Thoughts on teaching

It's funny - and sad - how this semester my largest people problems are not students but colleagues.

First off, the whole mess with the not-living-up-to-expectations recent hire. It's going to be ugly, I suspect. We may see an epic flounce, leaving the rest of us to unexpectedly cover classes we should not have to.

Now, one of my other colleagues comes to me: "You know X? How he pushed for this forced schedule in that class we all teach, and how he pushed for certain assignments? He isn't doing any of them. He's not keeping up with the schedule, he's not doing the assignments with the class. His students are unprepared for lab because they haven't had that topic yet."

And you know, my main reaction? A great big "FFS."

I don't have the energy for this. All my energy right now is directed at teaching my overload, working with my research students, doing my own research: in other words, what I am supposed to be doing, what I am paid to do.

Yeah, yeah - it's a problem. If students are unprepared for labs, that's a serious issue. (And that tells me - since I teach a lab section for that class - maybe I need to intensify the pre-lab instructions a bit more, rather than giving a rough outline and assuming they've seen it in lecture, simply because I know MY lecture students have.)

My colleague also noted: "He cancels class a lot. And he lets people out early. And he softballs things." Okay, hold on there, kimosabe. I don't need to know this. We're getting peer review of our teaching in the coming year and if that happens, it'll come out in the wash. But I don't like gossip and I don't like hearing bad things about other people second-hand.

But he went on: "He gets really high teaching evaluations" (True: as part of the "peer review" we do see each other's portfolios, and his average scores are a bit higher than mine). "And he's doing it by slacking off and pandering! If we ever go to a merit-pay system here, he will be rewarded and people like you will be hurt!"

And again: "FFS." I told my colleague what my dad always told me as a kid: "Life's not fair." And I told him, "Merit pay will not mean they cut the pay of people; it just means that some of us will get smaller raises." (And frankly, I do more research than the person in question, and I INVOLVE STUDENTS IN RESEARCH, which I think will actually count for more).

But you know what? As much as I'd LIKE to have really high evaluations, I would definitely NOT want it to be because I felt I was pandering to the students, doing junk like cancelling class for the first day of deer or turkey season, or letting them out early on Fridays, stuff like that. I have high standards. The students who are really serious appreciate my high standards: I regularly have people coming back from, e-mailing me from, or seeing me at meetings after they've gone on to grad school, and they thank me for the preparation I gave them. For every complaint of "too much math!" I get in ecology, I get someone else coming to me and saying, "Thank you for emphasizing life tables so heavily; I'm taking a population biology class right now and I understand the material better than many of the other students because of what you taught."

To quote my father again: "It's better to be right than to be popular." I think what I am doing is the right thing: keeping high standards, not cancelling class frivolously. (I cancel if I am ill - either if I'm fairly sure I'm contagious or if I know I'd be useless teaching (like if I have a migraine). Or I cancel once a semester to go to scientific meetings. But that's ONE day.)

I may not be the most popular person with the general student populace, but I think among the serious students, I'm fairly well respected. (And I think it's preferable to be respected and not "loved," than to be "loved" and not respected, when you're a prof.)

But you know? The whole deal with this guy slacking off: I'm not going to worry about it. One thing I have learned in recent years is that there is exactly one person whose behavior I have influence over, and that's my own. So all I can do is keep doing what is right, and not worry about what other people are doing; to trust that things will work out.

My colleague did say he was going to slack off (well, he didn't use those words) a little bit, and tried to persuade me to, as well. But that's not right! Just because one person is being a slacker and we think that's wrong, and we think it's unfair that we may be working harder than he is - that's no reason to screw over the students. And I told him as much, that what was important to me were the students learning what they needed to know, and feeling like I was doing a good job. And for me, the high level (some might say, too high) level of diligence and responsibility I bring to teaching give me the feeling that I am doing a good job and doing what I am supposed to. And if merit pay comes, and I don't get raises that are as big because I'm criticized on evaluations for being a hard-ass, that's just how it will be.

And it's done

No, it wasn't the "confront" meeting, it was the "decide what the hell we are going to do" meeting.

Turns out the person in question has been a much bigger problem than I was aware of. Apparently they have driven away a couple of potential majors - good students, too - because of their horrible attitude. And the person who brought this forward is someone who doesn't teach the class in question, who has no skin in the game, so to speak.

We came to a decision, it's not going to be a happy one. Suffice it to say I may choose to be absent from campus (if I can) at the time the person is told of the decision. This is someone with a somewhat difficult temperament.

I'm sad and I'm sorry it worked out this way, but after seeing some of the documented incidents I'm kind of gobsmacked that a person would think they could operate in the way this person is. This person was also told that what they were doing was not up to standards and they apparently never listened.

I guess I worry TOO much about doing a "good job," this is apparently a person who doesn't worry at all.

We have a few months before we do anything final.

This is also the person I complained about complaining how the students didn't "respect" them. I don't know. I know I have a few students who don't respect me but I know I also have some that do. You earn the respect you get by treating people with kindness (and firmness, if necessary) and helping them. (And not talking smack about other students or faculty).

I don't know. This just makes me tired and sad and apprehensive, but I think we did make the right decision here.

Lord give me strength

The potentially-nasty meeting, where the person who isn't "living up to standards" (according to another person) will be confronted is in five minutes.

I am telling myself, over and over again: mouth shut, ears open. You may learn something valuable this hour. And I'm also reminding myself: this is not a class you teach nor have you ever taught. Your opinion is not significant and offering it will only prolong the horror.

I'm not normally given to violent thoughts

But I'd kinda like to punch David Axelrod in the mouth right now. Mr. "We're going to start a subtle smear campaign, and when someone in the news actually calls us on our facts, we're going to tell them the burden of (dis)proof is on them."

Idiots, all of 'em.

Freedom of speech

I've long thought that the real test of freedom of speech is not speech that most people like; not even speech that many people find challenging and difficult. The true test is the speech that most people despise.

I think that's what's at issue in this current case. The one with a group of Kansans who call themselves "Baptists." (But aren't like any Baptist I've ever met). The ones who protest at military funerals.

(I even hesitate to write about it. They deserve no publicity - which is, I am sure, partly what they want. And I suspect that also partly what they want is to upset people into committing violence or whatever against them, so they can then sue: it's my understanding a number of them are lawyers).

That said, I hope the Supreme Court doesn't vote to abridge their free speech. Even though what they are doing is utterly despicable. Even though I find myself frequently praying that they would all wake up some morning and realize, "Good Lord, what are we DOING?" and realize how wrong they have been, and stop. As much as I think they deserve any beating they receive at the hands of a citizen sick of their shenanigans. As much as it would take all of my composure and all of my patience and self-control NOT to shout obscenities and flip the double-bird at them if they showed up in my town.

Because when we start banning certain forms of speech, we enter into a world where it's hard to stop banning.

Instead, I think we should support the Patriot Guard. And any other groups that work to try to shield the grieving family from the protesting idiots. And I think if the protesting idiots do, in any way, overstep an actual law - like invasion of privacy or disturbing the peace - then they should be hit, and hit hard, and hit every time they violate the law.

It does make me sad that they're getting so much publicity right now; I am sure that's what they want.

Still, "Argh."

Bingley is right. (Then again: If I've been cc'd in on all kinds of stuff, and there IS a wrongful-termination lawsuit, that means I can't be called to testify, no?)

I don't know. I find it kind of - disrespectful? - to expect other people to take sides in a situation that doesn't really impact them.

I see this a lot, though: students trying to get me to talk smack about other profs, things like that.

I don't know. We meet next week. I'm not looking forward to it. I've already decided to mostly keep my mouth shut, and, if pressed to contribute, remark that I've not taught the class in question, I haven't seen any of the issues first-hand, so I don't feel it's my place to speak.

Argh. No.

One of our newer hires is apparently causing problems. Or, one or two of my colleagues is having problems with this person.

The thing is: the issue involves one of our large intro classes. A class I do not teach. I have not seen any of these people in action in the class, I don't know the new hire that well (and I don't know one of the complainers that well. The other one, yeah, I'd give his concerns some credence.)

The thing is: THIS IS A CLASS I DO NOT TEACH. I have nothing to do with it.

I just wish the main complainer (the person I don't know so well) would stop cc'ing me on all of the e-mails documenting this new hire's suckiness. I don't want to hear it. This person needs to go directly to the person they are having problems with and work it out with them. I do not get involved in these kinds of cat fights.

If it escalates to "we have to have a meeting to address this," I will go. But I will sit, with my mouth shut, and say nothing. I may even abstain from voting (giving lack of firsthand knowledge as my justification) if a vote to renew/not-renew the person's contract comes up.

But the thing is: criminy. I'm teaching 15 hours here. A couple days a week I approach having a 12-hour day on campus (one day a week I actually have it.) I am too busy and too tired (and getting too old) do deal with these kinds of things. I honestly can't tell if it's a real problem or if it's just a case of "I don't like this person, they rub me the wrong way(1) and I want to make their life miserable" or what.

(1) (The person in question CAN be abrasive. And has been a little whiny in the past, to the point where I was gritting my teeth to keep from saying something like, "Cowgirl up. We all have things in our life that are tough; we all get stuck with classes that are bad sometimes.")

I love teaching - some of my students this semester are a real joy. But I could do without some of the petty politicking.

ETA: There's been a short-notice meeting called for tomorrow. And the person in question is not on the e-mail list. Ugh. Lord grant me strength, and give me the wisdom to keep my fool mouth shut.

Strong leaders, weak leaders

Something that happened in my life this week cemented something in my mind that I'd been thinking about, but not really explicitly stated to myself.

The difference between strong and weak leaders is, in part, how they deal with criticism.

Strong leaders have their goals in mind. The goals are firm, they know the goals are good, they can articulate the justification for those goals. When someone criticizes them, they follow one of three roads:

1. They ignore the criticism, if it's really unfounded, and especially if the critic is one of those sorts of people who finds fault with everything.

2. They sit down with the critic and either try to clarify (if they think they've been misunderstood) or try to come to some kind of compromise. Or convince the critic that he or she is wrong, based on facts.

3. If there really is a problem, they own up to it.

It's one of the hardest things I know, when someone is criticizing you - especially if it's the snipey kind of criticism - to stand up and say, "Yes. There are problems with this program, and I need to work to fix them." or to say "I screwed up here, I'm sorry, it will be fixed and won't happen again." But it's the right thing to do.

Weak leaders, on the other hand, immediately fire back at their critics: they're wrong. Or they don't understand. Or they're stupid. Or they have ulterior motives. Or they're greedy. Whatever. The weak leader goes on the defensive against critics, instead of stopping and asking themselves, "Is this criticism based on something I really do need to look at and change? Am I not presenting my ideas well? Or is this critic being a crank?"

Seeing it close-up (happening with a person I know) seems to bring home much more how petty the weak leader looks when he or she does the knee-jerk reaction. But now I also see it in politics: the politics of reaction is bad politics.

We need more strong leaders. People who have a clear vision and believe that vision is good and right and will help people. And who are brave enough and wise enough, when something's not working, to say, "We need a new plan here."

And we need fewer weak leaders, who seem to be more concerned about their own self-esteem than they are about the welfare of the people they are leading.

The few times I've had power- been a leader of something - I actually kind of came to hate it, because I find that power brings a lot of responsibility and a lot of people to answer to, and not a whole lot of perks. And it is really hard and painful when you didn't do something as well as it could have been done, to get up and say, "Yeah, I screwed up. It won't happen again."

I suspect one of the reasons we wind up with weak leaders is that the people who actually take the responsibility of power seriously tend to get worn out by it.

(Which is maybe why, just maybe, term limits are a good idea...)

I do believe the end of the world is nigh.

Two points of data:

1. I had a student earn an 18 percent on an exam today.

2. Apparently the creature called "Snooki" from "Jersey Shore" has got herself a book deal.

I think it's time for me to head to the bunker.

All Hail the New Feeding Overlords

Heroditus Huxley blogged about this last week. There's a school district considering a ban on chocolate milk. Others are telling students not to bring in cupcakes or cookies on their birthdays.

(Actually, the New York Times wrote about the chocolate milk a while back. Predictably, most of the commenters were aghast that chocolate milk was still even an option. "Give the kids water!" one of them screamed. "We need to prevent childhood obesity AT ALL COSTS!" Apparently, later-in-life osteoporosis is a small price to pay for not having chubby kids. (and yeah, yeah, I know: broccoli and sardines also have calcium. When was the last time you saw a kid voluntarily eat either of those?))

And now, there's the article circulating that Americans Don't Eat Enough Veggies.

The CDC even says:

These findings underscore the need for interventions at national, state, and community levels, across multiple settings (e.g., worksites, community venues, and restaurants) to improve fruit and vegetable access, availability, and affordability, as a means of increasing individual consumption.

That word, "intervention," scares me. Are the Veggie Police going to show up on my campus (it's a workplace) and force-feed me V-8 juice (which I should not drink anyway, as it contains carrots, to which I am allergic) until I've met my minimum daily servings? Are they going to harass people until they capitulate and eat their damn veggies?

I mean - if a guy asks a woman on a date one too many times after she's turned him down, he can be fired for sexual harassment. But it's OK for the gov'ment to come to our workplaces or restaurants and tell us to eat veggies?

Look: what the hell gives anyone in government the right to mandate veggie servings. Or chocolate milk in the schools. Or anything like that.

Yes, granted: apparently poor diet is a problem for some children. But denying all kids a little carton of chocolate milk at the cafeteria is not going to solve the problem of parents who use McDonald's as a pacifier....nor should the government be trying to solve it. People need to take responsibility for themselves.

I remember being in grade school. The "white milk" (as we called it) frequently tasted bad. I don't know if it was the cartons or if it was close to expiring or what. The chocolate milk tasted better. And it was one small, tiny comfort, to have a little carton of chocolate milk in the middle of a day full of math timed-tests and vocabulary drills and being tormented by peers. It would have made life a little smaller and sadder if that had been taken away.

Already kids in school have so much heaped on them: high-stakes testing. Peers who disrupt class, harass them, bully them, and who don't get the butt-smacking they richly deserve. Having to carry clear backpacks. Getting a "referral" if you draw a WWII era scene and just happen to put a gun and a bomb in it.

It must suck to be a kid these days.

Vanished world

TCM was showing von Stroheim's version of "The Merry Widow" this morning. I watched a bit of it. I wish I could have watched it all.

The movie was made in 1925. It's a silent movie, and the silent movies TCM shows, they play pipe-organ music reminiscent of what you'd have heard in the movie palaces of the day.

I find silent movies fascinating. (And it seems that they're always on at the exact time I DON'T have time to sit and watch). They seem like such a vanished world...and yet, they were made less than 100 years ago.

The acting is done differently - it's more exaggerated, by necessity, because most of the story needs to be conveyed by gesture. There are occasional title cards with dialog (this movie seemed to have them more frequently than some silent movies I've seen), but mostly, the actors' actions have to carry the story.

As always in older movies, I also find myself looking intently at the clothes and the backgrounds and the furniture and seeing how things were different. I find that kind of thing really interesting, the whole little window into "how did people live then"

Also, these movies were made before the Hayes code, so they show things movies a few years later couldn't. (The on-screen information for this movie referred to it as a "risque" version, but really, from what I saw, there was nothing risque by modern standards. Or maybe it was the idea that here was a woman who married first out of spite, and then, after being widowed, was happy to flirt and be coy and all that...and the sex was implied. I didn't see enough of the movie to be sure)

It makes me wonder...what would movies be like today if sound had never been developed? What kind of constraints do not having sound place on what stories you can tell and how you can tell them? Or what would have happened if the Hayes code had never been developed?

I don't know much about movies. I enjoy watching some of the old ones on TCM. If I had more time, I'd try to learn more about them.

good well-rounded education WIN.

I admit it, I'm going to be smug about this, a little.

Students are writing on the viability of a "citizen gene bank" for combating crime. One student argued against it, and claimed it violated the 10th Amendment.

So I wrote on his paper: "Actually, the 4th Amendment would be more relevant to your argument."

I will say I'm disappointed by the large number who say, "Of course I'd give my DNA to a national crime-fighting bank; I'm not a criminal!" Um, not entirely the point as I see it but thanks for playing.

Augh, papers.

So, as part of Writing Across The Curriculum or some such mandate, we have our non majors gen bio students write papers.

This is more of a pain than it's worth, save for the fact that maybe 10% of them learn something from me about grammar or structuring an argument (the ones who pay attention to my comments and don't just roll their eyes over how "mean" I am).

Anyway, here's today's crop:

1. fewer than half the papers were stapled. "I couldn't find a stapler." "I don't own a stapler" (Um, hon? They're not expensive. Especially not compared to the iPhone you're diddling with during class time. And yes, I see you back there playing with yourself phone).

2. Several came in printed very faintly. "The printer in the lab next door is running out of toner! YOU NEED TO GET MORE TONER!" Um, yeah. I'll do that right in between all my other duties. You could always, I don't know, call computer support, who are the people whose JOB it is to take care of the printers and who ACCEPT CALLS FROM STUDENTS. And I know you have your phone with you, I saw you playing with it during class.

3. Several people e-mailed them to me, rather than bothering to print them out. So I can print them out and staple them. And then they come to me and ask, in a great tone of concern: Did you get my paper? Yes, I did. Check your e-mail in class rather than texting your friends and you'll see.

4. One person emailed me that she was LIKE, REALLY SICK and couldn't make it to class, could she bring her paper to the next meeting? I emailed her back and said, "I really need to get these graded this afternoon, can you email me a copy?" (I mean, everyone ELSE does). Have not heard back. I assume this means paper is not done.

5. Had another person claim printer failure (in another lab) but that they'd e-mail it to me after class, HONEST. They actually did, so that means they actually had it done, rather than what I assumed.


AND: one person, this is the first (of three) papers she's turned in, totally did not follow the format I told them. There is no literature cited. There are no citations in the paper. And this is the Queen of Butthurt (seriously, she rolled her eyes at me when I told her she couldn't hand the last paper in over a week late, because NO LATE PAPERS is class policy). I can't wait to see how she responds to the low grade and the explanation as to why.

I also had someone - the other day - drop the phone they were texting on (holding it on their lap where it was harder for me to see) on the floor. I just looked at them with the giant stinkeye and they got embarrassed and didn't pick it back up until class ended. I also had someone open a book of essays in class today and start reading so I turned off the lights whenever I showed a table or figure or diagram. And I had Hungover Guy ask if I could make the room cooler. And my two Basketball Girls started having a loud convo, I stopped and stared at them until they shut up (for a while)

As much as I hate the idea of online teaching, you know, it might be easier in some ways? At least all the things that annoy me in class I would not actually see.

And if you get the idea from this post that I REALLY HATE CELL PHONES RIGHT NOW, you would be correct. Or rather, I hate the fact that students now feel entitled to play with their cell phones if the class isn't 100% entertaining and to their liking. Dammit, if I had Lady Gaga's talent for being shocking, I'd be making Lady Gaga style wages.

More on economy

I've been making an extremely concerted effort for - well, for quite a while now - to be extra-frugal. No eating meals out, no random shopping, no mail-ordering stuff.

Part of this is just uncertainty - I have a very bad feeling that something's going to happen so that those of us in the middle class will get screwed on next year's taxes, and I need to have money saved up to pay them. But part of it is I've made the decision not to teach next summer, so I need to be sure to have at least 2 month's worth of expenses (including travel expenses, if I go to meetings) covered.

And you know what? It sucks. I mean, I was frugal before - I carried my little lunch over to school, I didn't get take-out, didn't do the floofy coffee drinks, didn't buy new purses or shoes unless the ones I was using had worn out.

But I wasn't really aware before of how often I ordered books off of Amazon, or mail-ordered craft supplies. And while it's good to work down on what I have built up, I have to admit it's disappointing to come home each day and KNOW there will be nothing fun in the mail for me; that except for the infrequent magazines, there are only bills and junk mail and solicitations from charities.

Many days, I get my mail, sort it as I walk in the door, and immediately dump all of it in the trash. (My friends and family, by and large, are poor correspondents; many of them can't even seem to be arsed to e-mail unless they have a question or a request).

(I've also been trashing the catalogs immediately they come, so I'm not tempted to order anything from them).

I've also gone over again to a more vegetarian-like diet, partly to save money but partly because the one good place that sold meat close to me closed up. And so, I can get the horrible, shot-up-with-phosphate solution crap the local wal-mart sells. (If your wal-mart sells good meat, count yourself lucky). Or I can drive for a better shot at meat, except the last few things I bought at the Kroger's in the next largest town were not that good.

And I suspect I may be bordering on anemia. Or just not getting enough of the right kind of protein. And that adds to my distress.

Teaching a 15-hour (or 14, depending on how you do the accounting) course load doesn't help. I'm tired all the time and always pressed to get stuff done.

So when the news trumpets "Recession is over!" and I'm still feeling misery on various fronts, it makes me roll my eyes and say, "pull the other one, it's got bells on."

I probably should break down at some point and mail order something. Just something small. Just so I can feel like someday I will come home and not have a mailbox full of stuff I don't want.

O RLY?

So now they're telling us the recession is over. Ayup. Has been since last summer.

Tell that to several of my high GPA graduates, who are still job-hunting and living with parents. Tell that to the folks who could afford a house, but who can't get a mortgage loan. Tell that to the two businesses in my town that closed down in the past couple months.

If the recession is over, does that mean that this is really the "new normal"? Where there's insecurity and people are afraid to spend money and most workers are squeezed to the limits of their productivity because businesses won't hire, so some individuals are doing the work of three people? And where the stock market is just blah, so much so that I've revised my "work until 70 or 'til your health fails" plan to "work until 72 or until you drop dead"?

I don't know if the economists see something many Americans don't, or if they've been told to lie, but from where I sit, sure doesn't look like ANYTHING is over yet.

The importance of persistence

I was reminded yet again yesterday of how I grew up relatively "privileged."

I don't mean in the sense of money (though we had enough of that for the necessities and many of the comforts, if not luxuries), but in the sense of what my parents taught me. How much they cared, so that they gave their kids what we needed to succeed in life.

A common kid-complaint is, "This is hard." At first, fractions are "hard." Or long division is. Or algebra. Or trigonometry. Or something in physics.

My parents had slightly different reactions to my (and my brother's) protests that something was "hard."

My mother would remark: "Few things worth doing are easy." And you know, I tended to believe that. Especially coming from her: she grew up in (what I now know was) near-poverty, she was the first in her family to go to college, she worked long hours in the summer to try to earn part of her tuition, she sought out scholarships and what work-study type opportunities existed so she could go through college. She wound up earning a Ph.D. and teaching college (until first I, then my brother, came along, and she decided she would really rather stay home and raise us than continue to work and pay for childcare. And luckily, my father was doing well enough that we could just manage that financially. As I said, we didn't have a lot of material luxuries - at least, compared to the others in our small town (on a global scale we would have been fantastically rich), but we were rich in a lot of important things).

My father responded slightly differently. He'd say to me: "I know it's hard. But you're smart, and you can figure it out." And that always made me feel better. I think part of it was that my distress was being acknowledged - and at the same time, instead of allowing me to give in and give up, my dad told me he knew I could do it, just try harder, work harder.

That was actually kind of the theme when we ran into problems growing up: Try again if you didn't get it the first (or second, or third) time. See if you can find someone who can explain it differently if you don't understand. Try looking at it a different way. Go to the library and see if you can find a book to look it up in (to this day, that's my first recourse when I don't know or don't understand something: find a book that explains it). If you have to, put it aside for a while, rest, and come back to it when you're calmer.

And I realize now how important that was, and how valuable, and how grateful I am to my parents for instilling that in us. I find now when I'm faced with what seems like an intractable problem, I get stubborn: I say to myself, "You're smart. You can figure this out" (echoes of my dad's advice!). And I dig in, and most of the time I solve the problem.

But I often see students who haven't learned this - who have, apparently, been allowed in the past to give up on "hard" stuff. And it's frustrating to teach people with that attitude.

An example, from lab. I teach a non-majors bio lab. We were doing osmosis this week, which, while it's not a super-hard topic, can be confusing if you've never worked with it before. During the lab, one group of guys called me over. "We aren't sure we understand this question" one of them said.

So I used my usual method: I asked them to tell me what they did know and did understand, and then started asking them questions based on that and aimed at getting them to what they didn't know.

Almost at the same moment, the light came up in all of their eyes. "Ohhhhhhh" one guy said. "I get it now." And he started to explain the answer to the question - and another guy picked up where he left off. And I smiled and told them they had it. And they thanked me for the help.

Then, later, one of the women in the class came up to me. "This is hard." she said. "I don't get it." So I tried the same technique- which, when it works, works very well, and I think the students remember better when I "force" them to come up with the answer on their own. She was having none of it though. "This is HARD." she repeated. "I Don't Get It."

I tried to help her as much as I felt OK doing but she just clamped down. Later, I saw her pulling the same thing on the TA in the class - he tried the same method I used and she still clamped down and finally just gave up. And that frustrates me, because everyone else in that class of 24 more or less "got" osmosis after working on it for a while. And she just decided to shut down and decide it was "too hard" or too much work.

As I said, it's frustrating teaching people with that mindset. And I wonder if there's a way of getting them out of it once they've hit 20 or so - I tend to think that if you develop the "I can figure this out!" mindset, it's going to happen as a result of early experience - like what I had with my parents - where, when something was found to be "hard," I was encouraged to keep working at it until I got it, or get extra help (in the form of tutoring or having it explained a different way).

(An aside here: that's the real source of self-esteem, IMHO: taking on a challenge that's somewhat difficult and then realizing along the way, "Hey! I get this!" or "hey! I can do this!" Not being told you're Special and Unique and there's No One Like You)

The other thing that the training I got from my parents did, was that I realized "I could do that thing in the past that I thought was so hard, and once I mastered it, it was easy. So this thing that looks hard now, if I work on it, eventually it will get easier."

But as I said: I'm not sure how to instill this in kids if they're not getting it early on, at home. (And even if primary school teachers try to instill it, if it's not being supported at home, it still may not take).

I might even go so extreme as to say that a big part of America's success over the years comes from people having said, "This is difficult, but I can do it if I keep working and keep trying." People who clamp down when things get hard and refuse to keep trying don't seem to get very far (at least in my limited experience teaching college, and observing other grad students when I was in grad school).

And so it always worries me to see someone who does that "I can't DO THIS" over something, particularly something that other people around them are mastering. It's one thing to try repeatedly and not be able to (I am not much of a singer and I acknowledge that); it's totally another to not even want to try.

"love notes" argh

Without outing myself too much (as to where I live), I live within AM radio hearing-distance of Dallas. So I hear some of the Dallas news from time to time.

Something lately that's appalled me: congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson allegedly (or not-so-allegedly, apparently she's apologized for doing so) funneled money supposed to be for low-income scholarships to family members.


Okay, another bit of "I'm in Politics, so I have Privilege" attitude. I suppose it's not surprising any more.

What gets me, though, is her supporters: instead of accepting that she did wrong, or calling for her to make it right (though apparently she is going to do so now, after having been caught, though it's not clear if the scholarships are going to be rescinded or if she's going to repay out of her own funds, however she may have gotten them), they called for "sending her love notes" to "let her know how much we appreciate her!"

This is just another thing that makes me furious. File it in with the "Oh, so you saved money and bought less house than you could possibly afford? Fine, then you can bail out the people who bought big mansions they couldn't" or the "You're being frugal? Great! Hand over that money so we can give it to politicians who can't be" attitudes.

I think of all the people who work hard, who are honest, and who get mostly trouble for their efforts - all the volunteer workers I know who have to put up with complaints and stuff. Who never get thanked. Who probably would value a "love note" (and yes, I've occasionally sent 'em.)

(And yes, part of this is sour grapes: 99% of the tiny amount of feedback I get is negative. I didn't do something right, I didn't do something to someone's unspoken standards, I didn't do "enough." Or students take issue with how tough I am. Or I'm "mean" because I won't accept papers 3 weeks late. Or whatever. I know, I need to just suck it up, but it gets WEARING to only hear when you've screwed up and having to assume that no feedback = you're doing OK.)

And yet, someone who essentially defrauded some of her own constituents, gets such rabid and unthinking support. I guess this is how people that the rest of the country looks at and goes, "they're so corrupt, how can they possibly still be in office?" manage. Or how cheating businessmen prosper. Or whatever: there are enough people willing to overlook the big moral failings* because they're gettin' the pork they love so much.

(*In a totally different camp would be someone who screwed up and was truly repentant, and did what they could to make it right. That person I'd be willing to forgive and perhaps even give another chance to. But it seems so many people these days - in any field - who are corrupt, they're so busy spinning and making excuses and blaming others that you never even hear a "sorry" come out of their mouths.)

A little better

I had a meeting of one of the ladies' groups I belong to last night.

One of our big focuses (foci?) is raising money and giving scholarships - often to students who are not-as-eligible for other help. We awarded two last night.

One of the women came from Central America originally. She didn't give the whole story, but what I figured out from reading between the lines was that her family was fairly upper-middle-class, until a business partner defrauded her father of a lot of money (and there may have been other problems). With the help of people in the Baptist church (she and her family were members), they got sponsors here, came here, and her parents are trying to rebuild a business. (And I guess they are going through the process to become citizens).

She spoke pretty passionately about her faith, about how she felt that God was leading here here, because now she has the opportunity to do many good things.

She talked about her love of America: "This is the country where your dreams come true" she said "Everyone has the opportunity to do what they want with their lives." She said that with hard work, she'd get what she wanted - to work with a church, and maybe be involved with the Christian music business.

She also remarked: "In America, people will help you. Just ordinary people! If they find out that you need help, they will help you." (She did not seem so keen on the idea of the government helping people, but rather the idea of it being individuals or small groups like faith groups)

She also remarked that one of the things she was trying to do, in her work with her church's youth, was to teach young women - "The Enemy," she said, "The Enemy wants to convince girls that they have to look a certain way and dress a certain way and that is what makes them beautiful...but that's all a distraction; beauty is who you are, it's what is inside you." (I thought this was an interesting observation because physically - I mean, her face and hair and figure and everything - she was a very lovely woman, but she didn't seem to want to "trade" on that in her life. She did say that in her home country, the emphasis on dressing sexy and looking a certain way was even stronger than it was here.)

She also thanked us profusely for the scholarship - it came at a time, she said, when she was sitting in her apartment wondering how she was going to manage in the coming months, but also trusting that God would provide. (And I guess, through us, He did.)

So I felt better after last night. (I suppose it was something I "needed" to hear). It's hard not to get caught up in all the minutiae and to see all the little bad things, but it sure does help to be reminded that once in a while, something you are involved in winds up helping a person and being good for them.

Why isn't this my life?

I'm listening to internet radio while trying to grade. They just played "Somewhere" from West Side Story, which I always think of as "The TIAA-CREF song."

The educators' retirement-funding program used to have a series of ads, showing romanticized views of college campuses, teaching hospitals, and such.

You can see one of those ads here

Those ads - I will admit, in my more susceptible moments, they made me cry a little. Because they were such an idealized, gold-tinged view of the campus. You never see the faculty tearing out their hair because (as just happened to me) a teaching assistant informs them on short notice that they can't be available to help today. Or you don't see the student who plagiarized arguing with the faculty member that they 'didn't know it was wrong.' Or the grinding long hours of grading, where students get things wrong that you thought "everyone" knew.

Why isn't my life more like the TIAA-CREF ads and less like, I don't know, a Mike Judge movie based on the funny-to-the-observers crap that happens in the workplace?

I'm just really worn out from this week. Both my TAs have had to leave unexpectedly for crazy reasons this week, I found a badly plagiarized paper, I had a student claim on an exam that "water is a great source of energy in the diet!" (good God, has the "eat nothing" propaganda penetrated this far?), there are certain individuals "above" me who should have the Imperial March as their theme song.

I'm losing the joy of it, guys. I don't know what to do.

This irritates me

The guy in Florida who wants to burn Korans to mark the anniversary of the September 11 attacks. (I'm sure you've seen it in the news. I'm not linking to any of the stories. In fact, I feel a bit of a hypocrite for giving the man any more attention or publicity).

This bothers me on many levels.

First off, it's the attention-hound impulse at its worst. No one would have known this pastor without his stunt. And now he's all over the news. Sure, it's negative attention, but in today's screwed up society, being notorious is as good as being famous. There are hundreds of people - thousands of people - out there who are doing some real good in this world, who are trying to make things better, and they don't get ANY attention from the news. But let one guy take things too far - and they're all over him. You have to be dysfunctional to get attention these days, I guess.

And I suspect there are a lot of the families of people who died who are upset by this. This guy is grabbing headlines, he's turning the anniversary of a grim and sad day into somewhat of a circus. It's disrespectful to those who died, IMHO.

Second - and probably most important, in my mind - this is a bad advertisement for Christianity. Christians don't gain points by bashing the religions of others, and certainly not by doing something that an adherent of the religion would regard as offensive. (I exempt cases where the "offensive act" is an act that saves another individual from harm; for example, a Christian man getting between a mob bent on stoning an alleged adulteress and the soon-to-be victim would be a brave and good act). It doesn't hurt Christianity that the Koran exists. I have never read any of it but it does not offend me that it exists.

The other thing is, not all Muslims are terrorists. (I'm sorry if you believe they are, but they aren't.) There are many people in this country who follow that faith who are appalled by the terroristic impulses of some of their co-religionists - and who are also appalled by the misogynistic and other negative impulses. (I know. I have had Muslim students who have talked about it.) Just as I don't condone what this pastor is doing - just as I am disgusted by the Westboro "Baptist" idiots - just as I condemn those who would bomb abortion clinics in the name of their faith, there are Muslims who are aghast and disgusted by the thought that someone claiming to be of their faith would use it to kill others.

My faith calls me to love people. (Yes, it also calls me to spread the Good News, but it doesn't tell me to be a jerk about doing so, by burning another religion's texts). I can't see the burning as being anything but an angry and inflammatory act that will make things worse instead of better.

I mean - some have been calling for a slow-down on the mosque-near-Ground-Zero plans, in the name of compassion (for those who were killed) and tolerance (it does look like a thumb in the eye to other faiths, at least from some angles). This is worse, in my opinion, than the mosque plans: all it does is gain notoriety for a preacher. It doesn't advance Christianity (In fact, it's being used as a stereotype. "All Christians are idiot bigots" is the undercurrent on some of the news stories).

IT DOESN'T HELP THINGS.

And finally - yes, it could put our troops in danger. Or Christians (or even "American looking people") abroad in some countries in danger. I realize, yes, the crazy Islamist types don't NEED provocation, that the fact that I'm not walking around in a burqa, only allowed out in public under the protection of a male in my family, is enough to provoke them. But. This is like throwing gasoline on a fire to try to make it calm down.

I don't know. On September 11, I will do what I always have done since 2001 - light some candles, say a prayer for the families of those who died. And also say a prayer that all people who would advance misunderstanding and hatred in the name of religion (or really, any other belief) would realize that their ways are wrong, and repent from that.

well, crap

Hold the prayers and good thoughts for the moment.

Meeting-person is out sick with a stomach bug. So we will be meeting later on.

What's really bothering me

I have a Big Important meeting tomorrow. With a Big Important person. Someone who's been kind of a bully towards me in the past, and someone that I have a really hard time "reading." (Most people, I'm pretty good at figuring out where they're coming from, what their "issues" are, but this person - I just can't.)

It doesn't involve me KEEPING my job, but it does involve ADVANCEMENT in my job, and how I feel after this meeting may in part influence my decision to (a) stay here longer (b) consider taking the Big Scary Step of applying for a job elsewhere or (c) consider getting out of academia all together. (It's sort of a "Is this what the future is going to be, dealing with these kinds of attitudes, and do I really want that" kind of thing).

So I'm scared. Scared because of this person's bullying tendencies, but also scared because I really don't want to wind up making the decision that "this place is becoming an untenable place to stay, time to do a Job Search."

If you could spare a good thought for me, I'd appreciate it.

And also for my sister-in-law, if you have a spare good thought for her. She's dealing with family-of-origin craziness that she should not be having to deal with. My brother is supportive of her and it's probably good she has him, but there's only so much he can do to help.

And the husband of a friend - his name is Dave - is going through some weird health issues and we don't know yet what's wrong.

So yeah: life is unstable and unhappy for a lot of people 'round here right now.

Some days, I wonder

Heard on the news today, the anchor was talking about whatever this new jobs-plan is. And the way he said it, I swear it sounded like he said:

"Today, Obama announces his plan to simulate job growth."

Uh-huh, that may explain it.

****

I'm feeling SOME better. It doesn't help that I hear continued calls for (depending on the commentator) the absolute abolition of tenure (Even a five year contract, where my being re-hired might be contingent on my generating "enough" overhead costs via grants would not be something I'd be happy with), not sending your kids to college because it will warp them, requiring some kind of "jobs accountability" from state colleges (e.g., not enough of your grads get plum jobs, you go away), etc., etc.

I think it's that sort of quiet, below-the-radar drumbeat - the fear I have that maybe we're headed for some kind of situation where either tenure, or, worse, public higher education, is abolished, that really is getting to me as much as anything.

And I hate the stereotyping of some commentators: I'm NOT a left-wing loon. I do not try to inject politics in my classes. I try to show students both sides of issues. I try to teach them to write and communicate well. I'm trying to do my damned level best by them, and it seems like a lot of what I hear these days is a giant "YOU SUCK YOU COMM-SYMP PARASITE" from the libertarian and even populist end of things. And it's hard to feel strong and want to keep going when you feel as if a segment of the population really doesn't want to understand you or where you're coming from, they just want to stick to the script.

And the thing is: if I lost my job in some crazy upheaval, I don't know what I'd do. Especially now when jobs seem to be so hard to come by. Oh, I have a year or so of money saved up, but I suspect it would take longer than that these days for me to find a job, unless I went out on my own and, I don't know, tried to make a living as a seamstress or cleaning people's houses or something - trying to be self-employed rather than having a boss. I don't know.

Actually, maybe cleaning houses for a living wouldn't be so bad, if there were enough people who could afford to pay me. Or if I could find some kind of barter-job where I did stuff and got paid in food. I don't know. For some reason, these times, the news I hear, makes me immediately go to the back-to-the-lander place in my mind: not the nice, fuzzy, "let's play at being the Ingalls family" idea I had of it years back, when it seemed unlikely to ever happen, but sort of a bunker-mentality vision, where I'm having to grow and can a lot of my own food, and that kind of scares me.

rantomatic

This whole, horrible, full-of-suck, full of idiot bureaucrats preventing us from doing our jobs the way they can be done, full of people with a wee tiny bit of power using that wee tiny bit of power in precisely the way that can make other people the MOST miserable, week can go take a flying leap.

I'm DONE. I'm DONE, y'all. If I had a winning lottery ticket in my hand, my letter of resignation would be on my chair's desk so fast.

And it's not even the students that are driving me up the wall. I want to both cry and hit something.

And there isn't even a "fresh" FFOT thread for me to post this on.

Argh. I wanna Fisk this, but I also don't.

Okay. So you probably heard about the idiot who committed suicide-by-cop yesterday in the Discovery Channel building. It was another of your typical whackjobs, someone who was so desperate for attention that they made up a cause (at least, that's what I interpret) and then went out with guns and alleged bombs and threatened the lives of innocent folks. All to be taken down by cops when they had a good shot.

(And I sincerely hope the fool is having a lot of 'splainin' to do on the Other Side.)

Anyway, my most politically-motivated colleague poked his head in the door this moment to comment:

him: "You heard about the guy who held people at Discovery channel hostage?"
me: "Yeah. He was a whackjob."
him:"Apparently he was an environmentalist."
Me:"Yeah. He was a whackjob. He was opposed to the shows they had about big families."
Him: "But he was an environmentalist. He was on the left! You usually expect those shooter types to be right-wingers with guns."

And I was in the middle of working on something, and I didn't feel like getting dragged into his own personal spiral of pointiness, so I just grunted and reiterated that the guy was a whackjob.

But, two thoughts hit me after my colleague left:

First: I don't agree with his assessment. I would argue that you either can't find a political alliance, or that there would be an equal distribution of people who ally with the "left" or the "right" in these things. The Unabomber was more left than right, IMHO. The guy who killed all those students at Virgina Tech was, as far as I can tell, unallied. Most of the workplace shooters probably are unallied. Even the guy who flew his plane into that federal building in Austin wasn't really truly right or left - he had weird ideas coming from the extremes of either side.

And second, and more importantly: It's not a matter of politics, dammit. When someone gets to the point of thinking killing other innocent people is okay to advance their agenda, they have gone beyond the bounds of politics and I think whatever side they ally with should disown them and agree that they are, as I said, whackjobs.

The ONLY reasons for shooting someone, IMHO, are (a) armed combatants (soldiers) in wartime, (b) self-defense where you might be killed, maimed, or raped if you do not resist or, (c) defending someone who is weaker and may be killed, maimed, or raped by the wrongdoer if you do not do something to protect them. That's IT.

(And the cop in this case fulfilled condition c. And good shot.)

Hostage-takers are nothing more than terrorists. They are not promoting a cause, they are not advancing anything. Most of them are severely damaged human beings who, if they can be captured alive, probably need years of therapy and medication in an in-patient setting before they can even have any consideration of returning to freedom.

So I don't know. I'm irked by the dude's comments. Though I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

But this is just part of the "cold civil war" that I believe is going on in the country.

One of these days...

One of these days a student is going to show up to my class with a loose handful of papers (their assignment), smile sheepishly at me and say "I don't have a stapler, and I couldn't find one. Is that OK?" and I'm going to flip out and say "NO. No, it isn't OK. I've brought three separate staplers to class and lost every one. I grow weary of having to go down to the departmental office to use THEIR stapler to staple the student papers. I'm sick of me wearing the same pair of shoes I wore last year while students who claim they can't afford to buy a stapler have the newest, fanciest cell-phone with an unlimited texting plan...."

It hasn't happened yet, but I fear eventually it will.

Not a "vintage" I want

Let's see:

Unemployment is high, possibly going to trend higher.
Banks are failing (still) and stores and restaurants are closing down.
Bedbugs are making a resurgence
Whooping cough is once again a health problem to be worried about.
Poor sanitation at food-producing plants (eggs) is in the news.

I don't think we're reliving the 1970s, as I claimed earlier. I think we're reliving either the 1930s or the 1910s.

(Though if we're gonna relive the 1930s, could the women's fashions have, I don't know, a little more panache? I went shopping over my between-semesters break and bought NOTHING because everything was so ugly - dark, drab, muddy colors, blobby, tentlike shapes.)


At least I haven't heard any cries in favor of a neo-Prohibition lately...

Remembering

I was thinking about it (it's hard not to, given the news focus) Hurricane Katrina this morning, and I also see Dave has a post up about it. And Rob is linking to the posts he wrote five years ago, as he rode it out. (I remember reading those back then and praying for him and his loved ones, that they'd be safe and OK.)

This is a tough time of year. It's the anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, and then a couple weeks later, the anniversary of the September 11 attacks. I find I feel similarly about them, in some regards: my main feeling at the time of the event was a sort of astonished helplessness....I don't mean "helpless" in the sense that I was ever in any danger (I am at least 1200 miles from NYC, and I am far enough inland that the worst I ever see of hurricanes is heavy rain). What I mean, is I felt like, "There are these terrible things happening...and there is nothing concrete I can do." I find I have turned out to be a "fixer." I want to step in and DO something when stuff is bad. I suppose that's a very natural impulse. And when you can't...when going to the site of the problem would make things worse (I'd have had to be housed, fed, and protected, and I had no training like the firefighters or EMTs who went down there did).

I guess in a way, the initial "hit" of Katrina wasn't as bad, in my mind...it was what happened after that was so horrifying and hard to hear about. The idea of humans being inhuman to other humans. (Though a lot of the stuff that was reported for the Superdome - the real Lord of the Flies sounding stuff - turned out to be overblown). The people who were lying out on the street, unable to go any further. The people who had to cut through their roofs, and climb up on the rooftop, because of the flooding.

I know, on some level, this is one of those "it's no one's fault because no one can control the weather" things. Maybe the levees could have been built better. Maybe the evacuations could have been started earlier. I don't know, I wasn't there, and, thank God, I wasn't someone who had to make decisions in the thing.

I remember seeing a lot of the stuff on the news - the people being herded onto buses, with the hope of getting them out of there, somewhere, somewhere safe where there were services that could help them. The families that got separated. The kids crying. The people walking on the deserted highways, accosting the news crews, pointing out that they had no food and no water and couldn't keep going much longer.

It was the kind of scenario that sometimes plays out in my nightmares.

And then the blamestorming began. I remember thinking at the time that it was unseemly to point fingers while people were still in shelters, and there were still people unaccounted for.

And today, I think it's unseemly, the level to which some of the news outlets are replaying some of the saddest of the footage - where they stuck a camera in an old woman's face and asked her about her house that had blown down. Or footage of a disabled person lying on a sort of pallet on the street, being tended by her children, unable to move any further. Or the people screaming at the camera that they had no water, no formula for their infants, no food....I know it happened, I suppose it's part of the history, but somehow, to me, some of the stations and programs showing it - it almost borders on a form of pornography at this point, showing human misery in that way.

I have a friend who often points out that in disasters, God is not those situations - God is in the people who come to help. The Baptist Men groups from a number of states, who quietly loaded up trailers with chainsaws and tools to try to clear roads. The Salvation Army people who went in. The companies who donated bottled water and other necessities. The people who gave money to try to help out. The EMTs - we even sent a few from my community - who went down there to just try to help if they could.

(I think that's what should be focused on - the people who did what they could, who tried to make things better.)

I will say that the event sort of crystallized something that I knew in my mind already - that you have to do what you can, if you can, to help yourself. Even the best government in the world can't always move fast enough. Even disaster-relief organizations can't always get in to you. It was after Katrina that I made absolutely sure to have, in addition to the canned food I always kept on hand, enough bottled water to keep me going for at least a few days (Actually, I need to restock that sometime soon). And a "secret stash" of money in small bills in case the banks have to close for a while. And several flashlights, both battery powered and crank-powered. A battery-powered radio (And I keep thinking of buying one of those ones that has a solar panel and a crank on it...just in case you can't get batteries). And I keep my car gassed up, I never let it drop below 1/2 a tank.

I don't know what kind of disasters we could suffer...probably the most likely right here would be a tornado or an ice storm (We've had a few ice storms in past years). With an ice storm, for me, heat would be the greatest issue, as my gas furnace has an electrical igniter, and AFAIK, it can't be defeated and hand-lit like furnaces of old. (I might be able to manage, shutting myself up in my bathroom, with enough candles burning, to stay warm. Or I keep looking at the oil lamps in the Lehman's catalog I get, and thinking that maybe the "Jupiter" model (which they say can actually be used as a supplemental heat source in greenhouses) and a case of the lamp oil might be a wise investment).

Of course, if I had fair warning, my first thought would be to bug out - to go somewhere unlikely to be affected by the storm, or at least somewhere (like a colleague's farmhouse) where there's a fireplace and enough wood. (I THINK my colleague and her husband would take me in in that situation. I'm pretty sure they would...especially if I brought extra canned goods and such).

But anyway. I just decided that "sometimes even the best responders can't get to you that fast in a real emergency" and tried to make a plan to survive myself. (Oh, I know - there are some situations that even a huge stock of canned goods and lots of candles won't let me survive, but those are relatively rare.)

Another thought: people are still rebuilding. There are still places that are suffering, even five years later.


Another story: A pastor I knew took a mission trip to Mississippi about 8 months after Katrina. He and his group wound up working with a mother of two kids. She was divorced mom of 2, but had a decent career, and would have been considered middle-class, socioeconomically. She had a lot of problems getting her house fixed up - it wasn't totally a loss, and because of her status she was less eligible for help than some.

She had had great difficulty hiring workers - workmen were in short supply (the professionals, the pastor said, had mostly been hired to repair the casinos. I don't know if that's true or not but it was his assertion). She had hired a couple people who took the money and ran, and others who did substandard work. She could afford the supplies with her insurance money, but could not get help to rebuild. So this mission group started helping her.

And one man in the group was kind of...unhappy? about it. "We came down here to help The Poor," he said. "This woman is the same group as I am. She can help herself."

Except, at that point, she couldn't. And I have to admit, that story, that man's attitude, makes me a little angry. The woman seemed to me to be at the end of her rope - as much as people to work, she needed convincing that people weren't just all jerks who'd take her for what they could get. And to have someone grumbling that because she wasn't The Poor, she didn't deserve help...well.

Later, he softened his attitude when another group member talked to him, talked about how grateful everyone seemed for the help...and said something along the lines of, "If you were in this woman's position, wouldn't you long for someone to help you?" (Also, most of the really poor people, the type I presume he thought he was there to help - they had either left town or had been eligible for FEMA trailers, which, while they pretty much sucked to live in, were at least an intact housing, whereas this woman DIDN'T have intact housing. And, as the pastor pointed out: she could afford to buy supplies and just needed someone to do the work, whereas the truly poor, had no money at that time to buy supplies...meaning there was little the mission group COULD do for them, seeing as they had few funds themselves. Some of the members did go and provide childcare while the parents were out trying to navigate the red tape, and they did little things like planting flowers and cutting brush.)

I do think sometimes people - particularly Christians of a certain stripe - do get all hung up in Helping The Poor and forget that sometimes other people need help. And that help takes different forms - really and truly, sometimes the "help" a person needs is more encouragement, more a sense that they're not forgotten and not left totally on their own, as much as they need the actual, material help.

I hope we never see another storm like Katrina. (We probably will, but perhaps somewhere else). I hope in future disasters that human suffering is kept to a minimum and real, tangible help is forthcoming - something to show people that they're loved, that they're seen as fellow humans, that they have value.

makes me smile

This is from an e-mail from a friend: "God is so big that His love can blanket the world, and so small that He can curl up inside your heart."

I LOVE that image...the idea of God curling up inside people's hearts. It makes me feel warm thinking about it.

I hope my heart is a welcoming place.

Aw man

Another student with a DUI and with issues. She caught me in the hall this afternoon. She's trying to get into the dorm so she doesn't have to beg people to drive her, but because of the DUI, they may not let her have it.

(And she has a long commute...it's like 45 minutes).

I don't know. I try not to be all Judgey McJudgersons but you know...when you're an adult...you should be sufficiently with-it to realize that getting into a car impaired is a REALLY bad idea, and not just because you might lose your license. And if you can't arrange for a ride home, or a cab, or whatever, you don't drink.

And even if the person "only" gets caught (and doesn't kill someone), it has a ripple effect....people are having to drive her. She is going to have to get a buttload of makeup work from profs. (At least she seems not-snowflakey, she didn't approach it as OH HAI I HAD DUI YOU GIVE ME MAKE UP ASSIGNMENT NAOW).

But I don't know. I get so worn down by the bad choices other people make, bad choices that then lead to more work for me or my colleagues or more work for the other students. Or something.

I know I'm supposed to be forgiving and tolerant and loving to other people...but sometimes seeing what happens to people and, from my perspective, it looking like what happened was the consequence of a behavior they could have chosen not to do....well. It's hard to feel like I should allow someone to hand a paper in a week late or something because of it. (Or maybe it actually is being more loving not to - offering Tough Love.)

(I really think, perhaps more people in our society would benefit from a little Tough Love rather than always being picked up and having their boo-boos kissed and an ice cream cone bought for them. But that could just be me being bitter because when I did something wrong as a kid, my parents let me experience the full consequences of it, whether it was having to clean up a gigantic mess or lose my allowance for weeks and weeks to pay for the thing I broke by being careless, or whatever.)

Now this movie, I'd actually see....

(I actually started reading the book that other movie is based on. Wound up throwing it across the room.)

Hee!

I know, a lot of television ads are horrible (there is one local ad in particular, for a furniture outlet, where the guy just stares into the camera and SCREAMS about the store for 30 seconds). But some are really clever or funny. (The much-parodied Old Spice ads, for example. And I also like most of the Geico ads, especially the one with the serious-looking guy who winds up saying something like, "Does a former Drill Instructor make a terrible therapist?"

And I saw this one for the first time last night. I swear, it made me giggle for five minutes:


"I have no idea what this is." hahahahahahaha.

(If they didn't explicitly say what he was advertising, I'd never know - but actually, that seems to be true of the most entertaining ads.)

And so, the blizzard begins

The blizzard of Snowflakes.

So far, I've had:

- One person call me up with some shockingly TMI medical stuff to explain why they were missing class. (And I don't shock easy, let's just say that color and consistency were mentioned). Then they called me up another day they missed to explain that they were in the Registrar's office for some reason and would have been late, and figured it was better not to show up. This is a class that has met a total of four times.

- Two people writing me complaining/affronted e-mails that I reported them for non attendance (as I am supposed to do) because they had REALLY GOOD REASONS for missing more than one of the four class meetings so far.

- One person who is not even a student try to engage me in a long, sad, "look at me, look at poor me" conversation.

- One pre-med demanding something registrar-related that I cannot provide, and who was probably past the deadline for doing it anyway. It took four times of me explaining it to him before he realized that I couldn't click my heels three times and make his transcript perfectified.

- One person in one of my classes asking if she can tape-record it (fine, I have no problems with that, though I realize that sometime the taped lectures could be misused). Then she puts the tape recorder on my desk and asks me to turn it on when class starts! (She DID stay for class, but sat in the back row. Um, if you want to tape, could you sit in the front and control your own tape recorder?) I thought that was one of the more presumptuous requests I've heard.

- One guy who enrolled late, has not spoken to me, has not shown up for class. This is someone who took this class before, never showed, and earned an F. Did the same in another class of mine, but that time gave a very hokey sob story as to why I should grant him an I instead, even though he had done none of the work. (Didn't work.). The secretary and I looked over his transcript and we have a suspicion that he may be one of the financial aid scammers - the people who stay in school as long as they can, enroll every semester, take the check, never go to class, and don't worry about the Fs until the gravy train cuts off. This is FRAUD, pure and simple, and if this student is doing it, I hope he gets caught and made to pay back every penny. (Especially since one of our non-trad students was harassed by Financial Aid because she had a wonky combination of classes this semester: taking several upper-division classes but also fulfilling a couple delinquencies she had. I had to write a letter to Financial Aid verifying that I worked with her and that she was on track to graduate in the spring. And I know she is. But they were going to deny her her Pell Grant, I think.)

It's kind of like a circus, only with no acrobats, more clowns. And lots and lots of poop.

Not a valid diet tip, IMHO

"USA Weekend" magazine should stick to fawning over celebrities or offering Sudoku games, I think. This was a "quick tip" from this week's issue:

"Most apples, bananas, oranges, and peaches are larger than one serving size. To control your portion size, buy smaller fruits or split larger ones."

Okay. This is the kind of "diet advice" that makes my head explode. For one thing: We have nutritionists yelling at us to eat more fruits and vegetables. Pack in those antioxidants! Get that vitamin C! And now you have other ones telling you to limit your fruit intake, because some fruits are "larger than one serving size."

The biggest objection I have is this, though: If I really needed to strictly limit calories in my diet (or if I were choosing to), I would NOT do it by either buying "smaller fruit" (which sometimes are not as good, because in some cases they're underripe or had some accident of development). I'd do it by limiting calories somewhere else.

Telling me to cut any of those fruits is kind of counterproductive - one of the reasons I LIKE those fruits is their portability. I can toss an apple or an orange in my lunch and it's portable. If I had to also bring a knife to cut it with, and plastic wrap (and ascorbic acid powder for the apple, so it wouldn't get quite so brown and slimy), that's a whole extra mess of steps that may make me NOT bring the fruit.

(And for how many years have the told us to eat fruit "in place of dessert." So now instead of a nice orange, we get a half an orange. Lovely. I don't like feeling like I'm living in Ration-Land.)

I don't know. I fear that the "portion control" mantra is going to, like so many things our society does, get out of hand. Cut your fruit in half and only eat half. Limit orange juice to four ounces a day. Water down the juice you give to kids. Hell, probably water down the skimmed milk while you're at it. "Eat this, not that."

And I saw a feature - I was only half-watching - on the "new" cafeteria meal at Wellesley. While a lot of the food they showed looked more appetizing than the cafeteria food I remember (lots of salads and noodle dishes), they showed the portions - and they were tiny.

I don't know about you, but when I was in college, I had lots of afternoon labs. Labs that ran from 1 pm to 5 pm or even later. And in a lot of cases they were outdoors - in Michigan, in the fall, when it was cold and rainy. If I ate my little 200-calorie, portion-controlled dish of noodles and edameme, and washed it down with a big calorie-free water, I'd be hungry - and very likely, shaky - before lab was over. (And while in some cases, dragging a granola bar along would be possible, for the laboratory-based labs, it would not: no eating in lab.)

I wonder if some of the students ever pass out after their portion controlled meals? Or if they get hungry and grumpy and unfocused? (I've also heard of a study that said people whose brains were deprived of glucose - from fasting - were more likely to make poor decisions.)

Don't get me wrong: you don't want to go overboard on lunch in college; it's as bad to be sleepy in lab because of an overload of spaghetti and garlic bread as it is to be hungry. But there's got to be some kind of balance, and it seemed to me the "nouvelle" cafeteria meals were going too far on the small side. Some of them looked like they consisted of maybe a half-cup of food. I know, I know, most college students are pretty sedentary - but there's a point where people need to just be able to eat.

I usually made a dormitory lunch of yogurt (I usually disliked the "hot meal choices," which tended to be things like "meatless jambalaya" (combine the leftover veggies in the fridge) or meat-patties in sauce.) And I'd have some fruit and maybe a piece of toast or some crackers with peanut butter. And a glass of milk. Or, I'd have a salad in place of the fruit. And I did OK. And I didn't really gain the "freshman 15." (An added thing: many campus cafeterias have reduced hours on the weekend. I know on Sundays if I went to church I missed the one offered meal. A meal for which I had already paid.)

I admit, this is one of my hobby horses, one of my worries. I can just see a future where people are so afraid of getting fat - or so afraid of being unhealthy - that they become willing to let someone else tell them what to eat. (Millions of people do this already, see all the rigid diet plans out there, especially the "meal replacement" plans).

And the thing is: one-size-fits-all solutions, which any large scale "Tell us what to eat" situation would be, generally fit most people very badly. So you have some active folks not getting enough calories, and they get grumpy and hungry in the middle of the day. Or you have people who have some kind of allergy or intolerance to some food, and they have to fight to get a plan with a substitute. Or maybe there are some people whose genetic make up requires a higher-protein, lower-carbohydrate diet, and other people who need more carbohydrates and less fat - but everyone will get the same plan, because that's easier, and that's "what's best for them."

And the other thing - so much of the diet industry, so much of the "nutrition" industry, and even some of the cooking magazines now, seem to have the side effect of sucking the joy out of eating along with trying to promote health. Have you tallied off ALL your vegetable servings for the day? Hey hey, ho ho, white bread has got to go! Are you REALLY going to put sugar on that fruit? I don't care if it tastes sour, sugar is unnecessary calories! And don't forget to eat local! Oh, and don't eat ALL of that apple, it's just FULL of calories!

And it's tiresome and maddening. Don't tell me to cut my apple in half, dammit, USA Weekend. How about, instead, just shutting up and letting ME decide if that extra 45 calories or so is going to kill me?

Incidentally, here are some counts, this is from a "living with diabetes" type website so I assume they're fairly accurate, and they jive with what I learned years back in Health class:

Apple: anywhere from 50 to 80 calories depending on size
Banana: in the vicinity of 100 for a medium-sized one
Orange: from 60 to 80 depending on size
"Medium sized" fresh peach: about 40.

Seriously, USA Weekend. SERIOUSLY? Fruit is not a Big Mac. It is not even like a fruit pie. Telling me - if I, by some miracle of marketing, manage to actually buy a peach that TASTES like a peach, that rather than eating and enjoying all of it now, I must "save" those 20 to 40 calories by CUTTING IT IN HALF and putting the rest of it away? Forgive me, but that seems to be encouraging eating-disordered behavior. ("Always leave some food on your plate.")

As I said: If I'm going to consume that "whole" 40 extra calories by eating an entire large apple, if I really need to cut that much out, I'll cut it somewhere else, thanks so much. (The other thing? Fruit has fiber, which helps keep you full. I daresay eating 40 or 50 calories of an apple will keep you fuller longer than an equivalent amount of calories from - I don't know, what is it that's OK to eat now? Lean broiled chicken? Poached fish?)

Also: I seriously doubt people who are big fruit-eaters are the people who are really having problems with nutrition and health. But I guess the nanniers have worn out their interest in wagging fingers at people who eat fast food and now they're going to move on to harass people who might actually be trying to eat healthy. What's next? "Too much salad can slow you down"? (I remember years back, I read a novel about a girl suffering from anorexia; she would periodically spout off "diet advice" - that line being one of the pieces of twisted logic she had in her mind).

Frankly? I just want to be left the hell alone. Let me eat my damn fruit in peace.

*sigh*

That's just it, *sigh*. I've mostly been avoiding much news or commentary of most sorts. Because it just makes me sad and tired and makes me ask, "Dude, where's my country?" Because that's what I feel like.

You know the old ads for some kind of freeze-dried coffee stuff, how they claimed they were in some ritzy restaurant, and they had "secretly" replaced the real coffee with the instant stuff. And all the people in the ad were raving about how fantastic the coffee was. The upshot was, supposedly people couldn't tell the difference between freeze-dried and real coffee.

And I always suspected that there were a lot of folks - probably quickly hustled out the back door, and not shown in the ad - who went, "Wait, this coffee tastes like dishwater. What have you done to the coffee here?"

And that's how I feel about things now. That there are a lot of people smacking their lips over the new way government and society works, and the people who are going "Wait a minute...this isn't right" are getting the bum's rush. Or they're getting called crazy. Or told they should be drug-tested.

I don't know. I also feel like this whole mosque controversy is a smoke screen, a red herring, as the economy continues to hemorrhage jobs and more and more people are talking about having to try to live off the land or some such thing.

Does a landowner have the right to sell land to an Islamic group? Yes. Does a group that owns land have the right to build a mosque on it? Yes. Is it a kind, loving action, sensitive to other people, especially those who lost loved ones in the Sept. 11 attacks? Hell no. Is it very likely intended as a poke-in-the-eye, a dancing-on-the-graves-of-those-who-died? I kind of suspect for at least some involved, it is.

But: the government continues to spend frightening amounts of money, and the job situation gets no better. I care less about a mosque at Ground Zero than I care about the possibility that 10 or 15 years (or less) down the line, we will not have an economy in this country - that we'll have Zimbabwe-level inflation, or that we'll all become indentured servants of the government, just to pay for the bailouts now. People aren't hiring in part because they're afraid of what new taxes may be down the line. People (like me) aren't spending money because they're either fearing their jobs may go away, or because they suspect that higher taxes are coming, and they better save up money to pay the IRS man. Banks aren't lending. Everything's stuck and stopped and stagnant. And there's a definite sense of unease - even among friends of mine who voted for Obama. There's a sense of "why haven't things got better?" (Well, this is one of those cases of "If you mess with something too much when it's working suboptimally, it gets worse.")

The other thing that makes me pessimistic is the fear that there are individuals who will do everything in their power to discredit or destroy good people who might choose to run for office - to make them look crazy or stupid, to spread distorted or outright false information about them - and so either the people of goodwill give up in disgust, and only the scoundrels run, or, because of misinformation, good people won't be able to win.

I hate to say it, but I doubt we will ever have a truly "great" president again, at least not in my lifetime.

So again, I feel like closing off in my own little box. Doing what I can to teach students (at least until the "college is a monumental waste of money" meme spreads to the point that I'm out of a job), doing what research I can, tending my own garden. If it all goes TOO bad, I've decided - I have a strong back, I'm not afraid of work, I'll find someone with a small farm and sign on as a laborer - in return for food. (I think there are enough small-scale hobby type farmers, or small organic farmers, who need the manual labor). And yeah, it would probably suck a lot of the time, and I'd probably be hard-pressed to pay utility bills and the taxes on my house, but you know? It might suck less than still being part of the rat race.

Several things I have to remind myself:

1. Sometimes when people treat other people in a thoughtless way, it is because they are ACTUALLY NOT THINKING. In other words, they're not planning on being a jerk, they're not doing it intentionally to hurt the other person - it just happens.

2. Lots of times people are so caught up in their own maelstrom of stuff that some of the problems they're having wind up rubbing off on other people. When someone gets angry over a truly minor event, it's likely that something else was actually the trigger and the event was just a catalyst.

3. People aren't always actually talking about what they are talking about. Even sometimes when they think they're talking about that thing.

4. It doesn't matter that the high-muckety-mucks don't see a lot of the good I do. What is important is that I do it to help the students.

5. Having one person think I'm an idiot doesn't make me an idiot.


This is not shaping up to be a stellar week :(

Holy cow, this is amazing.

I love this. (I just, in general, seeing how other people live with book collections)

Book-lined London staircase (in case the perspective in the first photo seems weird to you, it is looking DOWN the stairs).

The architect built a little loft bedroom and then on the stairs leading up to it, constructed them so an enormous book collection could be shelved there. (I like how the stair treads, viewed from above, also look like file folders in their shape).

I can imagine climbing those stairs...grabbing a book on my way...stretching out on the daybed...and reading in my own private sanctuary. Awesome.

Susan Branch

I have a few of her cookbooks on my shelves. She is an author who publishes these books - they are sort-of cookbooks, sort-of entertaining books, sort-of books of craft ideas, but they also have an element of the Commonplace Book to them, as she puts in quotations or stanzas from old poems that she likes, or that are appropriate to the topic.

Everything is handwritten (or set in a typeface that looks remarkably handwritten, though I really do think she handwrites everything and then lets the publisher set from her artwork pages). She has drawings on nearly every page - little birds, or flowers, or steaming pots of soup.

I've made a few of her recipes; they're not complex, but they're good and often use seasonings in unexpected ways.

I love the books. They are one of the things I look at when I start to feel my world getting small and constricted and unhappy. When I start to feel like whatever stress I'm under, whatever bad news I'm hearing, is beginning to take over my brain.

I particularly like the quotations. I keep thinking that I should get back more to doing embroidery, and that I should start keeping my own sort of commonplace book of short quotations I would like to make embroidery designs off of. (And, vaguely, in the back of my head, thinking, that if I can re-awaken my ability to do calligraphy and neat penmanship, and if I could swing doing it, and enough people liked the designs, actually selling them. Though it might be more work than what I'd get out of it). And her books are a fertile source of interesting quotations.

Her work (you can see some of it on her homepage won't be to everyone's taste; I know I have friends who would look at it and roll their eyes, or dismiss it as "housewife cutesy." (I guess she's a homemaker, though she does write the books and do illustration as a career. I know I have some friends who are not fond of the "domestic arts.")

The thing is - as much as I work outside the home, as much as I was kind of a tomboy growing up (in a lot of cases, my best friends were boys - I often found boys to be more direct and less likely to stab you in the back than girls) - I still love all the "domestic arts" stuff. I like being able to cook. I love the idea of decorating my home "just so," of going antiquing, of being able to do stuff like embroider or make centerpieces for the table. (I just don't want to build an empire of it, like Martha Stewart. And I'm not "perfect" the way Martha projects herself as being. My style is more "funky cottage" than it is "elegant home living.")

For me, it's an escape. There's something about being able to make a nice autumn bouquet of dried flowers for the mantel...I think part of it, for me, is that it gives me a sense of control over something in a world that I often feel is going to pieces around me. Where bad stuff happens to people I care about, where bad stuff happens in the world at large.

I don't know. Maybe it's very small and self-absorbed to want to focus on embroidering pillowcases or tending an herb garden in a falling-apart world. But again: it's something I have control over, something that makes me feel comfortable and sane even when the outside world isn't.

(Another vague thought: starting a lavender farm. I doubt a person - a single person - can run a farm, that I'd need at least employees and maybe a business partner, but it's something I daydream about from time to time.)

But looking at her books - reading her list of lovely things to put in a guest room to make guests comfortable and welcome (good old mystery novels, a carafe with water and a glass, extra soaps and things, space in the closet, a small blanket to wrap up in while reading...), there's a graciousness about it and a comfort. Perhaps part of it is the idea of being aware of other people's comfort and happiness, of caring about it. (That's what being a homemaker is, when it's at its best - you are caring for and about other people).

So in a crazy world, it gives me comfort to look at those books.

I kind of had a suspicion...

You know, when the Wikileaks stuff came out, I turned to my dad and said, "How long before he starts suggesting 'this can all go away' if they give him one billion dollars or something?"

I don't know if this report is true or verifiable as such, but if it IS true...well, the guy needs to be grabbed and locked up. Preferably for a very long time, and with no internet or cell phone access.

You know who Assange reminds me of? Mr. Mxyzptlk. Except for the cigar, he even looks a bit like him.

It's just too bad we can't trick him into saying his name backwards and imprison him in his own demented dimension for three months....

Deploying the chutes...

And so, the weird world of news rallies on.

(I know, the story's got a whole lot muddier, with passengers now claiming he instigated the fight and was cussing them out first, rather than his responding to a passenger's rudeness).

I don't know. I don't condone what the flight attendant did. But you know? I don't vilify him either. I've already read a couple editorials essentially implying that the "true heroism" would be, apparently, for him to continue to suck up the bad behavior of the public, allow people to treat him like a slave, and to just smile and eat the crap people dish up.

And you know, I'm not sure I agree. Yes, there's something to be said for serving the public. And yes, people can have bad days, or be upset over something and have that upset come out against another person. But, I don't think it's right that someone, even a "service" employee, should continually have to take the garbage people hand out.

I've seen it happen. I travel by train a lot. I've heard people cuss out the conductors for asking them (for their own safety and hygiene!) to put their shoes on and not walk in the train barefoot. Or I've seen people who demanded the moon of a waiter or waitress, and then either left no tip, or left a very stingy tip. (And yes, the whole thing of "having" to tip is another issue, but since most people who wait tables depend on tips to make a salary that's more livable...)

And as a prof, I've had my share of bad-people experiences. The guy who went ballistic in my office and started screaming at me that I was unfair on my homework because I was asking him to do a genetics problem unlike any I had worked in class, even though the very type of problem was shown in detail in the book. The student who cussed me out when I busted him for plagiarizing. The students who sit in class and text, or pull out their big elf-sex book (fantasy novel) and read it during class discussion or activities. The eye-rollers. The people who get up and leave from class when they decide they've had enough. The people who sit and talk and snicker (You tell yourself they're not laughing at you, but you still find yourself surreptitiously checking to be sure your fly is zipped or that there's nothing in your teeth). The people who come in angry over earning a poor grade, who threaten to go to the dean, who tell you their parents give money to the school.

There's just so much rudeness, so much self-centeredness in the world. I know, you should let it run off your back - but there comes a time when it doesn't, any more. It's a collective thing - it builds up.

And I don't know what the best option is. Obviously, it's not dropping the f-bomb over the intercom, grabbing beer, and sliding down the exit chutes. But there needs to be some way to teach people that it's not acceptable to treat other people like dirt. In an ideal world, doing something like, "I'm sorry, but I can't help you when you are talking to me that way" would work, but I think in a lot of cases that would make the entitled behavior even WORSE.

(Coming back on the train, I wound up eating dinner with a woman - well, for one thing, she dropped a "big cuss" about every other word, which I admit, makes me judge her a little - but she was complaining about how the waitress on the train was "rude" because she directed her to sit in a particular seat, rather than the "better" seat she wanted. Um, that's how the dining car on the train works? They have to fill it up in a certain order so it's efficient? And she was griping about how "rude" everyone was to her. I've not really seen that. I've occasionally had people be a bit brusque, but when you're busy, you're busy. I understand that someone who is involved with waiting on fifteen tables doesn't have time to spend on a lot of chit-chat with someone at a table. Or to be running back and forth five times for five different things ("I need a new fork." "I want more water." "Can't you check and see if there are any different kinds of salad dressing than these three choices?" "When do I get my coffee?" "My steak is undercooked, I asked for well-done and it's still pink inside.")

So I guess I'm saying I can see how having a critical mass of difficult people can lead someone to snap.

And the whole "keep sucking up the bad behavior of the public" attitude? It puts me in mind of someone telling a woman with a verbally abusive spouse to "stay for the sake of the children."

The sad thing is, you can quit a job - but I suspect flight attendants almost everywhere have to put up with the same junk. Retail employees everywhere by and large have to put up with the same stuff.

I think a lot of this comes down to the good old Golden Rule. And to the idea of seeing other people as *people,* not just seeing them as some sort of an obstacle to your happiness. And also it comes down to seeing rules and regulations (like, not walking barefoot on the train> Or, like, not getting up and grabbing your luggage as soon as the plane touches down on the tarmac) as something necessary for the community to work or to be safe - not something dreamed up specifically to thwart your happiness and comfort.

And I don't know how we get back to that. I know some parents are good at teaching their children to behave well, to treat others with kindness - but it seems that there's such a critical mass that have not been taught, or who have forgotten the lessons.

I just throw this out as a sort of a question - what is to be done? What is the appropriate and instructive response to a student who's in your office yelling at you because you busted them for plagiarism? Or who snorts and openly declares the instructive exercise you've planned for class "stupid," and refuses to take part? Do you really have to just smile and put up with it? Or is there something that could be done and said? Because I worry that we're lurching towards a society where most people are rude and grabby and pushy, and I don't want to live in a society like that.