Now this is an alternate energy solution: a solar chimney that generates as much electricity as a nuclear power plant without the messy radioactivce materials, oil, or coal. That's my kind of power plant.
It costs less, too: $500 to 750 million to build and no fuel to buy.
Sam Wineburg has an important commentary in the LA Times on problems with History education in secondary schools in the United States. His biggest complaint is that most history teachers don't have much formal education in History or Historiography, which leaves them at the "names and dates" understanding of history. This leaves history teachers unable to fully engage their students imaginations or to challenge their ideas about historical events and the use of history. It also means that history teachers are unable to discuss differences of opinion between the writers of textbooks and other historians.
Wineburg also writes that the idea that all history teachers need to do is stay a chapter ahead of their students to do a good job is a major part of the problem. This practice has even more problems than mere lack of formal training in the field, because it also implies an incomplete understanding of the subject matter. Not having a full understanding of historical material an lead to all sorts of problems for teachers - like only explaining the popularly held view of an events such as the Civil War, the American Revolution, or Truman's decision to use Atomic weapons against Japan.
I'm currently faced with the issue myself - I just received the text book for the Western Civ classes I'm teaching on Monday. While I've been exposed to all of the material in the course, I'm unfamiliar with this particular text, so I will be just a chapter or two ahead of my students in the reading. This won't be an issue next semester, but for this one I'll be winging it - sort of.
Actually I've got the 5th edition, not the 6th, but it doesn't really matter. Now I get to spend the weekend getting ready for class - that means reading enough of the text to lead discussions and answer questions, setting up my welcome announcement for students, creating my welcome emails for students, and adding my new voice mail box and information on when I'll be checking it to the syllabus.
So I'll be spending the weekend getting ready for class. I'm both excited and nervous about this.
This new book takes a look at the relationship between modern American politics and Christianity with some surprising results. According to the author, while many Evangelic Christians are as progressive as Democrats, the Dems come across as secularists who either don't possess, or are afraid to discuss values. It looks like an interesting read.
I just landed my first teaching job after graduating with my M.A. in History last December. Starting on Monday I'll be teaching two sections of Western Civilization I online through a local community college. Not only does this let me pay off some student loans, but also provides valuable experience that may land me other teaching positions. I've found that one negative consequence of my online M.A. program is that it didn't provide any teaching opportunities as a student, and since there is lots of competition for History teaching jobs from people with more education (PhDs) and experience I'm at a disadvantage in the marketplace.
Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi and Senator Harry Reid, the two ranking Dems in Congress have finally decided that they've had enough of the same of garbage from the political consultants the party has been using lately, and are dumping them in favor of people who know how to win. Its about damn time.
There are several reasons that the GOP is enjoying significant success lately: people are afraid and the Dems are decidely not the the National Security Party, the GOP has a consistent message, and the GOP is quite aggressive in fighting off political opponents. Since the older Democratic consultants and campaign chairs are obviously not getting the job done, it's past time for a change. Hopefuly with Howard Dean as DNC chair and the house-cleaning goind on elsewhere, we can start seeing some real progress.
There are some other good signs, too:
1. The Principles Project is conducting significant discussions designed to develop a clear statement of progressive principles and ideals. Can you say "clear message"?
2. The Truman National Security Project is bring Democrats together to create a strong national security vision that allows the party to engage the GOP from a position of strength on this issue. It also allows the Dems to articulate a strategy to keep Americans safe while not alientating the rest of the world.
I'm not sure how I feel about this:
You're Brave New World!
by Aldous Huxley
With an uncanny ability for predicting the future, you are a true
psychic. You can see how the world will change and illuminate the fears of future
generations. In the world to come, you see the influence of the media, genetic
science, drugs, and class warfare. And while all this might make you happy, you
claim the right to be unhappy. While pregnancy might seem painful, test tube
babies scare you most. You are obsessed with the word "pneumatic".
Take the Book Quiz
at the Blue Pyramid.
Fifty-two warnings to the FAA, and a memo to National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice. So, remind me why nothing was done, and Dr. Rice was promoted to Secretary of State?
Check out Alternet's Social Security facts -- and use them against the sheeple who are following the President and his minions.
I'm not sure how I feel on the issue of juries basing their decisions on moral and ethical concerns outside the law. On the one hand, I don't want people on juries to ignore the law because they disagree with it, regardless of the reasons - this is an issue for everything from abortion to bicycle helmets. Do we want juries deciding that the murder of a doctor who provides abortion services is justifiable based on their religious beliefs and freeing the murderer? Do we want to have juries get tied up in knots over requiring bicycle riders to wear helmets? If juries start ignoring the law, we are ona quick path to anarchy.
On the other hand, blind adherence to the law by juries could cause all sorts of mischief. Juries could impose unreasonable sentences for a variety of offenses - like life in prison for stealing bread from a convenience store while a minor is present. Blind obedience to jury instructions could also lead to a sort of unthinking fascism along the lines of what average Germans were party to int eh 1930s and 1940s. Given the tendency for people to continue to mindlessly believe even the most ridiculous claims fo authority figures, this is a real possibilty.
I'm not sure how the "Blog of 7" thinks religious conservatives might infiltrate the jury process, but the idea of a creeping theocracy based on Biblically based jury verdicts is a frightening one. The counter to that possibility is for all of us to take our responsibility as citizens to sit on juries seriously, and not to reflexively look for ways out. That way all of the nation's perspectives are represented in jruy pools.
Ok, so now the "law and order" party wants to pass legislation (Real ID)that allows the Secretary of Homeland Security to overturn any law that august individual thinks is in his way? Without any possibility of seeking redress through the courts? Are these people nuts? Even the Congressional Research Service interprets this bill this way, so it isn't just some wingnuts doing the Chicken Little routine.
Caleb has an interesting post regarding graduate student blogging and later career prospects - it seems that I'm not alone in wondering how this pretty free-form writing in the public sphere might come back to haunt him. While Caleb addresses the issues facing grad students and non-tenured faculty, the issue really extends to any future endeavor - if you try to get a job your comments may come back to haunt you. I would guess this is particularly true of people who try to get government jobs, especially if you've been critical of the government.
What this means is that only the truly brave or safe will use their real identities, while the more timid or exposed will adopt pseudonyms for their blogs, which could further reduce the legitimacy of blogs as sources of information. It could also easily have a chilling effect on the diversity of opinions and topics floating around the blogosphere.
In addition to finding the most offensive manner in which to make his commentary on the causes of the Sept. 11th, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, it looks like Prof. Churchill may be:
1. Not an actual Native American.
2. Guilty of perjury.
3. A perpetrator of lies and slander against the U.S. Army.
4. A generally bad scholar - at least in his recent work.
I don't know about the rest you, but I'm getting really tired of this guy. Whatever validity his ideas might have had is totally lost in his manner of presenting them and the general uproar over his comments.
I just love that our new Senator (Salazar-D) is the only pro-torture Democrat in the Senate. At least that's the conclusion I'm forced to draw by his defense of Attorney General nominee Alberto Gonzalez. Salazar's support of Gonzalez also makes me think that the believes that it's ok for Governors to pencil whip execution orders based on the biased information provided them by their legal counsel. Senator Salazar must also believe that the President is above the law, and can set aside any U.S. law at anytime if it suits him.
You'd think that a man who was Attorney General would have a greater respect for the rule of law. You'd also think that someone with the grave responsibility of serving in the U.S. Senate would realize that torture and unlawful imprisonment of prisoners - whether POWs, enemy combatants, terrorists, insurgents, or innocent civilians - only endangers American servicemembers and civilians around the world. It also makes the fighting more difficult, because those fighting against us know what is in store for them.
After Salazar's unfortunate support of Condoleeza Rice as Secretary of State, his support for Alberto Gonzalez as AG may be foreshadowing of a long six years for Coloradoans that thought they were electing a Democrat, not a Republican in sheep's clothing.
Jeanne at Body and Soul has an interesting essay on the philosophical basis of Conservatism and the elements in society that it relies on. This piece is not so much about the difference between Republicans and Democrats, or fiscal / social conservatives vs. fiscal / social liberals, as it is about the fundamtenal difference between the idea that the adherents of Conservatism want to be an aristocracy that rules by fiat while Liebralism's advocates believe in democratic societies and rules - whatever the role of government in society. What Jeanne is really discussing is the conflict between traditional Oligarchy vs. Liberal Democracy and the applicability of both to our current political crisis.