The Professor's Notes

Another interesting conversation over at Community College Dean’s blog.  He notes that here in Pennsylvania the Governor is considering having state funding for some higher ed follow the students rather than funding the state “affiliated” schools in large blocks. My brother (whom you may know is also a Dean–at a Pennsylvania university) and I have been going a few rounds on this one as well. Perhaps he and I should record one of our podcasts. That said, I wanted to address a few of the points made by Dean Dad.

First, a couple things need to be made clear. For instance, the most recognized PA “State School” (Penn State) is actually not a State School, receiving less than 4% of their funding from the state. Most other private schools are the same. In fact, the article points out that the schools Gov Corbett is considering funding through vouchers are the schools that are specifically NOT the state schools. He believes that the state schools should have institutional support.

Now, for the real “State schools” (those that are part of the Pennsylvania university system, such as Indiana U of P, Mansfield, Bloomsburg, Shippensburg, etc…) Their funding is about 30% from the state. There is already a significant distinction between these schools. That is why the governor is not willing to cut those loose. Read the rest of this entry »

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.

Lesson #1 in learning about diplomacy: governments choose their words very carefully, so that messages are sent in the headlines, and the quotes.

In 1990 George H W Bush made the statement, as the Iraqi forces were still rolling in to Kuwait, that “This will not stand, this aggression against Kuwait.”

I heard these words on the radio as I was starting my leave from the USAF to go camping at Cass Lake in MN. I told my mother in law at the time that we were going to war. Why? These words were clear, and unequivocal. The implication: Leave–or we will make you leave.

So that takes me to where we are now, with Iran. It wasn’t Obama who made the statement, but close. In discussing the possibility of Iran developing nuclear weapons the Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, declared: “I think they need to know that — that if they take that step — that they’re going to get stopped.”

The link contains a more detailed review of the testimony, and it should be said their was much more nuance to the testimony that the declarative statement and the sabre-rattling headlines. But (and this is an important but) the SecDef has made it clear–here is the line in the sand.

Once politicians–and Governments–have drawn that line, it is nigh-impossible to back down without losing faith.

Things are going to get worse. I feel it.

Yesterday, on NPR, Juan Williams presented a story entitled “Is Race A Factor In Protests Of Obama Initiatives?”

I must admit, I had somewhat of a knee-jerk reaction to that story.  I have always been resistant to people bringing up accusations of -isms when criticizing the actions of others.  That holds true for racism, sexism, and naziism to name just a few.¹

One comment of Williams’ that really stood out to me was when he said:

WILLIAMS: Well, there was an undercurrent, but in recent days the episode with Congressman Joe Wilson of South Carolina shouting out, You lie, as Obama was speaking to the joint session has really exacerbated that anxiety, and it’s led to this notion that there is disrespect, even condescension, in the way that Obama is being treated as compared to any other president of the United States.

I found myself thinking that this isn’t so much a disprespect directed at the President because he is black, but rather a further manifestation of what I believe we have been seeing ever since the “me” generation of the 70s.  Once we were told that WE were important, Read the rest of this entry »

Feyerabend’s book, “Against Method” stands as a critical look at science, and how we “know.”  As part of the domain “philosophy of Science” he stands as one of the interesting challengers to what we think we know, categorized often as an “anarchist.”  While the political scientist in me as a rule stops listening when I hear someone is an “anarchist” the use of the word in this case carries far different baggage.  That said, here’s the quote from his introduction, page 2:

“But if scientific achievements can be judged only after the event and if there is no abstract way of ensuring success beforehand, then there exists no special way of weighting scientific promises either–scientists are not better off than anybody else in these matters, they only know more details.  This means that the public can participate in the discussion without disturbing existing roads to success (there are no such roads).  In cases where the scientists’ work affects the public it even should participate:  first, because it is a concerned party (many scientific decisions affect public life); secondly, because such participation is the best scientific education the public can get–a full democratization of science (which includes the protection of minorities such as scientists) is not in conflict with science.  It is in conflict with a philosophy, often called “Rationalism,” that uses a frozen image of science to terrorize people unfamiliar with its practice.”  (emphasis his)

If you can take a few moments, read through this a few times, and think through what it is saying.

• The role of the public in Science, as many view the “public” as being too poorly educated as to be able to fully grasp science (Some have heatedly called the recent political era the “era of anti-intellectualism”)
• Perhaps think about it in the context of the discussions concerning stem cell research and the “promises” made by scientists concerning the cures that will come.
• Consider the discussions about the origins of man in the context of his point of the “philosophy … called ‘Rationalism’” and what appeals are made to authority on the various sides.

How do you view science and the nature of discovery?

I have had a day to digest the news, and speaking as a conservative, and a life-long Republican, my first reaction remains my reaction:

“I had to hold my nose, and vote for Specter.  Now I have to do neither.”

Why vote for him, you say? Well, years ago, when I was sitting on the knee of (well, on the floor, looking up at) my Grandfather, I asked him why we should support the Maryland US Senator Charles “Mac” Mathias, since he was about as liberal as the (then) junior Senator from Maryland, Paul Sarbanes.  He explained that “he may be a monster, but he’s our monster.”  A rather cynical view, but at the time (late 1970s, and the heart of the “Carter Economic Disaster” the likes of which we STILL haven’t seen since) it was clear that if Mathias lost the primary the democrat candidate would most likely win the seat, reducing the numbers of Republicans below the line allowing for a filibuster.  So keeping that number was important, if only for the greater good.

So, I learned the lesson well, and followed the logic.  When necessary, I have voted for a candidate I didn’t like “all that much” because of the greater good.

I most likely would have again.  But now, thanks to Senator Specter’s decision to return to the Democrat Party, I am free once again to vote conscience.

I am now only left with one question:  how will our good friend over at “Pressing the Flesh” respond?  Will he welcome this lost sheep into the Democrat fold after all these years, or will he actively campaign against that former Republican?  I await his post!

I saw someone on Twitter last night call President Obama to task for ridiculing private business owners for flying on privately owned corporate jets while failing to call members of Congress out for traveling on “free” junkets funded either by coporate interests or the taxpayer.
Well, apparently that thought struck Scott Adams as well.

Just yesterday an impromptu discussion in taxation and representation occured over at Community College Dean’s blog.  Apparently “anonymous‘s” comment was “uncalled for” when anonymous (in response to the question about including tax-payers in selecting a college’s Board of Trustees) suggested that taxpayer has less of a say than does the voter (and I would agree, these two concepts are not synonymous!)

Having just made made my estimated tax payment (late, yet again, I know…) was reading through the IRS 1040 ES tax pamphlet, and came across a list of list of expiring tax benefits.  I have (using the power of the Jing Project!) excerpted from that document that list:

Why would I list this?  Well, I find it quite interesting that, as part of the Democrats efforts to eliminate Bush’s “tax cuts for the rich” they are letting these evil tax cuts die.  You know the ones..  That credit for encouraging energy efficiency?  Oh, and that pesky credit for research (darn those tax-evading scientists!)¹

Interestingly, despite his obvious leftist leanings, Dean Dad hasn’t commented on the expiration of the tax benefit called “Tuition and fees deduction.”  He also hasn’t commented on the loss of the educator deduction from the AGI.  I wonder why?

So my question for you, dear readers is this:  Why were these tax cuts/benefits evil, and how do they only help the rich?

¹ Interestingly, several of the podcasts I have listened to lately have applauded the Obama election, and talked about the expectation that the floodgates of funding will be swinging wide. Hmm… at the same time that we remove the tax credit for conducting research? Apparently (and I just surmise here) the only “good science” is that which is directly funded by the government.  Ahh, yes, suckling…