Here’s how things are working at the moment here.
Feed articles are posted during my lunch hour (I wonder why), with the FEED: in the header. I’m going to start limiting the subject lines after that to a distinct handful, for simplicity’s sake. I will also keep sending these articles to the unremarked Feed (if I can remember to click the appropriate button, which I forget sometimes when I cross-post). In fact, there will probably be a small number of posts in the Feed not carried over here, because they are of marginally less interest, at least insofar as further notation is concerned.
Non-Feed articles are posted in the evening, usually at 7:30. They have their usual unintelligible subject lines, many of which seem to be taken from random email spam. (Feel free to send me your social security number and all your bank information, if the spirit moves you.)
I’ve now gotten information, I think from WTF, on three tournaments for next year, suggesting I poise my fingers over the keyboard to sign up. All right, Yale does require some planning (guessing how many Sailors might want to go, pretending I have a real number when I go through the hell of securing hotel rooms, etc.), but Big Jake? O’C obviously had a little WTF time on his hands, or else he needed that $5K. I was shocked, shocked, to read that he is planning to give awards bigger than the average everyday SUV for a variety of accomplishments. He’s already solicited that I give two speeches at varying moments, not to mention enlisting my tuba playing skills in the legendary Big Bronx 2AR Marching Band. I hear that JV is playing glockenspiel. Should be very entertaining.
(If any more proof were needed that O’C has got time on his hands, in his archaeology mode Our Man in the Bronx discovered that Ewok is distantly related to some guy who won the one-legged novice declamation championships in Ohio in 1942, or something like that. He was mighty proud of this discovery, beaming away in his broadcast text message. Things must be pretty quiet down there in Kaintuck.)
Come hell or high water, my next job is working on Pfffft. I want to document my thoughts and publish them so that others can tear them apart. Give me a day or two. Or three.
And I’ll be terribly disappointed if Mass Matt goes for 15 inches over 13. Size is not everything. If one is lugging the thing around, less is more. If it’s sitting on your desktop 24/7, then more is more. Plus, it’s about $200 extra per square inch. A studio apartment in Manhattan is about $80 a square inch. $200 a square inch? You’re talking penthouse prices. Moving in with Woody Allen. I dunno…
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
FEED: Civil rights
It is an interesting conundrum. What rights do groups have to discriminate for religious reasons? For any reasons, for that matter? This is a very tough, murky area.
On college and university campuses and in high schools, Christian student groups risk being denied official school recognition because their religious beliefs conflict with anti-discrimination policies. These controversies often involve groups that bar gay students from qualifying for voting membership or leadership positions if they don’t acknowledge the alleged sinfulness of their ways. Liberal advocates of equality applaud the denial of official status to conservative groups deemed hostile to gay people; conservatives and some traditional civil libertarians decry the denial of fundamental associational and religious rights to Christian groups. More...
On college and university campuses and in high schools, Christian student groups risk being denied official school recognition because their religious beliefs conflict with anti-discrimination policies. These controversies often involve groups that bar gay students from qualifying for voting membership or leadership positions if they don’t acknowledge the alleged sinfulness of their ways. Liberal advocates of equality applaud the denial of official status to conservative groups deemed hostile to gay people; conservatives and some traditional civil libertarians decry the denial of fundamental associational and religious rights to Christian groups. More...
FEED: Philosophy
Sometimes the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy publishes an entry that is both readable and interesting on a basic level. Like this piece on the doctrine of Double Effect.
The doctrine (or principle) of double effect is often invoked to explain the permissibility of an action that causes a serious harm, such as the death of a human being, as a side effect of promoting some good end. It is claimed that sometimes it is permissible to cause such a harm as a side effect (or “double effect”) of bringing about a good result even though it would not be permissible to cause such a harm as a means to bringing about the same good end. This reasoning is summarized with the claim that sometimes it is permissible to bring about as a merely foreseen side effect a harmful event that it would be impermissible to bring about intentionally. More...
The doctrine (or principle) of double effect is often invoked to explain the permissibility of an action that causes a serious harm, such as the death of a human being, as a side effect of promoting some good end. It is claimed that sometimes it is permissible to cause such a harm as a side effect (or “double effect”) of bringing about a good result even though it would not be permissible to cause such a harm as a means to bringing about the same good end. This reasoning is summarized with the claim that sometimes it is permissible to bring about as a merely foreseen side effect a harmful event that it would be impermissible to bring about intentionally. More...
FEED: Civil rights
I think we're really poised at the outset of a new vision of the US. The position seems to be that we have reached the end of racial politics; post-racialism, if you will. The inherent idea is that we are also post-racism. On the one hand, this is a world I want to live in. On the other hand, personally I don't think we're there yet. Then again, how will we know when we get there?
From the NY Times OpEd: Powerful voices on the court, including Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion on Monday, began to call for something close to a zero-tolerance policy when it came to government counting its citizens by race for any purpose. And the court became skeptical of Congress’s making its own legislative judgments in ways that threatened to expand the boundaries of the court’s own narrowing constitutional vision. More...
From the NY Times OpEd: Powerful voices on the court, including Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion on Monday, began to call for something close to a zero-tolerance policy when it came to government counting its citizens by race for any purpose. And the court became skeptical of Congress’s making its own legislative judgments in ways that threatened to expand the boundaries of the court’s own narrowing constitutional vision. More...
Monday, June 29, 2009
Another weekend bites the dust
Very busy. Really.
First of all, I have alluded in various ways and in various places to discussions some of us are having with the NYSFL. While there’s nothing particularly secret about any of this, it seems judicious to me that these discussions not be the subject of instant analysis here the minute after they happen. Suffice it to say two things: first, the discussions are productive, held in a spirit of mutual respect, and second, shortly there will be ways for other coaches in the state to participate in the dialogue. Slice this any way you want, but it is a good thing.
Secondly, I’m up to my eyeballs in organizing the new computer, which remains unnamed. I sort of like Big Mac, but, well, it’s not as big as the Mac at the DJ, so it seems, I don’t know, a little pretentious. Anyhow, every time I turn around, there’s something else I need to do. Granted, I could have just hooked up the old computer and ported everything over, but that just seemed so…sterile. Besides, I’m using Little Elvis as a fileserver, so to a great degree, what would be the point? This weekend saw the arrival of an FTP program, the indispensable TextWrangler, and the last of my photos, et alia. My pictures situation, in particular, has been a mess for years, with pix spread across computers, disks, etc. Finally, a chance to organize. Plus, I keep finding good shots I’ve forgotten about, including old debate photos. I’ll post ‘em on Facebook and tag ‘em if you’re in ‘em.
I’m also cleaning up the chez, which means that for a while I lost, and then I found, my Pfffft notes from CatNats. I’ll be working on that. I actually did see things that made me want to improve my admittedly haphazard initial take on the activity. With my notes back in hand, maybe this week.
Meanwhile, I’ll keep the Feed articles coming in here, as I find them. I may be too busy to write stuff, but other people aren’t.
First of all, I have alluded in various ways and in various places to discussions some of us are having with the NYSFL. While there’s nothing particularly secret about any of this, it seems judicious to me that these discussions not be the subject of instant analysis here the minute after they happen. Suffice it to say two things: first, the discussions are productive, held in a spirit of mutual respect, and second, shortly there will be ways for other coaches in the state to participate in the dialogue. Slice this any way you want, but it is a good thing.
Secondly, I’m up to my eyeballs in organizing the new computer, which remains unnamed. I sort of like Big Mac, but, well, it’s not as big as the Mac at the DJ, so it seems, I don’t know, a little pretentious. Anyhow, every time I turn around, there’s something else I need to do. Granted, I could have just hooked up the old computer and ported everything over, but that just seemed so…sterile. Besides, I’m using Little Elvis as a fileserver, so to a great degree, what would be the point? This weekend saw the arrival of an FTP program, the indispensable TextWrangler, and the last of my photos, et alia. My pictures situation, in particular, has been a mess for years, with pix spread across computers, disks, etc. Finally, a chance to organize. Plus, I keep finding good shots I’ve forgotten about, including old debate photos. I’ll post ‘em on Facebook and tag ‘em if you’re in ‘em.
I’m also cleaning up the chez, which means that for a while I lost, and then I found, my Pfffft notes from CatNats. I’ll be working on that. I actually did see things that made me want to improve my admittedly haphazard initial take on the activity. With my notes back in hand, maybe this week.
Meanwhile, I’ll keep the Feed articles coming in here, as I find them. I may be too busy to write stuff, but other people aren’t.
FEED: Heckling = Free Speech
This is interesting. Right of free speech is protected only versus the government. Private infringement of free speech is not protected. Heckling is a unique situation, though.
Audiences have a right to heckle... The leading judicial decision here is In re Kay of the Supreme Court of California... The Court granted the right to heckle and stated that this is a legitimate part of the “cacophony of democracy”. Even though heckling and booing and shouting and other types of disruption may be uncivilized, impolite and often stupid, it’s free speech and it should be protected. More...
Audiences have a right to heckle... The leading judicial decision here is In re Kay of the Supreme Court of California... The Court granted the right to heckle and stated that this is a legitimate part of the “cacophony of democracy”. Even though heckling and booing and shouting and other types of disruption may be uncivilized, impolite and often stupid, it’s free speech and it should be protected. More...
FEED: Uganda debate
Another posting from Snider, interesting in its own right to anyone who thinks that debate has intrinsic value beyond the purely academic.
The Nabisunsa students at Ridar Hotel are a representation of a new generation of debaters on their way to changing the face of critical discussions in this country, and onto the “glorious light!” One just can't wait for the national championship in December! More...
The Nabisunsa students at Ridar Hotel are a representation of a new generation of debaters on their way to changing the face of critical discussions in this country, and onto the “glorious light!” One just can't wait for the national championship in December! More...
FEED: Terror v privacy
Good question:
A bit less privacy is a cheap price to pay for more physical security. However... if rights are tradeable like this, if they depend on the circumstance and should be surrendered when the circumstances become more difficult, what is left of them? More...
A bit less privacy is a cheap price to pay for more physical security. However... if rights are tradeable like this, if they depend on the circumstance and should be surrendered when the circumstances become more difficult, what is left of them? More...
FEED: School days (1957)
From P.A.P. again; 52 years ago is either a very long time, or a very short time. I envy those of you who haven't had to live through anything like this in our country.
Or have you?
On September 4, 1957, she and eight other African American students attempted to enter Little Rock Central High School, which had previously only accepted white students. They were stopped at the door by Arkansas National Guard troops called up by Democratic Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus, in defiance of a unanimous decision of the United States Supreme Court (Brown v. Board of Education). More...
Or have you?
On September 4, 1957, she and eight other African American students attempted to enter Little Rock Central High School, which had previously only accepted white students. They were stopped at the door by Arkansas National Guard troops called up by Democratic Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus, in defiance of a unanimous decision of the United States Supreme Court (Brown v. Board of Education). More...
FEED: Intellectual property vs Creative Freedom
I love discussions of intellectual property. I've been stating here for ages that just because something is readily accessible doesn't make it freely yours. That is, you can't claim that online music is free just because it's easy for you to acquire it without paying. There's a bench in front of my house that you could easily put into your car. Does that mean it's yours for the taking?
Anyhow, serious discussions of IP go much deeper. This article in Reason, starting with the Catcher in the Rye pastiche, is a good starting point.
Now, the court must decide if 60 Years Later falls under the "fair use" exception to copyright law. Is it an unauthorized sequel (red light), or a commentary or parody (green light)? Does it merely appropriate and continue the work, or transform it in a way that illuminates the original?
Salinger's lawyers have claimed that the new book is "a rip-off pure and simple."There is nothing simple about intellectual property law. Some things are fairly straightforward: a pirated edition of a book or an illegal DVD of a movie cuts into the revenues of the author or the producers. But a new work that builds on an earlier one can boost the sales of the original, particularly if it creates controversy. Film and television studios have sometimes gone after fan-made music videos based on TV shows and movies and posted on websites such as YouTube, even though such videos have inspired quite a few people to buy DVDs of the movies or shows. More...
Anyhow, serious discussions of IP go much deeper. This article in Reason, starting with the Catcher in the Rye pastiche, is a good starting point.
Now, the court must decide if 60 Years Later falls under the "fair use" exception to copyright law. Is it an unauthorized sequel (red light), or a commentary or parody (green light)? Does it merely appropriate and continue the work, or transform it in a way that illuminates the original?
Salinger's lawyers have claimed that the new book is "a rip-off pure and simple."There is nothing simple about intellectual property law. Some things are fairly straightforward: a pirated edition of a book or an illegal DVD of a movie cuts into the revenues of the author or the producers. But a new work that builds on an earlier one can boost the sales of the original, particularly if it creates controversy. Film and television studios have sometimes gone after fan-made music videos based on TV shows and movies and posted on websites such as YouTube, even though such videos have inspired quite a few people to buy DVDs of the movies or shows. More...
Friday, June 26, 2009
Critiquing the K
In a comment, LA Coach says:
As a policy debater that became an LD coach, I started off with a number of the same questions that your student had, including the use of kritiks.
The conclusion I came to was similar to yours, but with two significant caveats: the threshold of compelling need and the value of discursive critiques.
One of the most interesting arguments I've seen about torture warrants is the argument that we shouldn't be debating it at all. From both an educational and a moral standpoint, there are solid arguments that debating that topic will actually be detrimental to the long-term moral development of our students, which (to me) is a compelling reason to write a critique of it. While this is a well-documented argument, I happen to think that the threshold for interesting and compelling critical arguments is low enough that I'm happy to listen to them when they're well presented. Kritiks that are presented badly, however, get no sympathy.
Secondly, I think we need to take a step back and seriously consider the value of kritiks of discourse in LD. I don't mean simply "don't say X" arguments, but I do think there's value to helping students regulate the language used in rounds. I got so fed up with hearing about the Holocaust that I taught my novices a simple H-Triv kritik, and had a long talk with them about when it was appropriate to talk about the Holocaust, and when it might be appropriate to run the K. I suspect it didn't get through to all of them, but it did challenge some of my students to think about that larger issue and I believe they actually gained something from learning a kritik that isn't specific to the any resolution.
Ultimately, you're exactly right to say that Ks are an individual judge thing, but I wonder if there isn't some value to keeping them around as a lesser argument. I don't want to hear Nietzsche every round, but I think there may be a more topic-specific (or round-specific) space for them to permanently hold.
I promoted this to entry caliber for a couple of reasons. First of all, I’m on board with the argument on torture warrants, because it is not particularly unfair nor unresolutional. I would accept this (argued well) as a legitimate position. To be honest, even though it’s obviously a critique of debating torture, I don’t think I would be considering it as such in the round, as much as I would be considering it a reasonable argument about the subject. I tend not to think in academic terms; don’t wrestle me to the ground to explain the difference between tonalism and impressionism, for instance. I know it when I see it, but I’m not thinking about it. Half of what today is referred to as theory debate used to be called definitional debate: same arguments, different label. The same muck that attended the one today attends the other. So it goes.
I am coincidentally curious about the Holocaust, or any extreme debating. Around here such is almost completely unheard of except at the rankest amateur levels, i.e., novice meetings, where the offending soul who brings up Hitler or the like is figuratively thrown out the window after we explain why that level of analysis is counter-productive. Are we just lucky around here?
Anyhow, in agreement with the comment, I wish there were more discussion of what is and isn’t valuable in critiquing a resolution. So much of what we do is soooooo vague. And I have often come out against the idea that judges can maintain wildly different views of the activity just because they don’t want to subscribe to an accepted orthodoxy. I’m not sure whether we have an accepted orthodoxy or not (although I know we have rules, and some judges and debaters are perfectly willing to flout them, which is a different business altogether).
The other thing is, how much critiquing is really going on in policy anyhow? I have no idea.
As a policy debater that became an LD coach, I started off with a number of the same questions that your student had, including the use of kritiks.
The conclusion I came to was similar to yours, but with two significant caveats: the threshold of compelling need and the value of discursive critiques.
One of the most interesting arguments I've seen about torture warrants is the argument that we shouldn't be debating it at all. From both an educational and a moral standpoint, there are solid arguments that debating that topic will actually be detrimental to the long-term moral development of our students, which (to me) is a compelling reason to write a critique of it. While this is a well-documented argument, I happen to think that the threshold for interesting and compelling critical arguments is low enough that I'm happy to listen to them when they're well presented. Kritiks that are presented badly, however, get no sympathy.
Secondly, I think we need to take a step back and seriously consider the value of kritiks of discourse in LD. I don't mean simply "don't say X" arguments, but I do think there's value to helping students regulate the language used in rounds. I got so fed up with hearing about the Holocaust that I taught my novices a simple H-Triv kritik, and had a long talk with them about when it was appropriate to talk about the Holocaust, and when it might be appropriate to run the K. I suspect it didn't get through to all of them, but it did challenge some of my students to think about that larger issue and I believe they actually gained something from learning a kritik that isn't specific to the any resolution.
Ultimately, you're exactly right to say that Ks are an individual judge thing, but I wonder if there isn't some value to keeping them around as a lesser argument. I don't want to hear Nietzsche every round, but I think there may be a more topic-specific (or round-specific) space for them to permanently hold.
I promoted this to entry caliber for a couple of reasons. First of all, I’m on board with the argument on torture warrants, because it is not particularly unfair nor unresolutional. I would accept this (argued well) as a legitimate position. To be honest, even though it’s obviously a critique of debating torture, I don’t think I would be considering it as such in the round, as much as I would be considering it a reasonable argument about the subject. I tend not to think in academic terms; don’t wrestle me to the ground to explain the difference between tonalism and impressionism, for instance. I know it when I see it, but I’m not thinking about it. Half of what today is referred to as theory debate used to be called definitional debate: same arguments, different label. The same muck that attended the one today attends the other. So it goes.
I am coincidentally curious about the Holocaust, or any extreme debating. Around here such is almost completely unheard of except at the rankest amateur levels, i.e., novice meetings, where the offending soul who brings up Hitler or the like is figuratively thrown out the window after we explain why that level of analysis is counter-productive. Are we just lucky around here?
Anyhow, in agreement with the comment, I wish there were more discussion of what is and isn’t valuable in critiquing a resolution. So much of what we do is soooooo vague. And I have often come out against the idea that judges can maintain wildly different views of the activity just because they don’t want to subscribe to an accepted orthodoxy. I’m not sure whether we have an accepted orthodoxy or not (although I know we have rules, and some judges and debaters are perfectly willing to flout them, which is a different business altogether).
The other thing is, how much critiquing is really going on in policy anyhow? I have no idea.
FEED: Chalk one up to individual rights, in the schools
We've had resolutions about the rights of students in schools, an area in which the courts have mostly deferred to the administrations, favoring safety over liberty. This seems to be the correct result from SCOTUS, although note that, in his dissent, CT noted that now all students will know that their drugs are safe in their underwear.
Today, in an 8-to-1 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed that Arizona public school officials violated the Fourth Amendment rights of a 13-year-old eighth-grader when they subjected her to a strip search because they thought she might be hiding ibuprofen in her underwear. More...
Today, in an 8-to-1 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed that Arizona public school officials violated the Fourth Amendment rights of a 13-year-old eighth-grader when they subjected her to a strip search because they thought she might be hiding ibuprofen in her underwear. More...
FEED: Patents on publicly funded research
The People's Champion found and tweeted this (and you thought that Twitter was useless!). In essence, South Africa is looking at forced patents on intellectual property. The ramifications of this are mind-boggling. I can't believe it will happen, but in any case, IP is a big issue for me, and for LD.
...a proposal in South Africa, that would potentially require patents on certain publicly funded research. While this seems totally backwards for any number of reasons (and many of us believe that publicly funded research should be available to the public since they paid for it), apparently some are concerned that "foreign multinationals" might "misappropriate" the research. So, even if a university and the researcher choose not to protect the research results with IP, if a government body determines that the results could have commercial viability, it would have the ability to control the rights. More...
...a proposal in South Africa, that would potentially require patents on certain publicly funded research. While this seems totally backwards for any number of reasons (and many of us believe that publicly funded research should be available to the public since they paid for it), apparently some are concerned that "foreign multinationals" might "misappropriate" the research. So, even if a university and the researcher choose not to protect the research results with IP, if a government body determines that the results could have commercial viability, it would have the ability to control the rights. More...
Thursday, June 25, 2009
PF judge paradigms
I am more than a little taken with CP’s idea for a traveling PF judge paradigm. As he explains, it is a basic requirement for public speakers to, before opening their pie holes, ascertain the nature of the audience. One way or another we do this in LD and Policy, but given the extremely mixed nature of the PF pools, which often comprise a large number of people doing it for the first (and last) time, we don’t have a way of gauging the audience in that activity. His proposal is a what-if for a paradigm sheet of sorts that judges could bring with them to rounds for the teams to look over.
So my notion is to introduce the PF Paradigm Questionnaire. It’d be a simple sheet of maybe 10-12 questions of various ways a judge might like to judge, designed to both allow debaters to figure out a judge’s paradigm, and to prompt the judge him/herself to think about how and why they’re making their decisions. The questions can be “I prefer arguments based on 1. Sources & Evidence . . . 5 mixed . . . . 10 Independent reasoning.” It could ask about speed versus presentation, background, and all kinds of things. It could ask if the judge prefers teams to be vicious jackals or wussy teddy bears in cross-ex.
Then the judge carries their sheet around with him/her during the tournament, and shows it to the two teams before each round if they want to see it. If their beliefs should change as a result of their growing experience with rounds — “oh, I didn’t realize how fast ‘fast’ meant!” — they can alter it or get a new sheet between rounds. More…
I’m rather taken with this idea. CP does ask for thoughts on his decidedly comment-free blog, hence here. My first thought is, why doesn’t the man just write it and show it to us? Then we could use it at tournaments next season to try it out. I’d be happy to give it a go at Bump (or give it a bump at Go—whatever).
Thoughts? ;-)
So my notion is to introduce the PF Paradigm Questionnaire. It’d be a simple sheet of maybe 10-12 questions of various ways a judge might like to judge, designed to both allow debaters to figure out a judge’s paradigm, and to prompt the judge him/herself to think about how and why they’re making their decisions. The questions can be “I prefer arguments based on 1. Sources & Evidence . . . 5 mixed . . . . 10 Independent reasoning.” It could ask about speed versus presentation, background, and all kinds of things. It could ask if the judge prefers teams to be vicious jackals or wussy teddy bears in cross-ex.
Then the judge carries their sheet around with him/her during the tournament, and shows it to the two teams before each round if they want to see it. If their beliefs should change as a result of their growing experience with rounds — “oh, I didn’t realize how fast ‘fast’ meant!” — they can alter it or get a new sheet between rounds. More…
I’m rather taken with this idea. CP does ask for thoughts on his decidedly comment-free blog, hence here. My first thought is, why doesn’t the man just write it and show it to us? Then we could use it at tournaments next season to try it out. I’d be happy to give it a go at Bump (or give it a bump at Go—whatever).
Thoughts? ;-)
FEED: International
I'm rather taken with "Tuna" Snider's reports on debates outside the US. Not much to add to them, aside from pointing them out.
The first ever debate tournament in Jordan just ended with quite a lot of excitement... Debaters came from Aqaba, Zarqa'a, Amman-Khalda, Taibeh, Karak, and Sahab. In the morning the debaters considered whether Jordan's reservations to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) should be lifted. The afternoon topic centered on the relationship between tribal law and public law in Jordan. Each team debated each topic twice for a total of four debates. More...
A second piece is on a more casual debate job in Namibia: In addition to teaching English, I have been handed the duties of the debate coach and the grade 6 Agriculture class. I was pretty horrified at the debate responsibility, as I have never even taken a debate class or participated in a debate. More...
The first ever debate tournament in Jordan just ended with quite a lot of excitement... Debaters came from Aqaba, Zarqa'a, Amman-Khalda, Taibeh, Karak, and Sahab. In the morning the debaters considered whether Jordan's reservations to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) should be lifted. The afternoon topic centered on the relationship between tribal law and public law in Jordan. Each team debated each topic twice for a total of four debates. More...
A second piece is on a more casual debate job in Namibia: In addition to teaching English, I have been handed the duties of the debate coach and the grade 6 Agriculture class. I was pretty horrified at the debate responsibility, as I have never even taken a debate class or participated in a debate. More...
FEED: Women who grunt
What can I add?
“lady tennis players” should not grunt because “it makes them unsexy, and sex appeal is the main selling point of women’s tennis”. (Former tennis player Michael Stich) More...
“lady tennis players” should not grunt because “it makes them unsexy, and sex appeal is the main selling point of women’s tennis”. (Former tennis player Michael Stich) More...
FEED: Human rights data
The idea of evaluating sites with human rights data? Priceless. And a good research resource for future topics.
It is extremely important to have good data on individual human rights, and in this page I’ll try to list the available data sources for each human right. In order to do that, I established a stylized set of human rights, derived from the major international human rights instrument which is known as the International Bill of Human Rights (IBHR), comprised of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (1966)... I separate these rights into the 3 traditional groups of rights - freedom rights, political rights and social and economic rights. For each human right, I list and give examples of some of the authoritative measurements, if any. More...
It is extremely important to have good data on individual human rights, and in this page I’ll try to list the available data sources for each human right. In order to do that, I established a stylized set of human rights, derived from the major international human rights instrument which is known as the International Bill of Human Rights (IBHR), comprised of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (1966)... I separate these rights into the 3 traditional groups of rights - freedom rights, political rights and social and economic rights. For each human right, I list and give examples of some of the authoritative measurements, if any. More...
FEED: Women in the theater
Is there gender bias in the theater? That's what this new study was about.
The NY Times reports on a year long study conducted by a Princeton economics student, Emily Glassberg Sands, whose work has been vetted by a number of excellent economists. The study looked at the fact that many more plays produced are written by men than by women. These are the conclusions reached: More...
I will point out anecdotally, and tangentially, that traditionally girls will read books by men much more readily than boys will read books by women. When boys read at all, that is...
The NY Times reports on a year long study conducted by a Princeton economics student, Emily Glassberg Sands, whose work has been vetted by a number of excellent economists. The study looked at the fact that many more plays produced are written by men than by women. These are the conclusions reached: More...
I will point out anecdotally, and tangentially, that traditionally girls will read books by men much more readily than boys will read books by women. When boys read at all, that is...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)