How we know that homeopathy doesn't work

• IRVINE HISTORIAN & ARAB HEADBANGERS.
.....I finally got around to reading that interview in yesterday’s OC Reg with UCI historian Mark Levine (UCI historian plunges into Middle Eastern underground), and it’s actually damned interesting. The hairy Professor LeVine (the Reg reporter calls him “hirsute-headed”) has spent some time hanging out with headbangers (aka “heavy metal” fans) in the Middle East—even in Baghdad—and he’s got lots to say about it. Check it out. (See also an interview with UCI anthropology professor Leo Chavez : Are Latinos a threat to the U.S.?)

• CANCER GOOFBALL.
.....Perhaps you’ve heard that the head of a major cancer research center (University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute) has sent a warning to staff to limit their use of mobile phones, owing to the risk of cancer. (Limit mobile phone use, cancer expert tells staff.) Meanwhile, many health authorities say there is no reason to suppose that there is a risk.
.....Yesterday, our pal (well, he did email me once) Bob Park (What’s New) wrote that (Pittsburg director) Ronald Herberman’s concerns are “nonsense.”

All cancer agents act by disrupting chemical bonds. In a classic 2001 op-ed, LBL physicist Robert Cahn explained that Einstein won the 1905 Nobel Prize in Physics for showing that cell phones can't cause cancer. The threshold energy of the photoelectric effect, for which Einstein won the prize, lies at the extreme blue end of the visible spectrum in the near ultraviolet. The same near-ultraviolet rays can also cause skin cancer. Red light is too weak to cause cancer. Cell-phone radiation is 10,000 times weaker.

• GUARDIAN ON HOMEOPATHY.
.....Lemme make a pitch for the Guardian’s Science page, which seems to do a good job covering science news. For instance, on Monday, they offered a fine article about UK pharmacists, who persist in handing over homeopathic “remedies” to customers without comment, despite their own ethical guidelines, which compel them to inform customers of relevant info.
.....What’s the relevant info? That these homeopathic remedies have nothing in them (“no biologically active agents”) and, in study after study, they have been shown to be no more effective than sugar pills.
.....How come they have nothing in them? Well, according to homeopathic theory, you start off with the active ingredient (say, arsenic), but you don’t want to actually give that to people, cuz it’s toxic. So what do you do? You dilute it. As you dilute it, say the homeopaths, it becomes stronger as a medicine.
.....But they don’t just dilute it. They dilute it to the point that likely not one molecule of the ingredient is left (they acknowledge this). That’s when it’s really powerful.
.....What’s the matter with people?

• MINDLESS GASOHOL SKEPTICISM GROWING.
.....Meanwhile, as a New York Times article (In Gas-Powered World, Ethanol Stirs Complaints) explains, lots of people in those parts of this country where “gasohol” is available, have come to believe that the stuff seriously cuts fuel economy and causes poor performance, so they pay extra for “pure” gasoline.
.....Now, I’m not a big fan of ethanol (not at least the kind that comes from corn), but this looks like another classic case of people believing exactly what they want to believe, despite any evidence to the contrary. Things happen; exaggerated stories are told; paranoia sets it—it’s a kind of Americana, like lovable coots sittin’ around the local hangout, telling Bigfoot or UFO stories, and blaming the government for the whole dang thing.

• HOW WE KNOW THAT HOMEOPATHY DOESN'T WORK.
.....Which reminds me. Why should we pay attention to clinical trials and similar tests?
.....Well, it’s like this. Scientists believe (roughly speaking) that nature is very regular. It’s not the kind of place where X causes Y irregularly or on certain days. No, if X causes Y under conditions C, then that’s the pattern, period.
.....Now, if nature weren’t regular in this way, NASA could never send off one of its rockets and hit the right spot in space every time. Science and technology depend on nature's regularity.
.....Here’s the good news: the fact of regularity means, among other things, that you can find out if an alleged cure works. Whether something works isn’t really a matter of opinion. It’s a matter of demonstrable fact. You’ve just got to do the right tests.
.....Let’s say that someone asserts that eating goofballs cures cancer. Here’s what you do (and it’s expensive): you set up a study in which lots of people with cancer are eating goofballs over here and lots of (very similar) people with cancer are eating fake goofballs over there.
.....It’s important that none of these people knows whether they’re in the real or the fake goofball group because of the phenomenon that the very thought that one is receiving a cure will cause improvement (this is the placebo effect, which is somewhat controversial). That’s why you’ve got to have two groups and compare ‘em. If you just give people goofballs and see what happens, some might get better, but how do you know that isn’t the placebo effect? You don’t. So you compare these two groups. If both groups improve, you know it isn’t the goofballs doing it. It’s the placebo effect.
.....Now, remember, nature is regular. You don’t get to say that, “Yeah, goofballs work, but maybe not for you, cuz you’re a skeptic and a Democrat.” Either goofballs cause improvement or they don’t. You don’t get to be an asshole about this.
.....So now, if you’ve done everything right, and if it turns out that there’s no difference in improvement between the two groups, then you’ve got prima facie evidence that goofballs don’t work on cancer. If others repeat the experiment and get the same results (that’s called “replication”), then you’ve pretty much sealed the deal.
.....And that’s why we know that homeopathic remedies don’t work.

Back in November, we held a caption contest, but I don't believe we ever announced a winner! (Age of Stupidity) So here it is. Imagine a drum roll:

The Reb says hello

Got a call from the Reb today. She seems to be doing well, though she’s been terribly busy and has endured the continuation of her odd run of tragedies close to home.

But she and Limber Lou and Red Emma are well and are enjoying the mountains. Especially Lou. In these mountains, says Reb, Lou experiences the kind of idyllic childhood "that all of us should." (Reb co-directs the "writers' workshop" of The Community of Writers. It is held in the mountains west of Lake Tahoe.)

She says that smoke from the many Northern California fires still comes and goes, but it’s OK. The poets just write about it.

For a seriously cool (er, appalling) video of the carbon monoxide produced over the last month or so, click on the Jet Propulsion Laboratory link below:

JPL video of Carbon Monoxide from California’s Wildfires

According to the JPL site, “In this animation created with data retrieved by NASA's spaceborne instrument called the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder, or AIRS, on NASA's Aqua spacecraft, we visualize the rapid increases in carbon monoxide (CO) emitted by fires burning in California in June and July 2008.”

Contamination in Tustin

.....

A brief update on yesterday’s “toxic plume” story: the reason for the toxic plume beneath Irvine is, largely or in part, the use of solvents by the military to clean aircraft and aircraft parts.
.....Naturally, if that is a problem in Irvine, it should be a problem in Tustin as well, the location of the former Tustin helicopter station.
.....ATEP, the SOCCCD’s technologically-oriented “campus,” sits on that property in a section northwest of one of the old hangers.
.....Is ATEP sitting atop a plume of toxic water? I've done some poking around. The short answer: yes. That doesn't necessarily mean there's a health risk.

.....I came across a September 4, 2003 Irvine World News article (Navy will clean up Tustin helicopter base) that sheds light on the matter:

.....The Navy says it will proceed with a $4.3 million cleanup of a sector of the old Tustin helicopter base contaminated by solvents.
.....Plans call for groundwater containing the solvents to be pumped out and cleaned, and 2,450 cubic yards of polluted soil to be cleansed by cooking the contaminants out.
…
.....Plans for the redevelopment of the base along Harvard Avenue at Irvine’s western border call for a road to be built over what is now the contaminated area, but that project won’t begin until the cleaned soil is returned.
…
.....The water to be filtered lies under an area of the former Marine Corps base where solvents were dumped for years. The solvents, used to clean helicopters, contaminate an area about 40 feet deep stretching in an arc of several hundred yards.
.....Although the contaminated groundwater is not part of a drinking water aquifer, the solvents eventually will migrate there if not removed or contained.
.....The remediation plan continues and expands a process of pumping out contaminated groundwater, filtering the solvents and allowing the cleaned water to flow down Peters Canyon, where it soaks back into the ground. The Navy said the expanded pumping operation will get under way in 2005.
.....It’s expected to take at least 30 years to clean all the contaminated water.
.....The dirty soil will be hauled away and heated, causing the contaminants to evaporate. Air scrubbers then would capture the contaminants.
.....The freshly baked earth then will be returned to the site, which is northeast of the northernmost blimp hangar. In all, between 125-150 truckloads of soil will be hauled away to be cleaned, enough to cover a football field a foot and a half deep.
.....Tustin officials say the water and soil plan will allow them to proceed with development of a community park and college at the site. Work on those projects could begin in about a year….

Does PC dominate? Is the truth "liberal"?

.....This morning’s Inside Higher Ed (Defining Political Correctness and Its Non-Impact) reports on a new study on “political correctness” in academia that, like other recent studies, should be an eye-opener for conservative critics who seem to view the higher education professorate as monolithic and intolerant:

.....For those who deny that there is an identifiable group of PC professors, the study says that there is in fact a group with consistently common perspectives….
.....But for those who say that these tenured radicals have all the power in academe, the study finds that politically correct professors’ views on the role of politics in hiring decisions aren’t very different from the views of other professors. Further, the study finds that a critical mass of politically incorrect professors is doing quite well in securing jobs at the most prestigious universities in the United States, despite claims that such scholars are an endangered species there.

.....I recommend that you read the entire article. Here (according to IHE) are a few of the study’s findings.

• Yes, faculty members are more liberal than the average person, but they are less so then previous generations.
• Political correctness, understood as embrace of a cluster of beliefs (especially re discrimination) commonly associated with PC, is relatively common in the Humanities and the social sciences.
• Psychology is the only field in which a majority of professors are politically correct. A majority of Economics professors are politically incorrect. (No surprise there.) A high degree of political incorrectness can also be found among professors of accounting, business, computer science, and mechanical engineering. (“Management information” professors, whoever they are, seem to be by far the most politically incorrect group.)
• Community college faculty are less liberal than other faculty, although, for faculty in general, the politically incorrect outnumber the politically correct. (Note, however, that the researchers placed faculty into these four categories: moderately correct, politically incorrect, politically correct, and non-committal.) At community colleges, 28% were moderately correct, 27% were politically incorrect, and 16% were politically correct.
• The research found no evidence that politically incorrect professors were thwarted in advancement.
• “When it comes to hiring and definitions of diversity, there is a strong belief—across levels of political correctness—that political tests should not be used.”

• • • • •

FOR MANY ISSUES, THE TRUTH IS "LIBERAL"

.....I think it's odd that the article’s (or the study’s?) author did not lump together the “politically correct” group and the “moderately correct” group and compare that combined group with the “politically incorrect” group. Perhaps there was a very good reason for not doing so.
.....But, upon doing so, one finds that, even at community colleges, nearly 44% of professors are either moderately or “politically” correct, while nearly 27% are political incorrect. (30% are non-committal.) Hence, even at community colleges, the professorate is definitely skewed toward “correctness”— and, presumably, toward liberalism and leftism.
.....But, of course, the key question is, why is that so?
.....Unlike many conservatives (apparently), I am not a “relativist” about truth. Roughly speaking, in my view, for many questions upon which the professorate concerns itself, determined and rigorous efforts to find “the truth” tends to bring the group closer to the truth.
.....(I suspect that many so-called conservatives—and many liberals too—would laugh at such a suggestion. I call ‘em, “clueless friends of Protagoras.”)
.....My own view is that the professorate skews toward the liberal, the progressive, and the radical because, with regard at least to an important range of political issues (not all), the truth, i.e., the rationally most compelling and defensible position, is found there.
.....Two quick and dirty examples: the nature of homosexuality and global warming. As near as I can tell, what we have learned about homosexuality in recent decades (I am thinking of the empirical sciences) inclines one to suppose that, contrary to the typical so-called “conservative,” homosexuality is not likely to be the product of “choices.”
.....And global warming? I have followed this more closely. This is an issue that, for most of us, requires appeal to expert opinion. (In such cases, logicians and philosophers would have us seek “consensus” among the relevant expert communities. Luckily, such consensus obtains.) Now, unless one is hostile to science itself—or one imagines that scientists are prone to allow political correctness to affect their research (my knowledge of them greatly disinclines me to suppose this)—then one must agree that the evidence favors the reality of global warming and of humanity’s contribution to it.
.....Another example. The knowledge or understandings about the nature of the nations and cultures involved in the current “Gulf War” and the “war on terror” offered by academics by and large contradicts what is routinely believed (or said) by so-called conservatives. Have “radical Muslims” attacked us because “they hate our freedoms”? Most academics in the relevant areas, it seems to me, would say, “of course not.” (Other academics would largely agree with them.) Is the leadership of the groups that have declared war on our country insane? Of course not. Does this conflict have something to do with our dependence on oil? Of course. Is the hostility toward the U.S. that one finds in the Muslim world irrational? Of course not. Does the Muslim world tend to view our nation through the prism of colonialism, a portion of history to which Americans seem largely oblivious? You bet.
• • • • •

PC IN A STRICTER SENSE:

.....This new study seems to be more about “being liberal” than about “being politically correct.” To my way of thinking (and I suspect that most speakers of English would agree), being PC isn’t just being liberal or progressive. It is being liberal or progressive and in some sense enforcing (elements of) that perspective and/or exhibiting intolerance (or dismissiveness) of those who disagree with (those elements of) it. (As opposed to: leaving the question of what to believe entirely to the best evidence/arguments.)

.....With regard to whether academics skew toward the left—well, the empirical data speaks for itself. Conservatives, confronting the data, who immediately infer that there exists discrimination against conservatives (in academia) are reasoning badly, since there are other explanations for the pattern that are at least plausible. What is really going on here, in my view, is this. Conservatives are (usually tacitly) saying: “You liberals immediately infer the presence of discrimination from the unequal or disproportionate distribution of something (e.g., holding positions of power). Well, we’re doing exactly the same thing. So don’t complain.”
.....Logicians call this the “tu quoque” fallacy, i.e., the fallacy of supposing that what one does is unobjectionable since one’s opponent does it too. (“Tu quoque” means “you too.”) Naturally, this is a fallacy, for, if liberals (et al.) err in reasoning as they do (I think so), then so do conservatives.
.....But what about political correctness? Does that exist in academia? In my view, without a doubt, it does, although I do not think it infects everyone, and, even among those who fall prey to it, it does not necessarily infect their research. (I think non-academics underestimate the fundamental earnestness of scientists.)
.....I’m opposed to PC, as defined above, because it is irrational. And, as I’ve argued previously, something like “PC” often infects conservatives as well. The “conservative” reaction to Wesley Clark’s recent remark about John McCain illustrates the phenomenon. (Clark said something—"Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president"—that is plainly true, but conservatives, apparently unable to think clearly about the matter, “enforced” the obnoxiousness and falseness of Clark's statement.)

Robert Novak is Mr. Magoo



ALSO:

• Are American voters “cognitive misers”?

.....Not long ago, DtB found itself discussing the dismal ignorance of the American voter, especially voters on the right wing of the political spectrum.
.....Yesterday, Libby Copeland of the Washington Post wrote about an important new book called The American Voter Revisted, which is a revision of a 1960 classic (The American Voter). (See Another Peek Inside the Brain of the Electorate.)
.....According to Copeland, the authors this time reach the same conclusion reached nearly fifty years ago: that the American voter is clueless.
.....See The American Voter Revisited

The return of the toxic plume?

.....Our old pal Matt Coker has a worrisome piece in the OC Weekly today concerning the “toxic plume” beneath the Great Park (it’s beneath IVC, too). (See TOXIC SOUP DU JOUR.)
.....We here at DtB have occasionally drawn attention to the plume. But nobody seems to give a damn, 'ceptin' strange people in far-away lands.
.....In today’s Weekly piece, Matt notes that, maybe a decade ago, opponents of the El Toro airport played the “toxic plume” card, citing studies. The plume is contamination that seeped into Irvine’s ground water, mostly from military activity starting in 1942. (See Navy, Wavy, Gravy, April 2000.)
.....Soon thereafter, pro-airport forces (including Newport Beach Richy Rich types) sought to quell the growing “Great Park” movement, so they whipped out those same studies. (See Noxious Talk, January, 2002.)
.....A year later, the Weekly's Anthony Pignataro described Larry Agran (Irvine Councilman and promoter of the Great Park) and his curious shifts in position about the plume, depending on the needs of the moment. (See Toxics? What Toxics?, April, 2003.)
.....Well, as we all know, the Great Park forces (Agran, Fuentes, NIMBY, Gumby, et al.) prevailed against those nasty big-business “airport” people with their dollar-sign eyes.
.....According to Matt, when Irvine gained control over the El Toro property in 2005, “the toxic soup talk went away.”
.....Recently, there’s been lots of hoopla about the Great Park, and Agran remains the ringmaster. We hear about the big orange balloon. But we don’t hear much about the big orange toxic plume, even though a part of the "park" master plan is housing developments.
.....Curious, isn’t it?


.....Very recently, though, the plume came seeping back. According to Matt, the Financial Times News reported on an alleged cover-up of the toxic danger. (See.) This report created some buzz in Irvine in the last two weeks, owing to fliers and such. It's affected the real estate crowd some.
.....One problem though: nobody seems to know quite where to locate this “Financial Times News” story. There's a newspaper by that name, of course, but (says Matt) its fonts don't match those of the article that's been distributed. (I guess the Weekly is too cheap to pay for an online subscription.)
.....But other media have gotten into the act, including NewsOc.org. Their page has a link to a story by salem-news.com that reports on former El Toro Marines and their worries about exposure to the carcinogen TCE.
.....Yeah, I remember TCE. It was all over our reporting about the plume.
.....The latter ("Salem") story includes a YouTube video, which follows a former Marine onto the dilapidated base:



.....What’s it all mean? Dunno. Could be a bunch of hype. Not sure. We know the plume exists. Is it dangerous? Are we drinkin' it? Our earlier posts revealed that there are facilities that seek to push the plume around and maybe filter out the toxins. There's some 40-year timeline, as I recall. About 8 years ago, some Irvine residents got steamed about how they were filling one of those fake Irvine lakes with the plumage. Check it out.
.....Then forget, for ignorance is bliss.

Dissent's old posts about the plume:

The “toxic plume” 1/06
Photographic updatery 1/06
Don't read this story! 1/07

Meeting of the board on Monday

.....I see that the agenda for Monday’s meeting of the South Orange County Community College District Board of Trustees has been posted (here).
.....But first...

A reminder of some current SOCCCD issues:

1. ACCREDITATION. Both Saddleback College and Irvine Valley College must submit reports to the Accreditation Commission (ACCJC) on October 15. In February, ACCJC told each college to solve long-standing problems (e.g., board micromanagement) or else lose their accreditation.

2. THE 50% LAW. For years, Chancellor Mathur has allowed the district to slide toward noncompliance with a state law requiring that at least half of expenditures be on “instruction.” Last Spring’s sloppy and rushed faculty hiring extravaganza was part of an effort to significantly increase instructional spending, owing to this problem.

3. THE FACULTY CONTRACT. Currently, faculty are “working-to-contract” (i.e., limiting work to what is specified by the contract) in an effort to pressure the district to bargain more reasonably over the faculty contract. SOCCCD full-time faculty salaries do not compare well with those of nearby districts.

4. THE TUSTIN ATEP FACILITY. For years now, the board and Chancellor have sought to develop a large technology-oriented facility on 60 acres of the old Tustin helicopter station. Negotiations with potential investor/partners and the city of Tustin seem endless. Faculty, who by law have a central role in program development, have nevertheless been frozen out of the process, which, if successful, will entail new programs. Faculty tend to view ATEP as a money pit.

5. UPCOMING BOARD ELECTIONS. Of the seven trustees, three are up for reelection in November: Tom Fuentes (Lake Forest), Dave Lang (Irvine), and Bill Jay (Laguna Beach). Fuentes is viewed by faculty as an implacable enemy of faculty. Two or three years ago, Lang betrayed his long-time faculty supporters by supporting the odious Chancellor Mathur. Jay is considered a friend to faculty. It appears that, via the faculty union, faculty will be running candidates against Fuentes and Lang.

Here are some notes on the agenda outline for Monday’s board meeting:

CLOSED SESSION:
.....The closed session begins at 5:00 p.m. (at the Health Sciences Bld., Saddleback College).
.....In closed (super-secret) session, the board will discuss, among other things, the following:
1. Public Employee Discipline/Dismissal/Release (4 cases)
2. Public Employee Appointment a. Vice Chancellor, Human Resources b. Vice Chancellor, Technology and Learning Services c. Associate Provost, Advanced Technology and Education Park

OPEN SESSION:
.....The open session will (re)convene at 6:30.
.....The board will pass a resolution about ATEP. Pure PR, no substance.
.....The board will review the board policy concerning the naming of facilities. This, of course, is desperately important to them.

CONSENT CALENDAR:
.....Among “consent calendar” items (which ipso facto are liable not to be discussed) are several that concern ongoing construction.
.....Looks like there will be some layoffs: (5.12) Saddleback College Counseling Office Assistant, (5.13) Saddleback College Administrative Assistant.
.....Item 5.16 is “ATEP: Donate Equipment Approve property to be of insufficient value and donate to Main Place Christian Fellowship.”
.....5.18 is district institutional memberships (as opposed to college institutional memberships, I think).

GENERAL ACTION ITEMS:
.....6.3 is interesting: “Terminate Exclusive Right to Negotiate Agreement: Camelot Entertainment Group Approve termination of agreement.“
.....There’s the usual slew of revised board policies for review and study, including Delegation of Authority. That one’s important.
.....“Academic Personnel Actions” include
* Authorization to Establish an Academic Faculty Position;
* Authorization to Establish Administrator Position;
* Authorization to Establish a New Salary Range IIa For Associate Provost Position on the Administrator Salary Schedule.”
.....6.10 is very interesting (see recent post concerning Saddleback Academic senate): “Saddleback College Accreditation Report. Approve direction for the Saddleback College Academic Senate to work with its President and the District Chancellor to seek approval of compensation to faculty members for completion of Accreditation Report.”

REPORTS:
.....Under “reports” is 7.4: Employees with Earnings Over $90,000 for Fiscal Year 2007/2008.
.....That sounds like Fuentes. Who else would request such a list?
.....We should give this list a name on Fuentes' behalf. Any ideas?

I call 'im "Spanky"

DEPUTY DOGS.
Yesterday, I opined that the OC Sheriff’s department seems destined to abandon its reserve deputy program. As the Reb will tell you, it isn’t often that my predictions come true (she’s still pissed about my 2004 Presidential prognostication). But, in this morning’s LA Times (Badges issued by former O.C. sheriff will be collected), we learn that “Orange County Sheriff Sandra Hutchens [says] that she plans to recall all the badges that her indicted predecessor handed out to a group of more than 400 civilian volunteers….”

I’m on a roll.

During Mike Carona’s reign—no doubt owing to Tom Fuentes’ string-pulling, Carona was named Irvine Valley College’s “Hometown Hero”—these badges seemed to be given out as political payback. In fact, Carona’s former assistant “told investigators that the reserve program was a fundraising arm for Carona and that badges could be bought for a $1,000 donation.”

Squeaky-clean Sheriff Hutchens wants nothing to do with that, of course.

Evidently, Hutchens is determined to draw a clear line between herself and Carona, which was reflected in her choice of executive staff, which includes mostly outsiders to the OC dept.

One of her new hires, John Scott, is a retired LAPD cop, where he oversaw jails, lots of 'em. That’s good, because the OC has had more than its share of jail scandals.

STORY TIME.
One time, I got a call from my late little brother Ray in the middle of the night. He was at that jail across from what was then “The City” in Orange. He wanted me to pick him up. “OK,” I said. When I got there—it was maybe 2:00 a.m.—he was hiding in the bushes, nearly naked, shivering. That’s right, they released him in that condition (it was cold) in the middle of the night, right there in front of the jail. He told me he was hiding because the neighborhood wasn’t safe. He had lots of bruises and some broken teeth. He got those mementos in the jail.

I do believe that that was the last time I ever saw him.

IRVINE’S FERAL WILL FERRELL.
I’m not a big Will Ferrell fan. I kept hearing about the guy, and so, when his movie Elves came out, I went to see it. I just didn’t get it.

But he may well be Irvine’s real Hometown Hero, for he’s enormously popular, and he still shows up in Irvine now and again. He’s promoting his new movie, and so the OC Reg managed to interview him recently (Will Ferrell says growing up in Irvine made him funny).

I read the interview.

I still don’t get it.

CAL STATE FULLERTON RESEARCH FUNDING PLUMMETS.
The OC Reg’s “Science Dude” (CSUF research plummets while other O.C. schools prosper) reports that “one of the largest universities on the West Coast [namely, CSUF] suffered a $3.3 million drop in research funding over the past year while UC Irvine set a new record and Chapman University had one of its best years ever.”

The Reg asked Fullerton why, researchwise, it has been spiraling downward for the last three years, but they received no explanation.

I’m trying to picture that scene with the Reg reporter and the University flack:

“So, why do you suppose this is happening”?

No answer. Stony silence. Eventually, the Reg reporter walks away to buy a donut.

HIGH SCHOOL CHEATING IN THE OC.
Have you noticed that I’ve been ignoring that ETS “cheating” story here in the OC? Yeah. But it just won’t go away. According to IHE, it seems to be shaping up as a scandal.

The facts: ETS (the folks who create and administer such tests as the SAT) voided the scores of about 400 high school students, and now some of the parents are suing. ETS acknowledges that the tests were not monitored adequately, which is an understatement. Kids were text messaging, coming and going in groups, etc. It’s a perfect “OC” scene. They acknowledge also that they don’t know exactly who cheated and who did not (some students admitted cheating), but they voided all of the scores anyway.

TRUSTEE SPANKY.
According to IHE, Education Secretary Margaret Spellings appeared on “The Colbert Report” recently, where she jokingly suggested that it's time for a national spanking policy.

Yeah, that’s a joke. Except in the OC.

Check out Education Alliance’s website. They defend spanking. So does board President Don Wagner, who, of course, is a member of EA.

I call ‘im “Spanky.” (See Trustee "Spanky".)