A Clear Voice

« November 2004 | Main | March 2005 »

February 28, 2005

Getting an Education About Coffee?

I saw an interesting AP article on CNN today, “Coffee a Popular Topic on College Campuses.”

For years, sociology professor Beau Weston has held informal office hours off campus in a local coffee shop, sipping his mocha latte while advising students.

As he did, he formed relationships with other coffee shop regulars who might otherwise have remained strangers. That caused a sort of academic epiphany, and now he's one of a handful of teachers across the nation who have developed courses that study coffee and its effect on society.

The article also mentions other specialty classes, such as "Basketball As Religion."

My first reaction is skepticism. It seems that the trend these days, both in elementary and high schools, and colleges is to tend towards more and more off-the-wall topics merely in order to hold the attention of the students.

Mike over at Highered Intelligence deals with this issue a lot. In elementary and high schools, this seems to be geared towards using rap lyrics to teach poetry and comic books to interest kids in reading.

Mike says:

The object of education isn't just to "get someone to read anything." It can be a useful first step, but the truth of the matter is that one will not get all one should out of comic books if one doesn't know how to read in the first place.

Once the knowledge of putting together sounds and reading is in place, it's time to start, you know, reading. And it's not about finding something that "grabs" a child. It's not about finding something that they like to read.

If we followed that recipe for child-rearing, dinner would be all ice cream and no vegetables.

At some point, if your child or student isn't reading books, and you know they can put together the sounds and read the words, it's time to sit their ass down in the chair and tell them they need to read Hamlet. And I mean Hamlet, not The Prince of Denmark: A Graphic Novel. Then you need to go through it with them, help them get through the (admittedly difficult) language and (even more difficult) philosophical ideas. You need to work the text, force the student's mind to engage.

The CNN article says that the class in question is being taught at “Centre, an elite private school known for producing two Supreme Court justices and hosting the 2000 vice presidential debate between Dick Cheney and Joe Lieberman.” Presumably, then, these are students that aren’t just eating intellectual ice cream all day. It does, however, seem to me that this is the road down which this could lead, especially considering this quote from the article.

The feedback from parents has always been positive. "What they say is, 'Wow, my kid was really motivated.' They don't say, 'I want my money back,"' [John Ward, Centre's vice president for academic affairs] said.

Do parents actually send their children to school so that they can get really motivated about coffee? And, more worrisomely, is this all that kids are getting motivated about at college?

It seems that school is becoming more and more about learning knowledge, than actually getting an education.

An education is about more than just learning facts; it’s about gaining a love of knowledge, learning how to think critically, and internalizing the scientific method. If you’re truly an educated person, you enjoy learning about most any subject. You’re going to be motivated by almost any class you take in your chosen subject matter, not just the ones on topics that are “hip.”

From the article:

Ward said offering classes like the ones on basketball and coffee "is as if you hold a microscope up on something really interesting. We apply the same academic and intellectual rigor in courses like this as we do in advanced literature, language or science courses. It's the same tools at work."

I’m sure that the professors are actually making an attempt to hold the same academic standards to classes like this as they do to any class they teach. My question is, do the students really understand that?

Colleges offering classes like these need to be certain that the option to take them comes only after a thorough introduction to the main subject matter. Instead of using “fun” courses like we should in elementary school, to build children’s skills and interest so that they can participate in a more serious study of the subject later, they should be used in college as a way to apply basic principles that have been well learned beforehand.

Posted by illuminaria at 07:24 PM | Comments (1)

February 23, 2005

Educate the Parents, Not the Children

Michelle Malkin has an article up today about cutting, or self-mutilation. She even has a link up to "National Self Injury Awareness Day" and says “If your kids' schools aren't on top of this, they should be.” I may be wrong, but she seems to be implying that it’s a good idea to educate the kids about this, just like we educate them about drugs, sex, anorexia, and a multitude of other problems. I’m going to have to respectfully disagree with her on this issue.

Self-mutilation is certainly a serious issue. I personally have had three relatives who, at one time or another, and for various reasons, have done it. I definitely think that parents should be well educated about it, just as they should be well educated about any problems that their children might face. However, I think educating kids that do not yet have a problem with this behavior is a very bad idea.

First of all, this is a relatively uncommon problem (although still more common than most would think) and children normally do not start it because of pressure from their peers, as is often the case with sex and alcohol. If you start teaching kids about it and it becomes a popularly known thing, then it gradually starts to be accepted. Eventually certain groups of kids start to think it is “cool.” This very well could lead to peer pressure related to this behavior to become more common.

It’s all well and good to educate kids about problems that their peers might be experiencing so that they can be more understanding. However, children do not yet have developed ethical systems. They don’t consider the future or the more distant consequences of their actions. They do not need to know about every single thing that might affect them, and they don't need to lose all of their innocence about the world. As far as a child who is experiencing a problem like this, her peers simply don’t need to know about it. Support and understanding of problems like this are better done by parents and other adults who are mature, loving, and stable enough to handle the knowledge.

Second of all, if the education includes all of the reasons why people do it, such as the fact that it releases endorphins and relieves emotional pain, this might cause a kid who normally wouldn’t do it, or might start doing it later to think, “hmmm, I’m feeling some pain. Why not cut?”

A somewhat common example would be anorexia. Years ago when it finally became accepted as a disease, you started seeing programs aimed at educating children, not to mention all of those “movies of the week.” Now there are innumerable chat rooms and webpages for people who are, or want to be anorexic. I’ve been to some of them before, and it certainly seems that there are kids there who do not have anorexia, but are using the behavior to lose weight or attract attention. The anorexia boards provide a support group and a how-to to these kids who might otherwise not have a problem with this behavior. Certainly there would still be some of these webpages if the education of kids on this topic had not been done, but I would not expect to see so much of them, especially not so many of the ones devoted to glorifying the disease.

Parents, teachers, and other people that deal with children regularly need to be educated about these problems so that they can recognize the warning signs and get the child help early. But I do not think that heavy education of every child on this topic and other similar ones is a good idea.

Secure Liberty and The Llama Butchers both point out the main reason kids do this is because they are looking for attention. All the more reason to educate parents and teachers.

Posted by illuminaria at 01:11 PM | Comments (0)

February 22, 2005

That Sneaky Evil Genius Karl Rove!

I've noticed today on my site stats that some people have been coming in from Google and Yahoo to this entry using search terms like "Maurice Hinchey's theory." Perhaps all those Michael Moore types out there got really excited when they heard that a congressman had jumped on the "Evil Karl Rove" theory. "Why, it must be true," they said.

That's why I'd like to think the people running our country should try to be just a tad bit more informed, so that conspiracy theorists have less legitimization of their crazy theories. But I guess that's too much to ask.

This site reveals how the whole Maurice Hinchey thing is yet another Karl Rove plot. That sneaky Karl Rove!

I know why people are so obsessed with Karl Rove. It allows them to hold the contradictory views that Bush is both an evil genius and a complete moron.

Update: Tim Blair has discovered a transcript of the secret meeting where Karl Rove unveils his dastardly plan. Jeff Gannon is, of course, his willing minion.

Posted by illuminaria at 05:19 PM | Comments (0)

February 21, 2005

Maurice Hinchey Proves Himself to be Spectacularly Uninformed

Via Wizbang, I saw this post on LGF about Maurice Hinchey's theory that Karl Rove (every Democrat's favorite evil genius) planted the documents that led to Rathergate. In his comments, he makes it obvious that he hasn't even taken the time to bone up on the facts.

And they — and they distributed those out to elements of the media. And it was only — what, like was it CBS? Or whatever, whatever which one Rather works for. They — the people there — they finally bought into it, and they, and they aired it.

See he's so informed that he doesn't even know what station was responsible for the whole affair, and yet, he's convinced it was a setup. But...

Now, I mean, I have my own beliefs about how that happened.

... "You know, it's only my spectacularly uninformed opinion." I bet on his off-time he posts at the Democratic Underground.

And then there's this part. (I assume "they" refers to Karl Rove's sneaky bunch of White House operatives.)

Well, you know, they are manipulating the media, they did it in the very beginning through intimidation. They would intimidate the people in the, uh, in the press conference. And ... they would ask — they would allow questions to be asked only of people that they knew were going to ask the right kind of questions, from their point of view.

Uh-hu. So lets go look at the first 12 questions asked at the President's Press Conference from just before Iraqi elections. (Responses and follow up questions removed.)

Q Mr. President, the insurgents in Iraq are threatening to kill anyone who comes out to vote on Sunday. Do you think they'll succeed in killing or scaring away enough people so that the elections will be rendered seriously flawed or not credible?

Q Sir, your inaugural address has been interpreted as a new, aggressive posture against certain countries, in particular Iran. Should we view it that way?

Q Mr. President, let me take you up on that, if I may. Last month in Jordan, a gentleman named Ali Hatar was arrested after delivering a lecture called, "Why We Boycott America." He was charged under section 191 of their penal code for slander of government officials. He stood up for democracy, you might say. And I wonder if here and now, you will specifically condemn this abuse of human rights by a key American ally. And if you won't, sir, then what, in a practical sense, do your fine words mean?

Q Mr. President, in the debate over Dr. Rice's confirmation, Democrats came right out and accused you and the administration of lying in the run-up to the war in Iraq. Republicans, in some cases, conceded that mistakes have been made. Now that the election is over, are you willing to concede that any mistakes were made? And how do you feel about --

Q I'd like to ask you -- sir, I'd like to ask you about the deficit. But before I do that, there is a developing story this morning -- the helicopter crash in Iraq. Can you tell us what you know about that, what may have caused it, and your reaction to it?

Q You're preparing to ask Congress for an additional $80 billion in war spending in Afghanistan and Iraq. The White House is also prepared to predict a budget deficit of $427 billion for this year. You talk about sacrifice in this country. Do you think that you're really asking Americans to sacrifice financially -- when you're asking them to fund the war, yet, at the same time, perhaps pay an exorbitant amount to set up private accounts in Social Security, pay for a prescription drug benefit, as well as other spending plans?

Q Mr. President, I want to try another way to ask you about Iraq. When you made the decision to go to war in Iraq, you clearly had majority support in the country. A string of recent polls have shown a clear majority of the American people now believe it was a mistake to go to war in Iraq. You've asked for $80 billion in more money on top of the billions already spent. The army says that we'll probably have 100,000 or more troops in Iraq for at least another year. What would you say to the American people, including a significant number who supported you at the beginning of the war, who now say this is not what we were led to believe would happen?

Q A question on Social Security, if we may, sir. There has been, as you move forward to making your plan -- your ultimate proposal, growing concern among Republicans on Capitol Hill. We had Chairman Thomas last week with some concern about the process, and Senator Olympia Snowe on the other side suggesting that she's concerned about an absentee guaranteed benefit -- excuse me. Are you prepared today to say that those who opt into a potential private account -- personal account could, in fact, have a guaranteed benefit, as well? And what do you say to Republicans who are beginning to worry?

Q Mr. President, if I could return for a moment to your inaugural address. Dr. Rice referred in her testimony to six outposts of tyranny, countries where we clearly, I think, have a pretty good idea of your policies. What we're confused by right now, I think -- or, at least, I'm confused by, is how you deal with those countries like Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, with whom we have enormous broad interests. Should the leaders of those countries now be on notice that the primary measure of their relationship with the United States should be their progress toward liberty? Or can they rest assured that, in fact, you've got this broad agenda with them and you're willing to measure liberty up against what China does for you on North Korea, what Russia does for you in other areas?

Q Mr. President, Dr. Rice again -- quoting your future Secretary of State, wrote in "Foreign Affairs Magazine" in 2000, outlining what a potential Bush administration foreign policy would be, talked about things like security interests, free trade pacts, confronting rogue nations, dealing with great powers like China and Russia -- but promotion of democracy and liberty around the world was not a signature element of that prescription. I'm wondering what's changed since 2000 that has made this such an important element of your foreign policy.

Q Mr. President, Chairman Thomas and some others on the Hill have suggested taking up tax reform at the same time that you deal with Social Security reform, and to consider alternatives such as a value-added tax to the current payroll tax for financing Social Security. Are you willing to consider combining those two big projects, or do you prefer to keep them on separate tracks?

Q Mr. President, I'd like to ask you about the Gonzales nomination, and specifically, about an issue that came up during it, your views on torture. You've said repeatedly that you do not sanction it, you would never approve it. But there are some written responses that Judge Gonzales gave to his Senate testimony that have troubled some people, and specifically, his allusion to the fact that cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment of some prisoners is not specifically forbidden so long as it's conducted by the CIA and conducted overseas. Is that a loophole that you approve?

Those are obviously softball questions. I bet Jeff Gannon asked them all!

Update: Michelle Malkin has more interesting tidbits.

Posted by illuminaria at 02:16 PM | Comments (0)

February 18, 2005

Speaking Truth to Power Idiots

I saw on Wizbang that a transcript of the meeting with Lawrence Summers has been released. He gives a great speech. However, I also think the responses to his speech in the transcript are quite interesting.

First of all, this part is funny,

Q: Well, I don't want to take up much time because I know other people have questions, so, first of all I'd like to say thank you for your input. It's very interesting-I noticed it's being recorded so I hope that we'll be able to have a copy of it. That would be nice.

Yes, that was nice.

[From the speech] If it was really the case that everybody was discriminating, there would be very substantial opportunities for a limited number of people who were not prepared to discriminate to assemble remarkable departments of high quality people at relatively limited cost simply by the act of their not discriminating, because of what it would mean for the pool that was available. And there are certainly examples of institutions that have focused on increasing their diversity to their substantial benefit, but if there was really a pervasive pattern of discrimination that was leaving an extraordinary number of high-quality potential candidates behind, one suspects that in the highly competitive academic marketplace, there would be more examples of institutions that succeeded substantially by working to fill the gap. And I think one sees relatively little evidence of that.

Q: Secondly, you make a point, which I very much agree with, that this is a wonderful opportunity for other universities to hire women and minorities, and you said you didn't have an example of an instance in which that is being done. The chemistry department at Rutgers is doing that, and they are bragging about it and they are saying, "Any woman who is having problems in her home department, send me your resume." They are now at twenty-five percent women, which is double the national average-among the top fifty universities-so I agree with you on that. I think it is a wonderful opportunity and I hope others follow that example.

Good job at totally missing the point! The question is not whether it is possible to have a department with more women professors if you recruit heavily, the question is whether the quality of that department increases because of it.

[From the speech] Most of what we've learned from empirical psychology in the last fifteen years has been that people naturally attribute things to socialization that are in fact not attributable to socialization. We've been astounded by the results of separated twins studies. The confident assertions that autism was a reflection of parental characteristics that were absolutely supported and that people knew from years of observational evidence have now been proven to be wrong. And so, the human mind has a tendency to grab to the socialization hypothesis when you can see it, and it often turns out not to be true

Q: One thing that I do sort of disagree with is the use of identical twins that have been separated and their environment followed. I think that the environments that a lot of women and minorities experience would not be something that would be-that a twin would be subjected to if the person knows that their environment is being watched. Because a lot of the things that are done to women and minorities are simply illegal, and so they'll never experience that.

Let me get this straight. So the questioner is saying twin studies would be worthless because people wouldn’t discriminate if they knew they were being watched because discrimination is illegal? First of all, the kind of discrimination we’re talking about is generally not overt or illegal. When we speak of socialization, the great bulk of it is done by the parents. We’re talking about parents buying their little girls dolls instead of trucks, or not emphasizing school work. None of that is illegal. And it’s not like the researchers are hanging over the subjects 24-7, cowing anyone who might discriminate against the children. Even if the fact that the child was in a research study changed the ways in which people interacted with the child, so what? Twin studies are concerned with the circumstances the subjects ACTUALLY grow up in, not the circumstances they would have grown up in had they not been in a study. So if observation really did prevent discriminate/socialization, then the study might not tell us much, but it wouldn’t be invalid.

Q: Raising that particular issue, as a biologist, I neither believe in all genetic or all environment, that in fact behavior in any other country actually develops [unintelligible] interaction of those aspects. And I agree with you, in fact, that it is wrong-headed to just dismiss the biology. But to put too much weight to it is also incredibly wrong-headed, given the fact that had people actually had different kinds of opportunities, and different opportunities for socialization, there is good evidence to indicate in fact that it would have had different outcomes. I cite by way of research the [unintelligible] project in North Carolina, which essentially shows that, where every indicator with regard to mother's education, socioeconomic status, et cetera, would have left a kid in a particular place educationally, that, essentially, they are seeing totally different outcomes with regard to performance, being referred to special education, et cetera, so I think that there is some evidence on that particular side.

Yeah, and if you control for mother's education, socioeconomic status, et cetera, there will still be great variability. Summers never said that socialization had nothing to do with it; he simply said that there was more to it than that. Besides which I’m sure those factors make a big difference in, for instance, whether someone graduates from high school or not, but I doubt they make a very big difference in whether or not someone becomes a professor after getting a graduate degree. Somehow I don’t think there are a lot of people who manage to overcome their terrible life in order to get a PhD, but they just can’t get past their humble upbringing enough to become a professor.

Q: You know, in the spirit of speaking truth to power, I'm not an expert in this area but a lot of people in the room are, and they've written a lot of papers in here that address ....

LHS: I've read a lot of them.

Q: And, you know, a lot of us would disagree with your hypotheses and your premises...

LHS: Fair enough.

Q: So it's not so clear.

LHS: It's not clear at all. I think I said it wasn't clear. I was giving you my best guess but I hope we could argue on the basis of as much evidence as we can marshal.

Q: It's here.

LHS: No, no, no. Let me say. I have actually read that and I'm not saying there aren't rooms to debate this in, but if somebody, but with the greatest respect-I think there's an enormous amount one can learn from the papers in this conference and from those two books-but if somebody thinks that there is proof in these two books, that these phenomenon are caused by something else, I guess I would very respectfully have to disagree very very strongly with that. I don't presume to have proved any view that I expressed here, but if you think there is proof for an alternative theory, I'd want you to be hesitant about that.

In the spirit of speaking truth to power, this questioner, and the entire NOW organization for that matter, is an idiot if they think that it’s a good idea that we totally ignore any research that disagrees with our premises and refuse to even discuss it rationally and without using the phrase “speaking truth to power.”

Unfortunatly, Summers had to leave pretty quickly, or we could have seen more.

Michelle Malkin and Powerline have more.

Posted by illuminaria at 04:18 AM | Comments (0)

February 17, 2005

Surprise - Governments Out For Money Too

I saw a very interesting piece at Coyote Blog today. Basically it points out the effect that taxes on certain things, such as cigarettes, that are meant to suppress “socially harmful” behaviors have on the government. Eventually the government comes to depend on the income from those taxes, so they either change the tax so that it no longer suppresses those behaviors, or just resist a reduction in those behaviors.

All of a sudden that 17-cent tax on BOTH plastic and paper bags in San Francisco makes more sense. On first glance, I thought, “why would they tax both, since they say plastic bags are the ones that are much more responsible for environmental harm?” Duh, it wasn’t because “paper was added so as not to discriminate,” which I thought was an incredibly lame excuse by the way. It’s because they want the money.

In the same vein, Vodka Pundit points out this CBS story that says

[Buying a fuel efficient hybrid] saves [Jayson Just] almost $300 a month in gas. It's great for Just but bad for the roads he's driving on, because he also pays a lot less in gasoline taxes which fund highway projects and road repairs. As more and more hybrids hit the road, cash-strapped states are warning of rough roads ahead.

Officials in car-clogged California are so worried they may be considering a replacement for the gas tax altogether, replacing it with something called "tax by the mile."
…
"Drivers will get charged for how many miles they use the roads, and it's as simple as that," says engineer David Kim.

Kim and fellow researcher David Porter at Oregon State University equipped a test car with a global positioning device to keep track of its mileage. Eventually, every car would need one.

"So, if you drive 10 miles you will pay a certain fee which will be, let's say, one tenth of what someone pays if they drive 100 miles," says Kim.

The new tax would be charged each time you fill up. A computer inside the gas pump would communicate with your car's odometer to calculate how much you owe.

The system could also track how often you drive during rush hour and charge higher fees to discourage peak use. That's an idea that could break the bottleneck on California's freeways.

What a great idea! Let’s require every car to install a GPS device so that the government can pull in more tax revenues. I’m sure there won’t be any abuse at all of that technology. Why I’d love to be required to have a GPS unit in my car that the government has access to. And goodness knows, making the tax structure even more complicated than it is now is a wonderful idea too.

Oh, and I really loved the quote from "Jim Whitty, administrator of the [Oregon's] Road User Fee Task Force" in this piece.

However, Whitty noted one perk that would accompany the elimination of the gas tax. "The price of gas will come down," he said.

*Sigh* Seriously, is anyone stupid enough to buy that?

Update: Wizbang has a story on this. Ravenwood's Universe has a story about IBM installing car tracking equipment for the government.

Posted by illuminaria at 07:11 PM | Comments (0)

Hillary's Voting Bill

I saw on Fox News today that Hillary Clinton will be introducing a bill called "The Count Every Vote Act of 2005." The bill is co-sponsored by Barbara Boxer. The bill will

-[Create] a federal holiday for voting.

— Require paper receipts for votes.

— Authorize $500 million to help states make the changes in voting systems and equipment.

— Allow ex-felons to vote. Currently an estimated 4.7 million Americans are barred from voting because of their criminal records.

— Require adoption of the changes in time for the 2006 election.

I really don't understand why making election day a federal holiday is something that we need to work towards. I guess it isn't a bad idea in theory, but I don't know that it would necessarily make it more possible for people to vote. Will this include closing of schools? Won't that mean that parents, especially mothers, will have a harder time voting?

In regards to the second point, I don't really understand what this means. Is it talking about printing a paper ballot for electronic voting? I think this should happen, but I don't know that this is what is meant. Is it meant to say that every voter should get a voting receipt that they can take home to say they voted? If so, will this receipt have their votes? If so, doesn't that make it more possible to find out who someone voted for, and isn't that supposed to be a bad thing? And how on earth does giving someone a voting receipt help with, well, anything? I suppose my first guess would be that it gives, for instance, someone in Florida who voted for Buchanan, but meant to vote for Gore some proof that they made a mistake and a way to try and fix that mistake. This, however, sounds like a terrible idea to me. If someone votes for a third party candidate because they were convinced that their "first party" candidate of choice would win, what's to prevent them from claiming that they made a mistake if they turned out to be wrong? Won't something like this INCREASE voter fraud?

In regards to the third point, this sort of thing was done already after the 2000 election.

And finally, the last point. Why on earth would we want to allow felons to vote? If someone could offer me some good reason beyond "well, it's not fair to take away their rights," then I would consider it. However, I don't really have a problem with not allowing felons to vote, along with illegal immigrants for that matter.

And I can only imagine what is hidden in the depths of the bill. For pete's sake, why would anyone send out a press release a week before actually releasing the text of the bill.

I really don't understand why Democrats are so concerned with making it easier to vote. I mean, I don't want voting to be harder than registering in the correct place, going to the correct polling place on voting day, standing in line for 20-30 minutes, casting your vote, double checking it, and turning it in to the correct place. Any problems with that scenario, such as overly long lines for instance, should be fixed. But if someone doesn't care enough to follow that procedure, then they probably don't care enough to find out whom they are voting for.

I also don't understand why they are so resistant to dealing with voter fraud. I really liked a lot of the techniques they used in the Iraq vote. Why can't we require a picture ID and stain people's fingers so that they can't vote twice?

I note that at Hillary's website you can sign up as a citizen co-sponsor WITHOUT EVEN READING THE BILL.

(Check out the Hillary Watch catagory for more stuff Hillary Clinton has been up to.)

Update: I see on Hillary's website, she says the bill will "Provide a verified paper ballot for every vote cast in electronic voting machines." I don't see where the AP got "require paper receipts for votes" from that. That's a rather irresponsible summary if you ask me, assuming that they both refer to the same thing.

I will note that in 2001 as my senior project, I helped to design an electronic voting system with paper backups. All electronic and paper ballots were associated with a random number to enable double checking. I think that's a great idea. I don't understand why there are electronic voting systems without paper backups.

By the way, here is a website where you can compare types of legislation relating to voting. For instance The Voting Integrity and Verification Act of 2005 requires paper backups for electronic voting that can be verified by the voter before their electronic vote is submitted and required them to be preserved like paper ballots, and it doesn't throw in anything about felon voting. How about some support for this one?

GOP Bloggers also doesn't seem to like the idea of felons voting.

Posted by illuminaria at 04:25 PM | Comments (0)

February 16, 2005

Offensive? Yes. Big deal? No.

WARNING: Possibly offensive sandwich names are in the text of this article. Please don't read if you have a heart condition.

I read about this article in the "The Daily Targum" at Rutgers University's on David Limbaugh today

Students split on Grease Truck names.
Duct tape continues to hide Grease Truck menu items that lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community members said were offensive.
The controversy erupted last week over the names of certain sandwiches served at the Grease Trucks on the College Avenue campus. The University community is varied in its response to the incident, when the Department of Parking and Transportation Services demanded the trucks cover up [certain] sandwich names.

My first thought was, “Oh no, here’s people getting all offended for no reason.” Then I looked up the actual menu and realized, “Ok then, some of those ARE rather offensive.” Examples include, “The Fat Bitch,” “The Fat Fellatio,” and “The Fat Ass.”

The article also says that there is “The Fat Dyke,” although I don’t see that one on the menu.

Now even though they’re offensive, I don’t see why it is they should be required to change their names. Although the trucks operate on campus and are stored in a university lot, it seems that they are privately owned. If a private restaurant owner wants to have offensive names for his products, so what? It’s his business plan, and I’m sure it works quite well on campus. But people are complaining and saying it adds to an “offensive atmosphere” that causes harassment…

The controversy emerged when members of the LGBT community on campus said they were offended by the names of certain sandwiches. The outcry was brought to the attention of PATS, and all names deemed offensive were asked to be taken down, otherwise a citation would be issued to the offending Grease Truck.
Some students have come forward, saying the Grease Trucks further created an offensive atmosphere, with employees making sexually suggestive comments to customers, as another form of harassment.

Really, I don’t see how the names are any more offensive to the LGBT community than to Buddhists (“The Fat Buddha”), illegitimate children (“The Fat Bastard”), or prostitutes (“The Fat Gigolo.”) And you don't see any of them complaining. Not to mention…

Eileen Mcelhaney, a crime analyst with the Rutgers University Police Department, said there were no investigative reports of harassment near the Grease Trucks or Lot 8 this academic year so far from September to Feb. 1.

Some people need to grow thicker skins, roll their eyes, and get on with life.

And for Pete's sake, if someone harasses someone because they looked at a sandwich name, they need to get over themselves too.

Posted by illuminaria at 04:39 PM | Comments (0)

Harvard to Throw Derision at Summers, and Money at "Summers Problem"

As a followup to my recent post, I read an article in the New York Times. (Registration required.)

Professors at Harvard Confront Its President
CAMBRIDGE, Mass. Feb. 15 - President Lawrence H. Summers of Harvard was confronted at a meeting of his own faculty on Tuesday by some of the university's most influential professors, who expressed strong dissatisfaction with his leadership and charged that he was damaging the institution.

These professors, including two department heads, said after the meeting that they had emphasized that their concerns went well beyond the furor that resulted from Dr. Summers's recent comments suggesting that innate sex differences could account for the lack of women in science and math careers.

"Many of your faculty are dismayed and alienated and demoralized," Dr. Arthur Kleinman, chairman of anthropology in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, said at the meeting, referring to a "crisis concerning your style of leadership and governance."

Yeah, they SAY their concerns go beyond the recent comments about innate sex differences, but from reading the rest of the article, it sure doesn't sound like it.

Most speakers took aim at Dr. Summers for what they described as an autocratic management style that has stifled the open debate that is at the core of the university's values. While their comments were respectful, they were forceful and were greeted by strong applause.

In all this, it sounds like Dr. Summers is the one that has felt the consequences of stifled debate.

The 90-minute meeting ended with a unanimous vote to hold an emergency meeting of the faculty next Tuesday so professors could continue to discuss their lack of confidence in Dr. Summers's leadership.

Yes! Lets have another meeting.

Several, including Barbara J. Grosz, chairwoman of a new task force on women in science and engineering, called on Dr. Summers to release a transcript of his remarks about science and women. Theda Skocpol, a professor of government and sociology, said, "President Summers appears to be apologizing profusely, yet he refuses to release for honest discussion his actual remarks." The result was that commentators have cast his critics as "unreasonable opponents of academic inquiry and openness," with Harvard "ridiculed as a center of close-minded political correctness."

I'm all for releasing the transcrips of his remarks, but somehow I think that if that happens, Harvard will continue to be "ridiculed as a center of closed-minded political correctness." We have reports of what he said there and Dr. Summers is not denying the correctness of those reports. Somehow I don't think the transcript is going to read:

Professor: So, Dr. Summers, why do you think there are less women in faculty positions in the sciences?

Dr. Summers: Because women are stupid.

One of two professors who spoke in support of Dr. Summers was Ruth R. Wisse, the Peretz professor of Yiddish literature, who said her colleagues were allowing sexual politics to silence the open discussion Dr. Summers intended when he spoke about women at a conference last month, The Crimson reported.

Lawrence Katz, an economics professor and admirer of Dr. Summers, said afterward that he thought Dr. Summers was "humble and forthcoming, and he clearly articulated that he in no way intends to intimidate."

Gee, certainly sounds like Dr. Summers is practicing his "autocratic management style that has stifled open debate."
I don't know much about the man other than in this context, so I can't say whether he is a good University President or not, but I sure hope that he doesn't get kicked out over THIS.
And of course now Harvard is calling for a task force to tackle women's issues and supporting a study of female Harvard graduates' careers. (I'll note, though, that the article points out that the people doing the study support Summers.) Ich. A bunch more money being wasted on diversity that probably won't make a bit of difference.
Hat tip to Powerline.
Also see this post by SteveL who says that Summers is an excellent president.
And this post at "what if" that compares the treatment of Summers with the treatment of Ward Churchill.

Posted by illuminaria at 11:30 AM | Comments (1)

February 15, 2005

Fetus or Baby?

Yesterday on CNN I saw this AP story

Pregnant woman: 'Maternal instinct' helped kill attacker.
Katherine Smith, 22, died Thursday after luring Brady to her apartment to pick up a package supposedly delivered to the wrong address. When Smith pulled out a knife and attacked the pregnant woman, Brady fought back, striking Smith on the head with an ash tray and stabbing her three times with her own knife, police said.

The attacker was trying to steal her baby. Good for her! The story reminds me of the other incidents of women trying to steal babies from women while they are still pregnant that have happened in the past several years.

It really makes me wonder if this is a new phenomenon, and if it is, is it just a coincidence, or is there some reason? Babies being stolen, after all, is not a new thing. After all, it even happens in the Bible. But cutting them out of a pregnant woman? Now that’s weird.

What really caught my eye, was at the end of the article:

In 2003, a woman was shot to death in Oklahoma, allegedly by another woman who then pretended the 6-month-old fetus was her child. That fetus died.

I really started wondering about the reference to child as a fetus.

I did some more checking around about the story. It appears that what happened is that Effie Goodson shot Carolyn Simpson and cut the child from her body. The next day she showed up at a hospital with a dead child. There are no details as to whether the doctors were able to determine if the child had lived past the time its mother had died.

It certainly seems logical to assume that it had, though, since if it hadn’t, you’d think Goodson would have either left it there with the mother, or taken it to the hospital earlier. Also, considering the fact that the pregnancy was in the sixth month, it seems logical to assume that the child would be able to survive for at least a few minutes after being taken from the womb, assuming of course that it was taken out early enough. However, it also seems logical to assume that Goodson had some mental problems; so assigning logic to her is probably not a particularly robust method.

However, even if the child didn’t survive outside of the womb, I still don’t think calling it a fetus is correct. For instance, the difference between a miscarriage and a stillbirth is that a miscarriage occurs before 20 weeks of gestation (4.5 months), and a stillbirth occurs after that time. However, stillborn babies are generally referred to as babies, even though they can die well before they are born.

I note that in reference to the Scott Peterson case, the child is referred to as both a fetus and a baby. That child was full term, but did not ever survive outside of the womb.

Something tells me, though, that the terminology in these cases would have been quite different 40 years ago.

(Gosh this a gruesome topic.)

Posted by illuminaria at 02:36 PM | Comments (0)

February 11, 2005

A Bill the ACLU Would Have Supported…40 Years Ago

Wizbang points out this bill being proposed in the Ohio Senate intended to "establish the academic bill of rights for higher education." The ACLU, of course, is totally against it.

There's some things in there I really like, which I think will address quite a few issues which have come up recently. These include

-University administrators, student government organizations, and institutional policies, rules, or procedures shall not infringe the freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, and freedom of conscience of students and student organizations.
-The institution shall distribute student fee funds on a viewpoint-neutral basis and shall maintain a posture of neutrality with respect to substantive political and religious disagreements, differences, and opinions. The selection of speakers, allocation of funds for speakers' programs, and other student activities shall observe the principles of academic freedom and promote the presentation of a diversity of opinions on intellectual matters. Except as provided by law, the institution shall not permit the obstruction of invited campus speakers, the destruction of campus literature, or other efforts to obstruct a civil exchange of ideas.
-The board of trustees of each state institution of higher education ... shall adopt a grievance procedure by which a student, faculty member, or instructor may seek redress for an alleged violation.

There's lots of other interesting things in there, go read it.

These are the ACLU's complaints:

-The bill forces the board of trustees, of both public and private schools, to adopt policies about what can and cannot be taught.
-Under the bill, faculty would be discouraged from teaching anything “controversial” – a vague term that could pertain to any number of topics including evolution, history, or religion.
-If they do raise controversial issues, instructors would have to present alternative views regardless of the merits of those views or their own beliefs about them.
-Senate Bill 24 would shift the responsibility for course content and student evaluation from highly trained faculty to the state government or the courts.

I can kinda sorta slightly see their point, as the bill has some pretty vague language that could be interpreted lots of different ways.

However, this is a problem with just about any bill. It might be possible to revise the language in some places to help take care of some of that. And, I expect even if that was done, the ACLU would still be against it, and the fact is, some of their protestations are pretty over the top.

On the first and last points, I really don't see what the problem is with having oversight of course content by the board of trustees. They have more accountability than a single professor does. And it's not like, as they infer, the bill requires the trustees to lay out every single detail of course content. In fact, it doesn't require any detail of course content to be laid out, all it requires is that complaints about course content be addressed. It's not like professors are hired by a university to be able to teach whatever they want. That is not what academic freedom is about. Professors should be able to study whatever they want, so long as they can find funding, but teaching courses is a specific job that they do for pay in order to teach whatever the school thinks needs to be taught.

In regards to the second and third complaints, the bill does say, "Faculty and instructors shall not infringe the academic freedom and quality of education of their students by persistently introducing controversial matter into the classroom or coursework that has no relation to their subject of study and that serves no legitimate pedagogical purpose." Therefore, controversial matter is defined as something not related to their subject of study and not seen as legitimate in the greater academic community. It's not like teaching evolution in a biology class will now be illegal, even though it is controversial, since evolution is pertinent to biology, and the academic community sees it as legitimate, though not without controversy.

Posted by illuminaria at 02:50 PM | Comments (0)

My Experience As a Woman in Engineering

I saw today on David Limbaugh’s blog that a statement has recently been released by Princeton President Shirley Tilghman in regards to the debate over Harvard President Lawrence Summers suggestion that the differences in numbers between males and females might in some part be attributed to innate differences between men and women. Tilghman, Stanford President John Hennessy and MIT President Susan Hockfield said

The question we must ask as a society is not 'can women excel in math, science and engineering?' -- Marie Curie exploded that myth a century ago -- but 'how can we encourage more women with exceptional abilities to pursue careers in these fields?'

They mentioned in their statement research that supported their findings, but I note that they didn’t actually say what that research was so that I could look at it.

Being a woman in graduate studies who is considering becoming a professor, this whole subject has been really annoying to me a long long time. I did an interview with someone working on a “Women in Engineering” project a few years ago. I told her that I had never experienced the slightest bit of discrimination in regards to my gender in all my years in school.

One of the big assertions of how women have been discouraged from entering math, engineering, and the sciences is that they don’t have enough female role models. In fact, I have had lots of mentors over the years. They, along with the support of my parents, are one of the big reasons why I am where I am now. And they were all male, by the way, but I don't think that affected my tender female sensibilities.

In junior high, my math teacher both years was extremely encouraging and helped me get onto the MathCounts team for the school, which won the state championship. In high school, I had a wonderful geometry teacher who would always bring extra puzzles and things to school for me to do. He even gave me a slide rule, which I never learned how to use, but treasure to this day. I then worked with the computer guy for the school learning how to install cards and make network cables. He was the person who made me want to get into computer engineering. My calculus teacher in high school was also great, and made it possible for me to get 10 credits of calculus out of the way before I even got into college.

Then in college I have been lucky to have a wonderful mentor who has employed me for the past five years, encouraged me to get into graduate school, and helped me learn about funding and research and writing papers and what it’s like to be a professor. He talks me up to everyone and has given me so much; I don’t even think I’d be in graduate school without his help.

I realize that just because I’ve had a good experience, doesn’t mean that everyone does. But the ultra feminists who control policy these days don’t even seem to consider anything other than outright bias as an explanation for the state of affairs. Consider, for example, this NOW press release last year about a study on diversity which begins with the sentence, “The Ole' Boy's Club is alive and well in academia.” The study finds that even though female enrollment in math, engineering, and the sciences undergraduate and graduate programs is rising, there still aren’t very many female professors in these fields. The study takes all this data and then irresponsibly attributes the reason to discrimination and the lack of female mentors without even considering any other explanation.

Allow me to suggest a few possibilities. Perhaps women are not eager to get into research in academia in the sciences where, as far as I’ve seen, a large part of time is spent on chasing funding. Perhaps women are not eager to get into an environment where petty politics can overpower their job. These and many other problems have always been issues in academia, but they have absolutely nothing to do with the gender make up of the faculty, and they’re not going to be fixed by “Adopt[ing] an extensive and candid program of accountability [towards diversity].” In fact, this will merely add to the problem.

Finally, even though I used to be an ultra feminist myself, who believed that all differences in gender could be attributed to social conditioning, I no longer believe that. There are so many ways that you can see generalized differences between boys and girls, even under a year of age. There are so many studies about girls being better at verbal skills and boys being better at spatial visualization. And I don’t see how anyone can think that the differences in body composition and hormones won’t have the slightest effect on how people think and behave.

In my opinion, the best thing to do about this “problem” is to improve the quality of education from kindergarten to graduate studies, and then just accept that perhaps the current percentage of women in certain fields is just how it is going to be. I know there are sexist people still out there, but for the most part I think they are not having that large of an effect on percentages of women in certain fields. I’ve also had a number of idiotic teachers of all sorts over the years, and I simply ignored them and moved on to a better one. All of the money we waste on diversity programs could be better spent on improving education and would go much farther towards making the world a better place. I'm sure there's more possible future female science professors languishing away in a terrible school than there are possible future female science professors being scared away by the "'Ol Boy's Club."

Update: More here.

Posted by illuminaria at 02:12 PM | Comments (1)

February 10, 2005

Far Left Terrorist Sympathizer Convicted

Today on CNN.

The jury had deliberated 13 days over the past month before convicting Lynne Stewart, 65, a firebrand, left-wing activist known for representing radicals and revolutionaries in her 30 years on the New York legal scene.

Stewart faces up to 20 years in prison on charges that include conspiracy, giving material support to terrorists and defrauding the U.S. government.

Prosecutors said Stewart and the others carried messages between the sheik and senior members of a Egyptian-based terrorist organization, helping spread Abdel-Rahman's venomous call to kill those who did not subscribe to his extremist interpretation of Islamic law.

Stewart, who once represented Weather Underground radicals and mob turncoat Sammy "The Bull" Gravano, repeatedly declared her innocence, maintaining she was unfairly targeted by overzealous prosecutors.

What is wrong with some people? I've certainly heard all of the uproar over terrorists getting fair legal treatment, but what kind of idiot would carry messages between a terrorist and his minions? Of course considering this quote, I suppose it's not too much of a surprise.

But she also testified that she believed violence was sometimes necessary to achieve justice: "To rid ourselves of the entrenched, voracious type of capitalism that is in this country that perpetuates sexism and racism, I don't think that can come nonviolently."

One doesn't feel too inclined to believe her protestations of innocence after hearing that.

Here's some other interesting things I've found...

In this interview

SD: Let’s say you were part of a government that you actually trusted and supported, and your country held political prisoners. At what point would you think monitoring and controlling these people was acceptable?
LS: I’m such a strange amalgam of old-line things and new-line things. I don’t have any problem with Mao or Stalin or the Vietnamese leaders or certainly Fidel locking up people they see as dangerous. Because so often, dissidence has been used by the greater powers to undermine a people’s revolution. The CIA pays a thousand people and cuts them loose, and they will undermine any revolution in the name of freedom of speech.

So apparently it's ok for Castro (whom, I note, she intimately refers to as "Fidel") to lock up people for disagreeing with the government, but the US is evil for locking up terrorists.

In 1995 she told the New York Times

I don't believe in anarchistic violence but in directed violence," she said. "That would be violence directed at the institutions which perpetuate capitalism, racism and sexism, and at the people who are the appointed guardians of those institutions, and accompanied by popular support.

In another interview:

WW3R: The press release did not concern legal matters. So why was it protected by attorney-client privilege?
LS: The Sheikh, as the person I'm representing, has the right to communicate outside the SAMs.
…
WW3R: So what is the crux of your defense strategy?
LS: The crux of my defense strategy is that I'm a lawyer, and I did what the kind of lawyer who vigorously defends clients always does--and that is not adhering to a narrow little stage of action.
…
WW3R: Apart from the legal consequences, just speaking in terms of its appropriateness or ethics, how do you feel about what you did? How do you feel about handing on the press release?
LS: Oh, I would do it again in a minute. You know, when I was interviewed in another media [60 Minutes, May 5], I used the words "Well, maybe it was a mistake, but it wasn't a crime." What I meant is, nobody likes to go back on their word. I signed a piece of paper that said I wouldn't do this, right? Just like when you get married you say, "I do," and you're gonna love, honor and et cetera, et cetera. And five years down the road something comes up and you find out you can no longer love and honor, and that oath you took to this other person has to be broken for many reasons. So when I signed that SAM, I was perfectly willing to obey it. But when something came up that made it impossible for me to balance my duties as a lawyer with what the government was requiring of me, I chose my duties as a lawyer.
…
WW3R: What if the Sheikh's advice was taken, and the cease-fire was broken in Egypt? The terrorist attack at Luxor in 1997 left over 50 Egyptians and tourists dead, and the Islamic Group claimed responsibility. Do you think it would be a good thing if these sort of attacks were to resume?
LS: Americans are very two-faced about violence, aren't they? I mean, we came out of the Boston Tea Party and throwing rocks at soldiers on the Boston Commons and finally taking up arms and going against the British army. War has changed since 1776, but the basic desire of people to be free hasn't changed. And I'm not sure that I want to second-guess what methods other people use. I'm not saying that if I had been told to carry the message "There are a hundred rifles hidden at the battery and they should be taken up to the Egyptian embassy and everybody murdered up there," that I would carry such a message. But a political message, a message which is aimed at a group which is deciding things politically, although they have a military wing--I don't think I would draw the line there. I think somebody like the Sheikh, just like Joe Doherty [IRA militant extradited from New York to Northern Ireland in 1992] and the Irish prisoners, has a right to be heard. And its not up to me to decide what action should be taken after that.

I don't even know what to say to all of that. Apparently it was ok for her to violate the SAM she signed, because to do otherwise would be violating her client's right to send out press releases calling off a cease fire.

And for Pete's sake, why does no one on the left understand the difference between a civil war in which soldiers openly attack other soldiers and terrorist actions that are primarily directed at civilians?

Posted by illuminaria at 04:24 PM | Comments (0)

Bias on Law & Order? Never!

I see I'm not the only one to immediately pick up on last night's "Bill O'Reilly," "ripped from the headlines" episode of Law & Order.

I immediately said to my husband when it started that they were playing off of the Bill O'Reilly story. The show began with O'Reilly's character, Larry Shea spouting off some typical over the top right wing opinions, and answering a woman's question about how to protect children from bad influences on TV and the internet with "well, you can start by buying my book." Then some bookstore employees talk derisively about the contrast between his family values and his sexual harassment suit, as well as the fact that even though they live in a blue state, there are still plenty of idiots buying his book. My husband said, "That can't be O'Reilly because his opinions are nothing like that." Ha! Right. To liberals, anyone on a radio station other than NPR or Air America thinks exactly like that. Especially if they are also on the Fox News channel. Nevermind that, for instance, Bill O'Reilly and Shawn Hannity have very different views, it's all the same right wing crap to them.

Of course I have never found the fact-checking of Law & Order to be particularly good. I got very annoyed during the last season of Law & Order: CI when an overweight woman mentioned that she had rheumatoid arthritis in her knees "you know, because of my weight." Nevermind the fact that rheumatoid arthritis is an autoimmune disease that mostly affects the hands and feet and has little or nothing to do with weight, whereas OSTEOarthritis is caused by the wearing away of joint cushioning and is usually worsened by weight. Two minutes on the internet would have fixed that one. I wouldn't imagine they'd be any more thorough in this case.

This is hardly the first time a "ripped from the headlines" episode has completely misrepresented a conservative person or idea.

There was that one where a person who wrote books on getting back to biblical ideals in marriage murdered his daughter in law because she wanted to get a divorce from his son. Then there was the one about the outspoken critic of homosexuality that had a gay son who was so very depressed. But the one that really annoyed me was where they took that story that came out last year about the family that had been starving their children and made it into a horrifying glimpse into the dangers of homeschooling.

Law & Order has always done controversial episodes like this, but they used to have more believable discussion between the officers and prosecutors that came pretty close to fairly debating the issue. Lately they barely even seem to try. There were only a few pathetic opinions offered up in defense of the Shea character, and they were both completely shot down. It's too bad, too, because it's always been my favorite show.

This just goes to show the fact that a lot of people really don't know anything about what conservative ideals are really about or what conservative people are really like. It's annoying, but on the other hand, ignorance is the biggest chink in their armour. I used to be a big liberal myself, until I actually started researching things.

Posted by illuminaria at 02:46 PM | Comments (1)

February 09, 2005

Whatever happened to GI Joe?

Am I the only one wondering whatever happened to the story about the "captured" toy? There was another story released on the AP wire the next day, also by Robert H. Reid, entitled "Questions raised over Web claim of soldier kidnapped in Iraq," but after that, nothing.

I'm curious to know who did post the picture and what were their motivations. It certainly seems like a newsworthy subject.

Of course the other big question is why the story was reported as true in the first place. The second AP article mentions the following problems:

-The U.S. military said no soldiers were missing.
-An American toy manufacturer said the figure in the photo resembled one of its military action figures, originally produced for sale at U.S. bases in Kuwait.
-The Arabic text contained several misspellings and repetitions.
-The figure appeared stiff and expressionless.

My question to Mr. Reid is, why on earth didn't you ask any of these questions in the first place?

Update: My brother pointed out an article on SITE where a board member admits to the hoax claiming to be a "20-year old Iraqi young man" who is "unarmed [and] independent." I'd be curious to know if he's being at all truthful about his identity. After all, it's not like anyone ever lies on message boards. The message is, however, accompanied by a picture that at least makes it believable that he was party to the hoax.

Posted by illuminaria at 12:37 PM | Comments (2)

February 08, 2005

Those Brave Moderates

Given the underwhelming response to the behavior of Democrats at the State of the Union speech last month, I thought this particular blast from the past was quite funny.

The Washington Post January 20, 1999 Clinton Address Elicits Varied Responses in GOP; While a Few Snub President, Response Overall Is Coolly Polite

To applaud or not to applaud: that was the question for Republicans watching President Clinton's State of the Union speech.

For many, it appeared to be an easy decision. House Majority Leader Richard K. Armey (R-Tex.) and Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) sat stiffly and clapped for the bomber pilot, Sammy Sosa and Rosa Parks, and that was about it. Rep. Joe Barton (R-Tex.) applauded for Hillary Rodham Clinton and equal pay for men and women.

Sen. Robert C. Smith (R-N.H.), who had decided earlier in the day not to attend, changed his mind and showed up "because it would be an affront to the presidency not to go," his spokeswoman said. He sat with a vacant look on his face and his arms crossed.

A handful of House Republicans skipped the speech out of protest, but for the most part congressional Republicans were polite, if cool, in their response to Clinton last night. While their Democratic colleagues interrupted the president with applause more than 100 times, at times extravagantly, Republicans largely watched the 77-minute speech with studied detachment.

Also,

The Patriot Ledger (Quincy, MA) January 20, 1999 Lawmakers from Mass. like speech

Moakley criticized Republicans who "sat on their hands," refusing to applaud even popular proposals such as one to shore up the Social Security system. "They don't want to do anything to make him look good."

In contrast, The Washington Post this year ran an article by Dana Milbank that begins “Pity the Republican moderates who sat in the chamber last night for President Bush's State of the Union address,” The article then goes on to praise those brave moderates who refused to clap for "Bush's rhetoric" and barely mentions the behavior of the Democrats. I didn't see any other articles in The Washington Post mentioning the issue.

Liberal media? No way!

What people often don't seem to realize is that the bias of media outlets is shown clearly by what stories they choose to report on, the quotes that they use, and the focus that they give to their stories.

Posted by illuminaria at 04:18 PM | Comments (0)