not that anything but the good judgment of a bartender prevents me from going into any number of places and getting tanked while ignoring their menu.
What's really funny to me is that you don't even have to be 21 to be a member at Local 506!!! You just have to pay an additional $3 to get in.
Just to recap, here is a non-exhaustive list of things I can do without a 3-day waiting period in NC:
--Buy any firearm that isn't a handgun
--Get married
--Get a tattoo
--Get pierced
--Have elective surgery
And the list of things I do have to wait 3 days for:
--Get into an 18-and-up comedy show at a place that serves liquor but not food.
Given the flux of population that occurs in this area, I cannot possibly be the first person to whom this has happened. It sucks for places like Local 506, and to their credit, they point this silliness out to you on their front page. But I really wish they would just sell some frozen pizzas or something.
All I can say is, I'm definitely driving to DC to buy my liquor now.
*Yes, I know that many--if not most--states have notoriously stupid liquor laws. But some states are definitely worse than others. In AZ, for example, any and all alcoholic beverages can be purchased at grocery stores, gas stations, and pharmacies, during most hours of the day. And to the extent that the hours are limited, they really aren't that obnoxious (so un-obnoxious in fact, that I can't even recall what the limits are, because I never ran afoul of them.) Also, there are bars that open at 6am, which is great not only if you are an alcoholic, but also if you are an overnight shift worker.
And I haven't even gotten into the socialist atrocity that is the NC ABC.
There's a show that recently debuted on Cartoon Network's Adult Swim, called Tim and Eric Awesome Show, Great Job. It defies easy explanation--the best I can come up with is: think "Mr. Show", but with less narrative coherence and possibly written by precocious but likely stoned 8-year-olds. And if that doesn't make any sense to you, you'll probably never want to watch it, anyway.
To tell the truth, I'm not even sure that I like it, but I find it interesting enough that when I noticed the guys who do the show are out on tour, and that tour is stopping in Chapel Hill tonight, and that tickets to said show in Chapel Hill are a mere $10 advance and $12 at the door, I figured why not check it out? It's bound to be more edifying than the equivalent amount of time in front of the TV. (These days, what isn't?)
Anyway.
Enter North Carolina's Notoriously Stupid Liquor Laws. The show is at Local 506, a club I didn't even bother looking up until today, because I'd passed it two weeks ago while M and I were out for Valentine's Day. I knew where it was on Franklin St. (everything in Chapel Hill is on Franklin St.) so all I needed to know was what time the show started and if tickets were still available.
If you've already followed the link above, you already know where this is heading. On the club's front page, I find:
IMPORTANT - Please Read
Advance Purchase of Membership is Required to Attend Shows at Local 506. Join online - click here
OK, no problem, these membership fees are usually nominal (in this case, $3) just enough to keep the great unwashed from wandering in off the street. I click on the link and find:
IMPORTANT: Advance Purchase of Membership is Required to Attend Shows at Local 506. Local 506 operates as a private club in order to serve liquor in addition to beer. In accordance with NC Law, membership is required to attend shows and must be purchased 3 days in advance. [emphasis added]
This is not a thorough and complete investigation of the relevant statute, but my understanding after poking around a bit is that for an establishment to serve liquor, it either has to serve food or be a private club, and part of being a private club means that you can't be issued a membership until at least 3 days after submission of your application for membership.
I suppose the "logic" at work here is that you can't go on an impulse bender in public unless there's at least the possibility of the place being able to offer you some soakage. Not that anything but the good judgment of a bartender prevents me from going into any number of places and getting tanked while ignoring their menu.
What's really funny to me is that you don't even have to be 21 to be a member at Local 506!!! You just have to pay an additional $3 to get in.
Just to recap, here is a non-exhaustive list of things I can do without a 3-day waiting period in NC:
--Buy any firearm that isn't a handgun
--Get married
--Get a tattoo
--Get pierced
--Have elective surgery
And the list of things I do have to wait 3 days for:
--Get into an 18-and-up comedy show at a place that serves liquor but not food.
Given the flux of population that occurs in this area, I cannot possibly be the first person to whom this has happened. It sucks for places like Local 506, and to their credit, they point this silliness out to you on their front page. But I really wish they would just sell some frozen pizzas or something.
All I can say is, I'm definitely driving to DC to buy my liquor now.
*Yes, I know that many--if not most--states have notoriously stupid liquor laws. But some states are definitely worse than others. In AZ, for example, any and all alcoholic beverages can be purchased at grocery stores, gas stations, and pharmacies, during most hours of the day. And to the extent that the hours are limited, they really aren't that obnoxious (so un-obnoxious in fact, that I can't even recall what the limits are, because I never ran afoul of them.) Also, there are bars that open at 6am, which is great not only if you are an alcoholic, but also if you are an overnight shift worker.
And I haven't even gotten into the socialist atrocity that is the NC ABC.
2.22.2007
az seriously considering making class boring by law
Via Jesse Walker comes news of some unsettling legislation being discussed in my old stompin' grounds:
My experience with higher education--vast though it is, now being the first time in over a decade I don't spend every day of my life on a university campus--is admittedly skewed. I've never had the experience of a prof's lecture devolving into an overtly political screed. The handful of "humanities" and "social science" classes I took as an undergrad were populated mostly by aspiring engineers and scientists who were probably studying pchem or emag during the lectures anyway. So it's difficult for me to see this as much more than a solution in search of a problem. But maybe that isn't everyone's experience.
If you have a prof who is spending his or her lecture time campaigning for Ralph Nader (or whatever), this is something a dean or department head ought to handle. Not because it constitutes a violation of the students' "rights", but because the prof isn't doing their job, and the students aren't getting what they (or their parents, or Sallie Mae, or the state lottery) are paying for. A state law prohibiting the utterance of anything potentially controversial is probably overkill.
What actually bothers me is not simply that this bill would regulate what profs can say in the classroom (though that is certainly reason enough for it to be a problem), but that the boundaries of what constitutes "while working" are not clearly delineated.
Most professors (especially in the sciences) actually spend a relatively small fraction of their working time in the classroom. As someone who aspires to have the title myself in the not-too-distant future, I can attest that most professors in the sciences would characterize the fraction of their time spent teaching to be "as little as possible".
The remainder of their time "on the clock" is spent dealing with the administrative business of teaching (preparing lectures, grading, office hours), and a lot more time engaged in their own scholarly work: writing, reading, mentoring graduate students and postdocs, running a lab (which is many cases is like running a small company), writing grants, reviewing papers, going to seminars, sitting on committees for the university, attending conferences, serving on editorial boards for journals, sitting on study sections, and maybe--just maybe--setting foot in the lab and conducting an experiment or two.
Just as an example, I think my graduate mentor spends about 8 hours lecturing. Every year.
So...during all that time, they are not to express a political opinion to anyone?
This is probably a moot point...even if the bill passes, it is almost certain to be challenged in court and likely overturned (I would hope) on any number of constitutional grounds. Still, I occasionally entertain the fantasy of landing a faculty job in Tucson (summers aside, I really do miss the place) but I have to admit this makes that seem a lot less appealing.
...Arizona, where a Senate committee on Thursday approved a bill that would ... ban professors at public colleges and universities, while working, from:
Endorsing, supporting or opposing any candidate for local, state or national office.
Endorsing, supporting or opposing any pending legislation, regulation or rule under consideration by local, state or federal agencies.
Endorsing, supporting or opposing any litigation in any court.
Advocating “one side of a social, political, or cultural issue that is a matter of partisan controversy.”
Hindering military recruiting on campus or endorsing the activities of those who do.
My experience with higher education--vast though it is, now being the first time in over a decade I don't spend every day of my life on a university campus--is admittedly skewed. I've never had the experience of a prof's lecture devolving into an overtly political screed. The handful of "humanities" and "social science" classes I took as an undergrad were populated mostly by aspiring engineers and scientists who were probably studying pchem or emag during the lectures anyway. So it's difficult for me to see this as much more than a solution in search of a problem. But maybe that isn't everyone's experience.
If you have a prof who is spending his or her lecture time campaigning for Ralph Nader (or whatever), this is something a dean or department head ought to handle. Not because it constitutes a violation of the students' "rights", but because the prof isn't doing their job, and the students aren't getting what they (or their parents, or Sallie Mae, or the state lottery) are paying for. A state law prohibiting the utterance of anything potentially controversial is probably overkill.
What actually bothers me is not simply that this bill would regulate what profs can say in the classroom (though that is certainly reason enough for it to be a problem), but that the boundaries of what constitutes "while working" are not clearly delineated.
Most professors (especially in the sciences) actually spend a relatively small fraction of their working time in the classroom. As someone who aspires to have the title myself in the not-too-distant future, I can attest that most professors in the sciences would characterize the fraction of their time spent teaching to be "as little as possible".
The remainder of their time "on the clock" is spent dealing with the administrative business of teaching (preparing lectures, grading, office hours), and a lot more time engaged in their own scholarly work: writing, reading, mentoring graduate students and postdocs, running a lab (which is many cases is like running a small company), writing grants, reviewing papers, going to seminars, sitting on committees for the university, attending conferences, serving on editorial boards for journals, sitting on study sections, and maybe--just maybe--setting foot in the lab and conducting an experiment or two.
Just as an example, I think my graduate mentor spends about 8 hours lecturing. Every year.
So...during all that time, they are not to express a political opinion to anyone?
This is probably a moot point...even if the bill passes, it is almost certain to be challenged in court and likely overturned (I would hope) on any number of constitutional grounds. Still, I occasionally entertain the fantasy of landing a faculty job in Tucson (summers aside, I really do miss the place) but I have to admit this makes that seem a lot less appealing.
2.07.2007
fulton county gets one right nifongs federal investigation?
UPDATE--A commenter elsewhere pointed out that this might not be the best news. The last paragraph of the AJC story states:
I have no idea whether this is actually the case or not, but it seems any enthusiasm for Howard's actions should probably be tempered. Sorry, I'll read the whole article next time before I hit "publish".
---original post begins below---
Fulton County (GA) district attorney Paul Howard is seeking felony murder charges against at least one of the Atlanta police officers involved in the shooting of Kathryn Johnston in an overly zealous and thoroughly botched execution of a no-knock warrant last November.
This isn't the first time an officer has faced charges over this kind of thing, but it's really, really rare to see police called to account for the collateral damage in the war on drugs.
Particularly galling are the comments of the officer's defense attorney:
Per Dictionary.com:
Maybe I'm just a cop-hating bleeding heart, but I'm pretty sure that "sloppy police work" that leads to barging into an old woman's home unannounced with guns drawn and her ending up dead might qualify.
Johnston's family was angry that Howard was bringing the case to the grand jury, spokesman Hutchins said.
"The family of Kathryn Johnston is extremely unhappy and disappointed with today's turn of events. Mr. Howard's move today of pressing charges would effectively limit the scope of and the potential charges of a federal investigation, and borders on tampering with a federal investigation."
I have no idea whether this is actually the case or not, but it seems any enthusiasm for Howard's actions should probably be tempered. Sorry, I'll read the whole article next time before I hit "publish".
---original post begins below---
Fulton County (GA) district attorney Paul Howard is seeking felony murder charges against at least one of the Atlanta police officers involved in the shooting of Kathryn Johnston in an overly zealous and thoroughly botched execution of a no-knock warrant last November.
This isn't the first time an officer has faced charges over this kind of thing, but it's really, really rare to see police called to account for the collateral damage in the war on drugs.
Particularly galling are the comments of the officer's defense attorney:
Csehy conceded his client may have made mistakes, but he said Junnier didn't commit murder. "There was no malfeasance here. It was sloppy police work," Csehy said. "It was cutting corners."
Per Dictionary.com:
mal·fea·sance – the performance by a public official of an act that is legally unjustified, harmful, or contrary to law; wrongdoing (used esp. of an act in violation of a public trust).
Maybe I'm just a cop-hating bleeding heart, but I'm pretty sure that "sloppy police work" that leads to barging into an old woman's home unannounced with guns drawn and her ending up dead might qualify.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)