These days

I've been out walking

I don't do too much talking

These days, these days.

These days I seem to think a lot

About the things that I forgot to do

And all the times I had the chance to.

I've stopped my rambling,

I don't do too much gambling

These days, these days.

These days I seem to think about

How all the changes came about my ways

And I wonder if I'll see another highway.

I had a lover,

I don't think I'll risk another

These days, these days.

And if I seem to be afraid

To live the life that I have made in song

It's just that I've been losing so long.

La la la la la, la la.

I've stopped my dreaming,

I won't do too much scheming

These days, these days.

These days I sit on corner stones

And count the time in quarter tones to ten.

Please don't confront me with my failures,

I had not forgotten them.

In Cal, broad support for the Occupy movement

From this morning’s Oakland Tribune:
Poll: Californians evenly split on Occupy movement

     California voters are almost evenly split, largely along ideological lines, over whether they identify with the Occupy movement, according to a new Field Poll. ¶ The poll found 46 percent of California's voting public identifies a lot or some with the Occupy movement, while 49 percent declare not much identification with it. But while voters are closely divided in their identification with the movement, a 58 percent to 32 percent majority say they agree with the protests' underlying reason….
. . .
     Conservatives are very unlikely to identify with the movement, liberals are very likely to do so and independents are about evenly split, [Field Poll Director Mark] DiCamillo said.
. . .
     DiCamillo said that for context's sake, he went back and checked a similar poll asking about the Tea Party movement in January 2010; at that time, 28 percent of Californians identified strongly or somewhat with that movement. ¶ By comparison, he said, Occupy is "a bigger, broader phenomenon" than the Tea Party, which was mainly just within the bounds of the Republican Party….

See also: STATE: Most people share Occupy views, poll finds (The [Riverside] Press-Enterprise)

Ask an Editor! Gustavo Arellano takes the helm at the OC Weekly

Over at the OC Weekly, Matt Coker has the news:

Ted B. Kissell informed his news staff via today's copy meeting and everyone else at Orange County's favorite alternative weekly newspaper via email that he has resigned as editor of OC Weekly.

Kissell, who joined the staff weeks after founding editor Will Swaim ended his 12-year run at the helm in 2007, also announced that Gustavo Arellano will assume the editor's post "effective 5:01 p.m." this Friday, Dec. 2....

..."I want to thank all the skinheads, pedophile priests, Know Nothings, and battleship tacos that made this day possible," Arellano said of taking over the editor's office. "I look forward to continuing the Weekly's mission of comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable with the best damn group of writers this side of the Fortean Times. And I promise to offer our disgraced, felonious ex-sheriff Mike Carona a complimentary subscription to our rag so he can get his jollies off to our backpage ads!"

Arellano, who grew up and went to high school in Anaheim, began freelancing at the Weekly in 2001 and became a staffer upon graduating from UCLA with a master's degree in Latin American studies in 2003.

Having served as managing editor the past year and a half, Arellano will continue as editor to author his popular syndicated column, ¡Ask a Mexican!, which won the 2006 and 2008 Association of Alternative Weeklies (AAN) Award for Best Column. He'll also keep contributing to the Weekly's tasty food coverage. Indeed, he's rolled some of that knowledge into his forthcoming third book, Taco USA: How Mexican Food Conquered America.

A press release about Arellano assuming the editorship that VVM submitted to AAN today notes that OC Weekly's new editorial chief "is the proud son of two Mexican immigrants, one of whom was illegal."

*
Felicidades a Gustavo!
*
Re Gustavo, see also:

• IVC coulda had a v-8! (DtB) Roquemore twice avoids choosing Gustavo for commencement speaker...
• Commencement speaker choices: the controversial and the unimaginative (DtB)
• Separated at Birth? Ask a Mexican's Logo, Saddleback College's Gaucho (OC Weekly) Picking up on a DtB story...

That's some survey, that Don Wagner "immigration" survey

     Today, I visited Assemblyman (and former SOCCCD trustee) Don Wagner’s government website: here. I noticed a button: “click here to take our latest survey.”
     So I did. At present, Don has three surveys: Healthcare, Immigration, and Jobs.
     I chose the one on immigration. It asks just four questions:

     Observe that the third and fourth questions of this survey are about how respondents “feel” about things:

      (California's "situation"? That's mighty vague. On the other hand, under the circumstances, I think we can safely assume that Don means the state's fiscal situation, which, of course, is dire.) 

     Whether "illegal immigration is a large contributing factor to" the state's fiscal "situation" and how much (if at all) it contributes to it—these are empirical questions. When confronted with empirical questions, one should make the appropriate observations; one should seek the relevant data. 

     One does not ask for people's opinions.

     Odd.

     Also, Don is asking questions about matters imbedded in a cluster of empirical and non-empirical issues that comprise the illegal immigration issue. (Can the existing pattern and amount of immigration be stopped or thwarted? How can it be? At what cost in other values such as privacy? Is multiculturalism a legitimate value? Is it decent to seek to prevent such phenomena as the gradual dilution of one's "culture"? Etc.) 

     Don distorts the immigration issue by implying that it's essentially about whether illegal immigration is costly.

     And isn't Don asking for people's opinions (about these curiously selective matters) already knowing full well what those opinions are? ("It's a big contributor! It's immense!")

     That's some survey, that Don Wagner "immigration" survey.

That's some catch, that Catch-22

Rant On: "futile, if not cynical wastes of time"

Monday is here and, as promised, Rebel Girl has some reading for you.

Clio Bluestocking, Reb's most recent infatuation, weighs in on her community college experience in "The Nebulous Creature."

Blue writes:

In my years at the community college, I found three insidious concepts that pointed toward the endemic problem of the college. All three were the sort of things that, on the face of it, seem like they could maybe be good ideas; but, when you looked a little beyond the surface, you could see that the ideas were concocted outside of the reality of the institution, of the needs of the institution, and of the needs of everyone associated with the institution, including the students. These three things were outcomes assessment, online instruction, and "completion."

Reb likes it when teachers write about teaching. She finds it refreshing.

As you may remember, late last week, Rebel cited Bluestocking's assessment of SLOs.

In the same post, Blue makes the familiar arguments about online education: "The problem is that the dictum seems to not seriously care if it is done well. The dictum is to serve more students and this is an easy and cheap solution. Doing it well will require more staff and therefore more money."

Regarding "completion," Blue points out that institutions, even though they advise instructors "to have compassion and understand the problems facing students with full-time work, full-time family, and full-time course loads; yet, they do not look at that very fact of the students' lives as an obstacle to advancement. You want completion? Address the real reasons that students don't complete."


But here's where she won Reb's heart:

Who is "they" in my rantings here? Who comes up with these ideas, thinks they are grand, and demands their implementation in the face of overall opposition from the people who have to do the implementing? Well, I wish I knew. Anyone can be part of "they" at any point on any issue, I suppose, but the main "they" is the real, endemic problem of the college where I worked. The endemic problem went above and beyond the college itself to the people who the decision makers at the college seemed to want to serve...

This nebulous creature and its handlers, however, had very very little knowledge of how education works or the purpose of education. Very few people connected to this nebulous creature had any experience in education beyond their last college course; and this nebulous creature had obviously failed itself in its own education because it could not conceive of anything as being useful unless there was a point-to-point correlation between something in a classroom and a specific skill that might be demanded by an employer. Anything going on in the classroom must directly translate into a student's ability to profit and the line had to be direct. Any questioning of the nebulous creature's demands was met with "if we don't do what it wants ourselves, then it will come in and do it for us."

Now, I don't think it is a bad idea to explain how the Humanities are useful to society or even to individuals who are just in college to get a better job. That's most of the students in a c.c. anyway. It is the reason that college is connected to upward mobility. Humanities exposes people to a variety of ideas, expands their way of thinking, hones their analytical skills (or exposes them to the concept of analysis), and requires verbal expression and communication most often in written form. Sometimes this may not seem so obvious as one tries to wade through the causes of the American Civil War or the intricacies of Hamlet.

Sadly, the nebulous creature seemed not particularly interested in those explanations. It understands "business writing" or Elizabeth I, CEO. It understands, "student will be able to demonstrate the ability to use a comma" or "student will be able to identify George Washington." It understands "history" as "dates and facts and wars and politicians who have no connection to anything happening now." It understands "literature" as "that boring shit in which everything meant something when really the white whale was just a whale and who gives a damn anyway?" This nebulous creature is simplistic and does not take into consideration that education is a complex endeavor that is bigger than the numbers that they want to production -- sometimes even more subjective and not apparent for years. It can sometimes be as traumatic as it is enlightening, if done right, which is why it should not be a series of hoops to jump through or numbers to generate in order to do it right.

The biggest problem in the face of this nebulous creature was the way that it was able -- despite its nebulous nature -- to force complete capitulation and compliance, to draw so many into its thrall. I kept asking, as everyone complained about the "outcomes assessment," and online "learning," and "completion" -- at every level in some cases -- "at what point do we just say 'NO'?" Seriously, at what point do we, those of us actually IN the college, say "WE are the professionals here, we actually ARE competent, and we actually DO know what we are doing." When do we -- and I mean faculty, staff, librarians, counselors, administrators, everyone at the college who increasingly sees these measures as futile, if not cynical wastes of time -- when does that we seize control of our own business as professionals?

Indeed, what would happen if we did? What if we said, "we will decide our own 'outcomes' and how best to determine if they are being met," rather than going through the farce of the current system in place at the college? What if we said, "these are the terms on which we will offer and implement online courses in our departments according to our department's needs"? What if we said, "your definition of 'completion' has no meaning at our institution, so here is our varied means of determining 'completion' at our college"? Seriously, what would happen? ...

Rebel Girl has not successfully resisted the urge to quote often and long here. Sigh. Forgive her. She hopes that you will visit Blues' original post here and read it in its entirety. She hopes that you will chime in in the comments section and tell us what you really think.

More later~~~~

Trustee Tom Fuentes' dark warning, November 16

Go ahead: install Microsoft Silverlight. The district says it's OK!

The video starts with the tail end of public comments: the "hat" or "mouse" lady offers her services as Chancellor, then stalks off. No stranger than usual.

Addressing the TV audience

00:24 – Board Reports

00:26 – Trustee Meldau
02:00 – Trustee Milchiker
04:46 – Trustee Prendergast
07:02 – Trustee (President) Padberg
08:46 – Trustee Fuentes – He offers his dark and dire warning
11:36 – Trustee Lang
11:55 – Student Trustee Larson
12:50 – Chancellor’s report (Gary Poertner)

Trustee Nancy Padberg and her anti-intellectual idol, Rush Limbaugh

     I recall that, at a board meeting years ago, SOCCCD trustee Nancy Padberg (of San Clemente, that old hotbed of Bircherism) proudly noted her membership in the Rush Limbaugh Club.
     Wow. Limbaugh is an idiot. But his particular variety of idiocy is anti-intellectual. He's the sort of "conservative" who was never educated—he dropped out of college in favor of a radio career—and who has come to believe, as have so many before him, that academia comprises clever but conniving elitists who make it their business to contemn the hardworking, commonsensical little guy.
     That mindset is a variety of conspiracy thinking, a paranoid thing.
     Ever read Richard J. Hofstadter? Two of his classics are The Paranoid Style in American Politics (1964) and Anti-intellectualism in American Life (1963).
     Those books are indeed classics, endlessly cited and referred to. —But only by intellectuals, natch.
     Two excerpts:

     American politics has often been an arena for angry minds. In recent years, we have seen angry minds at work, mainly among extreme right-wingers, who have now demonstrated ... how much political leverage can be got out of the animosities and passions of a small minority. But, behind this, I believe, there is a style of mind that is far from new, and that is not necessarily right-wing. I call it the paranoid style, simply because no other word adequately evokes the sense of heated exaggeration, suspiciousness, and conspiratorial fantasy that I have in mind. (PSAP) 

     The case against intellect [in the puritanical American tradition] is founded upon a set of fictional and wholly abstract antagonisms. Intellect is pitted against feeling, on the ground that it is somehow inconsistent with warm emotion. It is pitted against character, because it is widely believed that intellect stands for mere cleverness, which transmutes easily into the sly or diabolical. It is pitted against practicality, since theory is held to be opposed to practice, and the "purely" theoretical mind is so much disesteemed. It is pitted against democracy, since intellect is felt to be a form of distinction that defies egalitarianism. Once the validity of these antagonisms is accepted, then the case for intellect, and by extension for the intellectual, is lost. Who cares to risk sacrificing the warmth of emotion, solidity of character, practical capacity, or democratic sentiment in order to pay deference to a type of man who at best is deemed to be merely clever and at worst may even be dangerous? (AIAL)

     Rush is very much a part of the paranoid and anti-intellectualist traditions in this country. He sees conspiracies. He demonizes "liberals." He relies on Straw Men. He occasionally appeals, fat-headedly, to the Bible. He takes hillbilly drugs and hums hillbilly tunes. He enjoys football.
     Most of all, like his predecessors, he eschews (because he despises) reason. He relies on fear and fallacy. He is a classic demagogue.
     So Nancy Padberg loves the anti-intellectualist barbarian Rush. As it turns out, she was even the President of the local Rush Club, so enamored is she of the fellow. But she's on the board of trustees of a college district! College: the traditional home of the "pointed-headed intellectual."
     To the uninitiated, learning about "college trustee" Nancy's love of Rush is like discovering that the Prez of the American Philosophical Association is also a member of the Orange County Paranormal Society. It's like finding out that the head of the Philharmonic Society is a freakin' Dead Head.
     WTF.
     Yeah, but this is Orange County.
     I've never bothered to look into the RLCOC (pronounced “rilcok”)—not sure why. But, today, I somehow came across the club’s website. It's a mess. Much of it is literally unreadable, owing to inappropriate font colors, etc. It piles element upon element without rhyme or reason. It has never met a photograph (of one of its geezers) that it didn't like.
     How fitting. Must be run, and consumed, by oldsters who don't know about the interweb and such. (My folks seem to think the internet is an actual place, maybe in Irvine. They fear it and its dark tentacles that (they imagine) seek the unsuspecting dollars of the elderly.)
     Looks like our Nancy is no longer a club officer. The RLCOC website proudly displays a photo of the “Rush Limbaugh Club OC 2011 Officers”:

That's Nancy at left; that's Floyd the barber at right

     The caption: “Past President Nancy Padberg installs Officers Saturday, 11 December 2010.”
     The website is all that you might expect it to be. It provides a link to a hilariously paranoid video from Pat Robertson’s Christian Broadcasting Network:

“WAKE UP AMERICA! Watch this scary video”:

     For fun, you might explore the site. Here are some of the titles (etc.) that can be found on its motley and headache-inducing pages:

From the RLCOC website

• Bush's Achievements [!!!]
• Obama Dispatches Union Thugs to Intimidate American Citizens
• Rush Limbaugh At CPAC: Doubles Down On Wanting Obama To Fail
• MAXINE WATERS (CA-D) ADMITS LIBERALS = SOCIALISTS!
• Obama Civility Flashback: He laughs at Wands Sykes Jokes: It's not hatred and vitriol when it comes from the left
• Bill Clinton fakes crying at Ron Brown's funeral [Gosh, didn’t Brown die fifteen years ago?]
• [Darrel] Issa: O'bama's [sic] Among 'Most Corrupt Administrations' [Issa? Now that’s rich!]
• America's Ruling Class – and the Perils of Revolution
• Barack H. Obama IS NOT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN
• Obama Removes Jesus from Easter Message
• America Hangs by a Thread
• "Chickification" of U.S. military is "turning people soft"; there's "no room for that on the battlefield."
• Bringing An End To This False Prophet Obama!