Ryder!

My coworker Gene was driving home at rush hour yesterday when he saw a tiny orange kitten standing, terrified, in the middle of the street. Cars were going by in both directions and the kitten was completely trapped in the street because it was walled by concrete barriers (not sure how he got there in the first place).


So picture Gene, a 6-foot-8 man, darting around in traffic, knocking on people's car windows asking, "Did you see which way the kitten went???" Finally he found him -- the kitten had made his way to the center divider and was standing up against it, shaking. Gene scooped him up and called me.

We named him Ryder because Gene found him on Ryders Lane.


I took him home and put him in my bathtub like I had done with Fiver and all his brothers and sisters. He was purring within the hour, and he is a total attention whore. I took him to the vet today and they said everything looks healthy. The vet thinks he's about 6 weeks old (I had guessed 8 weeks). Got his vaccinations and everything.


Luckily, I knew two people who wanted a kitten. One was initially a Giant Douche (you know who you are), but then as soon as he met Ryder he completely fell in love and wanted to take him home. Unfortunately for him, being a Giant Douche, even if it was just for a few minutes, precluded him from getting the kitten. So I am driving Ryder down to D.C. for Liza tomorrow.
javascript:void(0)
Save as Draft

More pictures to come soon.

Hooray!

Worst lead ever, and more

• The New York Times ran a story in its Science section with the following lead:

Senator Barack Obama likes to joke that the battle for the Democratic presidential nomination has been going on so long, babies have been born, and they’re already walking and talking.
That’s nothing. The battle between the sciences and the humanities has been going on for so long, its early participants have stopped walking and talking, because they’re already dead.

Now. I would imagine that your first question relates to whether this story deals with the presidential race. It does not. The story is, I *think*, about an education curriculum that blends quantitative and qualitative subject matter to engage artistic/creative-minded students in the hard sciences. I say "I think" because the story has no nut graf and is wholly unclear about its intention.

After those first two grafs it proceeds to discuss the history of science education for three looooong grafs before going into the first quote, from a biology professor.

*My* point is that I can't believe the New York Times is running stories like this. I recognize that I, too, am burying the lead -- but a) this is a ranty, rambly blog with no editing process and no expectations, and b) at least I have a lead, even if it is all the way down here.

I'm not sure if this rambling and unstructured story is a reflection of the newsroom cuts or just an isolated incident of bad writing combined with lazy editing (I'm not denigrating the reporting here -- although the writing isn't even good enough to determine whether the reporting is sufficient or not). But I think it's likely a predictor of the future of newspapers.

The one thing newspapers have always had over the Web is the vigilant editing process that keeps reporting (mostly) accurate and the writing well-structured and clear. As newsrooms slice down layers of editors and overwork reporters (although I'm sure this one is a freelancer), they're inevitably going to lose that edge.

If that happens (and one bad story in the NYT does not equal a sweeping trend), this industry is in even bigger trouble than it wants to admit.

• In other news, two pretty competitive colleges have eliminated the SAT/ACT requirement for admission. At Smith College and Wake Forest, incoming students will no longer have to take the the SAT or ACT beginning with the incoming 2009 class.

Gina V. made a good point -- that kids can avoid the SAT anyway by going to community college for just a year.

I'm not sure how I feel about it. On one hand, upper-middle class kids can have their parents buy good scores with test prep classes, so it can become a measure of money rather than aptitude. But on the other hand, making the test optional means the school will weigh the test less heavily (students can still submit scores, and in most cases do at test-optional schools). That means that a low-income kid with bad grades but a high level of aptitude may not be admitted under the new rules.

Always interested to hear what you people think about this stuff...

• Why I love Jack Shafer: In his column yesterday, he goes on a rant about "unspeak," euphemistic lexicon making policy arguments impossible to argue. He concludes:

Affordable housing, like other virulent forms of unspeak, disarms its critics before they have a chance to argue. Anybody against affordable housing must be for unaffordable housing, i.e., homelessness, and hence a real shit.

Where Things go to die

Update: 6/11/08, 2:15 p.m.:
Daniel has requested that I run an update regarding the place where things go to die. Effective Saturday afternoon, I now have replacement cupholders to cover the big hole. Daniel ordered them online and had them mailed to me.

The plan last night was for Shruti to come over and for us to spend an hour or two rolling up the programs for her engagement ceremony and placing them in little gold rings.

So Shruti comes over around 9:30 p.m. and shows me the folder of programs that we are going to roll up. Then she opens her bag to get the little gold rings and realizes she left the little gold rings at her office in Princeton.

OK.

Princeton is only about half an hour south of here so I figure, no problem, we'll just take a ride down there and pick up the gold rings. Great, Shruti says, we just have to stop off at my apartment and get the key to the office.

So I drive her over to her apartment and she disappears for about 10 minutes while she searches for the key. She comes back out to the car and says she can't find it anywhere, and I look through her purse while she goes back into the apartment and searches more. It's one of those gray magnetic keys that opens electronically locking doors. About 15 minutes into the search, she finds it.

And promptly drops it into the hole in the center console of my car.

While I was living in Boston I left the car parked in my mom's space in California and left Daniel with the key. During that time, the cup holders once located in the center console disappeared. (Daniel insists that someone broke into the car, stole the cup holders, locked the car back up and left without taking anything else.) So what remains is a big hole where the cup holders used to be.

This is apparently where Things go to die.

First Shruti tried to reach through the jagged hole and succeeded only in pushing the key deeper down. Then I thought I'd be more successful and succeeded only in completely losing sight of the key. I spent the next 45 minutes reaching around in there, cutting up my hands and wrists. First I used the tire gauge, then a pen, then the broken end of sunglasses, in an attempt to reach further in. Shruti went inside her apartment and got scissors and a flashlight. We drove back to my apartment and got pliers and a coat hanger.

I found pens, Really Old French Fries, a pair of sunglasses I'd been looking for, a year-long parking pass to Mount Rushmore, a slew of different scraps of paper with directions, lots of coins, lots of sticky things that I'd rather not think about, plastic things that may or may not be part of the car, two chapsticks, and more. But no key.

The driver's seat was filled with sticky, sticky Things. So after 45 minutes of this treasure hunt, I got a screwdriver and disassembled the center console and pulled it over the parking brake.

As I pulled the center console off, I heard Shruti on the phone. She was talking to her dad, who she had been visiting about 45 minutes away before she came over.

"Did I leave bags of gold rings in your car?" she asked ... "Oh, they're in your trunk?" ... "Oh... no, you don't have to drive all the way back here." ... "No, that's OK." ...

I found the key lodged in the carpet under the console. But the rings weren't at her office.

At this point it was nearly midnight and if we drove to her dad's house we wouldn't get back until nearly 2 a.m.

So I reassembled my car and we drove to the only 24-hour store in the area, a Shoprite. (Every WalMart and Target here closes at 10 p.m.) We figured we'd buy some gold curling ribbon and use that instead. They, of course, didn't have gold curling ribbon, which left us exactly where we were at the beginning of the night -- nowhere.

So that's where we are. I took Shruti home and told her I didn't want any more of her crappy-ass luck and that I'd go to Michael's today and roll up the programs myself. So if anyone's in the mood to come over and help before Sunday.......

The adventures of Nicole and her in-laws, Part II

You might remember that I posted a few months ago about Nicole's mother-in-law, who visited her and Dave in Puerto Rico and spent the entire time whining that the presence of mosquitoes was all Nicole's fault. She then proceeded to tuck dryer sheets into every crevice of her clothing and body because she'd heard somewhere that mosquitoes don't like dryer sheets.

In any case the in-laws have returned for another visit, and as soon as they arrived the mom decided that a tick had burrowed its way into her ear or something, forcing Dave to take her directly from the airport to the doctor. From a gchat with Nicole:

Nicole: btw dave's parents are here and already his mom is convinced she has to go to a clinic to get a tick removed that she JUST discovered on the plane. so she is now at a pr walk in clinic. that is not going to go well

4:04 PM oh and they got here 2 hours ago

So as you can see from the timestamp, this was around 4 p.m. yesterday. At 6:56 p.m. I got the following text:

She's carrying the tick head in a baggie in her fannypack!

I haven't heard from her since.

Gay marriage temporarily OK'd in California

California's Republican-dominated Supreme Court ruled today that limiting marriage to a man and a woman is unconstitutional. In L.A., that means the decision will take effect in 30 days, according to the L.A. Times. But then it's going to be temporary -- anti-gay-marriage groups are already circulating petitions to place a question on November's ballot that would amend the state Constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman.

Last time a gay marriage question went before the voters, in 2000, 61 percent voted to ban it.

What's interesting about the California court is that six of the seven justices were appointed by Republicans. In the decision, the majority writes that this case is different from cases in other states that have banned gay marriage. They emphasize that their decision has nothing to do on policy opinion, but simply whether "the failure to designate the official relationship of
same-sex couples as marriage violates the California Constitution."

You can find the decision here, but read on for excerpts.

It also is important to understand at the outset that our task in this proceeding is not to decide whether we believe, as a matter of policy, that the officially recognized relationship of a same-sex couple should be designated amarriage rather than a domestic partnership (or some other term), but instead only to determine whether the difference in the official names of the relationships violates the California Constitution.

Here's a pretty representative part of the decision:

Furthermore, in contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an individual’s capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual’s sexual orientation, and, more generally, that an individual’s sexual orientation — like a person’s race or gender — does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights. We therefore conclude that in view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship, the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples.

Further, the decision says, calling it a civil union instead of marriage would violate the state's equal protection clause because there's no compelling state interest in different treatment.

Finally, retaining the designation of marriage exclusively for opposite-sex couples and providing only a separate and distinct designation for same-sex couples may well have the effect of perpetuating a more general premise — now emphatically rejected by this state — that gay individuals and same-sex couples are in some respects “second-class citizens” who may, under the law, be treated differently from, and less favorably than, heterosexual individuals or opposite-sex couples.

In a Rehnquist-esque dissent, Justice Marvin Baxter accuses the majority of creating a constitutional right out of "whole cloth." (think back to every anti-abortion opinion on the Supreme Court)

I cannot join this exercise in legal jujitsu, by which the Legislature’s own weight is used against it to create a constitutional right from whole cloth, defeat the People’s will, and invalidate a statute otherwise immune from legislative interference.

Here is the amendment being proposed in the petition by protectmarriage.com, a group of California activists "who believe that marriage’s foremost purpose is the raising of healthy children in a family with a mom and a dad," according to their Web site.

Wow. I write a lot when I don't want to write what I'm supposed to write.

Update on anti-gay HR woman

The University of Toledo fired Crystal Dixon, the associate vice president of human resources who wrote a guest column in the local paper stating that homosexuality is optional. I blogged about her last week. She is considering legal action, possibly on First Amendment grounds, according to Inside Higher Ed.

From Inside Higher Ed:

An assistant to Dixon’s lawyer said that she was considering suing the university, either on First Amendment or other grounds. A statement from the university defended the dismissal saying that Dixon’s views were “in direct contradiction to university policies and procedures, as well as the institutional core values as defined in our strategic plan, and called into question her continued ability to lead a critical function within the administration as personnel actions or decisions taken in her capacity as associate vice president for human resources could be challenged or placed at risk.”

Here's the student paper's story on it.

How can I get one of these jobs?

From Eduwonkette:

What Can $7,789,623 Buy in New York City?

A) 3,894,812 subway rides
B) 15,579 pairs of Prada heels
C) 1812 hours with the Emperors VIP Club
D) 315 years of education at the Brearley School
E) 18 staff for the New York City Department of Education's Division of Assessment and Accountability

"And I'm little, and I'm different."

In Oregon, the Democratic nominee for Senate may be Steve Novick, who is 4-foot-9 and has a hook for a left hand. He also has the greatest campaign commercial ever:

He currently holds a narrow lead over state House Speaker Jeff Merkley, his closest competitor for the nomination, according to Politico, which quotes him saying:

“We think people are looking for something a little different. And I’m little, and I’m different.”

"I am a respectable lady" (and more)

First, this from the AP:
A woman paid off a $1 parking ticket from 1976 with $20 and a note:

"I always had good intentions of paying it. I put it aside and every once in a while I would come across it and said 'someday I'm going to pay it.' Now I think it's time."

The woman apparently hopes the matter is closed. There's no return address on the envelope. And the notes says, "Please don't try and track me down. I am a respectable lady."

Secondly, this from Scalia's dissent in Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party, in which the majority found that it was constitutional to allow candidates to list their party preferences with their name on the ballot, even if they don't have the party's backing. In a concurring opinion, Roberts said that calling the law unconstitutional would be like telling someone they're not allowed to say they like Campbell's soup, giving Scalia prime fodder for his dissent. The ruling was handed down in March, but I just found this part of the text (via Dahlia Lithwick's story on Scalia's new embrace of the media). Without further rambling...

If we must speak in terms of soup, Washington's law is like a law that encourages Oscar the Grouch (Sesame Street's famed badtaste resident of a garbage can) to state a "preference" for
Campbell's at every point of sale, while barring the soup company from disavowing his endorsement, or indeed using its name at all, in those same crucial locations.
Reserving the most critical communications forum for statements of "preference" by a potentially distasteful speaker alters public perceptions of the entity that is "preferred"; and when this privileged connection undermines not a company's ability to identify and promote
soup but an expressive association's ability to identify and promote its message and its standard bearer, the State treads on the constitutionally protected freedom of association.

And finally, this entertained me, mostly because I like to think about what happened after the famous boombox scene in Say Anything. So he stands there for 3½ minutes, a neighbor probably yells from an upstairs window, "TURN THAT DOWN!" But John Cusack continues to stand there, waits until the song ends, maybe calls her name once or twice more before deciding his grand gesture was ineffective, probably mumbles to himself something along the lines of, "Well that didn't work," puts the boombox back in his car, gets in the driver's seat and drives away, all sad. But they don't show that. Which makes me sad.


OK, writing now...

Prejudice vs. free speech

A vice president at the University of Toledo was placed on paid leave after this guest column appeared in the local paper, denouncing the protection of gay people under civil rights policies. She argues that homosexuality is a conscious decision, not a genetic trait, and that homosexuals therefore should not be entitled to the same protections as other minorities:

As a Black woman who happens to be an alumnus of the University of Toledo's Graduate School, an employee and business owner, I take great umbrage at the notion that those choosing the homosexual lifestyle are "civil rights victims." Here's why. I cannot wake up tomorrow and not be a Black woman. I am genetically and biologically a Black woman and very pleased to be so as my Creator intended. Daily, thousands of homosexuals make a life decision to leave the gay lifestyle evidenced by the growing population of PFOX (Parents and Friends of Ex Gays) and Exodus International just to name a few.

She goes on to say that homosexuals do not face discrimination (or at least I think that's the implication) -- a point she backs up with this:

Economic data is irrefutable: The normative statistics for a homosexual in the USA include a Bachelor's degree: For gay men, the median household income is $83,000/yr. (Gay singles $62,000; gay couples living together $130,000), almost 80% above the median U.S. household income of $46,326, per census data. For lesbians, the median household income is $80,000/yr. (Lesbian singles $52,000; Lesbian couples living together $96,000); 36% of lesbians reported household incomes in excess of $100,000/yr. Compare that to the median income of the non-college educated Black male of $30,539. The data speaks for itself.

So. This woman is obviously deeply, deeply confused and needs to read a science journal or two... or maybe get a lobotomy. But that's not the point.

The woman, Crystal Dixon, is the associate vice president of human resources at the University of Toledo, making her the school's top HR official. She wrote this guest column for the local paper as an individual (she identifies herself as a graduate of the school -- not an employee), and the tagline says nothing about her position with the university. So what are her rights under the First Amendment? If she had expressed this opinion in a more casual setting, she probably wouldn't be in danger of losing her job. (the paid leave is pending possible further action, according to Inside Higher Ed)

Gay rights groups are calling for her firing, and they have a Very Good Point -- obviously, the fact that she is an HR person makes her stances dangerous. One law professor at the university questions that point in an EdgeBoston story, saying "she cannot do her job effectively."

I guess the story is relatively new (the student paper reported it Saturday, but it just started making national news today), but I haven't seen anyone broach the free speech side of the issue. It's obviously a complex issue -- there's a lot of overlap between free speech advocates and gay rights advocates. So which right wins out here? Or is that not the point? Maybe the point is that she disclosed a bias she should have disclosed in her job interview anyway, and it'd be sort of like writing a column about lying on your resume -- firing would be imminent and free speech wouldn't be an issue.

Any thoughts?