Remaindered Links: Dangerous edition

By alex | Published: 8/5/2007

The following are all dangerous for one reason or another:

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | 2 Comments

Dog PR

By alex | Published: 8/4/2007

Ving RhamesIt’s too bad, really. Fang is described in the Harry Potter books as a cowardly “boarhound,” which is traditionally a name applied to Great Danes, but he is played by a mastiff in the movies. Along with Mudge, Fang gave us Mastiff-owners a lot of good publicity. Rather than looking worried about a dog that weighs five times more than they do, most kids are excited to come and plan with our Finn.

Unfortunately, I worry that the whole Ving Rhames thing is going to change that. It’s still not even clear what types of dogs they were. I’ve heard three bullmastiffs and an English bulldog, but the pictures do not look like bullmastiffs. If you take a look at the Wikipedia pages for the English Mastiff and for its cousin, the Fila Brasileiro, you will note that while they look similar, they have very different temperaments. Us Weekly dug up an interview Rhames gave about his dogs (with some unfortunate bravado about mauling), at least one of which at the time was a Fila Brasileiro, but I would like to know the breed of the dogs involved here.

As animal control led them off, they were wagging their tails, and seemed excited by all the commotion. The police said that the dogs were known to be friendly, and had a good relationship with the caretaker. I suspect that the bites and scratches were attempts to rouse the injured caretaker, as the police reported that they were all to the extremities (not, e.g., the face or neck). It would be really sad if they were responsible for the caretaker’s death, not only for the dogs involved, but for the reputation it gives to other big dogs.

Posted in General | Tagged | 1 Comment

Should my Facebook Groups be on my vita?

By alex | Published: 8/3/2007

I feel braindead this week. Rather than my other inane question (“What can the writers of Big Love do to make Nikki a likable and believable character?”), I am instead wondering what constitutes an “affiliation” these days.

I’ve dabbled in a lot of different academic organizations over the years, depending on what I felt like my discipline was. I’ve been a member, at one time or another, of ICA, ACM, IAMCR, AEJMC, ASIST, IEEE, MEA, ASA, CPSR, and probably a bunch I can’t remember. The only organizations with which I’ve been pretty consistent are AIR and the USJA, the latter because I am a life member. (I guess the USJA doesn’t show up on my vita either, but if I ever get around to publishing here, it might.) In many of these organizations the most I did was pay my fees and attend a conference or two. And the conferences already show up on my vita. So maybe it’s just a way of saying I (or my institution) can afford to pay to support these organizations, in which case it feels like the academic equivalent of a Chanel handbag.

But the truth is the organizations that I learn the most from and get the most out of I don’t pay for at all. Some of them are largely listserv based. Although I don’t pay dues, I still read lists for the MEA and IDC, among others. And more than three quarters of the subscribers to AIR-L are not dues-paying members. It seems to me that contributing to these lists represents more of a scholarly effort than paying dues to an organization. I think in some disciplines people even list postings to listservs, though that is scoffed at by many.

So what about the groups I join on Facebook? I’ll be the first to admit that being a member of “Researchers Researching Researchers,” though it may in fact, be a research interest, doesn’t really mean that much. Even less so the exclusive “Money is pimp” group (4 members), which even more closely tracks on my research interests. Noting these seems just as valid as–and a lot cheaper than–noting my affiliation with various scholarly organizations.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

I hope so

By alex | Published: 8/1/2007

Can you be a misanthrope and still love or enjoy some individuals? How about a compassionate misanthrope?

– Hillary Rodham (Clinton), 1967 (via NYT)

I love this. I doubt she could win on the “compassionate misanthrope” ticket, but I might vote for her if she tried.

(I also like the quote from her correspondent, John Peavoy, who notes that writing letters to friends was what college students did before Facebook.”)

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment