We painted our office orange and maroon

I found an interesting story concerning my alma mater, but first, some background about its collaboration with King Abdulaziz University:

Ongoing discussions linking the two universities in the areas of distance and distributed learning (eLearning) and engineering were established by Sedki Riad, professor of electrical engineering and director of International Programs in Virginia Tech’s College of Engineering, and Tom Wilkinson, director of Virginia Tech’s Institute for Distance and Distributed Learning (IDDL).

As a first step, 60 KAU faculty members will arrive in Blacksburg this summer for a series of professional development activities that will be developed and delivered by Virginia Tech’s English Department, Communications Department, Faculty Development Institute, the Institute for Distance and Distributed Learning, and the English Language Institute. KAU faculty will participate in two of four planned development programs: 1) English instruction, 2) communications instruction, 3) basic and intermediate computer and web skill development, and 4) designing, developing and delivering eLearning courses. Family members accompanying KAU faculty also will have an opportunity to participate in activities at the English Language Institute.

I hadn’t heard anything about this when it happened in March, but I wasn’t involved in any of those programs while in school, so I’m not shocked that this missed my radar. It does sound interesting, though. Any program that expands Virginia Tech’s influence further is probably a good endeavor. Sharing with a culture we don’t normally think of when discussing higher education should be a bonus.

I say “probably” and “should be” because, today, I came across this article. The summer classes mentioned in the original article are taking place in Blacksburg, which I would suspect would follow our ideas of educational instruction, more or less. That’s not occurring. Consider:

The courses include topics such as Web site development and online instruction, but in keeping with the preferences of the Saudi university, the university created separate classes for the approximately 30 male and 30 female faculty members.

Why would Virginia Tech segregate the male and female faculty? We don’t segregate classes like that in the United States, at least not public universities, which Virginia Tech is. I’m disappointed that Virginia Tech would do this. I’ve always believed that Virginia Tech is a wonderful institution. In six years spent in Blacksburg, I never witnessed any form of discrimination. I hope that the details aren’t as frustrating as they seem.

Of course there is backlash coming from some of the Virginia Tech faculty because of these classes.

Eloise Coupey, an associate professor of marketing at the Virginia Tech, filed a complaint with the school Tuesday alleging the single-sex classes created a hostile environment for women.

“The presence of these segregated classes on campus indicates to me that the university doesn’t place a strong enough value on women’s rights,” Coupey said Wednesday. “This makes me feel that the university holds me in less regard than my male counterparts.”

Wait, what? Why is that environment hostile only to women? What about the men? Viewed from the context of the Saudis, yes, it’s specifically aimed at women. But viewed from the context of us, I’d consider it discriminatory to both the men and women involved. Unless Prof. Coupey is implying that men can learn from women in an educational environment but that the reverse isn’t true. I wonder, but I would still expect her to defend against all discrimination, regardless of gender.

In response to complaints, Virginia Tech “has made the course segregation optional,” which is amusing because of this additional information, clarifying what was implied earlier:

While the program was designed by Tech staff, administrators with King Abdulaziz University separated the classes by gender.

Tech subsequently offered to make the classes co-ed, however the Saudi faculty said they preferred the current set-up because most of their classrooms at home are single-sex. Separate classes also allows them to tailor the content to their needs, several Saudi faculty have said.

Saudi faculty have repeatedly stressed that they had chosen to separate by gender. Many of the professors earned their advanced degrees at American and European institutions and are therefore comfortable in co-ed settings, faculty said.

There is this additional detail:

King Abdulaziz University paid Virginia Tech $246,000 to design and operate the faculty development program this summer.

Fascinating. I’m still disappointed (only a tiny bit), but I’m not offended. Should I be? Perhaps I’m reading too much into the $246,000 payment, but it seems to me that King Abdulaziz University paid for a product which Virginia Tech agreed to create. Within reason, of course, King Abdulaziz University gets to set the requirements for the course. And if the students self-select a segregation plan? I’m under-whelmed by the need for outrage, but that’s because I think the facts suggest a simple solution. This isn’t the standard to which Virginia Tech should hold itself, so it should not have set the classes up this way. But it did. I see no harm in finishing this program with the optional, self-segregating plan. Next time, think wiser and clearer before setting up a program like this. If a university such as King Abdulaziz University refuses, don’t do the deal. Two-hundred-forty-six thousand dollars isn’t that much money. Live happily ever after. Simple.

And yet, it’s never that simple, is it? In a scene straight out of PCU, the outgoing director of Tech’s Women’s Studies Program offered a gem quote detailing how every event can be used for petty political point-scoring. Enjoy.

“I would say this demonstrates the insensitivity of the university administration to the experience of the women on campus,” [Bernice] Hausman said.

It’s visiting Saudi women, are you paying attention? Not every slight to a small group is a global “screw you” from the world to the women on campus. I have little doubt that $246,000 will now have to be re-directed to sensitivity training classes on the Virginia Tech campus for all administrators involved. I’ll take Ms. Hausman in the office pool as to who will teach the classes as an independent consultant/qualified expert?

He’s not a person, he’s a suit! You’re mailroom. No consorting.

I’ve written a little in the past on the liberal media and possible alternate explanations for the mass conspiracy that many conservatives want to see there. In the beginning I posited the idea that “bad news sells” is a better explanation. I’ve since refined it to include liberal bias, but only in the context of specific media outlets. Smear The New York Times with a liberal bias claim and I can accept that. But I’d same the reverse about Fox News. The back-and-forth could go on a long time. Information, with whatever desired slant, is available in a multitude of forms. The old, entrenched media is liberal? Fine, read, watch, or listen to something else. Changing technology has a way of flattening the market of competitive dinosaurs. It’s Capitalism 101. Accept it.

Because of that, whenever I hear or read “liberal MSM”, I suspect that the speaker/writer merely wants to spew an ideological point to score points. It’s little more than stereotyping to diminish. My idea of reporting, writing, and thinking is that facts win. If there’s a bias, I rely on my intellect to decipher truth. I don’t need a political party to filter my perception. Not to mention that the ideal world would have no bias, not a non-liberal-so-it-has-to-be-conservative bias. So I stand by my theory.

Luckily for me, the news media provided an example earlier this week. (I’m not happy that the actual events happened to prove my point. I wish it hadn’t happened and all that hippy blah, blah, blah.) So, consider this headline:

Marc Cohn shot in head during car jacking

I was horrified. I like Marc Cohn, so I clicked the link. This is what followed:

A Grammy-winning musician and husband of ABC news reporter Elizabeth Vargas was treated at a hospital and released Monday after being shot in the head during an attempted carjacking following a performance.

Right, so the headline gave no indication of that. Now, a few days later, the sub-headline does, but search the headlines and, even now, half still lead with only “Marc Cohn shot in head”. Is that liberal bias? Or is it “bad news sells” bias? I clicked. And that’s what the news media, whether MSM or not, want me to do. Again, it’s Capitalism 101. If people weren’t buying, the MSM wouldn’t be selling. More to the point, aren’t those people who link to and write about liberal bias in the MSM clicking and reading and discussing?

Solution? Keep questioning the “liberal” media. Technology makes that possible. But also question the people who bitch about the “liberal” media. Your brain makes that possible.

People can be so base

This story is “interesting”. Consider:

The science and business of sex identification took yet another quantum leap forward recently with the Pregnancystore.com’s release of the Baby Gender Mentor Home DNA Gender Testing Kit. Now, a pregnant woman can know her child’s sex shortly after she discovers her pregnancy. As soon as five weeks after conception, she can prick her finger, FedEx a blood sample to Acu-Gen Biolab in Lowell, and have the sex of her sprouting embryo e-mailed to her faster than Netflix can send her next movie.

Seems like a nice, harmless little bonus for horribly impatient people, right? That’s what I thought, until I read further, discovering one potential issue I hadn’t, and hopefully never would have, thought of. Consider:

Ultrasound and amniocentesis cannot accurately determine a fetus’s sex until at least four months into pregnancy and sometimes not until month five — a point at which virtually all expecting mothers have already chosen to continue their pregnancies to term. Since the state has no legal interest in a fetus before its viability (usually at 24 weeks), there has been a legal and technological gulf separating a woman’s choice to continue her pregnancy and any knowledge of its sex.

This is no longer the case. With the Gender Mentor Kit, a new issue enters many prospective parents’ minds: Do we want to have a child of this sex? Or should we try again?

Just what the hell is wrong with people? I understand that some cultures value male children more than female children, but, and this is an important point, we’re not supposed to be one of them. Any couples who want to choose the sex of their children should keep their zippers up and adopt.

Ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhh… This topic is too disgusting; I have nothing more to say.

(Source)

She can’t be Sirius

Normally, I don’t bother with celebrity gossip because I don’t care. However, one quote from this story is worth highlighting. Martha Stewart is in trouble for some violation of her home confinement. As punishment, she faces an extra three weeks of being restricted to her home mansion. As inconvenient as that must be, she’s an ubelievably understanding woman. Consider:

“Martha Stewart has agreed to an extension of the terms of her home confinement until Aug. 31.,” her lawyer, Walter Dellinger, said in a statement released Wednesday.

It’s so nice to see that she agreed to the extension. I can’t imagine how much of a bind the government would’ve been in had she declined the offer.

Why do people like her?

The entry where I send my four readers elsewhere

Anyone who reads this site can decipher that I enjoy the writing process. I have a few favorite topics that appear repeatedly, but I’ll write about whatever interests me at the moment. Unfortunately, today I don’t have enough time to focus on news commentary. Instead, allow me to point you to two interesting pieces from around the Internets that fascinate me.

First, from Kip at A Stitch in Haste discusses the idiocy of Congressional Democrats and their new proposal called AmeriSave. This is the basic summary of the program:

AmeriSave Match: Help middle and working-class families achieve retirement security by matching dollar-for-dollar the first $1,000 contributed to an IRA, 401(k), or similar plan. The AmeriSave Match will not involve creating a new type of account; instead, it builds on a successful model of 401(k)s and IRAs by increasing incentives to participate. Individuals would receive their AmeriSave Match after they filed a tax return, at which time the funds would be directed to their 401(k) or other plan.

Kip responds accordingly.

This new matching scheme is apparently meant to deflect from (i.e., continue the absolute obstruction of) private accounts within Social Security.

It is also a total fraud. The matching plan will have little or no impact on national savings. It also, by definition, does nothing to address the Social Security crisis (understandable since Democrats lie by insisting that there is no crisis anyway).

He gives a detailed, point-by-point explanation for why AmeriSave is an idiotic, pandering non-solution. Remember, when the government offers us anything, we’re paying for what’s offered. It’s shameful when politicians treat us as if we’re too stupid to understand this. Unfortunately, I fear they may be right with many, though. (Yes, I’m speaking of the further left liberals, the ones who imagine that socialism is a good idea not yet given a fair chance to succeed.) Either way, read Kip’s post. It’s good and worth the short time investment. (As is the rest of his blog.)

Next, I didn’t write about the scandalous sex included in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. This type of issue is important to me, as I care most for the First Amendment and the surrounding free speech/intellectual property implications in today’s society. Unfortunately, politicians saw this non-scandal as a chance to jump up and pretend to lead. (Yes, I’m speaking of you, Senator Clinton.) I’ve read a few news reports, but I already understand the issues. If I’d had the time, I would’ve written about the stupidity surrounding the whole mess. Instead, read Timothy’s take on the topic at The One-Handed Economist. He wrote what I wish I’d written. As a bonus, I laughed out loud. Consider:

I have little to no patience for this kind of crap. Look, if you’re too goddamned stupid to not buy your child a game clearly based on violence, you don’t really have the luxury of demanding that the game company did something “irresponsible”. Hidden content is the bread and butter of gaming, that stuff has been around since the advent of computer games. Those of us familiar with the subject matter call them Easter Eggs.

Furthermore, the goddamn game is called GRAND THEFT AUTO: SAN ANDREAS, what did you think it was going to be about? Quiet strolls in the park collecting flowers? How can you not know this stuff, parents? If you refuse to “protect” whatever perceived innocence your precious little children have, then it certainly isn’t my job to do it for you. It also certainly isn’t the governments, and you certainly don’t have the right to ruin fun for everyone else.

Read the whole thing. It’s not just funny, it smacks everyone deserving of a good smack.

As a side point, for what it’s worth, I followed a link to The One-Handed Economist when Timothy defended me in a comment spat at Jeff Jarvis’ BuzzMachine. I use my intellect when I comment on other sites, but not everyone can be expected to follow the same on the Internets. When some kind folks attacked me for not being an ideologue with only sycophantic, partisan intentions, Timothy backed me up. I’ve never met corresponded with him, but I checked out his site and liked it a lot. I recommend it.

Using a machete to slice a cupcake

I found this interesting headline on Drudge today. Behold:

Wow. That seems scary. I live in the D.C. area and ride the Metro, so I need to know more. I clicked the link, only to discover a most interesting opening line. Consider:

Subway riders may face random police checks of their bags under a security measure being considered in the nation’s capital, the latest city to look for ways to deter terrorism on rail systems.

Mr. Drudge may consider himself a reporter, but I prefer my journalism to be unbiased factual, thanks. My world will continue, though, because I already knew that he’s a hack.

“It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry.”

The title quote, which I like, is from Thomas Paine. Yet, today seems like the day to mention two recent quotes, as well. Both were given in response to Justice O’Connor’s announced intention to retire. Consider:

“This is another opportunity for President Bush to appoint a conservative jurist to the federal judiciary who will interpret and apply the Constitution properly instead of legislating from the bench and relying on international opinion and public polls.” – Republican South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster.

“As a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, I’ll be looking forward to hearing from a nominee who understands that the role of the courts is to interpret the law, not create the law.” – Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa

Remember, to put those in context, it’s never been about “activist judges”. It’s been about judges who won’t allow the (Republican) president or the (Republican) Congress to govern unchecked. Perhaps Sen. Grassley should introduce a bill to prevent Judge Roberts from becoming activist in the likely event that “Judge” is replaced by “Justice”.

(Link originally found at Wonkette)

I watched The Amazing Race at 9pm tonight.

Concerning Judge Roberts’ nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court, I don’t know how reliable this report is, so I’ll have to withhold judgment until I read more. However, if true, I’m not optimistic about the coming years. Consider:

I’m told that the President waited to make this decision and that it was a deliberate decision. The President, I’m told, wanted someone he knew, someone who would be seen as conservative, and someone who would “tread carefully” on Executive Powers. Roberts was the only one in the end who fit the bill.

The last thing we need right now is someone who will tread carefully on Executive Powers. If there has ever been a President who needs to be restrained by the Constitution’s checks-and-balances, it’s President Bush. Unfortunately, there’s no paper trail to inform this theory, so wait-and-see is the best we’re likely to get.

Consider me underwhelmed.

Any idea why I live outside the Beltway?

I’ve only given a cursory interest in the ongoing “scandal” about whether or not Karl Rove leaked Valerie Plame’s identity. Honestly, I’d love to see Karl Rove booted from any sort of influence, but please, do I need to spell it out for the stupid? Consider:

“I would like this to end as quickly as possible so we know the facts, and if someone committed a crime they will no longer work in my administration,” Bush said at a news conference with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

Asked on June 10, 2004, whether he stood by his earlier pledge to fire anyone found to have leaked the officer’s name, Bush replied: “Yes.” On Monday, he added the qualifier that it would have to be demonstrated that a crime was committed.

Karl Rove isn’t going anywhere. He never was, even when this scandal had the potential legs of “criminal activity” by Rove. Rove is sleazy in his methods, but that’s nothing new. But he most likely can slither his way out of any criminal actions, assuming he even committed a crime. But short of a prosecutor filing charges against him, Democrats need to refrain from this:

“President Bush backed away from his initial pledge and lowered the ethics bar,” Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean said. “Bush should be prepared to keep his word, and to enforce a high standard of ethics in the White House as he promised from the beginning of his administration.”

Yes, President Bush lowered the bar for ousting the (potential) leaker from his administration. Boo, hiss. And big whoop. If Rove is fired, do we think he loses his influence in the Bush Administration? As long as there is a secure phone line in the White House, Rove is free to practice his dark arts at will. So he doesn’t push the buttons to make the politics of diversion happen. He’ll still pull the strings. Personally, I’d prefer Rove in the White House where we can theoretically watch him because Rove behind the scenes scares me much more.

But this is Washington. A potential scandal is more than enough justification for going on the offensive. Better to smear someone because you hate them than because they’ve done something illegal. Victory at any cost, right? So what happens when the White House manages to spin this away? Every talking head on the Right gets to pin this as partisan politics on the Left. Sure, any sane person can decipher the spin to know it’s happening. But will the ideologues care? Remember, these are the people spewing “Liberal MSM” and “activist judges” at every opportunity. This whole scandal reeks of the old adage that “the facts, although interesting, are irrelevant.”

I’d rather win when the battle matters.

Who wants to be King Dumbass?

Jann Wenner aimed for the title last week. Consider this post from the useless Huffington Post:

Amid all the optimism surrounding Blair, Bono & Geldolf doing Live 8 and G 8, and the award of that most wonderful and pacific of international institutions and global brotherhood — the Olympics — what a grim thing to have happened.

I have no problems with that, except for the “most wonderful” part. Oh, and the global brotherhood crap. Remember, this is the same institution that just voted, by secret ballot, to remove baseball and softball from the Olympic games. So the whole concept is irrelevant. But I’ll pretend that it’s all true. Yet, Mr. Wenner’s rant is at The Huffington Post, so I’m not certain how long I can make pretend; nonsense is certain to follow.

So what brilliant thoughts come next?

Violence rarely gets us anywhere; the PLO, the IRA, the SLA, among others have achieved so little with their terrorism.

Wait, I agree with that. Is there some form of common sense taking over? I’m ready to accept that logic can come from the strangest places. So I read the conclusion.

If the London bombings are the work of an Al Qaeda offshoot, then you have to fairly say, in the same way we condemn other’s terror, this is in part the result of Bush’s War on Iraq.

This is in part the result of Bush’s War on Iraq? Wait… what? Terrorism is bad and we condemn other’s terror, so President Bush is to blame for this? As opposed to condemning the actual terrorists who planted four bombs on London transport? Oh, yeah, that makes sense.

Mr. Wenner should drop out of Irrational Liberal Guilt 101 and enroll in the local community college version of Logic 101.

(Hat tip: Andrew Sullivan, because I stopped paying attention to The Huffington Post about four minutes after it debuted.)