September 27th, 2006

Boss Coffee

Tune in next week

I had my interview with the associate dean this morning, and most brief and unsatisfactory it was. He didn't ask a lot of questions; just asked me what I had to say and then read back his notes to make sure he understood me. That was it. He said he'd meet with the new program director and render a decision next week; I'm hoping that a combination of inertia and circumstance impels him to leave matters as they are and let me finish out the year, but we'll see what happens.

The doctor's appointment went somewhat better than that, though I'm not looking forward to having the podiatrist hack on my toes again. In the meantime, it's Cipro for me, and hopefully by the time I see the foot doctor the infection will have subsided.

Class last night was less annoying than the previous week, perhaps because there was less fodder for the bigots this time around. I talked with the instructor afterward about the course and its suitability for aspiring high school teachers such as myself, and we agreed to work together on emphasizing the parts of the course that I could apply to kids in grades 9-12.

Ganked from huladavid:
Collapse )
wombat

Worlds apart

I finished China Mieville's The Scar last night, and am close to finishing Anthony Trollope's Barchester Towers; it may be possible to read two books that have less in common with each other, though they both come from English writers, but I daresay it would take some work.
Collapse )
  • Current Music
    Vince Giordano & His Nighthawks -Shall We Dance?
  • Tags
hardcore

Do it yourself, indeed.

Jane Galt makes what I think is a very good point about punishment in America, although I daresay the people she's calling out probably won't get the point:
But I feel this very deeply. I do not believe the state is morally allowed to do that which individuals are not morally allowed to do; I do not believe that prison sentences should have "off label" uses; and I think that if you are willing for the state to impose a sentence in your name, you should be willing to carry it out. I am not willing to execute a prisoner, or to rape one. Therefore, I don't authorise the state to do things for me. Nor do I want those tasks delegated to some fiendish thug in order to give myself plausible moral deniability.

If you do think that rape is an appropriate punishment for securities law violations, then you should say so. You should pressure your representatives to write these penalties into law. And when volunteers are needed to carry out the sentence, you should be willing to put your name in the hat.

And how, how, my heart cries, can people who profess to be shocked and disgusted by the Bush administration's endorsement of waterboarding suspected terrorists, suddenly enamoured of rape and crippling beatings when the victims are disgraced CEO's?

It's a good question. The simple answer would be that they're God-cursed hypocrites. Speaking for myself, I would have no hesitation in throwing the switch or pulling the trigger to execute a condemned criminal, because despite the Capital Punishment Project, most of the scrotes on Death Row deserve to die, if only so they'll quit sucking off the taxpayers' tits and throwing shit at their guards. At one point in my military career, I aspired to be the executioner at the Fort Leavenworth stockade. It was an E-8 (Master Sergeant/First Sergeant) duty position and looked like the ultimate skate job, since the Army hadn't actually executed anyone since WW2, and even then a firing squad did the job. Obviously that career path didn't work out...anyhow, if you're wondering what led up to that cri de coeur, scope out these posts, which started out as her reaction to the convictions of Andrew Fastow and Jeffrey Skilling, formerly of Enron:

There's no such thing as a stupid question
Guilty?
Why do we treat white collar criminals differently?

Which brings me around to an unpleasant encounter I had this morning with a fellow at the Snelling Avenue Dunn Brothers. He was mocking some rich man who apparently earned more than the mocker thought appropriate, and his whole attempt to wrap envy in the threadbare gown of morality really got up my nose. So I proceeded to ask him, "Well, if we're going to jack up the taxes on people who earn more than $300,000 a year, why stop there? Why not raise them for the people making $60,000? Heck, let's jack everybody's taxes up! Taxation is theft, after all, so why not be thorough about it?" We then had an argument about that, and it seems he'd never bothered to think about what happens to hardcore tax resisters. The government's last argument is always the bullet, after all. Some socialists are more honest about that than others; this guy wasn't one of them.