As some of you may know, last year I received a free wireless router from Fon. Well, they had another promotion where they gave three routers to existing members to give to their friends, for Valentine’s Day I guess. I signed up and promptly forgot about it.
Well, they came in the mail this week. They’re small and cute. Nelson has claimed one and I recall Margie expressing some interest so she gets first dibs on the second, but that leaves at least one extra. So who wants a free wifi router?
So I did the GlassBooth.org test a few weeks ago. It pretty much confirmed what I already suspected: Kucinich and Edwards had the platforms most similar to my beliefs, with Obama the closest match of the Democratic front-runners. The test made it clear, though, that with regard to the issues I had marked there was only a small difference in policies between Obama and Clinton. (Significant–guess which candidate voted for wiretapping?–but small.) So why did I already admire Obama so, while having a seemingly-instinctive distrust of Clinton?
I feel like I’ve been horrible at articulating these things. So, I’m going to link you to three people I read, whose names may or may not matter to you, and their analysis/endorsements.
So let’s start with Greg Saunders, who I know little about, but who contributes to This Modern World so I read him sometimes. I think as an overall view of the election, the piece is kind of outdated, but here’s the meat:
For starters, Clinton’s biggest selling point has been her “experienceâ€, but as Timothy Noah wrote at Slate, Hillary’s claim of experience is incredibly dishonest :
[D]uring her husband’s two terms in office, Hillary Clinton did not hold a security clearance, did not attend meetings of the National Security Council, and was not given a copy of the president’s daily intelligence briefing. During trips to Bosnia and Kosovo, she “acted as a spokeswoman for American interests rather than as a negotiator.†On military affairs, most of her experience derives not from her White House years but from serving on the Senate armed services committee.
[...]
During the Clinton years, there was one big “accomplishment†that she can claim…her failure to enact universal healthcare. Considering that one of her biggest promises on the stump has been universal healthcare, I’d expect the “most experienced†candidate to have a better pitch in this regard than “second time’s the charmâ€. If Hillary can learn from the mistakes she made in 1994, who’s to say the other candidates can’t also learn those lessons?
Remember the bit in “Sicko” where you see the dollar amounts taken in bribescontributions from health insurers above the politicians’ heads? Hillary was one of those Moore named. In fact, she’s taken the second-largest amount of money from the health sector of national politicians–and the first, Santorum, is now gone.
Frederick H. Graefe, a health care lawyer and lobbyist in Washington for more than 20 years, said, “People in many industries, including health care, are contributing to Senator Clinton today because they fully expect she will be the Democratic presidential nominee in 2008.â€
“If the usual rules apply,†Mr. Graefe said, early donors will “get a seat at the table when health care and other issues are discussed.â€
Source. Fox, meet henhouse.
Person number two: Lawrence Lessig. He’s clearly been a great supporter of Obama–he’s been writing about his campaign a great deal on his blog. He also has been following the Clinton campaign’s apparent attempts to Swift Boat Obama:
It has been argued that Clinton would do well in the general election because she knows how to fight Rove-ian Republicans and is prepared to respond to–by using–dirty tactics.
…huh?
Is that really how we want politics to be, beyond the Bush years, interminably? To have the “Rove virus cross the GOP/DEM barrier”? This isn’t a strength, this is horrible!
Lessig has also written about the meaning of “change,” a word used constantly by pretty much every candidate (including the Republicans). However, there are different kinds of change. There is the kind of change that is inevitable in 2008–there will be a change in presidency. Bush will no longer be president. Duh. The other kinds of change, the more pressing sort, are changes in policy–and, even better, systemic changes in how Washington operates, from echo chamber to transparency.
Which kind of change does Clinton mean?
The final endorsement: Randall Munroe. Yep, the xkcd guy. Just read it, I’ll wait.
Okay.
So that’s why Lessig supports Obama so much. Obama went to Lessig, instead of industry lobbyists like everybody else, to help form the tech policy part of his platform. That’s why Obama and Clinton were so close on my Glassbooth test. Because tech policy, one of my major issues, was not part of that test.
Check out Obama’s technology ‘issue’ page. It’s *long*. Obama supports net neutrality, open document standards, and increasing access to high-speed broadband. He mentions IP and patent reform, too. Obama has also advocated Creative Commons Attribution licensing for the Democratic candidate debates. Basically, I’m extremely impressed that he knows this issue exists and is giving it plenty of pixels, let alone is talking to smart people about it instead of industry hacks. He’s like the anti-Ted Stevens! Sweet!
Wow. Hillary Clinton doesn’t even have a tech policy page. “Innovation” has one blurb about getting women and minorities into science and one blurb about broadband. That seems to be it. What century are we in again? Oh, right, not yours.
So that’s why I prefer Obama…
Unfortunately, I can’t do anything about it. I’m registered to vote in Minnesota, which has a caucus system. Since I won’t be there in person, I can’t contribute. But my parents can. My friends at school who are registered to vote in California can. So do it! This is the one year where the primary results actually matter–where even up to Super Tuesday, there is still no front-runner! It’s totally freakish. So be freakish–vote! :)
On Friday the Scripps Store managers had a dinner potluck where we each did one of the courses. I was responsible for the entree. Inspired by this beautiful herb bread that was featured on BoingBoing, I decided to make something tasty that could have decorative herbs on top. Logically, I made a couple of pot pies.
Stuff:
1. Preheat oven to 375 degrees F. (Conveniently enough, the same temperature needed for the chocolate pecan pie we had for dessert!)
2. In a medium bowl, combine potato soup, mixed vegetables, meatless meat, milk, garlic, herbs, salt, and black pepper.
3. Dump filling into bottom pie crust. Cover with top crust; squish edges together to seal.
4. Bring a pot of water to a boil. Have a bowl of ice water nearby.
5. Put decorative herbs into the boiling water for a few seconds, then put them into the ice water. Pat dry with towels. Try to get them unwrinkled.
6. Beat the egg. Slit top crust, brush on beaten egg, arrange herbs, and brush more egg on.
7. Bake for 40 minutes and.or until crusty and golden brown. Remove from oven without burning yourself, cool, and dig in!
Your financial aid application will not be evaluated unless the required parental/spousal information is provided. This is so even though all graduate students are technically “independent” under federal guidelines. We will take an estimated parental contribution into account when awarding financial aid, but students can make that contribution up in the form of an additional loan – therefore, parents are not obligated to contribute the estimated parent contribution. [lol, great justification there]
–UPenn Law website
This post will probably be incredibly boring to anyone who’s not in/thinking about law school. Or related to me.
So a while ago I was reading about MichLaw and the financial aid section came up. Most of it was the usual bullshit:
Students and their spouses are expected to commit their own [entire??] incomes and a portion of their own assets toward meeting their living expenses and the student’s educational expenses each year.
Okay, so I should “live in sin” so I don’t leech all of Hypothetical Partner’s money. Gotcha.
But then this graph came up:
Along with the following statement:
The calculated parental resources factor will be adjusted based upon the number of years that you have been declared as a dependent or were eligible to be declared as a dependent in the five years from 2002-2006 (see chart). The percentage factor used in your first year will remain constant each of your three years of Law School.
If I shift that forward to when I’ll be going to law school, that means the tax returns of 2004-2008. Unless Dad can somehow fudge me as an independent for 2007, that means my parents are responsible for 80% of the Expected Family Contribution, which is explained by Harvard Law as “roughly 22% to 47% of a family’s income after subtracting taxes, a living allowance based on family size and state of residence, and other allowances” plus “roughly 3-6% of their adjusted net worth.”
Uh, what?
1.) This would be after I’ve been living two years out of the house, on my own, with (probably) no parental financial support. (Not to mention two summers of living on my own paychecks and a year of paying my own education through loans.) Dependence isn’t phased in the law, or (often) in reality. Other than only wanting to give financial aid to 30-year-olds, why are they doing this way?
2.) My experiences with the FAFSA have not been good. In fact, they’ve consistently been completely unrealistic. Like, ‘expecting to raid my parents’ retirement fund and sister’s college savings’ unrealistic. 2010 is the year my sister will be starting college, so maybe then it’ll let up on the college savings raiding. But still. I have no expectation that the share expected of my parents would be reasonable. In part because…
3.) My parents have no obligation to pay a dime! They paid enough for Scripps! I’ll be on my own by then, for Christ’s sake! Possibly marriedcohabiting! And saying that it’s okay, that “parents have no obligation” for the “Expected Parent Contribution” because students can just take out yet another private loan is bullshit. The *point* of finaid is to make up for students’ need through subsidized loans, some grants, and other tools. So we *don’t* have to do the whole thing through private loans. By adding an unrealistic and unjustified EFC, law schools are basically penalizing some independent students just for being too young. Trust me, Wells Fargo is getting enough of my money. They don’t need any more.
Graaaaaaahhh.
So I looked around at various other competitive law schools to see if the Michigan system was the case everywhere. It is. If anything, Michigan’s generous. I’d have either a 75% or 100% EFC at Stanford (it’s really vague how they count years). Harvard doesn’t seem to phase out at all, and only reduces it if you’re 29 or older.
Graaaaaaaaahhhhhh.
Buried in this is, I think, a somewhat more reasonable standard. Even if you’re an independent on your tax returns, Stanford and Harvard can still get you if you receive a certain amount of financial support from your parents in a given year ($5000 at Stanford, $10000 at Harvard). That, I think, is a much more representative assessment of whether a student is independent or not. Hang the tax returns–is a student paying their own bills (whether through their own income or loans)?
But of course it still penalizes you if your parents *ever* supported you in the last 5-7 years… regardless of how things have changed.
Fuckin’ finaid. Why can’t they just be honest and say, “We want to offer financial aid to students so that we look good and people are fooled into applying, but we’re a bunch of cheap bastards that can’t, or won’t, support [and by "support," I mean "give slightly less expensive debt to"] all the students who actually need it. So we find every possible exception to deny you money that you need, and in the end we just raffle off the grants! Wheeeee! *falls drunkenly off desk*”
Chamber Choir: Hang the music, here’s the important bit: two out of six altos got engaged over break. One of them’s a sophomore.
*head explodes*
I mean, I know altos are the sexiest section, but THIS IS RIDICULOUS.
*head explodes again*
Personal Finance: Prof Dillon is old and sassy. Not my most favoritest class, but it should be alright and certainly useful. My ridiculously expensive book needs to get here already so I can do my homework.
Civil Liberties and Fundamental Rights: If this class could have groupies, I would be one. We’re gonna read actual Supreme Court cases, and brief them! And yet we’re gonna talk about them from an interdisciplinary/power-politics perspective instead of a vocational perspective! It’s the best of both worlds! Even though Golub’s totally right about the limiting discourse that law school teaches you (some arguments “count”; some don’t) and all that, this class still has me completely pumped to study law in two years. I love the subject matter, and stretching and expanding discourses is fun! After all, even the CLS guys were law profs themselves…
After class I talked to Golub in his office about applying to law school and open access and how Scripps needs to hire an actual Legal Studies prof and random crap for an hour. I only noticed how long it got because Carolyn called about dinner. He also showed me pictures of his baby girl. I didn’t have a crush on Golub like the rest of Scripps when I took his class before, but now, when he gets in Dad Mode, he’s ridiculously adorable. Wow.
Kickboxing: Canceled. Apparently they couldn’t find an instructor to teach it. LAME. Now I have to find another PE…most of the ones I’d be interested in are either full or at inconvenient times. :p Maybe if I just commit to going to all the student/faculty soccer matches…?
Culture of the Copy: ALMOST as awesome as CivLib. Free Culture by Lawrence Lessig, “Bound By Law,” and the intro to Copyrights and Copywrongs are some of the required readings. (YAY!) But there’s lots of other cool material too–today we talked about art forgery, and we’ll also be going into cloning and human reproduction as forms of copying, which I never would’ve thought of.
Also! Pomona will be hosting a conference on March 1 on “Page, Screen, Pixel: Media in Transition.” My class is required to attend. AND SIVA VAIDYANATHAN IS SPEAKING!!!11eleventy!
I love it when free culture-y things happen without my doing anything…
In order to start the new semester off right, I made a special motivational poster:
If that doesn’t make you want to do assigned reading about the impossibility doctrine, voting systems theory, or time-space compression, I don’t know what will.
(Or maybe I do.)
Someday I’ll make one with a dude. And sell them. Mwa ha ha ha.
No one who needs financial aid should attend Scripps College until everyone in the current financial aid office is fired. They are the most disorganized, incompetent administrators I have ever had the displeasure of working with. That also seems to be the assessment of most other non-first-years with financial aid whom I’ve talked to about the issue.
In order to pay for my senior year education, I took out two private loans–a $4000 loan and a $15,000 loan, both from Wells Fargo. However, when the bills came from Scripps they had no record of the first loan, the first half of which was disbursed on September 20. Because Scripps bills are formatted confusingly and don’t list your loans separately (my merit scholarships and loans are all thrown together as “expected loans and aid,” which seems to be a semi-arbitrary number), I didn’t realize this until the beginning of winter break, when I received a bill for $2000 from Scripps–even though I knew I’d taken out enough loans and paid enough money to cover the entire year.
So I called financial aid. They were closed. (Mid-morning, Friday before the weekend before Christmas.)
I called again. They were closed. (Thursday, early afternoon, two days after Christmas.)
Finally people actually came to work on January 3 and I talked to Rhonda about it. She said there was no record of the first loan, but then as we talked said that she saw something suggesting that someone in the office–a temp maybe?–did certify the loan–they just never received the money. She said she’d have to do more research and talk to Wells Fargo.
Yesterday my parents received a second bill from Scripps, now with late fees attached. So I call Rhonda again. She had zero memory of our previous conversation and her commitment to figure out what was going on. She insisted that there was no record of Scripps certifying or receiving the first payment (on September 20) of the $4000. “Are you sure it wasn’t just a $4000 loan that was increased to $15,000?” Yes. I’m paying interest on them. “Do you have any evidence that we certified this loan?” Well, I can’t go through your files for you, bitch, but yes, I have my loan account record right in front of me (thank you Wells Fargo for sending me a copy when this originally came up!). Wells Fargo says you certified it. Wells Fargo says it sent you the money. This matter should be between you and Wells Fargo now–I did my part. Either you or Wells Fargo screwed up, and it was probably you. So stop treating me as if *I’m* shaking down *Scripps*!
“If it’s true that we made a mistake, then we’ll ask Accounts to take off the late fees.” Well, good. Problem is, I have to prove it to *you,* and it’s your office’s incompetence that’s at issue. Who do you go to when you need to go over the head of the financial aid office?
At the end of the call she said she’d have “Her” (some other employee… ?) look into it first thing in the morning. Well, given the results of Rhonda’s “research” after my previous call, I’m not sure what to make of that. My current plan is to call the financial aid office every day until they credit me the $2000 loan disbursement and/or I feel confident that they’re actually doing their fucking job instead of sitting around playing Bejeweled and masturbating.
I mean, really. These people lost a loan and then for two weeks forgot to do anything about it. What do they spend their time doing?
Yeah, it’s pretty impressive they were able to get the tech that thin. But, much like hyper-skinny ladies, to me that entails fragility, not style. I think I’d accidentally snap the thing in half within a week. Then again, until recently I wasn’t even aware that there was a class of ultra-thin PCs, so perhaps this product isn’t meant for me. Maybe someone out there makes their career out of breaking laptops over people’s heads–if so, this is the computer for them. But if I wanted a tiny, mobile, extremely awesome computer, I’d get an XO. Three weeks ago, I could buy four for the price of a MacBook Air.
Not enough ports. I know everyone’s complaining about that. I don’t think the lack of ports will stop everyone–for plenty of uses, that really is all you need. At my house, most workplaces, plenty of restaurants, and colleges that are more tech-savvy than Scripps, you’d have wifi everywhere. I do find it odd that they didn’t include FireWire, given it’s like Apple’s thing. But in any case the one-USB-port deal definitely would not work for my setup. I’ve got a tablet, a semi-permanently-connected external hard drive, an extra mouse, an iChat camera, a Bluetooth dongle–the ports on my computer get a workout!
The MacBook Air has the iPhone multi-touch-ness. That’s nice. It’s not a killer feature, though–it’s just a trackpad with improved UI. At this point, all Apple laptops should have it.
Basically, nice, but no cigar. I want my freaking Mac tablet already!
The other things announced at MacWorld sound good, though. The iPod touch functionality update is good (if overdue), Time Capsule looks useful, and the eight-core Mac Pros make me slobber all over myself (Up to 3.2 GHz processors? 320 GB hard drive? Ridiculous amounts of RAM? DOES WANT!).
Want to be instantly terrified? Read the top 100 quotes from fundamentalist Christian message boards.
Jesus f-in Christ. I need a breather before I start looking at immigration procedures for New Zealand again.
Imagine there’s no heaven
It’s easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today…Imagine there’s no countries
It isn’t hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace…You may say I’m a dreamer
But I’m not the only one
I hope someday you’ll join us
And the world will be as one
There we go.
About ten minutes ago, the left speaker on my 3.5-year-old iBook, Zachary, went out. It doesn’t seem to be coming back. I noticed when “Only You” by the Caesars came on and I couldn’t hear any of the guitar solo. Boo.
I can shift my computer’s sound output 100% to the left or the right in the System Preferences, but that doesn’t mono-ify stereo sound files (in other words, the other track just goes dark). There’s no obvious preference in iTunes to make it play stereo files in mono. Anyone more tech-savvy than me know how to make it do that?
For those keeping score at home, the things broken on my computer:
I’m both loathing Zachary as a semi-useless hunk of plastic and praying my baby makes it one more semester. I was crazy jealous of Nelson’s shiny new MacBook, but it lately seems to be experiencing Navy Stripes of Death (see: Pastel Stripes of Death) and black-curtain crashes on a semi-regular basis, so… schadenfreude?
