Student E-mail. All.
So, I have figured out, through a few experiments and some format finagling tricks, how to send emails to the entire campus.
I apologize for the grammatical errors throughout that test e-mail. If I knew it would work, I would have spellchecked more closely.
I’ve considered writing how I did it.
So, do I open Pandora’s Box? Like Prometheus with his flame, do I give the unholy power of spam to the untamed masses?
“NO, DON’T DO IT!” You’re yelling.
Don’t worry. I probably won’t. Unless, a la Cat’s Cradle, I decide to let the horrible secret go with my last dying breath, destroying the world as we know it.
Seriously though, I’ll save this knowledge for if some information really needs to get out to the student body, and there’s no conventional way of doing it. That day may never come.
But if it does, we’ll be ready.
Things I was wrong about.
This isn’t necessarily something I like talking about.
It’s much easier to, like so many people when their predictions or analysis don’t come true, just pull a retcon. “Oh, yeah. I knew that Phantom Menace was a lousy movie the entire time. I would never have given it a positive review in a million years.”
Yet, one of the strengths (or problems) about writing your opinions in print, is that you’re held accountable for your wrong opinions, wrong predictions, wrong analysis.
I’ll start it out with a few things I’ve been wrong about. I’m hoping you’ll join me in the comment section to add things you’ve been wrong about.
1. Barack Obama won’t win the nomination. As soon as Obama won Iowa, I thought he’d sewn up the nomination. Hillary’s only strength was her inevitability. With that punctured, there was no way people would vote for her.
But then she won New Hampshire and pummeled Obama in the Super Tuesday Primary, including California. It was clear to me that Democrats, once again, we’re horrible, horrible, pragmatists. Think of the last couple of goobers they’ve nominated, minus Bill Clinton. John Kerry. Walter Mondale. Michael Dukakis.
These people had charisma, on average, of soggy toast. French toast in John Kerry’s case.
But for some reason, they were nominated because they were considered to be electable.
I was so confident the Democrats were about to make a ready to make a stupid move again, that I was going to start a Facebook group called, ” Whitworthians for Barack Obama, even though he won’t get nominated.”
Whenever I see college students getting excited about something, it’s usually a pretty good bet that the exact opposite of what they want will happen.
Obviously, in this case however, I was wrong. I just misunderestimated the pure vague hazy power of hope. And dreams.
2. The renovation of the Coffee Shop is a waste of money.
Part of my suspicion to the Coffee Shop renovation in 2005-2006 was the way that Stan’s ideas, which he’d spent a lot of hard work gathering together and asking students about, were shunted aside. Sodexho’s improved a lot P.R. wise since then, partially because of the bad publicity from that year.
Another concern was the price tag, which could be generously described as “hefty.”
Yet, when the final renovation came through, with the crackling fire and the chess board and the big screen TV, I changed my tune. The amount of students who started to use the HUB as a hang-out spot increased drastically.
The best dorm lounge on campus, essentially, isn’t in a dorm at all.
What was I right about? That students would never use the phrase “Mind and Hearth” even after several minutes of being waterboarded.
3. The new ID card access system will be EXTREMELY annoying.
Turns out, it’s only slightly annoying. I was right about the alarm going off all the time, unintentionally. Yet, the alarm is only about as annoying as your average Big 5 wristwatch. It wasn’t the blaring klaxon I thought might get used.
And while sometimes the card access system fails (like, when the power goes out and the doors don’t work) it’s a lot easier than fumbling for your keys, trying incorrect keys, and only then being granted entrance.
Not as good as doors just being unlocked like they were in 2004-2005. But an improvement.
My prediction of untold annoyances stretching forever into the future, was not quite borne out.
How about your mistakes?
The “If-not-but-for” Fallacy
I was reminded of this fun little logical mistake in ethics class today. Check it out:
Media portrayals of violence, the claim went, cause violent behavior in young Americans. Some 40,000 images of violence will cross before the eyes of teenagers, apparently.
When media violence is said to be a causal factor among teenagers, the argument being made is this:
“If not but for media violence, teenage violence would not happen (or would be significantly lower).”
I question that claim. Imagine an investigative team assigned to learn the cause of a house fire. The team presents their findings:
“Ladies and gentlemen, the cause of the fire was the presence of oxygen in the house. If not but for the presence of oxygen, the fire would have never occurred.”
This is ridiculous, right? There are hundreds of millions of houses with oxygen present, yet not all of them burn down. The cause, then, is the factor/s that sets this particular house apart from the rest.
Follow me back to the original argument: “If not but for media violence, teenage violence would not happen.” This claim is ridiculous as well – just as there are hundreds of millions of houses with oxygen present, there are hundreds of millions of kids exposed to media violence. 40,000 is the average number of violent images kids see.
Yet – only a tiny fraction of those kids go on to commit violent acts. When searching for a causal relationship, we need to look for something that sets those kids apart from the ones who live peaceful lives. Perhaps the more violent TV a kid watches, the more likely she is to be violent – but that correlation was not established in class today.
Top Ten List Commemoration #2
Well folks, here’s my second edition of Top Ten Lists. The feedback on the forum was pretty good last week, but the feedback from talking to some of you in person was even better. Hopefully this week will have a little more of each.
The topic for this week’s list is the Top Ten Scientific Achievements of 2004-2008. The criteria for this particular list were 1) the results had to be published within the timeframe of the past four years of college and 2) it was an actual achievement, not just an occurrence. In other words, something scientific randomly happening (like a solar flare or a viral outbreak) wouldn’t make the cut. This list is what I personally felt were the most important contributions by scientists, engineers and mathematicians in the past four years. And for those of you non-science folks I did my best to talk in English, so give it a shot.
Have a great week. Don’t let the flock of tests appearing o’er the horizon get you down!
No, not that DTR
Ah, how the laws of gravity cause the orbit of the earth to bring the turn of the seasons, ushering in spring (trust me, soon) with its above-freezing temperatures and maybe, one can hope, a little green grass. There’s something less pleasant which spring brings around, however, and I’m not talking about allergies. Early spring means it’s time, for those of us who aren’t seniors, to have the DTR. No, not that DTR. The worse one: determining the roommate.
This is a time when RAs avoid their confused and emotional residents, when roommates beat ceaselessly around bushes like the prophets of Baal around their altars. How do I escape from this domiciliary angst, you might ask? Well, I’ve compiled a little list of guidelines for how to approach the season of habitation hopscotch. A lot of this assumes that you’re not planning to keep living with the same person(s), because if you are, hey that’s easy.
Guideline #1: Feel it out. Id est, do your homework. You want to make sure that friend who you were kind of hoping would maybe want to room with you next year is actually available. This bears a slight resemblance to finding out whether that guy you think is cute is single, except that it’s less exciting and (let’s face it) more likely to end in commitment.
Guideline #2: Keep your options open. At least at first. You know that advice your mother always gave you about where and where not to put your eggs? Multiple baskets, my friend. Don’t lead people on, but it’s best not to slam any doors too early in the game.
Guideline #3: Residential primaries. Now that you are getting an idea of who’s committed and who’s running free with the buffalo, it’s time to have a more direct pre-decision chat with the person you might want to room with. Try to non-committally/non-psychotically mention your desire to sleep in the same room/house as that person for nine months. Keep it casual, but be direct.
Hopefully at this point you will have found “the one” (or “the four” or whatever). Now comes the time to have that talk with your present roommate. While slightly less dreaded than the romantic DTR, this DTR can have some drastic consequences. I mean, you already live with this person, and deciding you aren’t going to “continue the arrangement” can put a little tension in the work/live/hang-out/sleep-place. So here’s a little more advice:
Guideline #1: Give it to them straight. The time for pagan bush-beating has passed. Now that you’ve sealed the deal with your future room(s)mate(s), you really should let your current roommate know, so that she can know to go ahead with those alternate plans she has simultaneously been hoping to carry out.
Guideline #2: …but not that straight. Remember that you are speaking to a human being here. I know at times your roommate might seem more like a brick wall or a dirty-laundry factory than a human being, but trust me, he/she is. Maybe you could approach the subject by means of a question. “Have you thought about who you’re going to live with next year?” could be good, for starters. Then you tell her what’s up and hope she has the good grace enough not to resent you for it.
Guideline #3: Return the favor. If, on the other hand, you’re the one more on the listening/rejection end of the DTR, then be sure you give your roommate the courtesy you wish she’d give you. That whole golden rule thing really is kind of a good idea. We don’t all have to live with each other to be friends.
And, hopefully, barring any unforseen confusion about what kind of DTR you’re having, you will all end up where you should be.
2007 in Film — Two Lists, and a Lot More Words
There’d been some hemming and hawing in Hollywood about whether the film industry’s premiere awards show could go on without its needed scribes. But thanks to the writers’ strike ending after almost 100 long days, indeed, There Will Be Oscars.
So before the Academy renders my personal opinions null and void later today, I’ve been working to assemble two lists of my own: my top ten films from last year, and my picks in the Oscar categories I feel educated enough to discuss.
2007 was a pretty amazing year for cinema. Yes, the summer marked an especially low point with Revenge of the Threequels (Spider-Man 3, Shrek 3, Ocean’s 13, Pirates of the Caribbean 3, Bourne [Fancy Noun] 3, etc.), but some of those weren’t half-bad. And I’ll gladly drag myself to anything that Our Lord And Comedic Savior Judd Apatow stamps with his divine imprimatur. But sandwiched around the lighter fare were some masterpieces that are going to linger at the top of the critical charts for a long, long time. Some I caught in theatres, others I had to catch up with on DVD, and one I had to track down online due to its sheer scarcity. Getting on the the list itself, though, let’s build some suspense and do the top ten thing in reverse order then, eh?
ASWU Exec Teaser Trailers
Update: Added Mark Baker for FVP
Update: Added Vi Nguyen for EVP.
Update: Added Tyler Hamilton for President and EVP.
Just as I’ve finally gotten used to saying “Eh Ess Triple You” instead of “Ass-whack,” ASWU Elections for next year began to be hinted at.
Next year, obviously, Whitworth ceases to exist entirely in my solipsistic little world. But for you underclassmen, there’s still whole years of voting and analyzing ASWU candidates ahead of you.
Here’s the list of people currently signed up for (possibly) running for an ASWU Executive position. At least they’ve, presumably, picked up an application:
ASWU President:
Luis Lopez
Obe Quarless
Chelsie Hall
Amanda Rhea Plumb
Tyler Hamilton
Peter Cleary
Executive Vice President:
Luis Lopez
Chelsie Hall
Amanda Rhea Plumb
Corey Newman
Kalen Eshoff
Tyler Hamilton
Vi Nguyen
Financial Vice President:
Seth Flory
Carl Chan
Monte Enyeart
Mark Baker
–
Keep a few things in mind. Many people who pick up applications won’t actually run for the position. (Michael Carlson picked up an application for a possible ASWC presidential run in 2006, but obviously never ended up running.)
Secondly, some of the most successful candidates, like Scott Donnell and Kyle Pflug (last years Presidential duo) were actually last minute entries . Donnell, who won the primary on a write-in campaign, only declared his candidacy right as campaigning started.
There’s a few questions the information we have poses, however. Why does the EVP position seem to be so much more popular than the President position? (The reason for the lack of FVP popularity is obvious: Math is hard.)
Which candidates stand out?
Who isn’t listed, that needs to desperately run?
Post in the comments section.
Lunar Eclipse Sequence
Sequence of shots showing the total lunar eclipse on the 20th of February, 2008 from Spokane, Washington. The first shot was taken at 6:13pm and the last eclipse shot (2nd to last) was taken at 8:59pm. The full moon was captured an hour after that.
Let the Top Ten Lists Begin
Come on, who doesn’t like lists? We can never have enough of them! Over Christmas break the history major in me was contemplating being a senior in college and was looking for a way to commemorate everything we’ve been through in the last four years. And when I say “we,” I mean the world, the country, the city, my buddies, my doggies, and everything in between. So, inspired by something Time magazine did a few years ago, I decided to do a Top Ten list of Top Ten Lists. Sometime during each week for the rest of the year(hopefully) I’ll release a new list with topics ranging from solemnly serious to dastardly amusing. The only criteria is that whatever I present must have occurred between September 1, 2004 and the present date. In other words, what has happened in the world since stepping foot on Whitworth as a lowly freshman boy?
So to kick it off, I’d like to present for approval my Top Ten Newsworthy Moments of 2004-2008.
Why “A Dead Week” is a Bad Idea.
Update: According to an e-mail from Scott Donnell, the dead week is happening from May 5-10, not at April as (I believe) was originally stated at the ASWU meeting last Wednesday.
Also, it will be called the “Week of Jubilee,” probably inspired from the term “Day of Jubilee,” a phrase for the day in which a slave was freed. Ironic, of course, because the Dead Week actually takes away freedom (the freedom to hold events or attend them.)
Kelly Vincent points out that it may be after the “YEAR of Jubilee” the year (every fifty years or so) when slaves were set free. Although from what I’ve heard, (and I can’t find my source where I saw this) there’s no evidence that the year of Jubilee instructions were actually followed. I’m sure theology majors will be more than willing to correct me.
You may have already heard.
ASWU and Student Life are planning on having a “Dead Week,” a week during April [ May ] without events.
For a moment, for the busy, busy, busy student, that may seem an attractive idea.
But let’s think about it a little deeper. Let’s really weigh the pros and cons.
Events, for the average students, are opportunities to relax, to have fun, to have a good time. There’s nothing forcing them to go. If students are busy or stressed: They just won’t go to the event. They’ll ignore the e-mails. They’ll work on homework instead. Because they can.
Having an event merely gives students an option. A choice. Taking away events for a week just takes away choices.
(Granted, if there are too many events in one week, they can harm eachother’s success. I’ll address this later.)
Similarly, if there’s a week where an RA or senator doesn’t want to put on an event they don’t have to (providing they plan ahead and schedule any required events during a different.)
All a “Dead Week” does is take away that choice whether to put on an event that week.
This wasn’t something decided by the students. It wasn’t voted for by the senators. It wasn’t even really discussed. It was merely announced.
I’ll be the first to say that Whitworth has too many events. The overgrown Garden of Events at Whitworth is in desperate need of weeding. But this isn’t weeding. This is Clear Cutting.
A week with fewer events might be acceptable if it was purely optional (which it might be for the ASWU Senators.) But some of the RAs I’ve talked to are a bit peeved that they were forced to shuffle their calendars, and cram their events they had scheduled into already over-burdened other weeks.
You see, a Dead Week doesn’t solve Whitworth’s event clutter. It makes it worse. It means that the average week has even more events. Events that must gasp for advertising time. Events that must compete for audience members. Events that, now, might be scheduled at the *same* time — forcing students interested in both to decide between the two.
Everybody loses.
Some students may have a pause in their busy schedules, only that week, to go to an event, only to find that there aren’t any scheduled that week.
If I was an ASWU senator, I’d defy the recommendation and hold my big event smack in the middle of Dead Week. With that event an oasis surrounded by a buffer of boring, I’d get *much* more participation.
Essentially: Dead Week won’t alleviate any pressure for RAs, coordinators or Senators. It will cause them more stress, as they scurry to reschedule events and compete with others. It won’t be a break for students. They’ll still have classes and homework — which, unlike events, they can’t just blow off– but won’t have any events to relax at during study breaks.
And the notion — hinted at — that somehow a week of getting fewer e-mails will inspire students to spiritual or philosophical epiphanies is pretty dang absurd.
Those are the cons. I’m sure there are some pros bigger than “we get a few fewer e-mails for one week,” but, frankly, I’m not creative enough to think of any.
If I’ve misunderstood what this week entails, or haven’t thought of some glaring reason why it’s a wonderful idea, please tell me.
