Bad Denim

A friend posted the following link to Facebook.

America's Bad Jeans

In and of itself the article is an interesting read. The author, one George F. Will is a syndicated columnist for the Washington Post. For those not willing to read the article Mr. Will's points boil down to Jeans are bad, Jeans were made for tough men not suburbanites. However, it is not his point that I take offense to but several comments made in the article. Let's go paragraph by paragraph.

"On any American street, or in any airport or mall, you see the same sad tableau: A 10-year-old boy is walking with his father, whose development was evidently arrested when he was that age, judging by his clothes. Father and son are dressed identically -- running shoes, T-shirts. And jeans, always jeans. If mother is there, she, too, is draped in denim."

Mr. Will states that this tableau is seen in malls or in airports. Neither of these places require a terribly formal dress. While I can agree if the person was going on a business trip the simple fact that a father and son, most likely headed on vacation, end up dressed the same is hardly cause for scorn.

"Writer Daniel Akst has noticed and has had a constructive conniption. He should be given the Presidential Medal of Freedom. He has earned it by identifying an obnoxious misuse of freedom. Writing in the Wall Street Journal, he has denounced denim, summoning Americans to soul-searching and repentance about the plague of that ubiquitous fabric, which is symptomatic of deep disorders in the national psyche."

According to Mr. Will a man should be awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the countries highest civilian honor, just for denouncing denim. Let's put this in perspective. Mr. Akst deserves the same medal given to Mother Theresa, or Ronald Reagan simply for denouncing denim.

"It is, he says, a manifestation of "the modern trend toward undifferentiated dressing, in which we all strive to look equally shabby." Denim reflects "our most nostalgic and destructive agrarian longings -- the ones that prompted all those exurban McMansions now sliding off their manicured lawns and into foreclosure." Jeans come prewashed and acid-treated to make them look like what they are not -- authentic work clothes for horny-handed sons of toil and the soil. Denim on the bourgeoisie is, Akst says, the wardrobe equivalent of driving a Hummer to a Whole Foods store -- discordant."

exurban McMansions... what a phrase, though I doubt that denim has the slightest tie to foreclosure rates, or the rising unemployment. Nor do I feel that anyone would mistake the acid washed Sean Jean's of the young urban crowd to be even the palest representations of the dirt stained Levi's of a blue collar worker. Denim on the bourgeoisie is a matter of comfort, and function. Not a matter of trying to be what we, I, am not. I wear jeans, most middle class America wears jeans, why? They are cheap, and they last. Seems like good financial sense to me.

"Long ago, when James Dean and Marlon Brando wore it, denim was, Akst says, "a symbol of youthful defiance." Today, Silicon Valley billionaires are rebels without causes beyond poses, wearing jeans when introducing new products. Akst's summa contra denim is grand as far as it goes, but it only scratches the surface of this blight on Americans' surfaces. Denim is the infantile uniform of a nation in which entertainment frequently features childlike adults ("Seinfeld," "Two and a Half Men") and cartoons for adults ("King of the Hill"). Seventy-five percent of American "gamers" -- people who play video games -- are older than 18 and nevertheless are allowed to vote. In their undifferentiated dress, children and their childish parents become undifferentiated audiences for juvenilized movies (the six -- so far -- "Batman" adventures and "Indiana Jones and the Credit-Default Swaps," coming soon to a cineplex near you). Denim is the clerical vestment for the priesthood of all believers in democracy's catechism of leveling -- thou shalt not dress better than society's most slovenly. To do so would be to commit the sin of lookism -- of believing that appearance matters. That heresy leads to denying the universal appropriateness of everything, and then to the elitist assertion that there is good and bad taste."

The above, almost unapproachable wall of text screams out a desire to be hear oneself talk, or read oneself in print far more then it conveys a notion of righteous indignation. Yes, rockers and rebels wear denim, they also wear leopard print spandex, but I hope to god that doesn't catch on. Silicon Valley billionaires wear denim for the same reasons I wear denim. It's comfortable, it lasts, and as anyone who has ever worn a pair of jeans to tatters can attest, after a few hundred washings there is no softer material then well worn, well loved, denim. He goes on to equate wearing denim to being childish or infantile, a correlation that simply lacks merit. In truth this article is littered with unfounded accusations and statements that are not only baseless but at times insulting. Let me pluck a particular gem from the miasma above.

"Seventy-five percent of American "gamers" -- people who play video games -- are older than 18 and nevertheless are allowed to vote."

Why yes, gamers are allowed to vote, in fact all persons over the ago of 18 are allowed to vote. I see no point in mentioning the fact that this subset of people, those over the age of 18, are in part composed of those who play video games. We could just as easily have said X% of fast food workers, those who serve fast food, are over the age of 18 and nevertheless allowed to vote. Your point being? Let's look at another gem.

"In their undifferentiated dress, children and their childish parents become undifferentiated audiences for juvenilized movies"

Juvenalized moves? Again, an attempted correlation between dress and personal taste. By this reasoning if I were to wear a suit into Batman begins I would immediatly not enjoy the movie? Yet another...

"To do so would be to commit the sin of lookism -- of believing that appearance matters. That heresy leads to denying the universal appropriateness of everything, and then to the elitist assertion that there is good and bad taste."

Lookism? Yes appearance matters. But when does appearance matter? Does appearance at the movies, a dark and almost light-less venue, really matter? Does anyone care if I wear Dockers or Armani when the lights go down? No! A job interview? yes, dress to impress, but the mall? the movies? please.... Let us continue.

"Denim is the carefully calculated costume of people eager to communicate indifference to appearances. But the appearances that people choose to present in public are cues from which we make inferences about their maturity and respect for those to whom they are presenting themselves. "

His argument in this paragraph simply falls flat. There is again little to no correlation between denim and the wearers projected appearance. Take for example a clean, pressed dark pair of jeans, clean shoes, and a three button polo. Add a dark belt and a decent haircut and you have a very acceptably dressed individual. Now, can slovenly dress give a negative opinion, sure. But denim does not directly equate to slovenly, in fact I would argue that a wrinkled suit says far more then a clean pair of jeans.

"Do not blame Levi Strauss for the misuse of Levi's. When the Gold Rush began, Strauss moved to San Francisco planning to sell strong fabric for the 49ers' tents and wagon covers. Eventually, however, he made tough pants, reinforced by copper rivets, for the tough men who knelt on the muddy, stony banks of Northern California creeks, panning for gold. Today it is silly for Americans whose closest approximation of physical labor consists of loading their bags of clubs into golf carts to go around in public dressed for driving steers up the Chisholm Trail to the railhead in Abilene."

This paragraph lumps all Americans into golf bag slinging lay-abouts. What about those who still work blue collar? or white collar who have to actually get down on the production floor? Or out in the field? Or scientists who go out and do hands on field work? Are they not Americans? Do they not deserve the "right" to wear denim? Does one have to be a cattle herder to wear denim? What about the fact that most cattle is herded by four wheeler and most gold dug from the earth by machines. How does this factor into Mr. Will's argument?

"This is not complicated. For men, sartorial good taste can be reduced to one rule: If Fred Astaire would not have worn it, don't wear it. For women, substitute Grace Kelly."

Mr. Astaire lived a lifestyle far removed from suburban middle class America. he wore suits, tux's, jackets with coat tails and the like. His dress echoes both his station and the era in which he lived. He was well off, and dressed accordingly. However let's look at his modern day analogues. Actors, Actresses, Singers and the like all dressed in denim, designer denim, but denim none the less. For women, take my above paragraph and sub in Grace Kelly.

"Edmund Burke -- what he would have thought of the denimization of America can be inferred from his lament that the French Revolution assaulted "the decent drapery of life"; it is a straight line from the fall of the Bastille to the rise of denim -- said: "To make us love our country, our country ought to be lovely." Ours would be much more so if supposed grown-ups would heed St. Paul's first letter to the Corinthians, and St. Barack's inaugural sermon to the Americans, by putting away childish things, starting with denim."

Who the hell is Edmund Burke? Let's ask Google. Again Mr. Will makes several baseless arguments the most damming is again calling denim childish without ever establishing this as fact. Mr. Will speaks of denim's childishness as if it were fact and not his limited opinion.

I guess at the end of the day it is simply the close minded conservatism that upsets me about this article. It is as if Mr. Will has taken the view that anything but his way is inherently wrong. He holds a view for American society that is simply, black and white, and devoid of denim. In Mr. Will's world the men all wear tails, the women wear evening gowns and if you don't then you are wrong, plain and simple. Mr. Will lives in a world so detached from the day to day reality of middle class America I can't help but question his ability, and the validity, of any opinion he posts in regards to middle class life.

But, to follow his form I too will admit to owning several pairs of jeans, in a variety of colors, from a dark blue to a lighter hue, to several pairs of tan jeans from L. L. Bean. I wear them to work, to the mall, on cross country flights, just about daily. I plan on continuing to do so, because as an American I am free to do whatever I want to with my jeans.

Violence In Schools

I've often read articles on the rising tide of violence in schools. These articles paint a bleak and foreboding picture, an apocalyptic futures when our schools turn into battlegrounds for warring tribes of, usually dark skinned, hellions.

Bullshit.

Violence is as natural as breathing. We as a species evolved from animals, and to a large extent are still animals. Just because society says violence is wrong does not mean society is right. Violence is not only perfectly natural, it's healthy. So, we have several generations of men and boys who have no idea how to handle aggression. They are told to not fight in the park, the school yard or at home. They are told that violence is wrong without exception. So when these men and boys get angry, when their natural aggressions surfaces they have absolutely no idea how to handle it and the result is all too obvious. Road rage, senseless brawling over parking spaces, kids resorting to knives and guns to stop bullies they are told time and time again not to fight back against.

So now that we have the problem what do we do about it? We stop ignoring the basic human need to fight. I tread once that you don't truly love your children unless you allow them to get punched in the face. I couldn't agree more. School is not a nice place, kids are not nice people, bullies exist and the only thing they respect is violence. So, why not provide a forum for that violence? A ring, gloves, headgear and rules. Make it known from day one that if you have a problem you take it up in the ring after school. Bring boxing and wrestling back to American schools. If you stop treating violence as evil then violence will soon stop being a problem.

Hide it, ignore it, and it only becomes unhealthy. Teach kids that it's an acceptable, controllable response and it will become a healthy response.

Nothing Says Family Like 14 Kids

It's true!

A welfare mother, single, on food stamps and receiving disability money for some of her kids goes to a fertility doctor. She already has six kids. This doctor then decides to impregnate her with no fewer then eight more. They all take. She gives birth to eight premature babies. This runs up a million dollar hospital bill. Remember she has no job, no husband, and not no fewer then fourteen kids.

Now I'm torn. As a libertarian I don't feel the government should regulate the number of children a person can have. Yet, I can't help but feel upset as my tax dollars are going to support this woman.

I have to now ask myself who do we blame, if anyone, for this debacle. Can we deny this woman governmental aid? Can we deny her children aid for her follies? Can we strip the doctor of his license? At what point do we say that the individuals need to take responsibility for their own actions?

Let's look at the facts.
* This woman, has six children, I'm assuming to multiple fathers. She is unemployed and unmarried living at home.
* She then goes to a fertility doctor because she wants to have more children, the doctor either a) does not check and therefore does not know she has six other children, or b) knows and chooses not to care.
* All eight eggs take, she refuses to abort any of them.
* She gives birth on the taxpayer dime, a million dollar hospital bill.
* Even with modern medicine some of those eight premature babies will most likely require some sort of governmental assistance.

So, who is at fault and can we as a society punish them?

The woman clearly acted irrationally. Yet some people just like kids. yet I can not help but wonder what sort of life will her children now lead. It's expensive to feed fourteen.

The doctor was negligent in checking if she had other kids and/or reckless in impregnating her with eight eggs, and/or insane for giving a woman with no means to pay fertility drugs. Of everyone in this mess he should have known better.

The government is negligent to the point of criminal waste in supplying this woman with aid for the fourteen children she now has.

I am all for liberties, and making ones own choices, yet as a society we must act in the best interest in pruning those who are unable or unwilling to make intelligent choices. My only suggestion is take the kids, foster them out, deny the mother any and all aid, and promptly forcibly sterilize her because I guarantee she's not done.

Legislated Atheism

It sounds idiotic just reading it, doesn't it?

I had a debate with a friend of mine the other day. He's a good guy, we just don't agree on some things. We were discussing the inauguration as I'm sure were a lot of people. Yet what we disagreed on was not the President, the policies, the future by the Pastor.

Now, for those of you who did not watch the inauguration a Pastor spoke, evoking the usually symbols of God and Jesus while leading the assembled masses in prayer.

Now, when asked what religion I follow I usually answer Unitarian Universalist, though I don't necessarily approve of the way the faith as a whole behaves. But that's for another time. I also identify as Agnostic, sometimes Atheist, and generally disregard religion as a whole.

Now what my friend and I were arguing was whether or not it is appropriate to have prayer in our official ceremonies. My point was this: We live in a country with no official religion, a firm stance on the separation of church and state and yet we have a Christian prayer at our Inauguration. I went on further to argue that seeing as we have a wide array of faiths represented in the American public why not have a varied prayer, if a prayer at all? Why do we consistently evoke the same Christian imagery?

I see it as unofficially endorsing a Christian faith through the evocation of that faiths symbols and norms. I went on to say as we are unable to accurately represent every faith, why represent any at all? Why not just do away with prayer in official ceremonies?

His response was that to do that would be legislating atheism.

I honestly did not know what to say.

Atheism, is the lack of a belief in a deity. Legislating something like that would be so ridiculously unenforceable to be laughable. Not to mention my point was to remove prayer, not religion. I don't care if you believe in God. It simply does not matter to me. Yet why do I, as a person who does not believe in God, have to constantly encounter the symbols, and icons of religion? It seems to fly in the face of our constitutional mandate of a separation of church and state, but what do I know. I'm just legislating Atheism.

Cause I Can

This post brought to you be the following Idiocy.

I'm not one for causes. I don't jump on the petitioning bandwagon, and if the Democratic National Committee would stop sending me e-mail I wouldn't mind. Yet there are several organizations I do think have a point, and an aim that I can agree with. First, is Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, their website is located here. It's circa 1995 GeoCities but it works.

Simply put they believe that students should have the right to keep and bear arms on college campuses, specifically concealed handguns. Those allowed to carry would have had to have a concealed carry permit already, and be in a state that already allows concealed carry. Their thought process is simple. Students on campuses without the ability to protect themselves are sheep. Gunmen know this, and advertising a weapons free campus is at least not deterring violence, if at worst, encouraging it. History shows us that schools are not safe from the threat of violence, so why would we not allow our students and teachers the tools to defend themselves?

Second is the Pink Pistols. A group dedicated to fostering gun ownership and firearm self defense for the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered population. They seek to inform, and teach a high risk population. A population all too often targeted for acts of violence.

I just figured I would give them both a nod. Take a look if you like, if not, that's fine too.

Support Us!

I've been on Engineering Support for just under four weeks. Engineering Support is a task in which regular Engineers, like me, get rotated into a triage type position. usually for one or two weeks at a time.

I've been here a month.

Now, it is partially my fault. As last year wound down I volunteered for a support rotation, I was running out of work and feeling underutilized and was looking for anything I could do. So, I went on a two week support rotation. What I didn't know is that I had been scheduled for Support the first two weeks of January. Not that it would have changed my decision but it would have been nice to know.

Now, three and a half weeks in I'm seriously beginning to doubt my sanity. Bug report numbers blur, customer complaints begin to ring hollow like gnats buzzing in my ears and the stupidity, the death of brain cells I have suffered should net me some sort of compensation, most likely in the thousands of dollars range....

At least I'm getting paid.

Three and a half more days.... 29 hours... then I can go back to being just another Engineer in a cube, anonymity is a good thing I guess.

Winter Driving 101

As a prelude to this post I'd like to say it snowed today, a lot. Now snow itself does not bother me, neither does the idea of driving in the snow. What bothers me, and what I wish to address here is the behavior of other drivers while it's snowing and what I like to call "Driver Etiquette"

First let's establish some common terms. Roadways are divided up into a number of lanes. The right most lane is referred to as the driving lane. Now if there is more then one lane in either direction lanes to the middle and left are referred to as traveling or passing lanes. Depending on the number of lanes. For the purpose of our discussion today imagine a two lane highway, one driving lane and one passing lane.

Now, when it is snowing I like to change the designation of these lanes, the driving lane becomes the "Safe traveling speed" lane in which the maximum speed is anywhere from 15 to 30 mph. The passing lane is now referred to as the "I have a death wish" lane or the "I own a Hummer with studded snow tires" lane and in this lane the speed limit is roughly five miles above the posted speed limit.

Now, on to etiquette. If you are driving in the sane speed lane stay there. If you are driving in the death wish lane, stay there. Nobody has problems, nobody dies. Accidents happen when the two lanes interact, usually at a speed greater then the sane lane and less then the death wish lane.

Also, drivers who erratically change lanes should be shot.

If the driver in front of you is going too slow for your liking feel free to pass, but do so in an intelligent manner and not when the passing lane is full of cars. If you do this you are an idiot and should be taken out back and beat senseless with a snow shovel.

Now, accidents. I've often thought this is an interesting term. I would hazard a guess that there are very few true accidents. An accident in driving would be turning down a one way street that did not have a sign, an accident is not going to fast and hitting another car in the snow. Anyone with a basic understanding of physics can avoid 99% of winter "accidents" and those in Rochester who seem to lack this basic understanding, stay off my roads!

Black Friday

I sat on this topic for awhile mainly because I couldn't think of anything I truly wanted to say about it and like most tragedies everyone has a "fix" and if they were there, had they been in charge, or more likely, had those in charge done a, b, or c the tragedy would not have happened.

Bullshit.

I finally decided what I had to say about the death in Long Island this past Friday and what I have to say has absolutely nothing to do with the death. That has been covered a million times over and beat to death. if you want an armchair general's take on the situation just do a Google search, they are not hard to find. yet to a man, woman, child, blogger, writer, all the opinions in the world don't do a bit of good. A man is dead, and it's not his fault, nor is it the fault of Wal-Mart for not providing adequate security it's the fault of America. Shoppers tore the doors from their hinges and rushed the store for what? Electronics gadgets? Trinkets? Stuff? Bullshit.

We teach our children from the moment of birth that stuff matters. I have friends who can't pay their bills, but they have Sirius radio. I have seen college students so far in debt they can't see the sun yet they still go shopping every weekend. Stuff does not matter. He who dies with the most toys, is still dead.

When will we as a culture realize what we are doing? Were teaching our children it's alright to trample a man to death and keep on shopping. When will we start to teach our kids that they don't need all their possessions? When will reduce apply not only to our consumption but our materialism?

I've never been poor. I've had times when money has been tight, when I've had to say no to things, make choices, and occasionally do without. But at no point have I ever been seriously poor. I'm lucky, I come from a middle class household with educated parents are the assumption that I would go to college. Yet I differ from a lot of the people around me in one simple, fundamental way. I don't want stuff. I can count of one hand the things I truly NEED. If we were to truly be that granular I could even list my bare minimum possessions, and I would be surprised if the list exceeded thirty items.

I might just do that.

Anyway, materialism is ruining our society, and the only way to stop it is to make a conscious decision to say no. Don't get up at 4am to shop, don't camp out the night before and when your kid asks for the hot new "it" toy. Tell them no, or better yet, ask them to trade one for one. They want a new toy, then have them give up an old toy, an old game. Keep things in check. helps with clutter too.

In this case a man would still be alive if a group of people had just stopped and thought for a second. No one offered a hand, nobody stopped to help him to his feet. Were all to blame for this, and if there is a God, and for Jdimytai Damour's sake there is, every shopper in that place deserves to relive his last moments, from his perspective, for all eternity.

Meet Me Behind the Playground!!!

I seem to have gotten myself in a bit of trouble.

Nothing much, and certainly nothing I can't handle. It's just annoying.

Let me explain. A new brown belt showed up at my Judo club a little while back and from day one I wasn't a big fan of him. I'd say it was nothing personal but I'm trying to not lie. His demeanor simply grates on me, he's passive aggressive, and comes off as a bully. He seems to feel that his belt should earn him immediate respect, and all below him in rank should do as he says. Fine, I don't necessarily object with that sentiment but I do object to his methods. If you believe that younger belts should mop the mats at the start of class fine, yet it has to be consistent, the message has to come from all the high ranking members and you can't simply hand a kid a mop and expect he's going to know what to do with it. Most young kids have never handled a mop in their life, and forcing them into it certainly won't make them take any pride in the job they are doing and the result is simple, the mats aren't clean. I watched a kid do then entire mat area, the full length of the gymnasium, and NEVER put the mop back in the bucket. It simply doesn't do any good!

Anyway, I digress. This brown belt was running his mouth, saying that in Japan new students would be the ones cleaning the dojo everyday. Which may or may not be true, I neither know nor particularly care as we are not in Japan and I came back at him and said "If were going to emulate Japan their should be more respect and less complaints from the higher ranks." This also may or may not be true, it matters not. He went off on me and said he would get me in randori. Fine, except I had no plans to randori due to my ribs still being sore. So, the end of the class arrives and I take my leave and he has the audacity to not only give me a hard time for leaving, but he calls me names and tells me to not come back on Wednesday. I certainly feel he's out of line yet I'll return Wednesday and most likely have to deal with him then. Oh well. I figure if tossing around a yellow belt makes him feel all that much better let him, no skin off my back.

My Uncle May Go to Jail....

My uncle Glen may end up in jail for possession of marijuana. Now I usually am against laws that criminalize victimless crimes. Drug possession, without the intent to sell, is as far as I'm concerned a victimless crime. So why do my views differ for this instance?

Because, Glen refuses to stay under the radar. I've spent most of my life trying to stay off the radar, I don't break the law, play loud music, harass cops, and have never been in court with the exception of a college criminal justice course. In fact one of the only things that makes me pause when considering applying for a pistol and/or concealed carry permit is that I would be on file. Just bothers me I could be tracked. As far as I know it's not so much paranoia as a healthy dose of suspicion.

How does this all relate to Glen? If you refuse to play the game the system will find a way to bring you black in line. He has flaunted the system for years, he has upset practically everyone in the family at one point or another, he is a very visible persona. Now, on their own none of this is a bad thing but when you give a very visible persona the ability to concealed carry, and a marijuana card that's just asking for trouble. Legally he can have marijuana, it's for pain control from a bad fracture sustained from a down hill skiing accident. But if your going to have a privilege like that why would you make a point of it? Keep it under wraps, grow your plants, but make sure your shit is air tight. No slip ups, no screw ups, no half measures. He screwed up and the cops knew him by first name and were more then willing to make a point of making his life miserable.

I wish him the best, he is still family, but at the end of the day I hope he cools his heels for a few years and calms down. Oh well, I guess we can all hope.

Cyberspace, The Final Frontier!

I'm taking a course on Computer Crime.

Last class the professor, though such a title is a stretch, showed an episode of Frontline detailing the dangers of youth on the Internet, the big, scary, Internet.

The special touched on cyber predation as well as cyber bullying, the dangers of a large amount of personal information freely available in cyberspace as well as the escapism teens are finding in cyberspace.

..... duh.

I'm sorry, maybe it's just me, maybe I'm just jaded having grown up as a member of the "Entitlement Generation" up to my eyebrows in technology but for the love of god how is this a shock to anyone?

Parents, refuse to actively participate in the raising of their children, their children naturally seek a social network for support, as they find the cyber domain to be as comfortable, if not more so, then real space they are obviously going to move into the cyber realm. Is this what scares parents? Or is it the parents technical incompetence? Should the fact that parents simply can not, will not, choose to not supervise their child's activities online result in punishment of the child? Is MySpace now going to have to report to every parent when their thirteen year old daughter is dancing in front of a web cam?

How can they be so oblivious? How can parents of teens in this day and age not know? How can a parent be surprised at finding scantily clad pictures of their daughter online when by the age of thirteen she has most likely had one or more sexual partners? How can traditional values and norms ever hope to be applied to a generation that simply does not exist in the same space as previous generations?

Cyberspace is the new rock and roll, the excesses of rock are merely finding a new home in cyberspace, the escapes most of the last generation found in concerts and music my generation finds in MySpace, it makes even less sense to fight it then fighting rock and roll did for our grandparents.

Obfuscating Cyberspace?

I was asked a question on my Computer Crime midterm. "Why would we want to keep certain aspects of cyberspace "dark" or "hidden" for effective crime control?"

The obvious answer is that we would not. It seems obvious that any obfuscation of cyberspace is not only impossible but would be counter productive as networking is based on known, standardized, common protocols. In fact the only reason most of our proprietary hardware even talks to each other is that we have standard protocols. HTTP, XML and SOAP come to mind. So my professor who is teaching a course on computer crime yet is so technologically stunted to not understand that the question she is asking for a midterm is ridiculous to the point of being laughable.

Now, I'll be honest. I threw together a bull shit answer that hopefully will make her happy but what upsets me is that I have to bull shit an answer. She mandated a one page response to this question so I could not get away with "It's not possible, your an idiot" that and I doubt she would have graded me too fondly with such a response.

It's just upsetting that as a technical institution like R.I.T. there are professors this technologically incompetent.