It's Like ...

It's like something outta the fucken Onion. Like, if the Onion published it, it would be funny.

Only ... they didn't. You can't make this shit up ...

It's like the Sokal Affair. I mean, EVERYBODY knows gravity is socially constructed, right? Only "radical fringe" fucken SCIENTISTS would claim they can PROVE gravity is real!! And they are murderers and terrorists and communist dictators for DARING to spread such audacious falsehoods!

Oh, wait ... did I just hear somebody say the earth is flat? Crap! I think I need to get my hearing tested!!

Hey, Kids! Can You Identify the Logical Fallacy Here? Hint: There Might Even Be More Than One!!

Consider the following:

The most prominent proponents of Bubble Gum Shit Theory of Planet Earth are not actually the Bubble Gum Shit Theory Experts who came up with the theory and have spent their respectable careers promoting it in public, legitimate, intelligent, ethical, and democratic ways. No. The MOST PROMINENT proponents are, in fact, Mass Murderer, Communist Dictator, and Several Radical Evil Psycho Violent Terrorists because these individuals are FAMOUS and said somewhere, at one time or another, possibly from in prison, that they believed in Bubble Gum Shit Theory of Planet Earth. And, because these shithead-asshole-criminals of "questionable ethics" believe in Bubble Gum Shit Theory of Planet Earth, that automatically makes said theory a "fringe" theory and undermines the validity of the consensus of all the Bubble Gum Shit Theory Experts who have been studying Bubble Gum Shit for decades.

Do you, dear reader, also still believe in Bubble Gum Shit Theory of Planet Earth? Why then YOU, too, have questionable ethics. You, too, are like Mass Murderer, Communist Dictator, and Radical Evil Psycho Violent Terrorists. Oh, and let's not forget Very Stupid Bubble Gum Shit Theory Expert who did something blatantly stupid and unethical but which did NOT undermine in any way Bubble Gum Shit Theory of Planet Earth per se but rather only Very Stupid Bubble Gum Shit Theory Expert's own personal integrity.

OMG. *headdesk*

It's like saying that because Very Stupid Bubble Gum Shit Theory Expert is a Stupid Shithead then, ipso facto, Bubble Gum Shit Theory of Planet Earth is ITSELF stupid shitte! That is, because Stupid Shithead said X, X is false, despite overwhelming confirmation of X's validity by non shitheads, non murderers, non communist dictators, and non radical evil psycho violent terrorists -- in fact, by highly respectable, smart, educated Professor Doctor Researcher Bubble Gum Shit Theory of Planet Earth fucken EXPERTS!!

Ummm .............it's a alternative universe over here, kidz. That's about all I can say.....

Occupy My Neighborhood

No, I didn't take the day off yesterday to join Occupy DC for its May Day festivities in the park near where I live, but, on my way home, I did catch the culminating march from Malcolm X Park (near my house) to Lafayette Park (near the White House). Here they are marching down 14th Street, NW:

What was great about having the march go through this area was that it got local residents to pay attention. In downtown DC, there's always somebody protesting something. If you live here in Crapitol City long enough, you get used to seeing people walking around near the White House, the National Mall, and the Hill carrying signs and chanting about one thing or another. You get used to them, and you ignore them. But having a march through a neighborhood that is not a major tourist destination, especially when it's large enough to have a police escort and stop traffic on a busy street during rush hour, has a way of making locals look up and pay attention. My neighborhood is very diverse in terms of race, class, and ethnicity, and as I walked home and watched the Occupy marchers, I observed people from all different backgrounds, perspectives, and walks of life stopping -- on foot, in cars, on bikes -- and taking pictures and asking questions: "Who are they? Oh, that's the Occupy people! What are they doing here in our neighborhood? What are they chanting? What do their signs say? Where are they going? Why are they marching?"

And that's all good, I think. Maybe some of those people will go home, get online, talk to their friends, find out, and maybe get involved ...

Here's another view:

Funny

After reading about A Post-Academic in NYC's recent encounters with the dean at the place that could suck her like a giant vacuum back into academe, I was reminded of a certain undergrad prof I had who HATED university administrators with a vengeance. How did ze deal with these negative feelings without getting fired? Ze had pet snakes. The snakes ate live mice. Undergrad Prof named these mice before putting them into the snakes' cages ... after university administrators.

Nice, huh? Sorry about the light posting lately. I suppose I could just post random shit. Sometimes I do that anyway! But ... well, just stay tuned. Hopefully, the number of things I both want to blog about and can blog about will get back to normal soon.

Via

Who Said Crickets Were Boring?

Where is everybody? I'm not the only one whose posting has been light lately ...

At least he crickets have something to say:

Sign This Petition

Better Pay for Adjuncts: Stop their Exploitation

Go to that link and add your name to the list if you haven't already. It's just one more way to attempt to be heard, to raise awareness. Because ... numbers count in this game.

And then, once you've signed the petition, go check out today's post at Transition Times, where blogger Jennifer Browdy de Hernandez neatly ties the plight of adjuncts to the trend towards distance learning. Contrary to critics of distance learning, Browdy de Hernandez first praises it and emphasizes its inevitabilty and significant potential, describing how a "virtual" classroom could bring together people who would be unlikely to meet in a traditional one:

[W]ouldn’t it be exciting to “hang out” in a seminar classroom with students from around the world? We higher ed folks like to trumpet the value of diversity and international education—well, distance learning provides the platform to make the dream of a truly diverse and globalized classroom a reality.

But Browdy de Hernandez goes on to discuss the "catch" to such a scenario. When distance learning is viewed as a cost-cutting measure rather than a means to enhance learning, both students and faculty lose out. "Outsourcing" instruction at U.S. colleges and universities to underpaid faculty, sometimes in other countries, and tasking them with responsibility for increasingly higher student loads and no one-on-one or small group face time, real or virtual, depersonalizes education, exploiting both students and faculty in order to support inflated costs at the top of academe's pyramid at the expense of its foundation.

And because smaller classes, whether virtual or real, are both a better educational model and more expensive, fewer and fewer students will have access to that kind of learning environment. The adjunctification of the professoriate, along with the outsourcing of instruction, will create a caste system, further separating poorer students from more affluent ones:

[W]e will be looking at an academic landscape where there will be a few highly paid tenured research professors and a vast majority of poorly paid adjunct professors all over the world, working mostly from their home offices via distance learning networks. While there will always be a few lucky students who will be able to again access to ivied classrooms through scholarships, those classrooms will increasingly be reserved for the children of the super-elites of the world. Ordinary kids who have the motivation and discipline to go to college will do it from home, a financial decision their parents will have no choice but to support.

Distance learning is often lauded as a way to level the playing field, since it makes higher education accessible to kids who would not otherwise be able to go to college.

This may be so. But it is also going to be yet another way to divide our society into Alphas, Betas, Gammas, Deltas and Epsilons—in other words, to harden the de facto caste walls that are already making the old rags-to-riches, pull-yourself-up-by-the-bootstraps American dream a quaint memory.

Now, go sign that petition because I know you read the rest of the post and already forgot the beginning of it!

Grammar Gripes: Cut "That" Out

"That" is one of the more overused words in the English language. Consider the following:

You cannot expect that you will overcome the obstacles that impede post-academic success if you constantly revert to the same limited perspective that you developed while in academe that prevents you from seeing that the nonacademic world offers many opportunities that you only need to discover in order to take advantage of.

Gah!! If "that" monstrosity didn't give you a headache, you've definitely spent too much time in academe. Try this instead:

You cannot expect you will overcome the obstacles impeding post-academic success if you constantly revert to the same limited perspective you developed while in academe. It prevents you from seeing the many opportunities awaiting your discovery in the nonacademic world.

Still cumbersome but note how much smoother it reads when you cut "that" out. Of course, I came up with this example because I'm as guilty as anyone else of cluttering my prose with "that." Sometimes you do need the word, but once you start paying attention, you'll find plenty of "that" to delete. 

Just for kicks, let's look at another example, inspired by the only grammar book to die for:

Ezmerelda felt keenly that the vagabond libertine that she had unwittingly kissed last night had deceived her by whispering that he was a gentleman in disguise so that he could seduce her unwilling heart and ravish the objections that she could not help, ultimately, but relinquish.

Gah!!!! "That" just takes out all the romance. Try this instead:

Ezmerelda felt keenly the vagabond libertine she had unwittingly kissed last night had deceived her by whispering he was a gentleman in disguise, seducing her unwilling heart and ravishing the objections she could not help, ultimately, but relinquish.

Or, for those of you needing "real world" examples:

The Court held that the defendant was entitled to a charge that instructed jurors to find him guilty of the lesser included offense only if they found that he had not stolen the victim’s purse.

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr ... instead:

The Court held the defendant was entitled to a charge instructing jurors to find him guilty of the lesser included offense only if they found he had not stolen the victim’s purse. (Via)

Via