Bomb threat at Auburn University

This just arrived in my inbox:

Haley Center has been evacuated due to a bomb threat this afternoon and will be closed for the remainder of today. The threat was received at 2:06 p.m. by phone at the 911 Center. Law enforcement is investigating the situation. More details will be announced later about the rescheduling of classes.

Finals start next Tuesday here on Auburn's campus.

I'll post more if I learn anything else.

UPDATE: A text message from a friend of mine that was in class at the time of the call:

All I know is that the alarms went off during my 2 o'clock class and we left thinking it was a fire alarm

Sounds like AU took the approach of getting everyone out in an orderly manner without causing a panic. Smart move.

-the Progressive Conservative

Technorati tags: bomb threats, Auburn University

I can't wait!

And I have to comment, this is a genius marketing movie by Disney. What better way to have your advertising for a blockbuster movie being released in the end of May to persist through the melee of advertising for a competing blockbuster in the first week of May? A netroots posting of the trailer on blogs all over the place.

I may not be fond of Disney, but I really have enjoyed the Pirates series, and it seems to have the potential to go out in fantastic style!

-the Progressive Conservative

Technorati tags: Pirates of the Caribbean 3

Funny how things work sometimes

So I was going over the traffic for this site (or lack there of, due to my inactivity on here in the last few days) and I came across a referral from a Yahoo! search for "auburn university majorette and dance line tryouts 2007". At the time I checked the link, this blog came up as the second search result.

Guess I'm moving up in the world, though that wasn't really the subject I wanted attention for on here, that's why I created this other blog.

-the Progressive Conservative

Technorati tags: site traffic

This is just stupid

I as I surfing through blogs on Blog Explosion, I noticed a sidebar link called PayU2blog.

I was intrigued, so I followed the link. From the homepage of this "enterprise":

Make money blogging. Earn quick money by completing easy assignments in your blog. We pay you to mention products, services and companies, on your blog. (emphasis added)

This is disgusting, but I guess it was only a matter of time before someone started trying to bribe bloggers into "adjusting" their content like this. While from an economic standpoint this could be called smart business, from the standpoint of intelligence and freespeech, this is a cancer that will erode the free and open forum of the blogsphere.

If this practice becomes commonplace, no one will be able to trust the content of blogs as their will always be suspicion that the words used were chosen not to convey the thoughts of the author but to line their wallet.

-the Progressive Conservative

Technorati tags: PayU2blog, freespeech

a generational difference

Being in the army is like being in the Boy Scouts, except that the Boy Scouts have adult supervision.
Blake Clark
(from The Quotations Page)

It's funny how something random can trigger a memory. In particular, this quote triggers a memory of a discussion I had with my father over dinner a few months ago. Since I've been in the career search process for sometime now, it often becomes the subject of discussion. Somewhere in the round, my father said, "This my be the failing of my generation: that we didn't teach your generation enough about entrepreneurship; we just taught you how to work for someone else and not how to work
for yourself."

I had never really thought about this until he mentioned it, but it does seem like much of the education my generation received was in the mindset of making us capable for when we go get a job rather than educating us own how to make it on our own. I'm not saying their aren't entrepreneurs in my generation, but I don't think they are as prominent or as highly regarded as in the past.

Maybe my generation sees ourselves as part of a larger system. This would make sense given our embrace of information technology and prolific exchange of ideas. After all, "everyone is on Facebook or MySpace," as a friend of mine has said. We try to make ourselves part of a larger network, communicate via a barrage of text messages, email, instant messages, etc., instead of going to speak with each other in person. The miracle of it is in-person communication is still valued, I don't know anyone who would rather leave a room and email or text message someone rather than talk to them if they're sitting next to each other.

I have to wonder if this is a sign of our culture having left an era of "small operations" for one of major interconnected systems. It certainly seems to be the case.

-the Progressive Conservative

on the VT massacre

The talking heads keep talking about the "VT Massacre", not that it doesn't deserve attention, but this is too much attention. And VT is getting a bad wrap unfairly on one specific point: the notification of students on campus as to what was going on.

The media seem obsessed with the 2-hour gap between the first shooting and the campus-wide email. They think the whole campus should have been told immediately. This is a short-sighted and impatient assumption, and is definitely not appropriate in a time like this when cooler heads should prevail.

First, when the first shooting occurred, no one knew what the hell was going on! As with any incident like this, the police responded immediately, and their first priority was to figure out what happened. From what the VT police have said, they had reason to believe the shooter had left campus. So, what good would it have been to lock the campus down? And even if they had, how would that have stopped the assailant from coming back, as this may have only added police officers to the list of the dead. My point is VT authorities didn't notify anyone immediately because they didn't know what to tell them!

In this age of information and 24-hour TV news, many have been spoiled into thinking they should have answers immediately, and that someone has failed them if they don't. Spoiled is definitely the best word for that outlook. Answers aren't always available right away, and rarely is the complete picture seen even days after an event like this, if ever.

So, why are some in the media out to vilify the very people who were trying to protect the public and figure this whole thing out? I can see no reason other than lack of understanding and sensationalism, neither of which is an acceptable answer.

---

On a different note about the incidents of yesterday: As a life member of Kappa Kappa Psi Honorary Band Fraternity, as was receiving updates on the status on members of our chapter at VT. All were accounted for by midday and none harmed.

But we did get unfortunate news: One of the fallen was a member of the VT Band, a brother-in-arms, if you will. From the Marching Virginians website:

The Marching Virginians are deeply sorrowed by the loss of fellow MV and friend, Ryan "Stack" Clark. He was a loved friend, mentor, and role model who will always hold a special place in the hearts of all the MVs as a true example of The Spirit Of Tech. Stack, we thank you for all the memories, and for sharing with us your true love of life. We will love and miss you always.

Please continue to keep those up at Virginia Tech and their families in your thoughts and prayers.

-the Progressive Conservative

Technorati tags: VT massacre

Wikipedia: banned or embraced by schools?

The question was posed Friday evening on Slashdot as to whether schools should block Wikipedia:

Should we block sites such as Wikipedia because students may be exposed to misinformation, or should we encourage sites such as Wikipedia as an outlet for students to investigate and determine the validity of the information?

Any educator or school administrator worth their salt will be concerned about the validity and accuracy of information students are exposed to in the learning environment. In that regard, Wikipedia should not be blocked because while it is very possible for misinformation to be published it can be corrected just as easily, while any mistake in a hardcopy textbook might be missed and perpetuated for potentially years.

In addition, the ease with which online references like Wikipedia (which tries its best to make sure all articles site verifiable sources) can be updated make them an invaluable resource to education in this information age.

I remember in grade school when we learned about the recent fall of the Berlin Wall and reunification of East and West Germany, but it was still a couple of years before we had updated history books that reflected this.

-the Progressive Conservative

Technorati tags: Wikipedia, education

Blogging Code of Conduct?

Last week, Slashdot pointed out a NYTimes article on the growing idea of a Code of Conduct for bloggers. Slashdot also linked to a discussion on Blogging Wikia where a potential code is being discussed and developed.

While dozens if not hundreds of examples of blogging and commmenting misbehavior can be presented (including, but not limited to threats, misrepresentations, & mis-/non-attributions), I worry about the talk of enforcement of any such code of conduct. Not that it can be enforced, but that it would be. There are obvious cases are legal action is not only available but fully warranted, but there are already laws for that, such as libel and identity theft and even harassment, if necessary.

My real concern is the idea of clamping down on the blogsphere, chaining it with rules. As I sadly had to learn in my Press, Law, and Ethics course during college, there are few forums of truly free speech left even here in the land of the free. The blogsphere is the best forum for free speech that we have. Government restrictions are few (libel, etc.), there is limited to no corporate restrictions (don't have to worry about pissing off publishers or advertisers), and virtually anyone can participate. Of course, this leaves the door open for both outstanding actions and undesirable exercises of this right to free speech. But is another set of rules really the answer?

Paul Harvey said, "Self-government does not work without self-discipline." Self-government is how the blogsphere should work, and self-discipline should be it's law. Granted, not everyone is going to act accordingly at all times, that's a part of being human, and there will be varying degrees of this. But trying to force others to follow your set of acceptable behaviors doesn't solve anything; think about what happened with prohibition, which was repealed in part at the behest of some of the same groups that started it.

In my time in the Auburn University Marching Band, we had to go over the handbook at the start of each year, which of course included the rules and guidelines the members of the AUMB were expected to follow. The AU Director of Bands Dr. Johnnie Vinson (who is retiring at the end of this academic year) used to always wrap up this discussion by saying "If I could get away with it, this set of rules would be only three words: Do what's right. I've found that's a pretty good rule to live by."

In order for the blogsphere to function as the free medium it is now, it should not encumber itself with a uniform Code of *anything* but should embrace the discussion of such principles and encourage the individual adoption and development of such codes by each blogger. There will always be those who choose to defy to do as they please with no regard, trying to chain everyone down will not stop that.

The only discipline that last is self discipline.
-Oail Andrew "Bum" Phillips
(from Quotations Book)

-the Progressive Conservative

Technorati tags: Blogging Code of Conduct

Technology may not make students smarter (from the AP wire)

This came across the AP wire last week about a study on the use of technology in primary education.

The study found achievement scores were no higher in classrooms using reading and math software products than in classrooms without the new products.
(read the whole thing)

Here's the link to the original study conducted by the National Center for Educational Evaluation and Regional Assistance.

I've found that in many areas, not just education, it's not using a particular type of tool or method that is effective but choosing an appropriate one and using it properly. After all, brain surgeons aren't the best with hammers.

-the Progressive Conservative

A carry over from another blog of mine

Most folks outside of Auburn won't care about this outside of it being a good example of a horrid smear campaign. This was originally posted on another blog I started just for this topic.

-------
From The AU Majorettes are Safe: The Idiocy Continues:

The committee updated their website. Of course, their newest statement is full of holes, so I'll quote and correct it here:

Thank you for your responses to our website. In an overwhelming flood of emails, over 1800 of you voiced your dismay over the elimination of the AU majorettes and asked for the program to be reinstated. These responses illustrated to us how deeply you felt about Auburn tradition and not wanting our band to look like the majority of schools who had no majorettes. Your emails were distributed to President Ed Richardson, Athletic Director, Jay Jacobs, and to the Board of Trustees.

I sincerely hope that anyone who actually sent a truthful and intelligent response mailed it directly to Richardson and Jacobs, as I can't help but doubt that any dissenting comments are screened. I also question the number of responses.

Dr Johnnie Vinson, Director of Bands, retired in December and Dr. Rick Good (Marching Band Director who created the Tiger Eyes) was promoted to this position.

According to the AU Bands website, Dr. Vinson's retirement is set for the end of the 2006-2007 academic year, not December 2006. Read it here. Though they did get the part about Dr. Good moving up correct, but I wouldn't go so far as to say he "created" the Tiger Eyes.

The Music Department has been in the process of choosing a new Marching Band Director during the past 6 weeks, but has not named a successor as of this date (Feb 22). Auditions for majorette line (twirlers), flag line and dance line were scheduled for Saturday, February 24. Dr Good had announced that he was decreasing the number of majorettes chosen for the line this year. As of last week, only 9 of the 10 returning majorettes had submitted an application to audition .A total of 21 girls had made application (a decrease from previous years).

Again, I question their numbers. To the best of my knowledge, the information they are quoting is not publicly released, so either they've gotten a hold of information they have no business nosing into or they made it up.

Knowing that the Auburn Majorette program was in jeopardy of becoming non existent, we requested that auditions be postponed until the new AUMB director was named and that he be the one to oversee the selection process. It has been our hope that the new Director be a person who respects Auburn tradition and would consider the voice of the Auburn Alumni and fans.

We are happy to report that Dr Richardson honored our request and instructed Dr. Good to postpone the ‘twirler portion” of the auxiliary tryouts until April 14 in courtesy to whoever the new Marching Band Director may be. Please do not give up this fight. Continue to urge others to send in emails and we will make certain that they are forwarded to those in authority.

I haven't been watching things very closely lately, so I can't confirm that the date was changed. However, I seriously doubt they got Ed Richardson to do anything. And as for postponing the twirler tryouts specifically, I point you to the AU Bands website which states that "Auditions are all held on the same day", and lists that date as April 14. Here's the link.

Now, it's been a while since I looked at the committees farce of a website, but I poked around a little bit, and the first thing I noticed as the links to SEC majorettes. The links to UF, UGA, UT, and UK work, but the links to Auburn and Alabama simply pull up a picture a former majorette from each. Obviously, they wouldn't want to actually link to the Auburn Tiger Eyes website, as that would be linking their site to something with truth of the matter. But I can that either the Crimsonettes don't currently have a website or don't want to be linked to the committee, despite statements made by "former Crimsonettes" in support of the farce committee.

Overall, this is just more of the same crap from a committee that still refuses to show itself. That fact alone shows a lot of cowardice and unwillingness to face any accountability for their actions.

And I have to tear into their "Official Disclaimer":

This electronic document is intended for public viewing and is solely for personal reference. It should neither be considered an authoritative source nor an official publication of Auburn University. Information on this website contains information compiled from various band members and has been verified to the best of our ability.
(emphasis added)

Every time I have posted like this, it has taken me no more than 20 minutes of research on the web to show their fallacies and inaccuracies. I can only conclude that they are unwilling or unable to truly back up anything they say.

-------
Read here for more background information.

-the Progressive Conservative

Technorati tags: Auburn University Marching Band

Ethanol and Global Warming

WeatherJeff has a good post on ethanol as an alternative fuel and the potential impact.

Growing up on a cow-calf production cattle farm in Alabama, I've had an interest in this topic and it's potential effects. Any farmer will tell you that lower fuel prices are a good thing, but the problem with using ethanol from corn is that we already use corn for so much. It's basic economics: if the US uses corn as its source for ethanol, that will cause a positive shift in the demand for corn (for those familiar with intro. economic theory, I'm referring to a shift in the demand curve, not in quantity demanded), and this shift would more than likely be grater than the possible corresponding shift in supply. Net result: higher corn prices, and it's already starting to happen.

So, where's the problem? Corn is a staple of the American economy, so an increase in price has many so-called "ripple effects". The meat industries, both in processing and production, use corn in more than significant amounts at some point. Your sausage biscuit breakfast, hamburger lunch, or chicken dinner may not be so cheap (all of which may face this fate anyway thanks to the coming increases in the minimum wage).

According to WeatherJeff:

The nation is going to get yet another example on how government subsidy programs coupled with short-term political solutions distorts the marketplace and produces unintended consequences. Food prices are rising as more corn is diverted to ethanol instead of the food and the animal feed supply. Food costs are up; coupled with rising oil prices inflation pressure is starting to make its way into the economy.

So in brief summation we are all paying trice (the corn subsidy, the ethanol subsidy and the pump price) for a fuel additive that does not significantly reduce oil imports and but does raise our food costs.
(read the whole thing)

Meat Industry News posted an interview with USDA Secretary Mike Johanns, including a question about the ethanol issue:

Q. What specific things has the USDA done to fully gauge the impact of ethanol production on the beef cattle complex in terms of nutrient input costs tied to rising feed grain costs as well as the future demands on forage/roughage created by an increase in cellulosic ethanol production and how will you communicate it to the cattle industry?

A. We are fully aware of the tension that has arisen between food and fuel due to higher corn prices. Those are issues that are of concern to us because if you’re feeding cattle, you saw your input costs for corn go from $2.00 a bushel to the vicinity of $4.00 a bushel very, very quickly. It happened really within about a year’s period of time.

Still USDA economists calculate that ethanol production could rise to 10 billion gallons by 2010 without forcing us to choose between corn for food or for fuel. We believe that corn-based ethanol will be a part of our ethanol future. But the next generation is cellulosic ethanol. In our Farm Bill proposals, we ask for $1.6 billion in new funding targeted at cellulosic. We’re also giving a very high priority to research ways to make cellulosic feedstocks, such as grasses, and woodchips and agricultural waste, a cost-effective alternative to corn and soybeans.

We are also conducting research, as is the private sector, to make Distiller’s Dried Grain a better source of feed. Right now on one bushel of corn used for ethanol creates about 17 pounds of that by product. The goal is to develop a way to fracture the kernels before processing so that both high value feed and ethanol can be produced from the same corn.

The other thing I would say is the market works. The interest in corn for ethanol production is spurring research into increasing corn yields at seed companies. It’s also likely to cause producers to plant more corn. We’ll know more about that on March 30, when we release our report on farmers planting intentions for the 2007 crop.

We also believe that most cellulosic materials that will be used for ethanol production in the future will not compete for good pasture. These grasses and other biomass products do well on marginal ground.

Renewable energy is changing the face of agriculture and that involves a period of adjustment but it also creates opportunities for ranchers and rural America.
(read the whole thing)

Of course, the reason this is an issue in the first place is two-fold: the US needs to reduce is dependency on foreign and reduce its greenhouse gas emissions... but wait a minute, is global warming really that much of an issue?

I vividly remember about a year or two ago a broadcast of a meteorologists conference of some sort that the Weather Channel was trying to show bits and pieces of live as they could fit it into their program. I believe the speaker I saw was Dr. William Gray of Colorado State University's Tropical Meteorology Project. The speaker stated very bluntly that the global warming discussion did not have a reliable model to provide supporting evidence, even going so far as to say there just as many models disproving global warming as there are supporting, and that the science just isn't reliable yet. Unfortunately, the Weather Channel had to *ahem* cut him off short to go to commercial... this being the same Weather Channel that is now trying to gain viewers with the show The Climate Code, where you can see each week how the earth is going to hell in a hand basket because of global warming.

The global warming argument has become less about reason and more about sensationalism and alarmism, as Richard Lindzen points out over on the OpinionJournal:

To understand the misconceptions perpetuated about climate science and the climate of intimidation, one needs to grasp some of the complex underlying scientific issues. First, let's start where there is agreement. The public, press and policy makers have been repeatedly told that three claims have widespread scientific support: Global temperature has risen about a degree since the late 19th century; levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased by about 30% over the same period; and CO2 should contribute to future warming. These claims are true. However, what the public fails to grasp is that the claims neither constitute support for alarm nor establish man's responsibility for the small amount of warming that has occurred. In fact, those who make the most outlandish claims of alarm are actually demonstrating skepticism of the very science they say supports them. It isn't just that the alarmists are trumpeting model results that we know must be wrong. It is that they are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right as justifying costly policies to try to prevent global warming.

If the models are correct, global warming reduces the temperature differences between the poles and the equator. When you have less difference in temperature, you have less excitation of extratropical storms, not more. And, in fact, model runs support this conclusion. Alarmists have drawn some support for increased claims of tropical storminess from a casual claim by Sir John Houghton of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that a warmer world would have more evaporation, with latent heat providing more energy for disturbances. The problem with this is that the ability of evaporation to drive tropical storms relies not only on temperature but humidity as well, and calls for drier, less humid air. Claims for starkly higher temperatures are based upon there being more humidity, not less--hardly a case for more storminess with global warming.
(read the whole thing)

I think more people should heed the wisdom Oren Harari gleaned from Colin Powell:

Avoid having your ego so close to your position that when your position falls, your ego goes with it.
(from The Quotations Page)

Some folks have staked so much on their position that they can't face the possibility of being wrong.

-the Progressive Conservative

Technorati tags: global warming, Technorati tags: ethanol, Technorati tags: alternative fuels

a pleasent surprise

So, as I have started blogging here again, I began some clean-up here on the site and looked through some of the info I collect through traffic counters and Technorati. I was surprised to find a referral to a specific post I didn't think would get this kind of attention. Your Code of Ethics included a link to my attempt at a code of ethics for blogging in a list of examples of blogging ethics codes. I based the code I put together off of a code Allan Jenkins developed for his blog, Desirable Roasted Coffee.

The things you miss when you're absent...

-the Progressive Conservative

Power Point not helping in the classroom

Australian research suggests Power Point is counterproductive in the learning and working environments (via Slashdot).

If you have ever wondered why your eyes start glazing over as you read those dot points on the screen, as the same words are being spoken, take heart in knowing there is a scientific explanation.

It is more difficult to process information if it is coming at you in the written and spoken form at the same time.

The Australian researchers who made the findings may have pronounced the death of the PowerPoint presentation.
-Anna Patty, Education Editor - Sydney Morning Herald

-the Progressive Conservative

Why do we hate ourselves so much?

Okay, so I know I've been absent for almost 11 months now, but maybe I'll get started back to doing this on a regular basis. I need the practice writing at the very least.

I came across a piece by Michael Barone the Instapundit linked to a couple of weeks ago that caught my attention, mainly because he was stating the obvious on a subject many willingly ignore: "The Blame-America-First Crowd"

I recommend you read the whole thing, but here's an excerpt:

What they have been denied in their higher education is an accurate view of history and America's place in it. Many adults actively seek what they have been missing: witness the robust sales of books on the Founding Fathers. Witness, also, the robust sales of British historian Andrew Roberts's splendid "History of the English-Speaking Peoples Since 1900."

Roberts points out almost all the advances of freedom in the 20th century have been made by the English-speaking peoples -- Americans especially, but British, as well, and also (here his account will be unfamiliar to most American readers) Canadians, Australians and New Zealanders. And he recalls what held and holds them together by quoting a speech Winston Churchill gave in 1943 at Harvard: "Law, language, literature -- these are considerable factors. Common conceptions of what is right and decent, a marked regard for fair play, especially to the weak and poor, a stern sentiment of impartial justice and above all a love of personal freedom ... these are the common conceptions on both sides of the ocean among the English-speaking peoples."
(source)

Wars teach us not to love our enemies, but to hate our allies.
-W. L. George
(from The Quotations Page)

-the Progressive Conservative