GENERAL
- Been an officer? Yes, Herald of Maale Giborim
- Do you have an SCA name? Yes, though not registered
- Do you have an SCA persona? barely
- Changed persona because of different garb? No
- Been adopted by a person, household, or clan? no
- Had a name and/or device accepted by the SCA College of Arms? no
- Had a name and/or device rejected by the SCA College of Arms? Yes.  I sent in Maale Giborim's forms with citations to the Bible without photocopies.  Apparently the heathens in the College of Arms don't think the Bible belongs on the no-photocopy list.
- Been taken as an apprentice, protege, or squire? No 
- Taken an apprentice, protege, squire, or cadet? no

EVENTS
- Been an event steward/autocrat? no
- Cooked an event? no
- Taught a class at an event? no
- Run an activity at an event? no
- Fought at an event? no
- Fought at Pennsic or another War? no
- Done a different martial art at an event? Yes, fenced and threw weapons
- Run a martial activity at an event? no
- Fought at an event tourney? Yes, fencing
- Fought in a Crown Tourney? no
- Won a tourney or contest at an event? no
- Made your own armor? Yes, fencing armor
- Made your own weapons? no
- Been a squire? No
- Have rank as an archer? no
- Have rank as a fencer? No, what does this mean, other than White Scarf or equivalent?
- Created a siege weapon? No

ARTS & SCIENCES
- Entered an A&S contest? no
- Won an A&S contest? no
- Run an A&S contest? no
- Judged/critiqued items in an A&S contest? no
- Wordsmithed a scroll? yes, working on it now
- Illuminated a scroll? will do for the same one
- Done the Calligraphy for a scroll? Yes, Hebrew (don't know other hands)
- Translated a scroll? No
- Made your own paper? No
- Made a book? no
- Made someone's order medallion? No
- Written someone in for an award? no
- Sewn your own garb? Yes
- Sewn garb for others? Yes, I made my wife a fencing dress
- Been sewing on the way to an event? No
- Finished an outfit just before an event? finished some garb the week before Pennsic
- Researched and completed an outfit from said research? no
- Taught a class on sewing? No 
- Finished a hat? I made myself a hood
- Do you know how to spin? No
- Have you woven your own fabric? No
- Do you know how to knit? No
- Do you know how to crochet? no
- Have you ever dyed your own yarn or fabric? No
- Embroidered a garment? No, but I have embroidered a favor
- Beaded a garment ? No
- Entertained at a feast? no
- Run a bardic circle? No
- Performed in a bardic circle? Yes
- Had songs requested from you at such? No
- Competed in a formal bardic? Yes
- Know any period songs? Yes

COURT IN THE SCA
- Run a court as royalty? No
- Run a court as herald? No
- Heralded at court? No, though I have offered
- Been an attendant, guard, or champion at court? No 
- Been called to court to receive an award? no
- Been called to court to present something? no
- Been called to court for punishment? No
- Been part of a court "shtick"? no
- Done something while watching court, e.g., spin, sew, embroider? No
- Had a royal comment on what you're doing? No
- Have awards from more than one Kingdom? no

PENNSIC
- Have you ever gone to Pennsic? Yes
- Ever done Zero Night? No...Is that the very first night of war?
- How many Pennsics have you gone to? this year will be 2
- Ever taught a class at Pennsic? no
- Taken a class at Pennsic? no
- Gone to opening ceremonies? hoping to this year
- Been a waterbearer? No
- Placed in a Pennsic tournament? No
- Worked a shift at Chirurgeons Point at Pennsic? No
- Worked a shift as security at Pennsic? No
- Volunteered in any other capacity? Yes, Heralds point
- Ever merchanted at Pennsic? no
- Gone to the swimming hole, Classic or Family? no
- 'Trolled the Bog for parties?' No
- Hosted a party at Pennsic? no
- Been part of a 'Pennsic building project'? no

TRAVEL IN THE SCA
- Ever traveled more than 8 hours each way for a one day event? no
- Gone to a different Kingdom for an event? does Pennsic count?
- Lived in a different Kingdom? Yes
- Have trailer hitch and trailer, mainly because of the SCA? No 
- What ridiculous lengths you've gone to get to an event? I took a bus into the old city of Jerusalem to go to an event and couldn't find the person they sent to find me, even tho he was in garb.

THE MUNDANE OF THE SCA
- Run out of closet space because of garb/gear? No,
- Ever crammed more than 4 people into a hotel room? Yes, though not for the SCA
- Met your future spouse at an SCA event? No, but she introduced me to the SCA fairly quickly
- Met most past significant others in an SCA setting? No
- Have better research books than your public library? no
- Is your tent bigger than your first apartment? Not yet
- How many sewing machines do you have? 1
- Own an anvil? No
- Added something to the YKITSCA-When lists? no

Put in the order you did them 

Become gainfully employed.
Graduate high school.
Get a cell phone.
Get drunk for the first time.
Start college.
Meet significant other.
Graduate college.
Move out of parent's house for good.
Get married.

Irrelevant, haven't done:-
Meet who you hoped was your significant other but wasn't.
Had kids.
Buy a car.
Get divorced.
Buy a house.

There exist some who claim that observant Jews cannot donate their organs but can give them.  Despite the fact that they feel organ donation is murder in most cases (because they do not accept brain death as death, and so the donor is murdered by removing his organs), they feel this murder will occur anyway, and since it is life-saving it is permitted to benefit from said murder.

Imagine a Jew and his trusty non-Jewish bodyguard are trapped in an airproof container together.  As is, the three of them will suffocate after several hours.  If there were fewer people, the oxygen would last longer for those still alive.  The bodyguard informs his Jewish employer "I am going to kill the third party, so that the two of us have more air."  Can the Jew really just sit there, if by objecting he can prevent this murder?

 I don't have children, so I'm perplexed by something I see my friends with children doing.  

I don't eat meals at the same times every day.  When I do, it is a result of convenience relative to other activities scheduled with other people.  Left to my own devices, I would not eat lunch every day at noon.  I do not go to bed every night at the same time.  Why  must children be scheduled to specific times for eating and sleeping?

I get the impression when babies are born they eat and sleep when they want to without specific times related to parental pressure or any sort of daily cycle.  At some point, some parents (the perplexing friends) stop accommodating this plan and insist that "the baby shall sleep now.  The baby shall get up now.  The baby shall eat now, etc"  Children do not know what time it is.  They presumably would eat when they were hungry (that is, they would indicate their hunger, at which point someone would give them food) and sleep when they were tired if left to their own devices.  I understand that parents want the kids to sleep when the parents are going to be asleep.  Is all of the scheduling for the whole day designed so that the kid wakes up around the time the parent wants to wake up?

Once scheduled, some parents I know treat the schedule as if it were handed down on Mount Sinai.  For example, shabbat starts late these summer days.  Do these parents feed their child at 8 PM, upon arrival home from the early minyan?  No, they feed their daughter at 6 pm, as if it were a weekday, contorting themselves to keep to the schedule which is sacrosanct.  This prevents them from going out for dinner or having guests.  They say that if she doesn't eat at the same time as every other day and go to bed at the same time as every other day she'll be fussy.  First of all, shabbat isn't like every other day and even the daughter realizes it.  All the muktze toys are gone.  the lights stay on.  People come over for lunch, or they go out to lunch.  They go to shul.  etc.  It isn't the same. So why don't they let the daughter stay up later to join in on Shabbat dinner?  If she sleeps later that day, so be it.  

I understand this scheduling business a little bit more for those friends where both work, so they are going to take the daughter to stay with someone at 7 AM, awake or not.  There, the daughter is innevitably going to be awakened by said transport, so if they want her to sleep 8 hrs, or 10 hrs, or whatever they think is right, they need to put her in bed that amount of time beforehand.  But the child who could get up at 6 am if he wanted or could get up at 10 am, why send him to bed at exactly 8?  

Color me confused.

So I was reading the principles and values of the 9-12 Project, founded by Glenn Beck.  The explanation of why I was there in the first place I will leave to a particular XKCD.  While there is a comment section there, I didn't think it was easily useable, and this way my comment is not under their editorial control.

First, the problem in general with pithy formulations is that they are open to interpretation.  In order to be unambiguously clear as to your meaning, you need a lot of words, and then people say "too long; didn't read".  Two easy examples of the brief, inspiring, central sorts of documents: Bill of Rights and (l'havdil) the Ten Commandments.  But there are wide swaths of possible meaning for both.  So some of these principles and all of the values will be agreed upon by everyone.  So in the absence of greater clarity the values are nearly meaningless.

 

9 Principles, 12 Values

The 9 Principles

1.	America Is Good.
	Good has several possible meanings, from effective (Bobby Fisher is a good chess player) to moral (Bobby Fischer is not a good person).  It is hard to be critical of a country if one of your founding principles is that it is morally good.   I want America to be good, in that it chooses moral activities and does them effectively.  However, I do not hold as a principle that America will always live up to this dream.
2.	I believe in God and He is the Center of my Life.
	God “The propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained.” from George Washington’s first Inaugural address.
	If you are a religious person and your morality is shaped by that, I'd expect you to want your country to behave in accord with the morality that is shaped by your faith.
3.	I must always try to be a more honest person than I was yesterday.
	Honesty “I hope that I shall always possess firmness and virtue enough to maintain what I consider to be the most enviable of all titles, the character of an honest man.” George Washington
	I'll assume Beck doesn't mean honest-to-a-fault, and say this one is just great as is.
4.	The family is sacred. My spouse and I are the ultimate authority, not the government.
	Marriage/Family “It is in the love of one’s family only that heartfelt happiness is known. By a law of our nature, we cannot be happy without the endearing connections of a family.” Thomas Jefferson
	The ultimate authority on what?  I assume this is aimed at education of children or gay marriage, but it is very unclear.  It could be read to support any family made decision, even if that is illegal.  So if I think my child will sleep better with a shot of rum before bed, fine.  Is that really what you are saying, Glenn? As for Jefferson, first of all, happiness can be found outside of one's family.  And if one thinks that Jefferson is here comparing family to government, I quote you: "Adore God. Reverence and cherish your parents. Love your neighbor as yourself,   and your country more than yourself" - Thomas Jefferson  I found that on a site linked from the 9-12 Project, Homemakers for America.
5.	If you break the law you pay the penalty. Justice is blind and no one is above it.
	Justice “I deem one of the essential principles of our government… equal and exact justice to all men of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political.” Thomas Jefferson
	Great platitude.  I'll let someone else research places where it seems not to be followed by Mr Beck (defending Republicans accussed of crimes?  Mandatory minimums? etc)
6.	I have a right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, but there is no guarantee of equal results.
	Life, Liberty, & The Pursuit of Happiness “Everyone has a natural right to choose that vocation in life which he thinks most likely to give him comfortable subsistence.” Thomas Jefferson
	The balance between the two clauses of this compound sentence will be vital to defining its meaning.  What constitutes ensuring one's right to pursue happiness and what constitutes an unfair guarantee of equal results?
7.	I work hard for what I have and I will share it with who I want to. Government cannot force me to be charitable.
	Charity “It is not everyone who asketh that deserveth charity; all however, are worth of the inquiry or the deserving may suffer.” George Washington
	The first sentence would be better if it ended "with whom I choose".  Also, the government CAN force one to be charitable, as it now does.  Beck is  arguing that it should not.  Some would argue that the policies refered to as charity are not charity but insurance.  Unemployment is actually called insurance, but welfare, medicaid and several other entitlement programs serve the same function.  Can the government force you to be insured?  It does with regard to insuring your car.  There is an arguable benefit to all from everyone being insured against unemployment or destitution, for example, companies need not give as much in severance packages, nor will they suffer as much negative press from firing or laying off employees.  It is not only charity that mandates that we fund welfare.
8.	It is not un-American for me to disagree with authority or to share my personal opinion.
	On your right to disagree “In a free and republican government, you cannot restrain the voice of the multitude; every man will speak as he thinks, or more properly without thinking.” George Washington
	Agreed.  Speaking your opinion without thinking is as American as apple pie.
9.	The government works for me. I do not answer to them, they answer to me.
	Who works for whom? “I consider the people who constitute a society or a nation as the source of all authority in that nation.” Thomas Jefferson Again, to what extent?  The police force is paid from the public coffers, into which all tax-payers contribute.  This does not allow me to ignore speeding laws, or to fire the police officer who gave me a speeding ticket.

The 12 Values
* Honesty
* Reverence
* Hope
* Thrift
* Humility
* Charity
* Sincerity
* Moderation
* Hard Work
* Courage
* Personal Responsibility
* Gratitude

To all of these: under what circumstances? 
One should be dishonest to the ugly bride regarding her beauty (and if you are the groom, she is always a bride). 
Reverence for what?  Dr Temperance Brennan (a fictional atheist) said she had faith in cause-and-effect.  Everyone reveres something.
Hope is a good thing, but false hope is a bad thing.  Being prepared for sometyhing other than the hoped for result can often be helpful.
Thrift is good, but greed is bad.  Where is the border?
etc.

Dear Yeshiva University,

You did something good on Tuesday night.  Stop trying to backtrack.  Putting up letters about the importance of being "discreet" demonstrates your having missed the point. 

A student

According to Rabbi Mordechai Willig of YU, a liquid which has cooled on Shabbat beyond the point of being served as hot food may not be reheated.  He admits this is contrary to the opinion of his contemporaries, who say that as long as it has not cooled completely, usually understood to mean that it is still above room temperature, it may be returned to the heat, subject to all of the other conditions of returning food.  (Perhaps another time I'll discuss all of that more fully, but not just now).

So how hot must liquid foods you enjoy eating be to be considered hot enough to eat as such?  For example, iced coffee is very nice, but if i ordered coffee and they brought be coffee at room temperature, I'd object in some way. Temperatures may vary for different foods, which is fine.

Foods of particular interest:

1. Coffee/Tea
2. Soup
3. Cholent/Stew
4. Gravy/Sauce on something else
5. Anything else you think Yeshiva University students are likely to eat on Shabbat

I know that food must be kept for safety reasons at 140 F or above for hot-holding.  However, it need not be served at this temperature, especially by the home chef, because it will not sit at the serving temperature for an extended period.  Also, the temperature at which coffee or tea are brewed need not be the temperature at which they are served.

"Accordingly, I have no doubt that tea and coffee served at between 55 C and 60 C would not have been acceptable to McDonald's customers. Indeed, on the evidence, I find that the public want to be able to buy tea and coffee served hot, that is to say at a temperature of at least 65 C, even though they know (as I think they must be taken to do for the purposes of answering issues (1) and (2)) that there is a risk of a scalding injury if the drink is spilled."["^ ^{a b} Bogle & Ors v McDonald’s Restaurants Ltd. [2002] EWHC 490, at 33 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants

Answers.com reports the temperature for hot tea as 60-90 C.

Strange things found in Shulchan Aruch Orach Chayim Siman 362 with the commentary of the Mishnah Berura (eruv here is used in the Yiddish sense to refer to the enclosure, rather than the rabbinic Hebrew sense to refer to the food)

362:5 An eruv may be made of human beings standing within 3 handsbreaths, or 1/2 cubit of each other, as long as the humans do not know they are an eruv. They can walk around as an eruv (unclear if this creates a mobile zone of carrying or if they may merely circulate, perhaps for exercise). Beyur Halacha: The Bach asks: "Humans are a cubit wide. If they stood within any less than a cubit of each other, this should work" Others respond that perhaps their feet are seperate because they are walking, but if they stood still, they would be a cubit wide. However, add still others: Their feet would be seperated half a cubit while walking, but their chests would be further apart than that..

I imagine this as a group of soldiers, as who else would stand in such a formation for an extended period without knowledge that they constitute a boundary?

The eruv must have more standing than not. However, some non-standing things count as standing. For example, any hole smaller than 1/2 cubit is assumed not to exist and actually counts towards the standing. Also, a door frame (or similarly shaped object) counts as entirely standing. This last point is most of what allows for modern eruvin. However, sometimes holes swallow standing parts or vice-versa. For example:

-- ---- ---- --
1 1 2 7 2 1 1
No that isn't Morse code. It looks more empty than filled in doesn't it? And if you add it up, the holes are 1+7+1=9 while the solid are 1+2+2+1=6. So the holes are greater. Except that the solid on either side swallow the 1 that is a hole on its side. So then there are 4+4 in solid that is greater than the 7 in the center.

So I recently got into the Room for Debate blog on nytimes.com.  So I thought I'd comment on one that particularly struck me, about testing, particularly standardized testing. 

A lot of my thinking on this subject has been influenced by a book I had to read for my Assessment class.  I disagree with him on some points, but we'll get to that in a moment.  First the part I think he got right.  The purpose of assessment, at least summative assessments (at the end of the unit/semester/year...all standardized tests are meant to be summative rather than formative.  Formative assessments are expected to influence instruction going forward, such as indicating that additional review is needed before proceeding.) is to operationalize educational objectives.  Psychologists want to measure happiness, but there is no ruler for that, so they devise a questionairre or some-such that measures happiness, or that they think is a good stand-in for measuring happiness.  Educational objectives are things like "student can do any long division problem involving a three digit dividend and a two digit divisor" (that is more specific than usual, but it serves my purposes).  The theoretical best test of that objective is asking the student to divide every number from 100 to 999 by every number from 10 to 99.  However, 81000 long division problems would be a little tedious.  And long before they did problem number 81000, or problem 8100 or problem 100, I'd know whether or not they could do it.  So there will be sampling.  I could ask 20 questions, assuming they were well selected, that might indicate the degree to which my educational objective has been achieved.  The high-stakes assessments (eg final exams, state mandated exams, etc)  are simply testing a larger number of educational objectives from a previously agreed upon list, as Sandra Stotsky notes in the first link. 

Then we approach the question that is addressed in thecollection of experts quoted in the NYT blog: What of "teaching to the test"?  Here I think we approach something Popham, author of the above cited book, got wrong.  Stotsky gives the example of a reading comprehension exam where during instruction the teacher teaches students skills of reading comprehension.  This is clearly what we expect teachers to do and best practices.  We expect students to have learned things such that they are better able to succeed on the test post-instruction.  Popham would say this isn't teaching to the test as Stotsky says but teaching to the skills neccesary to succeed on the test.  Popham gives two criteria for determining if the test prep a teacher is providing is appropriate and then 5 possible methods of test prep.  The first criteria is professional ethics.  In essence, teachers should behave ethically.  This is obvious and cannot be violated without also violating the second criterion, and as such adds little to nothing.  We are thus left with the second criterion:  test prep must not improve test scores without also improving the underlying skill. 

Among his five test prep practices, he lists (and bashes) previous form prep, which anyone who has taken a standardized test prep class has likely experienced.  To prepare you for this year's SAT, you are given old SATs so you become familiar with the types of questions asked.  He has similar objection to same-format preparation, where questions are asked in the same way (and only that way) as they are asked on the exam.  He claims that this will boost scores artificially.  However, he also claims that if it became widely known that these methods were used, there would be public outrage.  That seems to me patently ridiculous.  The public is aware and does not say: That is outrageous, but instead: I must buy my child one of those exam books, so that s/he too can prepare that way.  Booksellers sell these books publically.  Clearly no public outrage has yet occurred.  Yes, it does to some degree raise test scores without raising the underlying skills, such as reading comprehension,  vocabulary, quantitative comparison, etc.  (unless you assume the skill being tested is the ability to take standardized tests) However, Popham has no problem with generalized test-taking prep and varied format prep.  Generalized test-taking prep will be things like how to eliminate bad choices on multiple-choice items (although get a good night's rest & eat a good breakfast should also fall into this category), while varied format includes such minor changes as presenting subtraction problems horizontally if the test always presents them vertically.  I don't see such a minor change as turning a not-OK test prep method into an acceptable one. 

Real issues would arise if the sampling nature of the exam were in some way broken.  If I know which 20 questions will be asked with regard to long division, and I were to reveal any part of that information, then the exam ceases to be a random sampling of  long division problems. 

Often a pair of fellows will sit across a table from each other with open sefarim. They will try to concentrate on the tractate they should be learning, but will inevitably be pulled into a conversation about some side topic. Despite trying to return to their studies, they will again divert into extraneous conversation. On watching this, I was reminded of that phenomenon.