On the usefulness of index cards

It takes only a short time of living in Italy to realize that many things that we use on a regular basis in America are either extremely difficult to find or simply impossible.Take, as just one example, index cards. Whether they be 3"x5" or 5"x7", they simply do not exist in this country.

Shortly after I arrived in Italy two years ago, after several failed searches, I took an actual index card into several paper shops to ask if they sold any or knew where I could find any. The shop keepers looked intriguingly at the index card, turning it this way and that, clearly either impressed or confused at what they held in their hands, and maybe a bit of both. Either way, it was clear to me that they had never seen anything like an index card.

Now, anyone who has ever used index cards to take research notes knows just how extremely useful they are, both for organizing your thoughts and for serving as flash cards. When I was studying history at Quincy University, Dr. Thomas Mays introduced me to an ingenious method (probably in 1998) of taking notes on index cards that continues to serve as my primary method.

His method is very simple and especially useful for historical research. All you need is a 5"x7" index card, a ruler, and a marker. First, line the top edge of the ruler with the top edge of the index card and draw a line with the marker along the bottom of the index card. Second, line the top edge of the ruler along the left edge of the index card and draw a line with the marker along the bottom edge of the rule. You will end up with a card that looks like this:

This becomes your basic template; all you need do is repeat this method on as many note cards as you need.

The square formed in the upper left corner becomes the place to record the date and location of the noted event, if one applies. The rectangle formed at top right becomes the place to give a specific subject for the note. The rectangle formed at the bottom left becomes the place to briefly record the source and page number on which the note was found. The large rectangle formed at the bottom right becomes the space to record your note, being sure to be clear whether what you write is a direct quotation or merely a paraphrase. Here is an example:

Once you have completed your note cards, you can arrange them by date or subject, or even both. In this way, your paper is already organized and constructed before you even begin typing. The actual writing of the paper then simply flows from one card to the next.

The full citation for the source can be found by consulting a specific note card made for this purpose, for which I generally use a 3"x5" card (only so that do not accidentally get mixed up with the note cards), recording the details as they would be printed in a bibliography:

Notice that I have placed a brief reference at the bottom right of the card, which is used on the note cards. Because you may have more than one source by the same author, it becomes necessary to distinguish sources. For example, I have another book by Herbert Thurston at hand for this project, The Roman Jubilee: History and Ceremony (London: Sands & Co., 1925). As a brief citation for the note cards from this second source, I would simply use Thurston, Roman Jubilee, or even simply Thurston, R.J.; the choice is up to you.

Once your bibliography cards are in order, you can arrange them alphabetically by author. Then, just like the paper itself, compiling your bibliography becomes a simple matter of flipping index cards.

I bring this up only because I have decided that today is the today to begin preparing the cards on which the notes for my thesis research into the canonical age for the Sacrament of Confirmation in the present legislation will be recorded.

For some, this method of note taking seems archaic and they would rather take their notes on their computers. This is something that is not helpful for me as I prefer to have physical notes and enjoy the feeling of progress as I flip from one card to the next and watch the pile decrease.

On the stupidity of liberal academics

For years now some in academia have been trying to banish the use of the terms "B.C." and "A.D." from historical dating systems for something that is not "offensive" to certain people.  It seems such a foolish idea has now taken hold in Australia:

BCE (Before Common Era), BP (Before Present) and CE (Common Era) are the new neutral terms to replace the historical terms BC (Before Christ) and AD (Anno Domini).
[snip]
A spokesman for the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority, responsible for developing the national curriculum from kindergarten to Year 12, said BCE and CE were to be introduced because this was an increasingly common standard for the representation of dates.

The little known term BP (Before Present) will be used when dealing with "very ancient history and archaeology, and allows for the teaching of more sophisticated understandings of representations of time".In anticipation of the curriculum change, textbooks for student teachers such as Teaching And Learning In Aboriginal Education, by Neil Harrison, were already using the term BP.

A spokesman for Education Minister Adrian Piccoli said yesterday the minister was not concerned about the changes, adding that BCE and CE were commonly used terms [more].

While it may be true that BCE and CE are commonly used terms in some circles, for those with any shred of intellectual or academic prowess they are a sheer absurdity.

These liberal academics think themselves so intelligent, so wise, so tolerant and accepting, but in this way of thinking logic and reason has flown the coop.

New terms may indeed have been designated, but the reference point remains the same!  What determines if something is Before the Common Era or within the Common Era?  The birth of Jesus Christ!  To create something new they simply throw a sheet over what ever knows remains at the center.  Oh, the irony!  Oh, the stupidity!

If they want to devise a new system of dating history that will not offend a small segment of society, then let them devise a truly new system of dating history. 

If such a non-intellectual system takes hold of the United States of America, I, for one, will never adopt it, simply based on its lack of logic.

Where have all the academics gone?

By now you've probably heard that the Holy Father has postponed his scheduled visit to Rome's La Sapienza University because of the protestations by those who claim to be academics and intellectuals and their students.

Why does the Holy Father's visit receive such outcries? Because of a quotation he used in one of his addresses in 1990 (this whole thing harkens back to the outcries over the quotation he cited in his Regensburg address).

From the Vatican information service:

The signatories of the petition take exception to a talk given by the then Cardinal Ratzinger in 1990, and in particular to a phrase he used on that occasion to the effect that "in Galileo's time the Church remained much more faithful to reason than Galileo himself. The trial against Galileo was reasonable and just". The future Pope's remarks, a quote from a work by the philosopher of science Paul Feyerabend, were made in the context of a talk on the crisis of confidence in science, in which he used the example of changing attitudes towards the case of Galileo.

Whatever happened to academia? How is that co-called academics, intellectuals and professor cannot recognize a quotation? Where, back in Regensburg, were the cries for the burning of effigies of the Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and where, in Rome, are the protestations against Paul Feyerabend, whose words the then-Cardinal cited?

The self-proclaimed enlightened ones take the use of this quote as evidence that the Holy Father is against science and what not. What this shows is that these professors and academics are incapable or true intellectual pursuits.