Walked Into That One

Posted January 15, 2013 By Dave Thomer

There are some days that I really ought to know better.

If you follow the news in Philadelphia, you know that over the last 36 hours the top story has basically been nightmare fodder for any teacher and parent. So while I was making my rounds today checking work, a couple of students diverted themselves from their assignment by talking to each other about the latest on the story.

Now, this may be a sign I have some things to work on in classroom management, but I usually don’t mind a little off topic chatter if there’s also some productive work going on. I mean, as adults, we shoot the breeze while we’re trying to be productive all the time, then we get down to business. But today I just really needed to not hear the story relived and rehashed. So I asked the folks to please not talk about that topic because I would prefer not to hear about it.

Bless their hearts, my students looked out for me. But as a result the following dialogue ensued:

STUDENT IN ROW 2: Begins to talk about story.

STUDENT IN ROW 1: Hey, remember, Dr. Dave doesn’t want us to talk about that story!

STUDENT IN ROW 3: Don’t talk about which story? This story?

STUDENT IN ROW 2: Dr. Dave doesn’t want us to talk about it!

STUDENT IN ROW 4: What story are we talking about?

We got back on track and had a good class. But I gotta remember not to set off any future Abbott and Costello routines when I’m in a touchy mood.

        

Might Be Time to Shoot the Hostage

Posted January 14, 2013 By Dave Thomer

In 2011 I wrote Thinking Through the Hostage Metaphor, where I suggested that in the hostage-taker analogy, the American public was like a sniper that could defeat the hostage-taker in the 2012 election. Well, for the most part, the American public took its shot, voting for Democratic candidates by a considerable majority. But thanks to the filibuster in the Senate (which I still hope will be reformed) and the combination of gerrymandering and heavily-Democratic urban districts giving Republicans a majority in the House, the Republican Party can still take some hostages to force the Democrats to do what they want. I’m starting to think we may be at the point where it’s time to shoot the hostage in the leg to get him out of the way of the hostage-taker. (Yeah, I saw Speed. Sue me.) It may be necessary to allow for some short term pain like a government shutdown in order to motivate some of the Republicans’ allies to come get the allegorical gun out of their hands. This is not gong to be a good ting if it happens, and I will not yell from the rafters if Democrats figure out some way to negotiate a decent tradeoff. But I’m having a harder and harder time seeing how we get to that point without some rough sledding first.

        

How Much of Your Life Is It Worth?

Posted January 13, 2013 By Dave Thomer

My continued and growing uneasiness with football continued this week with the confirmation that Junior Seau had CTE – the brain disorder that numerous football players have been diagnosed with from repeated head injury – and a story in the Miami newspapers about the injuries that Jason Taylor endured during his football career. The latter article ended with Taylor saying words to the effect of, “Knowing what I know now, I would do it all again.”

As Pattie and I were talking about it, she mentioned hearing someone say that if you offered a baseball pitcher a pill that would ensure he won 20 games a year for a decade but take 5 years off his life, he’d swallow the pill before you finished the sentence.

I guess it’s not really too surprising, though. We all make choices that are likely to reduce the sheer amount of time that we live in exchange for enjoying the time that we are alive more. I joked to Pattie, “Yeah, well if you put a cheesesteak in front of me and doctors tell me it’ll take a day off of my life, I’ll probably eat it and all I get out of that is enjoying the cheesesteak.”

Maybe we don’t think about it, but that’s the tradeoff we’re making. I’d like to live forever (with my family and friends) AND get to eat cheesesteaks, but apparently that wasn’t in the blueprints.

        

Making the World, One Coin at a Time

Posted January 12, 2013 By Dave Thomer

The thing that I most enjoyed about the talk of the trillion-dollar platinum coin is that it brought to the forefront the idea that money isn’t a real thing. It’s something we make up, and it works because we all agree that it works. It doesn’t have to follow the laws of physics or anything else – as long as we collectively will it to be so, it is. (I do think this is a drawback of the coin idea – even though according to the rules, it probably would have technically worked, I think it would have been too hard for too many people to maintain their suspension of disbelief, and then the whole structure comes tumbling down.) It’s nice to have a reminder that we are active constructors of our world, and maybe to think about what we should do with that responsibility.

        

One Bad Pun and One Baking Tip

Posted January 11, 2013 By Dave Thomer

So off and on over the last couple of years I’ve been trying to nail down the art of baking sticky buns. I had recipes from America’s Test Kitchen and the Joy of Cooking that were almost but not quite what I was aiming for. So I took the Joy of Cooking recipe and tweaked it by adding a small amount of cinnamon to the dough and a small amount of vanilla extract to the glaze. That was an improvement, but they were still a little dense in texture. So on the last batch, I used cake flour instead of all purpose flour. I really do think it made a big difference – the buns felt a lot lighter to chew. (Don’t get me wrong, they’re still absurdly dense and sticky. They have a name to live up to.)

So in order to get the cinnamon and brown sugar filling onto the dough, I use a sifter to avoid clumps that will crystallize during the baking and hurt the texture. While I was making the buns the other night, I had to look for the sifter, and as I was talking to myself, I couldn’t help remembering that I have another sifter the exact same shape and size. So my talking to myself to find the object became a wonderful Return of the Jedi pun, as in my worst James Earl Jones voice I intoed:

SIFTer . . . So, you have a twin SIFTer . . .

Fortunately, Pattie did not leap up, yell “NOOO!” and proceed to chop off my hand. Yet another reason I’m a lucky guy.

        

It’s Liberty Valance All Over Again

Posted January 10, 2013 By Dave Thomer

To me, one of the biggest themes of the 2012 election was the conflict between narrative and data. Pundits, campaign officials, and traditional press focused on telling a story throughout the year, with important decisions and turning points, changes in momentum, and an uncertain conclusion. Political scientists and a lot of data-driven analysts tried to counter this portrayal by highlighting data that pointed to a fairly stable and consistent electorate. Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight got a lot of attention for this, and I was one of many people who picked up and eagerly read his book The Signal and the Noise. (I really need to write a review of the book, because it’s probably one of the most important works about philosophical pragmatism that never mentions philosophical pragmatism.) I’ve also been enjoying the blog The Monkey Cage, where a group of political scientists share their opinions with a general audience. (I really need to write a post about the blogosphere being the new home of the public intellectual, because it’s probably the best place for citizens to build the civic literacy required for a flourishing democracy.) The data folks generally did well with their predictions, and the political scientists have even called some of the spin/postgame analysis from the Obama campaign into question.

But that has not stopped the political press from looking for a good story. On Nov. 8, Politico started previewing the 2016 presidential election, suggesting that

a more familiar political order is poised to reassert itself: the House of Clinton representing Democrats and the House of Bush atop the GOP.

Besides the lunacy of previewing an election four years before it happens, this is just a ridiculous statement. It’s trying to suggest that these two rival families have been fighting for decades, only taking a break in 2008. But a Bush has faced a Clinton in a presidential election exactly once, in 1992. It’s not exactly the Hatfields and the McCoys.

The article tries to make it look like it’s using data, but it doesn’t stop to let the data get in the way of the narrative it’s building:

The 2012 contest was notable for being the first presidential campaign since 1976 that didn’t feature a member of one of America’s most famous political families.

OK, so in order to make this work we have to count Hillary’s run in the 2008 primary and George H.W. Bush’s runs as the vice presidential candidate in 1980 and 1984. It’s a bit of a stretch, but we can work with it. That certainly sounds like these two families have been a constant presence in American politics for three straight decades.

The problem is that it’s a brilliant example of the idea of false equivalency – the idea that the press will take an action or event on one side of the political spectrum and treat as nearly identical to something on the other side of the spectrum, even when the resemblance is slight.

The quote covers the elections of 1980, 1984, 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, and 2008 – eight in total. How many of them featured a Bush? Six – all of them in the general election. George H.W. Bush ran for VP in ’80 and ’84 and for president in ’88 and ’92. Then his son George W. Bush ran for president in 2000 and ’04. It’s hard to argue that that’s not a pretty significant percentage, so the idea that Bushes are an important family in the Republican Party makes some sense – although really, what’s remarkable is how many elections Bush 41 was in. He was in half of the elections in question even before you add his son to the mix. But if you want to be more impressed that the House of Bush was on top of the GOP for 4 elections, I can’t argue with you.

OK, so what about the Clinton family? Do they have a similarly substantive record of running in presidential elections? Heck no. Between Bill and Hillary, they’ve run in three elections and only two generals. Bill’s presidential runs in ’92 and ’96, plus Hillary’s primary run, and that’s it. Walter Mondale ran in three general elections. Al Gore ran in three, and got involved in a fourth primary. The House of Carter and the House of Obama have both been on top of the Democratic Party just as often as the House of Clinton, and I don’t see anyone speculating that James Carter IV or Michelle Obama are going to return to their family’s traditional spots atop the party in four years. (If you have seen someone say this, please, let me enjoy my ignorance.) There is just no way to make the Clinton family an equivalent of the Bush family using facts, but the media has built up so much symbolism around the names that they assume their readers won’t care about the facts – they just want to keep reading about the legend.

        

I Don’t Deserve This, and That’s OK

Posted January 9, 2013 By Dave Thomer

I have had numerous opportunities to think about how fortunate I am. I am married to a wonderful woman wit whom I have an amazing daughter. We both have parents who worked hard to help us get good educations, and we have both been able to find jobs that let us use our skills and knowledge to provide a comfortable home for our family. We have access to many forms of leisure and entertainment, and we have a network of friends who provide us with joy and good company on many occasions. I mean, when I was a teenager I didn’t know how good I had it, and today I have it even better than I ever thought I would back then.

And as much as I am thankful for all of this, as much as I hope and work to keep building on this good fortune, it’s become very important to me to remind myself that I don’t deserve any of it. These wonderful things are not a prize I earned by completing some set of trials. They are the result of circumstances beyond my control combined with some good choices and lucky outcomes.

Have I worked hard and tried my best? Sure. Is it possible that I have worked harder or done more for others than some people who are materially better off than I am? It’s conceivable. But it’s also certainly true that there are others who have worked as hard or harder and don’t have nearly as much to show for it. As I sit here typing and listening to music, am I more deserving of this luxury than the person who worked in a factory to put together the chips for my computer and iPod? When my family decides to go out for hamburgers, have I scored more points in the game of life than the agricultural workers who got those ingredients on their way from the fields? When I hug my daughter to help her through a cold, am I somehow proving myself a better parent than the mother or father who has to watch their child struggle through cancer or some other disease? No. You can’t look at the scoreboard and say who’s better or who deserves more. The world’s too messy and complicated for that. Sometimes life deals you a great hand, sometimes it doesn’t, and no matter how much we try to work the odds in our favor, we don’t hold the deck. Here are a couple of examples.

Pattie and I met on her first day at Fordham. With one brief exception, I didn’t see her again for a year, until she decided to start writing for the features section of the school paper while I was features editor. If I had a different job – which I had originally applied for – or if I had quit the newspaper – which I had seriously considered a few months before – would I be here now? I don’t know. Maybe it would have worked out some other way. And I give myself credit for taking advantage of the opportunity when it came up, but there was so much out of my control that was required to get to that point that I am not going to claim that I have earned the happiness this relationship has given me for the last 16 years.

I went to a high school that introduced me to a lot of friends and mentors and was absolutely essential in giving me the chance to grow into a responsible adult. I worked hard in school, got good grades and did most of the stuff I was told to do, and spent a lot of time on activities. But when I think back to the things that had to happen for me to get to that school – from my mother insisting that I take the entrance test when I had no desire to do so, to an administrator who was willing to go several extra miles to get me an affordable aid package to afford the tuition, to living in a neighborhood that made it a relatively easy school to get to in the first place – there’s no way that I can say that everything I gained there is because of something I did.

Now, why am I harping on this point? I am not trying to rub my good fortune in anyone’s face. Instead, I’m doing it to remind myself, and urge everyone, to look at the world with humility. The universe gives some of us more than we “deserve.” I’d argue that anyone who has had some success and happiness can point to those moments where the world lined up in our favor. Maybe we did something to give circumstances a nudge, and if so we can give ourselves a pat on the back. But we shouldn’t confuse that nudge with the whole lift. If we assume that everything that we have is solely the result of our own actions, then it becomes easy to take the next step and assume that anyone who is less fortunate must be less fortunate because of their own actions. Then we have no responsibility to figure out how we can help them, and no need to sacrifice anything of our own. Indeed, to do so would be to interfere with the fairness of the universe in giving everyone what they deserve! But if we’re humble and appreciative of what we have, we are more likely put ourselves in each other’s shoes and try to build a world that works better for all of us.

This humility can be scary, because it forces us to accept that we are not always the masters of our destiny. Our hopes and dreams and work and ambitions can be torn away in a matter of seconds, just by being in the wrong place at the wrong time. They may lay unfulfilled because we never find the right environment to nurture them. They may be cut short because of some quirk of our genes. When you spend a few minutes thinking of all of the things that can go wrong, it can seem like a miracle that anything ever goes right. But rather than being a reason to give into despair or resignation, I think that this humility and appreciation for the universe’s capriciousness can motivate us to reach out and share our good fortune, or lift up those who have been brought low by tragedy or circumstance. And when we do that, we leave the world a little bit better than we found it. Since the world has given so much to me, I think the world deserves it.

        

C Is for Kooky

Posted January 8, 2013 By Dave Thomer

As a junior in high school, I took the AP class in American History. We did a lot of reading, a lot of discussing, a fair amount of writing . . . I’ll be honest, 20 years and a ton of books since then have made it hard for me to remember what I learned about history from that particular class.

What I do remember is my teacher telling us that on the multiple choice part of the AP exam, if we had to take a wild guess on a question, we should go with C, since supposedly that was the correct answer more often than other letters. (If I’m remembering this right, B came a close second.)

Now, I don’t blame my teacher for telling us this. We had a goal – get college credit and possibly save a lot of money or have the chance to take another course we liked – and we had a task to complete to achieve the goal – pass this test. He was providing us with information that would help us complete the task and achieve the goal. That wasn’t ALL he did by any means. He was a great teacher, a role model back then and even more so now. And in the system that we were in, he was looking out for us.

But every minute he spent telling us about picking option C was a moment that we weren’t discussing history or how to think about events.

Every moment that someone spent studying the patterns in multiple choice tests was a moment not spent researching or thinking about some other problem.

Every bit of mental energy that I have used storing and recalling that fact is a bit of energy I have not put into my family, or my work, or even remembering what I’m supposed to get at the grocery store.

Instead of the test being an observation of what occurred when you were learning whatever you were learning, the test becomes the subject in its own right. Instead of revealing, it distorts.

I just finished reading Christopher Hayes’ Twilight of the Elites, where he describes the entrance test that determines admission to one of the most hypercompetitive high schools in New York City. Sixth graders take this test. And there are New York parents who spend thousands of dollars on test prep programs to prepare their kids for this test.

Multiple this by schools high schools all over the country, raise it to the power of college and grad school admissions tests, and throw in AP, professional certification, and whatever other tests you want. Besides the massive inequality that this creates, think of where all that energy could have gone. Think of what it could have built, instead of creating a set of numbers on a test report.

        

Waiting for the Blood to Pop Out of My Forehead

Posted January 7, 2013 By Dave Thomer

So as part of the professional development program that my school and district have implemented, my principal has suggested I keep a reflection journal. I truly think this is a good idea. I spend a lot of time thinking to myself – my wife says she can hear me thinking when I’m supposed to be going to sleep – but the act of wrestling a thought to the point where it makes sense in written form is a whole different thing. It’s even something I meant to do at the start of the year, but I always found excuses not to follow through. I’ve become so scared of the blank sheet of paper – or the blank screen – and so tired that I don’t have the hours to sit and noodle at the keyboard. By the time I was done my dissertation, I had gotten into the habit of pretty much trying to sneak up on a writing project by leaving the screen open while I read something in another tab, and every now and then jotting down a thought until I had actually filled up a page. That doesn’t work so well when you’re sitting down and saying “I have to find something to say right now, in the next 45 minutes!”

There’s another thing that some of my reading has contributed to. I’ve talked in other posts about how I struggle against the logic of determinism. I read books like The Victory Lab, which explains how political scientists and political campaigners are able to test and predict the way people will vote and be persuaded to vote. I read about the links between socioeconomic class and academic success and think about the structures that have shaped the way I see the world. I see – and feel – the evidence that our physical state affects the way we think and feel. And while some of it motivates me to want to work for a better world, part of it becomes an escape hatch. I’m sick, I think, so I should rest and let my body do what it’s trying to do. I’m tired, I decide, so I shouldn’t try to write when my thoughts are so foggy. I need to figure out some ways to reverse that feedback loop, so instead I’m thinking about how excited I am by this new idea, and I need to write about it to share it. I hope the journal will help me with that push. I hope this post does this same.

Day 1 of the rest of the year. Let’s see where it goes.

        

How Much Is That Bucket Worth?

Posted December 2, 2012 By Dave Thomer

So I was running over some election trivia, partially because it connects with a post I hope to write soon and partially because, hey, it’s Sunday, and I started thinking about the vice presidency as a stepping stone to the presidency. Now, there have been a fair number of vice presidents who became president through succession – the president that they served under died or resigned.

But by my count, only four out of the 47 vice presidents that the US has had served out full terms as VP and then got elected to the presidency in their own right. Two Republican have done it fairly recently: Richard Nixon served as VP from ’51 to ’59 under Dwight Eisenhower before being elected in ’68. George H.W. Bush served as VP for Ronald Reagan from ’81 to ’89 and got elected to succeed him as president in ’88.

But on the Democratic side, you have to go way back to the early 1800s. Thomas Jefferson served as VP under John Adams back when we made the presidential runner-up the VP, and then beat Adams in the 1800 election. And Martin Van Buren won the election of 1836 after serving as Andrew Jackson’s VP. Since then, nothing. And not for lack of trying: the Democratic Party has nominated its last three vice presidents in subsequent presidential races: Hubert Humphrey in ’68, Walter Mondale in ’84, and Al Gore in 2000. All three lost the presidency by varying margins. I think this is just a weird quirk of history, but it does suggest that unless tragedy strikes, the VP slot isn’t likely to lead to bigger things.