The Professor's Notes

As many of you know, one of my research areas of interest is “Space Logistics” and “Interplanetary Supply Chain Management.” We presented three papers a conference in April, and one of them (lead-author by Mke M) looked at Submarines as an analogy to long duration space missions.

NASA has another on-going mission—NEEMO. This mission titled “NASA Extreme Environment Mission Operations” is “testing concepts for future space exploration at an underwater laboratory off the coast of Florida. “ It’s a very interesting concept. Of course, NASAWatch, the blog dedicated to holding NASA to task, is concerned that NASA is ignoring this mission that they themselves have funded.

NASAWatch does point to a link for the underwater webcams. They are interesting to watch, and the descriptions of the various camera views are even somewhat humorous.

If anyone is interested in Space Logistics, shoot me a note.

Over at one of my frequent reads, the Community College Dean, he asked for advice on how to deal with students that leave their groups hanging high and dry on presentation day. My response was a simple “What’s wrong with just simply giving the absent student a “ZERO” for the presentation?”

After reading many of the other comments, I find that the readership over there is quite a creative bunch! I enjoyed much of what they wrote, but the discussion reminded me of something else I have noticed of late. Syllabus Creep.

It seems as professors and instructors face the wide range of situations students present, we have added more and more to our syllabi. No, not content about the course–that would be reasonable. We are adding more and more about expectations of behavior, how not to cheat, when to attend class, what you will have to do if you don’t attend class, and the like. Lately, I have gone for the more minimalist approach: DON’T CHEAT, OR YOU WILL BE CAUGHT.

I had read a syllabus where there was not only a list of items to bring for an exam, but an extremely long list of what not to bring. No hats. No music players. No scarves. If one could write on it, one couldn’t bring it.

I have gone a slightly different route: I now allow the students to bring any personal music device that they wish. iPod, CD Player, Radio (with headset.) Whatever helps get them through the exam. Why? I know many people focus better with some “controlled distraction” rather than the random noises of other test-takers, and the opportunity to listen to something familiar may help overcome test anxiety.

I know what you’re thinking. “What if they cheat? What if they dictate notes into the MP3 player? What if they include text?” Hmmm… interesting. I almost hope they do. Why? Because they had to actually read/review the material to put it into their device. Learning occurs, if only through repetition.

“Ahhh,” you may ask “but what if one person does it, and then gives it to the others?” Another interesting question. The way I see it, you need to be fairly familiar with the material to be able to move quickly and accurately to the material covered in the question. Students never quite realize just how difficult an open book exam can be if you don’t already know the material well enough to quickly/efficiently move through the chapters to find the answers. Those that have understood the material best are those that are best able to find the relevant information.

My goal in my classes are to encourage students to learn the material. I think this helps get there.

I found this blog entry on the Connecticut campaign to be quite interesting. Go read Eric’s take, at A Liberal Dose.

The Prof

I have stayed away from this discussion, mainly because my views are quite practical, and would most likely alienate people from all sides of the debate. Given the latest story from the Boston Herald outlining the Boston Globe’s directive for gay couples to either marry or lose benefits, it’s perhaps as a good a time as any to come out with my opinion… (thanks to the Flesh Presser for the tip on this one!)

While I believe that, if there is such a thing as absolute moral values, and those are based on scripture, then it is clear that homosexual activity is morally wrong. I also believe, however, that in these cases it would be wrong to actually legislate against them (and somewhat problematic–I know I don’t want to be involved on the stake out in these cases!)

I have come, over time, to nominally support the notion of gay marriage. I have been for too long a victim of the “marriage penalty” when it comes to tax structures. While I have seen two incomes, stacked one on the other, resulting in higher and higher taxation, I have seen homosexual couples enjoy the freedom to claim two sets of income. Now admittedly I have been able to have benefits for my spouse, and my children, that have often been denied to homosexual couples. But once those couples started to receive the benefits of the union, without the taxation of the union, my view began to shift.

It seems to me that the Boston Globe is taking the correct approach on this issue. Benefits, and taxation, should apply only to married couples. In this case, if you are married, then you can receive benefits–and you must pay taxes.

As a fiscal conservative I believe this is the most prudent action–let’s welcome all married couples into the “marriage penalty” world that is the federal tax structure. Perhaps the deficit will be decreased.

So there you have it. I approve of Gay (and Lesbian) Marriage, simply because it hasn’t been fair to heterosexuals to not allow it.

Okay, so I had to. After so many blogs where I talk about integrity in one’s writing, how could I not address the accusation that Ann Coulter is a plagiarist. I found it interesting when I first heard about it, and intriguing when I read the posting at the Language Log (you all DO still go there, right?)

What most intrigues me though is the sense that the Left felt it somehow necessary to go after Coulter. Apparently the self induced blindness of the Bashists is not limited to the Administration. Bashists must nuw blame conservatives for such things as plagiarism. And, as is so often the case when the Bashists write before thinking, they are brought low by the facts.

There is a good analysis of the articles in question at RedState (tip of hat to Language Log). I have to agree–when the content in question turns out to be quotes, one can’t help but think the Bashists have either no sense of reason left, of they simply hope that the vast majority of people will never actually go check their claims.

Well, it’s happened. The US Army has preferred charges against “The Lieutenant.” The Lt (according to the Seattle Times) enlisted in June of 2003, to go to Officer Candidate School, receiving his commission following completion of that school. His enlistment, and subsequent commissioning, were all contemporary with the start of the war with Iraq in March of 2003. Despite having a family history of war protesters and resisters, the Lt says that he believed Iraq had WMDs and thus he supported the war.
Now, he believes that the President lied to us, and thus he should not be required to participate in what the Lt believes is an illegal war. That’s all well and good, except he apparently didn’t pay attention during any of his schooling. Let’s lay out a few things.
1. Lying involves knowing the truth at the time of the statement, but saying something else (lie of commission, as opposed to omission). The charges against Bush made by the “Bashists” tend to be that the President took us to war to stop Hussein’s development of WMD’s and there were none, therefore he lied. Let’s ignore, for the moment, that Bush enumerated many reasons for toppling Saddam, and focus on this one aspect. How do we determine, given that the intelligence agencies of every major world power at the time concluded Iraq had WMDs, that Bush somehow knew Saddam didn’t and acted anyway? That is what is required to support the charge of “lying.”
2. Determination of “illegality” is not the Lt’s call. Officers take an oath at commissioning. In that oath officers swear to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic” which of course can lead a few to think that they then are the final arbiter of determining what is, or is not, Constitutional. Of course, as I have recently written elsewhere, if we allow everyone to determine what is or is not legal/constitutional, then ultimately we have anarchy. Last time I checked, the US was still operating in Iraq under UN resolutions. The Hague (The International Court) has not issued and rulings condemning the resolutions, or the actions of the coalition. The US Congress has not passed any law ordering the removal of US Troops. The Supreme Court, the final arbiter in the only branch of Government with the authority to determine what is and is not constitutional, has not delivered any verdict that would lead one to conclude the US involvement in Iraq is unconstitutional. The authority of the Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court are constitutionally granted authorities. It is not the Lt’s place to usurp the authority of the US Supreme Court, Congress, and the President.
3. Military service is a commitment of life. That same oath also has the officer state “that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion.” It would appear from much of the stories written about the Lt and his decision to enlist, and then receive a commission, that he had reservations about the US military. The fact that, of all the reasons given for US involvement in Iraq, he was able to convince himself he could support the action based on only one of the reasons given at the time, could lead one to question whether he actually had some significant “mental reservation(s)” at the time of commissioning. In fact, quoting from the article in the Seattle Times the Lt made it clear he had reservations apparently at the time of commissioning:

“I had my doubts,” he said. “But I felt like the president is our leader, and he won’t betray our trust, and he would know what he was talking about, and let’s give him the benefit of the doubt.”

And apparently, he also made it clear that there existed conditions upon which he would or would not engage in combat.

In January, Watada told his commanders that he believed that the war was unlawful, and therefore, so were his deployment orders. He did not, however, consider himself a conscientious objector, since he was willing to fight in wars that were justified, legal and in defense of the nation.

These do not appear to me to be statements from a man who, at the time of commissioning, accepted his office “without mental reservation.”
4. Actions have consequences. I can understand, and even admire, someone who stands up for what they believe and are willing to pay the cost. Dietrich Bonhoeffer understood the repercussions of his actions. Our founding fathers understood the possible repercussions of their actions. “Give me liberty, or give me death” was not a jingoistic attempt at PR by Patrick Henry, it was a recognition of the demise that awaited him upon failure. A courageous man accepts the consequences.
5. Military Officers are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Manual for Courts Martial. The Lt, and his lawyer, seem to think that his remarks about the President are a First Amendment issue, and that the Lt was exercising his right to free speech, when he spoke out against the Commander in Chief. In fact, the lawyer is quoted as saying “‘What’s going to happen is there’s going to be a major First Amendment litigation, which I think they’re really crazy to invite,’ Seitz said.” Alas, this shows that the counsel sought by the Lt is unfamiliar with the military justice system. There are protections established for the military, but the nature of military service requires a different way of understanding and acting with regards to the US Constitution. In fact according to Findlaw.com the Supreme Court has recognized that “while constitutional guarantees apply, ‘the different character of the military community and of the military mission requires a different application of those protections.’1455.” Perhaps the Lt should hire a military lawyer?
The US Army has done the right thing. They have refused to let one Lieutenant interpret national and international law, and told him that he cannot sit as judge and jury over the actions of this government. To do that would overstep his bounds as an officer in the US Military.

I have sat on this one for a while. Another left-leaning blog that I frequent, “Pressing the Flesh”, has had several postings singing the praises of Al Gore’s latest theatrical success. One of the implicit arguments seeming to be that as the movie rakes in the dollars, the revenues are seen as votes of support for Gore, and his agenda. Of course, this has two effects. First, it ignores the fact that movie goers typically like a horror flick, and second that by arguing that box office sales equates to support, it keeps people like me away.

All this aside, we could have lengthy discussions about global warming and the impact of mankind on such an event. The debate is stifled though, by statements from media sources such as Earth and Sky radio show, where they state “The result is a warming climate -which no reputable scientist disputes anymore.” By making such a statement. (In all fairness, they backed off of on their website by saying “You’re right. We should not have said “no reputable scientist disagrees.” That is an incorrect statement and too strong a statement. We apologize. We should have said that the vast majority of climate scientists believe that global warming is real and caused by humans.” )

Here’s the problem, however. There are vast numbers of scientists, most with bachelor’s and Master’s degrees, and some with PhDs, that have come out supporting the notion that science has shown that mankind has caused global warming. But then there are those senior scientists, the chaired, full professors at major universities, that are essentially pulling on the reins. They aren’t saying that there isn’t climate change, and they aren’t saying that it might be a warming trend. They are saying that to make a causal conclusion (and thus infer we can “stop” the change) is imprudent.

For instance, Richard S. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT. I think we can all agree that MIT is a reputable science and engineering university, and that being a full professor in Atmospheric Science qualifies one to speak on the topic of climate change. In fact, being a Chaired Professor shows that the university believes him to have demonstrated expert knowledge in the area.

This being said, consider the opinion piece he has written for the Wall Street Journal. In this piece he tackles the assertion from Al Gore that “the debate in the scientific community is over.” Professor Lindzen points out that the debate is far from over. He lists the various bits of data that are mis-represented, mis-understood, or ignored by the “non-scientists” as they seek to achieve policy. What is most striking about this opinion article is that the Professor strikes a tone of balance, and reason. Perhaps this is the tone that should be brought back into the discussion?

Let’s reward scientists for good science, and not seek out those whose findings are the most scary, shocking, or sensational.

The Professor.

Loyal readers will recall back in 2004 I critiqued the Congressional Bashists for their mis-reading of the CBO report concerning the distribution of the tax cuts. It is nice to see that another blog (far better equipped as actual economists) have tackled this one, as well.

Today seemed like as good a day as any to write about something that has been slowly gnawing, nay, chewing at me, for a while. It seems appropriate today, on the 5th of July, the day following another successful return to flight for the Shuttle program.

Many (whom I now call “bashists”–those whose rage against President Bush is so great they see no good in his actions, bashing all that he says or does; a response to calling supporters “apologists” but I digress…) Many have called for a timeline for the removal of US forces from Iraq. Most of Congress have seen the error in such an action, although the Bush detractors have taken it upon themselves to continually argue that there “is no plan.” The notion that there is no plan is humorous, since not only has there been a plan, the general outline of the plan has been around since our war against Saddam began. I am sure you, kind reader, recall that the President talked about rebuilding Iraq, re-establishing a government with free and open elections, and ensuring that the new government would be strong enough to survive. That has been the plan all along.

That leads me to this conclusion: We should stop debating the red herring of “time lines” and start discussing “event lines.” It seems clear to me that we will withdraw our troops upon satisfactory completion of certain events. We can develop estimates of when those events will occur, and those estimates may be rooted in optimism, pessimism or realism, but they remain estimates. It seems to me that in many areas of life we live on “event lines” rather than time-lines.

• College. One graduates from college upon successfully completing the requirements for the degree.
  
• High School. Again, when the requirements are completed (although some seem to argue that holding kids to standards is somehow demeaning.)
  
• Marriage. When one finds a mate (although the sitcom “Friends” had their gang with “Back ups” in case they reach the timeline before the event-line.)

Even more time-critical events have an “event line” associated with them. Most noteable is the Shuttle launch. Yes, the shuttle has a “countdown” and they have the “launch windows” but those timelines are event constrained. There exists a long sequence of events that must occur before a Space Shuttle (Space Transportation System) can be launched. When those events are not reached, but can be overcome quickly, NASA puts a “Hold” on the countdown. If it seems to NASA that they cannot satisfy the event requirement, they then “scrub” the mission and reschedule the launch. The satisfactory completion of the mission is more important than meeting an arbitrary timeline. Of course, when meeting a timeline becomes more important than meeting the “event line” we see catastrophic results.

So let’s learn our lessons from the hard-earned lessons from NASA. We cannot simply set a “date certain” for the withdrawal of troops in something as complex as the situation in Iraq. Pick on this administration all you want (Rage on, you Bashists) but it is prudent to trust your military leaders on the ground. It is wise to see that a sequence of events has occurred. It is foolishiness to say pick a date, and point to that as success.