Friday, June 14, 2013


Chaotic Enrollment Patterns at Community Colleges (Inside Higher Ed)
     Students at two-year institutions display "astounding variation" in their patterns of enrollment, according to a new study by the Community College Research Center at Columbia University's Teachers College….
U.S. House Panel Questions Value of Accreditation (Chronicle of Higher Education)
     Accreditors just can't win in Congress. Republican members generally think accreditation costs too much for institutions, stifles innovation, and is too secretive. Democrats generally think accreditation goes too easy on for-profit institutions and doesn't safeguard parents and students from programs that will saddle them with debt and worthless degrees.
     Those criticisms were aired again on Thursday in the U.S. House of Representatives, where the Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training held a hearing to discuss the frustrations of members in both parties with the current system….

Thursday, June 13, 2013

n.b.

     I want to remind DtB readers of the following:
that those who object to the factoids reported on [this] blog have recourse. For instance, they can email me and explain the problem. (I make no effort to hide my identify or to make myself unavailable.) They can even anonymously write comments pointing out the (alleged) errors. I AM PERFECTLY HAPPY TO INCLUDE SUCH COMMENTARY ON THE BLOG, TO MAKE IT AN ACTUAL BLOG POST, AND TO PRINT IT UNEDITED.
     I have often explained the above on these pages, usually to no avail. 
     On the other hand, over the years, several people have taken me up on my willingness to make corrections and print responses. That has generally turned out to my and their satisfaction.
     Recently, a person who shall remain nameless expressed frustration with the spewage of false claims about him—and he addressed the point to me, it seemed. He implied that this blog was guilty of such spewage. 
     In response, I sent him the above statement. 
     I also noted the curious phenomenon of readers attributing DtB reader comments to DtB. That's a fallacy, of course. 
     I explained why DtB tries hard not to delete reader comments, even offensive comments—and the rationale for that policy. Essentially, I said that the solution to false statements is the addition of true counter-statements. As they say, "the remedy to bad speech is more speech." Not censorship.

Rockin' In The Free World - Neil Young
GratefullyNORML | Myspace Video

Ah, the good old days

Agenda for next Monday's BOT meeting

     Chancellor Gary Poertner just emailed the district community with a link to the agenda for next Monday’s meeting of the SOCCCD BOT. (It’s a large pdf. Know that before you click on the link.) Thanks, Gary.
     Traditionally, if a college or board seeks to get away with something, they’ll wait until summer to do it. But I’m not sure this crew is up for skullduggery. Maybe a little craftiness. Minor wiliness?
     This agenda makes me wanna stay home.
     Here are a couple of snaps from the agenda:

This can be, um, controversial

     UPDATE: Gary has now sent us a revised agenda: here. Evidently, "Item 4.1, exhibit A, page 3 of the June 17 board meeting agenda has been changed." 4.1 is, of course, the discussion item: basic aid allocation recommendations

THREE DOG NIGHT/GRASS ROOTS IN OC


     The Reb tells me that Three Dog Night will appear at the OC Fair. She asked me not to be negative about that. I wasn't, not really. (I acknowledged that their covers of "One" and "Try a Little Tenderness" were decent.)
     Their opening act is the similarly illustrious "Grass Roots." The only decent song of theirs I could remember was "Midnight Confession," which appears above. Such was the music of my high school years. (Mostly, though, I was into Mott the Hoople and Procol Harum.)
     Reb reminded me that GR did that awful song "Live For Today." We both laughed out loud. Still laughing. (Check out the lyrics.)



Click here: Otis Redding's version--upon which TDN's version is based


Just love it!

Wednesday, June 12, 2013

Pal o' Wagner (POW): hysterical homophobic demagoguery

John Eastman Goes to Washington (NavelGazing/OC Weekly, R. Scott Moxley)
The Chapman University law professor and anti-gay marriage activist stars in a House committee vaudeville act

     You remember Chapman University's John Eastman. He’s one of Don Wagner’s pals, a crew that includes Arizona's Joe Arpaio.
     Well, the East Man is in the news again, testifying about gay marriage before Congress.
     Here's an excerpt from R. Scott Moxley's report:

     …[I]t's Eastman's oratory that's most entertaining. He claims he's living in an apocalyptic setting in which, as with any good summer blockbuster, good confronts evil. In the frequent AM-Christian-radio pontificator's mind, he's a fearless warrior for righteousness….
Shameless scoundrel
     From his perch atop [National Organization for Marriage], Eastman suggests gay marriage threatens the survival of humans, whose ranks have more than doubled on the planet since 1960. In 2012, he said what “flows” from traditional marriages “are children” and “we need children to perpetuate society.” During a March NPR interview, he ignored two key technicalities: matrimonial vows are hardly necessary to procreate, and no proposed gay-marriage law bans heterosexual intercourse. Having delved into make-believe territory, he then asserted that expanding marriage would destroy the one institution that “is uniquely capable of producing children.”
     It takes a shameless scoundrel, especially for a man who wraps himself in a scholarly wardrobe, to try to convert a debate over marriage equality into a hysterical, non sequitur question about whether civilization wants to exterminate itself. But Eastman isn't just a professor. He's also a would-be Republican politician who has been trounced in efforts to become California's Attorney General, a race in which he called for armed revolution if gay couples are allowed to marry….

Right-wing paranoia and foolishness c. 1970: "The depths of your own mind"


1970: burned entrance of B of A across from UCI (From Anteater Antics)

     This morning, I came across the following post on the Anteater Antics blog, a stodgy-yet-interesting site created by the University of California, Irvine, “Libraries’ Department of Special Collections and Archives.”
     But first: as you know, back in December, 1970, the Saddleback Community College District BOT, still freaking out over the burning of a bank by student protesters at UC Santa Barbara in February (see)—and likely also over the October UCI B of A incident described below—made remarkable modifications to already-approved plans for the Saddleback College Library/Admin Building—eventually called the “James B. Utt” Memorial Library. They modified them to protect the structure against feared (but, as it turns out, nonexistent) violent student protesters.

Library opening, 1973
     Hence the lack of windows, etc.
     Of course, the board didn’t just come right out and say that.
     Said board prez Hans Vogel, “A fortress without windows is the ideal environment for library study since when you go to the library you are trying to reach the depths of your own mind.”
     Yep.
     What about high windows? Can’t we at least have high ones? Nope, said Hans: “from a security standpoint I would question high windows and would favor solid walls.”
     Yep, security. That's key. (No violent protests have ever occurred in our district.)
     How about outdoor reading balconies? Those would be nice!
     Nope. Robert Lowery, the architect, explained that “We cut out the second floor outdoor reading balconies … in order to eliminate the chance students will throw books down from them to other students as you [trustees] suggested.”
     That's a hell of a suggestion, boys. (What were they smokin'?)

     Meanwhile, ten or twenty miles up the road at newish UCI (it opened in 1965; Saddleback College opened in Sept. of '68):

Local Bank of America burned (February, 2011)
     A fire was ignited at the entrance to the local branch of the Bank of America, located directly across the street from UCI on the ground floor of the Town Center Building, shortly after midnight on October 26, 1970. This is certainly among the most mysterious, and controversial, occurrences in UCI history. This event was viewed by some in the community as having a direct relation to the burning of the Bank of America at UCSB during anti-war protests in the Spring of 1970. That action drew national attention to the anti-war movement at UCSB. Then Chancellor Aldrich received many calls from the local community with concerns about the Irvine event, many accusing UCI students of this action. Chancellor Aldrich took exception to this assumption. Opinions voiced during this period ranged from those on the far right accusing the students and blaming UCI campus administrators for their tolerance of this type of dissent. Some on the left blamed those from the far right of carefully calculating and executing an event that would cause limited physical damage but significant political damage among local community members and taxpayers. Damage to the bank was estimated at $125,000 but no cash or records were lost in the short blaze. 
UCI, c. 1969
     There were no witnesses to the event and no one was ever arrested. (My emphases throughout.)
UCI Town Center (as seen from UCI Gateway Commons), 1969

"Utt" Library, September 1972

Tuesday, June 11, 2013

The Age of Stupid

Former President George W. Bush's Image Ratings Improve
CLICK on graphic

The life and times of Roy


"You're both wrong."
     LUNCH.
     So I went over to the house for lunch today, and, eventually, Annie joined us, but Pa was at the rental in Orange. We had lunch without him.
     Ma started telling us about some woman, Joanne, and the possibility that Joanne’s daughter, Anna, might move into the rental. Eventually, I caught on that Joanne is the woman who, along with her husband, has leased the old house in Orange—my folks always refer to it as “the rental in Orange”—for about a dozen years. Evidently, they were “good renters. Now, they’ve vacated the Orange residence and they’re moving out-of-state.
A look of consternation
     Pa's been fixing up the house for the new renters, whoever they may be. (At first it bothered me that he worked so hard at his age, but then I remembered: he lives for this shit.)
     OK, so Ma mentions that Anna’s boyfriend (Ma at times spoke as though he were the husband, but I do think she said at first that he was just the boyfriend) owns a cement truck. Well, that’s interesting, says Ma, since Joanne’s husband (we’ll call him Joe) also owns a cement truck.
     Guess so.
     I usually try not to listen to this kind of conversation ‘cause I don’t know any of these people and because I’m not a fan of the kind of interest some people take in other people’s lives. On the other hand, one does not want to seem to be ignoring the conversation when there’re only three people at the table, and so I listened, kind of.
     Ma starts talking about Anna’s “father-in-law,” Joe.

     WAIT, I SAY.
     “Wait,” I say. “If Anna is Joanne’s daughter, and Joanne is married to Joe, then wouldn’t Joe be Anna’s father—or maybe her stepfather?
     Well, no, said Ma. To be nice, you wouldn’t call him your stepfather; you’d call him your father.
     "Yeah," said Annie, "but from our point of view, that doesn't matter."
     "Yes," I said. "But you (I was addressing Ma) just said that Joe is Anna’s father-in-law. And you also said that Joanne is Anna’s mother. So that would make Joe Anna’s father or step-father. He can’t be her father-in-law.
     Why not? asked Ma. “It’s exactly like Kathie. When you and Kathie were married, Pa was Kathie’s father-in-law.”
     “Well, yes,” I said. “But Pa wasn’t my father-in-law. He was (and is) my father.”
     “Yes, it's exactly the same,” said Ma.
     “Huh? No, just like Pa is my father not my father-in-law, Joe is Anna’s father, not Anna’s father-in-law.”
     Annie indicated agreement with me.

     LOOK IT UP.
     “You’re both wrong," said Ma. "You should go and look it up,” she added, with great confidence and a minor flourish of the hand.
     “What?" I gasped, now fully consternated. "Look, this is a simple matter of English. Joe is Anna’s step-father.” 
     —In the course of the conversation, that Joe was not Anna's real father became clear, or at least as clear as things get around here. He is certainly not Anna’s father-in-law. "Anna would become Joe’s father-in-law," I said, "if Anna were to marry Joe’s son. That’s how it works.”
     No, said Ma. Anna and this cement truck guy are married (or about to be married?). And so their relationship to Joe is through marriage. And so Joe is Anna’s father-in-law.
     “No, no, no,” I say. “When Joanne married Joe, Joe became Anna’s step-father. That’s the nature of Anna's relationship to Joe. Her getting married to this cement guy doesn’t change that. It only changes things for the cement guy, who thereby becomes Joe’s son-in-law.”

     THAT'S WHAT I SAID, SHE SAYS.
     “Well, that’s what I said,” says Ma.
     No, that’s not what you said.
     I turn to Annie: is that what she said? (Annie stares into the distance, motionless. She’s not taking sides.)
     It became clear that this conversation, if it were to continue, had no future except a terrible one. We've been at this point—and beyond it—so many times before.
     It did sputter forth a bit longer. At some point, I must have reiterated, “Look, Joe is not Anna’s father-in-law; rather, Joe is Anna’s stepfather.” –To which Ma replied, “Well, yes, that’s what I’ve been saying.”
     I was stunned anew.

     I GO NOW.
     I asked Annie: Is that what she’s been saying? Annie got up to get ready for work.
     It was the end of the conversation. Annie walked through the door to the outside.
     Such wisdom!
     (Later, I checked: sure enough, hell had froze over.)

The "rental in Orange," c. 1965
The rental today
Steve Martin's "King Tut" - Um, cuz I like the term "Babble-onia"

See also On Parental Units. Note: I do not believe that Mom's curious take on the term "father-in-law" has anything to do with dementia. The original title of this little piece was, "It has always been thus." My folks are German immigrants (by way of Canada).

I think of this as a self-portrait—except that I didn't draw or write it.
For a terrific interview of James Thurber, see interview

Roy's obituary in LA Times and Register: "we were lucky to have you while we did"

  This ran in the Sunday December 24, 2023 edition of the Los Angeles Times and the Orange County Register : July 14, 1955 - November 20, 2...