The Professor's Notes

Once again I am befuddled at the complete lack of ability of the local media. In this case, the Centre Daily Times in State College, PA.  In reporting crime for the past week they have two stories that just serve to literally “beg the question.”

Story 1: Alleged Kidnappers Surrender to Police.  In this story 3 men (without description) are said to have lured a 21 y.o. woman into their van and sexually assaulted her.  While the report was filed after 2 AM, there is no hint as to when the abduction and assault occurred.  Oh–and the three men apparently surrendered to police on their own.

Is anyone surprised that the comment section is rife with people challenging every aspect of the story?  Someone was lured (not abducted forcibly) into a van, and the story failed to include any description of the perpetrators.  Not their estimated ages, race, height, or even accents.  And while the report was early morning (2 AM) no indication of the time of the abduction makes things even more “sketch” as the youth today say.

I am like the rest of the more rational commenters on this story in that I believe we wait for all the facts before reaching any judgement.  But this story doesn’t help in any way.  As far as news goes, it creates more questions than it answers.  Is this something we should all be worrying about?  Was this someone that she knew? What was the “technique” used to lure a young adult into a (purple-the only retail we get) van with three men?  And what compelled these men to turn themselves in?

Make no mistake: I am not excusing bad/evil/illegal behavior.  I am saying that this reporting does nothing but feed fear without providing any useful information.

Story 2:  PSU Students cited for trespassing at pool.  This story should be well below everyone’s radar, especially the CDT, but apparently it was made “newsworthy” by the lead sentence:  ”A Penn State student convicted of being involved in November’s downtown State College riot got a citation after police said they caught him and two others at the university’s outdoor pool this past weekend.” The story goes on to say the suspect and his friends were caught inside the fenceline “‘partially clothed’ but hadn’t gone into the pool yet.”

In what world is this a news story?  I worked at several swimming pools and during the summer “fence hoppers” were a common occurrence.  Generally speaking we not only didn’t notice, but we didn’t mind, except in those instances when they felt compelled to vandalize the pool. (And keep in mind, the vandalism usually consisted of simply tossing lounge chairs into the pool.)

No–what made this story “news” is that one of the three was convicted of “being involved” in the “riot” following the firing of Coach Joe Paterno.  Really?  What is the connection?  Does being involved, and caught up in the moment last November make this action somehow more heinous?

What happened is, once again, there is “just enough” information to get the commenters on the CDT site all riled up and full of righteous indignation. They get to once again hate on the vicious criminals that burned their city down.

By the way, for those that missed it on Twitter, I have been quite incensed at the use of the term “riot” to describe much of what happens on college campuses and around the US lately.  Read up on Riots.  REAL Riots.  Riots that, in fact, were occurring simultaneously with the events on US College campuses.    In “real” Riots people die.  Property is damaged in large swaths.

What happened in State College was not a riot.  It was large gathering of students expressing their emotions, and a few, a very few, took an opportunity to commit vandalism.

But we can’t expect it to be reported that way either–since once again, it would involve too much work on the part of local media reporters.

An interesting thought comes out as a result of someone on another post writing “I’m so clueless as to why this is even an issue.” He was talking about the issue of Same Sex Marriage. Now, I could assume that he is “clueless” because obviously same sex marriage is wrong, or because it is “right.” But… given recent research from a self-identified liberal academic from UVA, I would predict that David is clueless because the conservative view cannot be understood. I found this research to be quite interesting. The author/professor/researcher Jon Haidt writes in his book “The Righteous Mind” that conservatives are far more likely to understand how liberals think than the other way around. Interesting, is it not?
Something else interesting–Haidt writes on his own site that ” I hardly ever get the chance to meet or talk to conservatives.” So, for those that don’t think Academia is the hotbed of liberalism, maybe we need to re-think that view. (Or, perhaps, this is more about him and a general reluctance of liberals to associate with people they “don’t understand.”)

Last night over on Facebook  we had a rather good and amicable discussion about Obama, and the trend in government to rule the people rather than be ruled by the people. I made a claim that Obama is seeking to undermine the authority of the Supreme Court. Several (correctly) pointed out that many conservatives have argued for years that the Supreme Court should not be “activist” and should not “legislate” from the bench.

The argument generally falls on the view that the Court should follow the “strict constructionist” view–that is, it is there to assess the constitutionality of laws, not create new rights or laws. And this is where Obama’s criticism, and the criticism from the right, diverge. President Obama said he was: Read the rest of this entry »

Another Venture into politics… This one is really REALLY heartfelt…

Here’s what scares me about Obama.  On New Years Eve he signed the National Defense Authorization Act, which, among other things, allows the President to authorize the indefinite detention, in secret, and without legal counsel, of US Citizens.  At the time, he expressed his concerns about the language but promised that his administration would never use it.

Then he (at the beginning of the month) started a campaign to discredit the Supreme Court, attacking them as “unelected people” who should never consider overturning a law (Obamacare) that the majority supports. (Set aside, for just a moment, the thought that he isn’t interested in protecting the minority from the tyranny of the Majority)

He is now running the campaign against Congress, working to do things without them passing laws first. This he is calling “We can’t wait.”

What do you call a President who is actively working to discredit two branches of government that are in place to control the excesses of the other two? A President who is actively working to undermine the “Checks and Balances” protections that our constitution so brilliantly enacted.   A President who has convinced the “Law makers”  to give him the authority to detain and even kill at will?

I hate to say it–but I think the word is “Dictator.”

N.B.:  Now I hope my good friend over at A liberal Dose, and the other one at Pressing the Flesh may actually agree with me on this.   We as a nation must band together. And honestly, at this point, I am beginning to think our only answer will be Ron Paul.  And if you know me, you know I don’t really like that idea all that much.  But at least he isn’t part of the corrupt system.

We talk about the lawsuit brought by the US in the most recent Real Tech for Real People, Episode 110.  While we share our thoughts on the pluses and minuses of the lawsuit, I thought it would be good to share this article from LifeHacker as well.  In this article they discuss the impact the lawsuit could have on pricing.  They write in part:

In a nutshell, this means prices on ebooks went up because the agreement with Apple made it so other sellers, like Amazon, couldn’t lower the price on ebooks.

Three of the seven publishers have already settled with the Department of Justice, but Apple, Penguin, and Macmillan rejected the offer. Now that we know the reasons behind the lawsuit, let’s see if any of this news is actually will have an effect on pricing.

Read the full article here.

Hopefully you have all seen this commercial by now.  I want you to watch it closely, and really think about what you first think (or thought) when you see it.  Does it really sell the car?

Watch the video (and read MY thoughts) after the break: Read the rest of this entry »

I sent this letter to the President of the School Board.  I wanted to share it with you all as well, and if you support CV THON and Drivers’ Education, please, take the time to write him as well.  His email is: jjordan@cvschools.org

===========

I wanted to take a minute of your time and let you know I am sorely disappointed that Drivers’ Education is being eliminated from the CV Curriculum and more importantly, that the teacher will be leaving the HS and no one else has stepped up to be the faculty advisor for CV THON.

Honestly, I have three points of interest here that happen tointer-weave. First, I believe the of all the courses at a HS that are beneficial, the most beneficial is the Drivers’ Ed course. I have seen places where that course is only taught outside the school, and honestly, all they do is teach driving. The benefit of the course taught in the HS is that there is more thought to the education portion of the program than just the training. By being in a setting with your peers, and having a sense of community that is brought through with this course, they learn more than simply how to pass a driving exam. Read the rest of this entry »

Update:  The Citizen, Bobby Maguire, was given permission to use a 33′ right of way.  In exchange for his use (not ownership) of 1/2 an acre of land, he has voluntarily given to the state 1 full acre, and $15,000.  More than fair, I would say.

I enjoy, no LOVE, my place at Rose Valley Lake in PA. Perhaps you have seen some of my photographs that I have posted here ocassionally, or visited my  sets on Flickr (around Rose Valley Lake and  creeks and rivers)  The beauty remains despite reasonable and rational development.

I love it so much that I am, In fact, disappointed every time I have to leave here to return to “Civilization.” That said, I also understand that private citizens have a right to use their private property in ways that they see fit, so long as the proposed uses are in line with the general guidelines and zoning of the area.

The “Friends of Rose Valley Lake” are stepping beyond the bounds of good citizens, as they are now seeking to block an individual from using his property in accordance with the zoning laws of the area. They are asserting that by granting this man access to his property (through the State fish commission property) he will somehow be violating the law.

They write on their homepage that:

” The ‘intent’ for Rose Valley Lake, was to ‘prevent developments . . . and retain the area in generally primitive conditions,’”

They then are somehow complaining that this citizen is willing to “trade with the PFBC one acre of land (generally inaccessible to the public) and $15,000 in exchange for an expanded farm lane right-of-way through Rose Valley Lake.”

Apparently the fact that he isn’t asking for a flat trade of one acre for another, but rather giving the state the land, AND $15,000, isn’t sufficient. Also, apparently the statement that the one acre of land is “generally inaccessible to the public” is meant to imply that is somehow a negative. Interesting in that many believe that in order to meet the objective of maintaining land in “generally primitive conditions” we should keep people from going there. (Remember, the biggest enemy of National Parks tends to be visitors to those same parks….)

One final comment from them. They are argue that the proposed trade would be for an “expanded farm lane right-of-way through Rose Valley Lake public lands in order to facilitate private development.”

Note this citizen isn’t proposing to DEVELOP public lands. He is simply seeking access to his privately owned property, so that he can exercise his legal right to develop his property as he sees fit, in accordance with the local zoning ordinances.

I ask–who are the unreasonable ones?

Also, they are requesting people sign their petition, but there exists no comparable avenue to elicit support for the land owner.  I have created a form, and would appreciate your taking the time to respond.  And for the record, I am interested in learning about BOTH sides of this.

I have many thoughts on digital textbooks, and you have all had an opportunity to read them here.   Apple has made their “big move” and I am both pleased to see digital moving forward, and also a bit concerned about what could become the “only” platform on campuses.

I actually presented a paper on the challenges of digital textbook pricing at the Western DSI (Decision Sciences Institute) conference in 2011.   You can read the paper here.  In that paper, I point out that by driving the logistics costs of moving, handling, and returning paper products out of the system, along with other costs such as maintaining a bookstore, one can drive the costs down to about (surprise!) $15.00 while maintaining the 2 year profits of the publisher. And by withdrawing the pressures of the resale market, the profits only go up from there.

First thoughts that led to that paper were written about here  and here.

Most recently I wrote about  consumer driven markets. Who should make the  choice? Digital textbooks are able separate the content from the medium, and allow flexibility–unless we are locked into a hardware platform.  I also wrote about this in this post.

I would welcome other thoughts on those posts and on the paper.

E-Book PDF: Open in New Window | Download

Amongst all the anger, hurt, and raw emotions surrounding the Jerry Sandusky and the toppling of the Penn State Leadership (including the forced removal of Joe Paterno), the “new” Administration came forward with a few promises.  You would expect a few of the promises. Integrity.  Honesty. And then… Transparency.  59 days later the new Coach was announced and the outrage and cries of treachery began–”So much for Transparency” OnwardState.com had as their headline.

The first two were aimed to address the issues at the heart of the charges being levied against Penn State in the scandal–that there was a cover-up, and that leaders of Penn State perjured themselves–lying in court rather than allegedly tell of the evils revealed to them.  The last one? Transparency?  Where did that one come from? Read the rest of this entry »