(no subject)

Some guy has a hypothesis that Fred Phelps is a scammer out to provoke people into assaulting him or violating his rights so he can sue. On one hand, it's a tempting theory that explains more facts than anything else. On the other hand, I'm unable to turn up any evidence that Fred Phelps has ever sued anyone. Googling "Fred Phelps lawsuit" only turns up suits against him. According to wikipedia, the WBC associated law firm has stated its intention to sue for Civil Rights violations over several anti-funeral protest laws, but there's nothing indicated they've succeeded. Some guy's argument that Westboro Church is lawsuit baits rests heavily on the facts that: 1. The protests are extremely organized. 2. They very carefully follow the letter of the law in the hateful things they say. Oh, and 3. They have shiny, durable signs.

Maybe I'm being cynical, but I'm not sure I want to take legal or organizational advice from a fark.com comment thread. Everything SG has said is equally true of PETA. Which I guess doesn't prove anything, because while I dismiss PETA as attention whores who use animals as an excuse, they're do make money off of it.

zero tolerance learning

I was homeschooled for 8th grade due to the utter absence of acceptable middle schools in my area. One of the neat things about being homeschooled was that I could occasionally replace my assignments with a different essay explaining why the original assignment was stupid. For example, I got out a textbook assignment on describing the voice of someone close to me by explaining that people we're emotionally close to or see frequently were the worst possible people to evaluate, because your emotions override the physics of their voice. I also got to stop after one chapter of How to Win Friends and Influence People because my first response essay explained the title was a lie, the book was about being a sycophant and manipulating people, and even if that wasn't true how was I supposed to practice the techniques if we weren't leaving the house?* Many people would describe essays like these as negatives about home schooling, but I think they were one of the best parts: if my boss tells me to do something, and I have information that leads me to believe I should do something else, knowing how to deliver that information in a respectful yet informative manner is incredibly useful.

Compare and contrast this with my brother's high school (large, comprehensive, serving a variety of income levels but leaning poor). The honors and AP teachers were extremely strict, wouldn't accept late homework, wouldn't accept arguments about exam questions. Why? Because they needed to Prepare You For College where That Wouldn't Fly. Anyone who's actually been to college, which as far as I know is everyone on my flist, should be falling out of their chair laughing now. College is all about asking for extensions and negotiating for some points back. The only place where you're expected to miss more deadline and offer more excuses is the real world. How to negotiate and clarify and eek out a little extra for yourself are exactly the kind of skills we should be teaching kids who will be the first in their families to attend college, especially since their parents aren't doing it.

I think we default to zero-tolerance-tardiness for the same reason we default to zero-tolerance-drug policy: it's an easy way to look like you're doing something. The people making the opposing case have to use nuance, and you don't, which gives you an advantage on the local news. And if something goes wrong, there's no judgment call of yours to blame. But zero tolerance for drugs is wrong, and this is wrong too.

*This was extremely early in the home schooling, before we'd filled in the outside activities.