Tuesday, March 6, 2012

The Headlines Are Crazier Than A Run Over Dog Today

Two hours ago I was in my classroom attempting to explain the finer points of how to write a research paper to three classes of sophomores who have seemingly never heard of "parenthetical citations" or "a bibliography" or even "sources" for your "research."  I was convinced the world had melted out from beneath me and all was lost.

Then I came home and read the headlines on Memeorandum.  Now I'm certain that the world has just gone run-over-dog crazy.

Consider:

"Netflix Becomes 30th Advertiser to Drop Rush Limbaugh"   Seriously?!  This just blows my mind.  All this because he called Sandra Fluke a slut?  Am I missing something?  The woman goes before Congress and opens up her sex life to public scrutiny, complains that she can't afford birth control for all the sex she is having, and Rush Limbaugh is the bad guy because he called her out on it?  And who on this planet does not realize that most of Rush Limbaugh's remarks are satirical?  Political correctness is ruining this country.  Plain and simple.  Insane.  If Sandra Fluke didn't want the heat she shouldn't have lit the match.  And shame on all those advertisers who are caving to this insanity. 

Moving on.

The next thing that caught my eye was a story about Bin Laden not really being buried at sea.  Apparently it was all fabricated and Bin Laden was spirited into the US on a CIA plane.  WTF?!  I'll just quote Althouse on this one:

So we had this respectful burial at sea, which was intended to impress/mollify/appease whomever, and now it turns out it never happened. I think messages of respect can be meaningful, even if they are lies, but they must be believed. The messenger needs a reputation for honesty. And the exposure of one lie — especially one this big — makes all your other messages suspect.

And then, there's the Huffington Post seemingly defending wife beating under the Qur'an.    You can't put too much stock in an article by a guy who doesn't even know proper grammar:

Critics incorrectly allege that Islam command's husband's to beat their wives, often citing the Quran verse 4:34. [sic]

And finally, apparently the pill is actually an economic "stimulus"!  Ha!  Who knew?

Don't tell that to Sandra Fluke. 

24 comments:

MikeAT said...

I've been looking for a reason to drop Netflix and I think Beth will finally not give me grief.

Jim said...

Run-over-dog crazy. I love it.

Pat Austin said...

That's a "Benton-ism," Jim; my good friend from Benton coined that one.

joseph said...

Perhaps if your student's teacher knew how to do research it might motivate them.
It wasn't that Limbaugh called Ms. Fluke a slut. For three days he mercilessly attacked her as a slut, a prostitute, a woman who had constant sex, and demanded that she post videotape (apparently his viagra quit working).
She did not discuss her sex life, nor did she say that she needed birth control pills for herself. She talked about a friend who needed the pills for other health issues. And intimidation of a student who is getting involved in the process, as we want our students to do, is not satire.
As for the Bin Laden story, it is nonsense. The Drudge headline is based on the idle speculation of a vice president of Stratfor, a gossipy, not too reliable company

Joe5348

Kathy Kattenburg said...

"The woman goes before Congress and opens up her sex life to public scrutiny, complains that she can't afford birth control for all the sex she is having,..."

You are complaining about your students' research abilities? That's pretty nervy.

Sandra Fluke did not "open up her sex life to public scrutiny" or "complain that she can't afford birth control for all the sex she is having...." Sandra Fluke did not say one single word about her sex life. She did not mention her sex life at all. Not one word, in her entire testimony, which was only 11 minutes in length and which you obviously (along with all the other right-wing sources you have parroted) have neither read nor listened to.

You are a TEACHER? You teach students how to research papers? You are pathetic. Really, try watching the video of Fluke's testimony or reading the transcript before claiming to know what she said.

William Teach said...

Yes, Kathy, she did open herself to public scrutiny when she decided to testify. That's what happens when one decides to say that she and others can't afford to pay $1,000 a year for birth control, which is at least double the cost of even the most expensive birth control available. While they are going a really expensive law school. And that they should essentially get it for free, with no copays.

But, hey, I enjoyed you complaining about Fluke being insulted then going on to insult Pat. That shows the maturity level and hypocrisy of Liberals.

joseph said...

William Teach,

You obviously agree with the substance of Kathy's comment, but chose to change the subject to the cost of birth control. The Ortho Evra Patch can cost up to $80 a month, combined with the necessary medical exam the cost can exceed $1000 a year. And I didn't see anywhere in Kathy's post a comment about Pat's personal life. She just noted, quite correctly, that it is odd for a teacher to criticize her students while committing worse sins.

Joe5348

Pat Austin said...

@Kathy:

"You are a TEACHER? You teach students how to research papers? You are pathetic. "

Well, bless your heart! You've misunderstood something along the way, I think. I'm not teaching students "how to research papers" but how to WRITE a research paper.

There's a difference.

As to the rest of your comments and joseph's, well, I'm not going to wade into the weeds. Go back and read Fluke's transcript and I'm sure you'll see what you've missed.

William Teach said...

No, I didn't agree with Kathy's comment

And, let's see, she called Pat "pathetic," among others.

Rich said...

I'm just a dumb old country boy trying to make his way through life and what I read was old Ms Fluke say, “Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school. For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest scholarships, that’s practically an entire summer’s salary. 40% of the female students at Georgetown Law reported to us that they struggle financially as a result of this policy."
Now I don't read much other than Field and Stream, Guns and Ammo, NASCAR Illustrated, and my John Deere's operator's manual, but the "like me" part kinda puts her in the middle of controversy.
Now, to show you that I did a little research I'm gonna cite where I got this quote, from Ms Fluke's on lips.

Kathy Kattenburg said...

Pat, I watched the entire video and read the entire transcript and Sandra Fluke said nothing even remotely touching on her sex life. You haven't read the transcript. You haven't looked at it or seen it. I have no idea what you think you're proving by telling me to look at it and I'll see what you mean because what you said is there isn't there. Which just makes you look like a fool for insisting I'll find something in a document that you know I won't, because I have read it and you haven't, and it isn't there.

I guess writing teachers in Shreveport don't have to know how to write truthfully or accurately.

Kathy Kattenburg said...

"I'm not teaching students "how to research papers" but how to WRITE a research paper."

This deserves a separate comment. What is the substantive difference between teaching students how to research a paper and teaching students how to write a research paper? How do you learn to write a research paper without learning how to do the research part?

Are you really a teacher? Or are you 12 years old and pretending?

Also, to Joseph: THANK YOU!

joseph said...

It is unfortunate that, when faced with facts, some people simply double down on inaccuracies. But there is research to support the phenomenon
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~nyhan/nyhan-reifler.pdf

Joe5348

Jayhawk said...

"can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school"

Law school is typically three years, so we're talking $1000 per year, or $83 per month. Compared to the overall cost of law school...

Rich said...

Kathy, like I said before I'm just a country boy. I have no formal education, but I can read and reason. On March 6, at 10:02 you asked, "You are a TEACHER? You teach students how to research papers?"
Then on March 7, at 8:26, you ask, "What is the substantive difference between teaching students how to research a paper and teaching students how to write a research paper?"
Let me take a stab at an swering this in southern Arkansas country boy terms. We may talk like we're lacking education, be we really "ain't.
The operative words here are "research" and "write. When I want to fix something on my "Big Green Farmin' Machine," I break out my trusty old John Deere operator's manual and "research" what I need to know. Now I researched the manual, which is like a "paper," but I had no part in "writing" it.
I hope that clears up that nagging question for ya.

joseph said...

Rich,

Modesty is admirable, pride in ignorance, not so much. The point you are trying to make, I think, is that there is a difference between form and substance. The form for the manual is the table of contents, the index, the chapter headings and so forth. The parts of the manual telling the operator what to do is the substance. I have taken research courses, but I have never taken a course only in the form or substance of research. I suppose it is theoretically possible, but again, I have never seen it.

Joe5348

Rich said...

Joe,

My point is Kathy made an ignorant statement and I called her on it.
Once again, Kathy was trying to split hairs on the differences on "researching" a paper as opposed to "writing" a research paper. "Researching a paper" is reading what someone else has written. "Writing a research paper" is doing the research and writing on that research.
Kathy, in what I perceived, was in typical liberal form belittling Pat when she herself was lacking in substance and form in her comment.
Yes, I am proud of my country roots, and I am honest when saying that I do lack formal education. But I do know the difference between "reading" someone else's work and "writing" your own work. and I also know better than to belittle someone when I don't know what the Hell I'm talking about.

Kathy Kattenburg said...

""Researching a paper" is reading what someone else has written. "Writing a research paper" is doing the research and writing on that research."

Yes, so again: How does one teach students to write a research paper without teaching them *how to do the research* and *how to incorporate the research into the paper* IN ADDITION TO teaching them how to write the paper? Learning how to write a research paper IS learning how to do the research, and then learning how to write up the research in the form of a paper. So Pat's telling me that she teaches writing not research is ridiculous.

Rich said...

Kathy,

I'm so glad you finally figured it out. As I STATED BEFORE I WAS USING YOUR OWN WORDS! Bless your heart!

joseph said...

Rich,

"Writing a research paper" is doing the research and writing on that research.

Exactly, and what Kathy and I have been repeatedly saying is that someone who teaches "writing a research paper" should herself be doing actual research before writing the paper. Writing a paper based on shoddy research is not something teachers or students should be doing. It is important to recognize the difference between primary and secondary sources. Primary sources are generally better. Fluke's testimony is a primary source. Pat didn't look at the testimony and continues to refuse to acknowledge her error. By the way, she also has not acknowledged her error in stating that Bin Laden was not buried at sea as the government said he was. In any event, a teacher who is incapable of admitting a mistake should probably be in a different field. If the teacher can admit error, how can she expect the student to admit mistakes?

Joe5348

Pat Austin said...

Good grief. Joe and Kathy, you both are so far out in the weeds I can't even begin to reason with you.

On the research issue, I was NOT criticizing my students nor did I expect them to have all these skills when they reached my class. My comment in my post was simply that they did not know the terminology to do this project and that I was teaching it to them. If my stab at hyperbole confused you, well, I'm sorry for that.

On Bin Laden, again, just commentary on the crazy headlines. I did not write a post perpetuating the rumor; I just commented that there was a story and that it was crazy.

It's not necessary to insult me or my professional skills and in view of the fact that you are not qualified or equipped to do so is just absurd.

Do not manufacture a crisis when there is none. The over-reaction is ridiculous.

joseph said...

Pat,

Kathy and I have been criticizing your lack of research and inability to admit you were wrong.
"All this because he called Sandra Fluke a slut? Am I missing something? The woman goes before Congress and opens up her sex life to public scrutiny, complains that she can't afford birth control for all the sex she is having, and Rush Limbaugh is the bad guy because he called her out on it?"

This is not a comment on the headline, but on the facts underlying the headline. And you are wrong on the facts.

"Apparently it was all fabricated and Bin Laden was spirited into the US on a CIA plane. "

Again not a comment on the headline, but on the facts behind the headline and again you were wrong. What is truly frustrating is that the right wing echo chamber is simply incapable of saying, "I was wrong." How about you?

Joe5348

Rich said...

Joe,

Since you're all hyper about Pat admitting all the wrongs from the past that those on the right have made, let me ask you some questions. Are you willing to admit that Bill Maher was wrong in calling Sarah Palin a "cunt?" Are you willing to admit that it was wrong to play "Lying Ass Bitch" when Michelle Bachmann was introduced on the Jimmy Fallon Show? How about David Letterman calling Sarah Palin a "slutty flight attendant?"
Or is it only indignation when those on the left are called names.
I'm not defending Rush Limbaugh for his actions. Wrong is wrong no matter who commits it.
What I'm tired of is those on the left are quick to besmirch people on the right and think nothing of it.
As far as being modest and ignorantly proud, I rather be that than a pompous ass.

joseph said...

Rich,

When one changes the topic, it is clear that he has lost the previous argument. So, before answering your question, let us review. You clearly agree that Ms. Fluke did not talk about her sex life and said nothing to justify the horrendous attacks on her. Good for you.
Now, on to your question. I think every group has a right to determine which words it finds to be a pejorative. The use of those words is therefore worse than simply vulgar. That is not political correctness, it is being polite. Polite is the way real adults should conduct themselves. Native Americans, as a group as distinguished from activists and leaders, apparently do not consider Indian type nicknames to be offensive, so their use is not impolite. On the other hand, I have not met a woman who considers the C word to be anything other than a pejorative. It is viewed as dehumanizing and reducing a woman to simply her genitals. Therefore the word should never be used. Bill Maher, who used the word in a comedic stage show about a woman who has a larger megaphone than he has, should not use that word. Same goes for the word slut. It is not funny, does nothing to advance the argument and is simply inappropriate. If Letterman used that word, he was wrong. I am unaware of the song used by Fallon, have never watched his show and therefore cannot make any comment. There are those who seem to believe that an uninformed opinion is better than no opinion at all. I am not one of those.

Joe5348