An op-ed in Saturday’s Post caught my attention–it focused on how a culture of drinking is damaging sports, both professional and collegiate.

Toward the end of the article, the author explains what he thinks is one solution:

“A few basic reforms could help end the devastating consequences of combining sports and intoxication. Professional sports leagues, teams, stadiums, colleges and vendors need to review and reform their alcohol policies. Limiting tailgate parties, prohibiting open containers, restricting the amount of alcohol sold to a single customer, training staff to recognize signs of intoxication, and monitoring staff and customer behavior are among the reforms needed. Some colleges ban alcohol altogether at sporting events. Why should college football be saturated with beer advertising and drunken behavior? Ohio State provides a sensible approach to the problem.”

I wasn’t sure about this, so I thought I’d throw it back to the Ohio posse. Does Ohio State no longer sell beer at games? Certainly they don’t have limits on tailgate parties–having been an attendee myself at some over the years, I didn’t see any kind of enforcement or limitations. And hasn’t Ohio State had some problem with unruly behavior by students after games that has been associated with heavy drinking?

I know I’ve been off on a rampage about the teaching of “Intelligent Design.” But here’s a piece from the New York Times that explains more about the theory and argues that it isn’t a religion-motivated theory:

“Intelligent design proponents do question whether random mutation and natural selection completely explain the deep structure of life. But they do not doubt that evolution occurred. And intelligent design itself says nothing about the religious concept of a creator.”

It’s nice to see this theory laid out with a bit more detail, and I am cheered to see that it is something that is being discussed by the scientific community. But it still alarms me that we’re hesitating to teach children evolution and that some religious zealots are using this theory as a way to alter school curriculum.

And scientific theory or no, I’m still putting it in quotes. So there.

I love chocolate, dark, milk, white, hot, cold, frozen, chocolate.

Everyone knows it. My son can say a dozen words. One of them is cocoa.

So I had to try Starbucks new “sipping chocolate” to see if it was up to all the hype.

It is. It TOTALLY is. It is like drinking brownie batter. It is the perfect blend of dark chocolate bite with the right amount of sweet. Mine was the perfect temperature for hot chocolate and the perfect consistency. Best chocolate experience since my first taste of Godiva in high school.

Deeeeelicious

Putting this one up because of my occupational interest:

NY’s same-sex marriage ban struck down

A Manhattan judge declared Friday that the section of state law that forbids same-sex marriage is unconstitutional — the first ruling of its kind in New York and one that if upheld on appeal would allow gay couples to wed.

State Supreme Court Justice Doris Ling-Cohan ruled that the words “husband,” “wife,” “groom” and “bride” in relevant sections of the Domestic Relations Law “shall be construed to mean ‘spouse,”‘ and “all personal pronouns … shall be construed to apply equally to either men or women.” Ling-Cohan ruled on the side of five same-sex couples who were denied marriage licenses. She said the New York City clerk could not deny a license to any couple solely on the ground that the two are of the same sex.

[more]

I should note that this is a decision from New York City’s trial court level, and that there’s the state court of appeals and the New York state Supreme Court ahead of the case, obviously.

But interesting, nonetheless.

(As mail2blogger appears to not want to post my email from Monday morning, I guess I’ll have to do it the old fashioned way:)

Legislation that would restrict what university professors could say in their classrooms was introduced yesterday in Ohio.

Judging from reactions in other states where similar bills have been considered, controversy won’t be far behind.

Marion Sen. Larry A. Mumper’s “academic bill of rights for higher education” would prohibit instructors at public or private universities from “persistently” discussing controversial issues in class or from using their classes to push political, ideological, religious or anti-religious views.

Senate Bill 24 also would prohibit professors from discriminating against students based on their beliefs and keep universities from hiring, firing, promoting or giving tenure to instructors based on their beliefs.

Mumper, a Republican, said many professors undermine the values of their students because “80 percent or so of them (professors) are Democrats, liberals or socialists or card-carrying Communists” who attempt to indoctrinate students.

“These are young minds that haven’t had a chance to form their own opinions,” Mumper said. “Our colleges and universities are still filled with some of the ’60s and ’70s profs that were the anti-American group. They’ve gotten control of how to give people tenure and so the colleges continue to move in this direction.”

### – [full story from the Dispatch]

Posted because I find this… well, hilarious wouldn’t be that far wrong. Do I think it’s remotely likely to pass? Nope. Do I think it’s representative of the Republican party in general? Nope. But am I shocked that that’s where it’s coming from?

Nope.

[via people have the power]

I just wanna know… who decides when the dems stand and clap during the State of the Union? Is there someone in the front row giving signals?

Someone took their Xbox and built it into a model of the Millennium Falcon:

And they’re selling it on ebay.co.uk.

Two disturbing stories on education today.

The first, continuing a theme that royally chaps my ass, on how evolution is under assault in the classroom. In this piece, the assault is not from our “Intelligent Design” friends, but from teachers themselves who have been intimidated into not disucssing evolution in the classroom. A disturbing quote:

Dr. Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, said she heard “all the time” from teachers who did not teach evolution “because it’s just too much trouble.”

“Or their principals tell them, ‘We just don’t have time to teach everything so let’s leave out the things that will cause us problems,’ ” she said.

The second, and equally anxiety-inducing, deals with how students today view the First Amendment. According to AP’s Ben Feller, students just don’t give our Constitution the same kind of respect it has always inspired:

…when told of the exact text of the First Amendment, more than one in three high school students said it goes “too far” in the rights it guarantees. Only half of the students said newspapers should be allowed to publish freely without government approval of stories.

What?!? What in high heaven are we teaching our students? That we can’t and don’t trust science and research? That the Constitution of the United States and the freedoms it guarantees are bunk? That the government has a right to tell people what to do, say, and think?

I don’t know about you, but I’m frightened. In 30 years, these are the people that will be running the country. And if this country turns out like 1984, I think I might have to relocate to the moon.