Trying Terrorists

In the wake of the Supreme Court's ruling against indefinite detention in Boumediene vs. Bush, I've been following the commentary (both professional and those comments people leave at the end of articles) with a certain degree of distress. The court's majority opinion seems well-reasoned and appears able to afford particular goals -- security -- within the rights we as Americans suture our country with -- freedom from extended, unwarranted detainment. Four of our justices, however -- two of them appointed by the current President -- took the line that our system of justice is inadequate to the (apparently) unique situation of terrorism. And one of our current presidential candidates concurred calling the majority decision, "the worst" case result in American history. What disturbs me is a combination of what the minority is fighting for, but also their rhetoric, which sacrifices reasoning for the emotional reaction of fear.

And we continue to receive evidence that those whom the Bush administration has held indefinitely are not necessarily dangerous. Which is not to say they are all innocent and tree-hugging; rather, the decision to arrest people has often been capricious, based on inaccurate information that has been incompletely followed up, in ignorance of evidence that would absolve certain detainees, cruel, criminally abusive, in direct contradiction of international independent oversight, and so forth. Thus, the Supreme Court decision opened up the way to require the government to determine whether people are innocent or not before holding them indefinitely and thoughtful people are seriously complaining.

Realclearpolitics.com has a perspicuous column today by Steve Chapman entitled "Terrorized by the Supreme Court" which bitingly explores and explodes the arguments of the minority opinion (Scalia's much quoted "[this decision] will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed."). The article further examines the effects of the decision, arguing that it won't help many to leave custody -- unless they have been cleared; suggesting that many of these previous "enemy combatants" may enter the battlefields upon their release, but only because they were innocently mistreated and now want their just revenge (hardly an alien sentiment); and, most tellingly in my opinion, gestures to why the term "enemy combatant" is preferred to POW -- the latter have particular rights and cannot be tortured. (That the former also do has been completely ignored.)

The entire incident should remind us of the inanity of governing by fear and trembling. When officials declare that terrorism is a unique ill that must be dealt with in ways that contradict our very foundational beliefs as a nation and put us at odds with standard treatment of prisoners everywhere, we place ourselves in more danger. We legitimize the very claims made about our nation and draw recruits to a cause that moderates can sympathize with. But when our officials argue that to act according to the standards of common decency is to incur danger on our shores, they establish the precedent that safety can be exchanged for freedom. And they blind us to many of the causes that encourage terrorism: US occupation of foreign bases (like the 50-odd ones Bush apparently wishes to establish), our energy policies which enrich countries who fight against us, and rampant trampling of the rights of citizens and nations that we disagree with. If we really want to stop terrorism, we need to positively interact with our enemies, provide an example of how we govern that flatly contradicts radical fundamentalist's interpretations, and reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

 Subscribe in a reader

Environmental Audit: What I've Done Lately for the Planet

Reading through The Huffington Post's new Green Guide and was struck by how much interesting green news there is and also how much of it is the same. But it also had me thinking about what I do to save the environment, which sounds rather noble and shouldn't. In fact, it should be as standard as cooking meals or vacuuming or all those other things that are sometimes chores and sometimes fun to do. So, here are the practical steps I actually follow (most of the time and to some extent) to save the environment.

• Recycling. Never did it until I moved to Madison where it's mandatory. As in, you can receive a ticket if they (somehow) discover you're not doing it. Which means that even the college kids I live around recycle without thinking about it. I'd rather taken for granted tossing the toilet paper roll into the recycling bag (which is itself a paper grocery bag) until I was in Chicago to see the new baby and had to throw away the toilet paper roll...at a hotel. There was no recycling to be seen in the entire hotel or the city. And yet it's so easy here in Madison. What do we do? Every house has a different colored garbage can for recyclables and we put it on the curb on a certain day. The city's recycling gurus looks for what people will buy (unfortunately, they've had to stop recycling dairy cups b/c no one will buy it) and then collects it, processes it, and sells it. Simple as that. Can  your city do that?
• Driving. We don't consciously watch our driving because we average about 250 miles a month. We do that by living within a mile of where I 'work,' having access to great public transportation (the bus outside our house is a block away and runs a few times an hour -- for those times when a mile hurts...like when it's -37 outside.), telecommuting for Nate (though the plane trips to NYC every once in awhile probably negate all our driving improvements...), and living in a smaller town. It's nice to have choice as to when we get in the car and when we don't. I can drive every day or avoid it for a week. In fact, I've been driving every other day or so and I realized the other day I'm tired of being in a car! We even took the bus down to Chicago last time because it's far easier and just as affordable when you factor in gas. When you add parking, it's even cheaper. 
• Materialism. I'm really starting to think about the impact of all our buying. Looking for better quality (so I replace it less frequently) and think carefully about how what I buy fits in with the overall scheme I have -- whether it's clothing or house decorating. Because while styles are tweaked, we rarely have the desire to go out and completely revamp a wardrobe. A little here and a little there -- so if I start with good stuff, then I need less in the long run. What I buy becomes a choice and not a necessity (i.e. holes in clothes, cats destroying slipcovers, etc.).
• Organic and local. I've tried to avoid the bandwagon that asserts only local ingredients; even in the summer, it's not practical. Well, if I went to a dozen farms. The farmer's market tends to have the same stuff at most stalls. For instance, yesterday I bought: tomatoes, salad greens, spinach, flowers, ramps and green onions. I could also get asparagus and a few random other things, but that's about all that the mile long farmer's market has. The sad part is I knew exactly what I could get and bought the rest at Whole Foods earlier in the week; I should have more to buy at the farmer's market! We need a bit more diversity. I'm starting to buy organic whenever there's a choice and I do look to see where things are packaged and choose closer -- when there's a choice. Clothing has proven too expensive to do organic with, but I think that will change in the next 3-5 years. I'm also starting to shop at antique stores and thrift shops because there's always something neat and useful. And reusing is as important as recycling. We're even feeding organic cat food to the adorable ones.
• Eating. I still eat meat, but much more rarely. And haven't really touched red meat in ages. Mainly because thinking about factory farming, red meat is the worst and chicken the least heinous so if I am out and feel like meat, I eat chicken or turkey or fish. But even that is more meat than I often want to eat. I'm consciously looking for vegetarian items, realizing that since restaurants offer so few veggie choices I'm voting for a more diverse menu by choosing that diversity -- and hoping that people will start realizing that the vegetarian options are usually delicious. Flexitarianism is what I'm doing, apparently. The impact of reducing the amount of meat in our diets even by 20% a week is astounding -- more than driving less in fact. 
• Cleaning. For most stuff, except mildew really, I use all natural cleaners. I'm a huge fan of Seventh Generation as I think their philosophy is intriguing and their products are the best all natural stuff out there. I just recently started using loofah sponges from Twist and I love how they clean, but they fall apart too easily. Clorox is even jumping into the green movement by creating green cleaning products and the one we use is pretty snazzy. We get rid of our cat litter by using biodegradable plastic bags that are actually for dogs, but ought to be marketed to cat owners too. They're great!
• Gift Giving. I try to give gifts that reflect the values I believe in. So if I can find something neat at an antique store, I'll get it. More frequently, I've started looking at local stores and try to find something cute. Of the recent gifts we've purchased, all five of them have come from a local store and three of the five have been antique stores. Also trying to buy organic stuff since if you're buying a gift, you want to give quality. But what I've noticed is we're giving more creative gifts and hopefully encouraging new interests.
• Traveling. There are very few ways to make this eco-friendly, but I do look for organic and all-natural places to stay; there aren't many and the ones I find are usually booked. We do stay in B&Bs rather than hotels because we like the experience, but also appreciate supporting an independent business. We avoid eating at chains most of the time (except a few which are actually good: Chipotle, Noodles, etc. and support the things we support) and especially eschew them on vacations. 
• Electricity. Yeah, I do all that. Replacing bulbs with CFLs (even though I don't pay the electricity bill -- that is virtuous!), turning off lights when I don't use them, avoiding phantom power loads, don't even own a tv so watch movies on the laptop (which also reduces the need for another electronic device). 

Now this is not to say that I don't do things that are terrible for the environment. I'm having a wedding that everyone has to travel to, though half the guests are from within four hours of the location. But nonetheless there's a carbon footprint. I still buy stuff that I shouldn't buy; spring cleaning routinely means a trunk full of stuff to the thrift store. I'd rather buy a book than get it from the library. Oh, there's my magazine habit. And I don't own a bike so even small errands require a car. I could take public transportation, but find a car more convenient for most things so only use the bus when I'm going to campus. So, this list is meant to encourage people and give me a place to chart where I go next. 

In short, I feel most of the things I do have become old hat. To claim that I am 'doing something for the environment' is silly because this is how I live. So what's my next step in moving my life more in tune with the environment? 

Here's the challenge of this post: most of what I've listed here is common knowledge. What are the next big or small changes we -- and more specifically I -- can make to reduce my unnecessarily large footprint? I'm thinking about specific steps as well as mind-changes. Many of the changes I don't make I hold on to because they make life pleasant and I'm not willing to change them; but where I can change things, but don't because of laziness, ignorance, or carelessness are fair play.

 Subscribe in a reader

Paparazzi Skewer Spears

The Britney Spears saga has gone from being bizarre to nearing tragedy and the fact that she can't even be released from the hospital without, "television helicopters tracking every turn. [and] A crowd of photographers [who] swarmed around her when she arrived," (CNN) points to part of the problem.

She has a complicated relationship with the paparazzi, as do all celebrities: she needs them to cover her because that is part of her job -- feeding the celebrity machine that is claimed to be responsible for Hollywood's big success -- and they need her because apparently sales and web clicks go up dramatically when a story is about her. The first assumption is arguable since there are plenty of stars who have their own lives and show up in newsstands only when they are actually working: Johnny Depp comes to mind. I think he has a family and I'm sure I could come up with their names and pictures, but the point is I'd have to try. With Britney I could tell you each of the hundred outfits she's worn for the past week.

And yet her life is falling apart, partially because it is and partially because that poor girl has found she cannot move without being bombarded. While she may want it, her current mindset is hardly a decent judge of what she needs -- and we as a public should demand that she be better treated.

There should be a line between any celebrities personal life and their public life -- we do not go to the theatre and support their lavish lifestyle in exchange for 24/7 access to them. Even if there is that symbiotic relationship between some celebrities and some paparazzi, there need to be boundaries even in those -- a celebrity who says, 'take a picture now,' or who visits a restaurant where the paparazzi hang out is not automatically waiving all rights to privacy. In fact, perhaps these sorts of 'free zones' ought to be the standard so that celebrities can live their lives, but still do the promotion that is necessary in their business. And paparazzi could get real jobs instead of freelancing and hoping to get the one picture that will make them thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars.

And these particular paparazzi who are crowding the doors to custody hearings, surrounding Britney Spears as she arrives home from the hospital and so forth need to admit they are bottom feeding at its worst. There is nothing fair or even remotely acceptable about those pictures.

And the public? We need to stop clicking on links we know will encourage this. I, for instance, have always avoided TMZ just because I've never agreed with their 'editorial' policies, but in the wake of this (and even in the wake of Heath Ledger's unfortunate death when Michelle Williams was photographed returning to the US just so we could all see how sad she was), I've been much more conscious of what I'm clicking on.

Here's my new policy for articles I'll read: PR events (parties, launches, etc); public announcements; court documents (I'm a little iffy on, but overall I can handle it); stars using their celebrity for humanity (I know that there are some paparazzi who claim that this is part of the tradeoff: they can snap pictures of a celebrity in everyday life because they also do that in parts of the world they have no real interest in -- this is again a rather selfish and factitious argument); restaurant pictures where stars know they'll be seen (but not those when they're covering their faces); posed family portraits (but not those candid shots which make you realize some of these children are growing up literally with cameras being flashed about every time they go outside -- the Jolie-Pitts...). And I think that people who see stars in restaurants should act as they would with any other person: respect their privacy since this stems from the same root.

In short, the only way to require the paparazzi to adhere to common standards of decency and privacy (the ones that we as ordinary citizens demand) is to stop looking at the things they make money on. Sometimes it's unavoidable, but I'm finding it's easier than I thought.

One last comment, I haven't quite decided whether or not there should be laws regulating the paparazzi. While technically they are legally within their rights because we have a very low expectation of privacy in public, when our laws allow such travesties, should we change them. It's absurd, for instance, that Spears can have police ticket anyone who enters her house, but not those that chase her around or camp on the street outside. And neighbors have complained, too. I think Britain has a very different policy on all this stuff (there are real limits to what you can do with email addresses, for instance), but we usually prefer to give people more freedom with that sort of stuff. So I'm torn on this aspect of the issue -- thoughts?

Monopoly

Apple recently has been sued by a number of plaintiffs, each of whom want to make the suit class action, and argue that the company restricts consumers from choosing to use music the way the consumer wishes to use music. The iPhone, if you remember, earned lawsuits because you could only use it on AT&T's network and now another one is added to the mix in California where all these lawsuits seem to come -- I guess because the company is located there? Europe even jumped on the bandwagon awhile ago, though I haven't heard how Apple's appeal is going.

I'm uncertain how an entertainment device that is sold alongside others that offer different functionalities constitutes a monopoly. In my understanding a monopoly is when a single company owns the entire market (or a significant portion of it) so that no one else can even enter it without being shut out by the company -- not by the consumer who purchases a different player. In the instances where Apple is being sued, the consumer purchases an item they know (or should know if they'd done the research -- one person sued because he didn't understand the agreement he failed to read) works in a certain way, yet then they demand it work the way they want it to. Instead of buying the player that does what they want it to. So absurd!

While these suits don't normally win (though Microsoft was forced a long time ago to remove IE from the desktop in a move I still think is a bit absurd), their continued presence is troubling. First, it confuses access with entertainment. Monopolies actually prevent one from getting a necessary service, while choosing music is hardly that. Second, it demands that every product enable the use the consumer wants to make of it -- Apple does not prevent you from using other products, it merely offers a better product. Thus, if the consumer really wants to use a product differently, there are other options: Zune, Napster, etc. A consumer's choice to buy one product should not be construed as a requirement for that product to be compatible with every other product so long as that incompatibility is not the only option. (So, for instance, a proprietary OS that allows you to access only one browser and that browser restricts your access to certain websites, I would consider to be a monopoly and threat.) Third, the US government allows for anyone with a grievance to sue, but these days anyone with a perceived grievance sues without cause and if they loose there are few penalties. The system needs to be tweaked to either prevent such suits (which might prevent real grievances from getting through) or to weed these out more quickly. The major issue needs to be addressed, and addressed quickly and people need to somehow be discouraged from wasting the court's time.

Such an argument, though, suggests that the courts are a center for effective change and debate weighty matters rather than consumer's personal preferences. Perhaps that is not the way it should be! Think of the lawyers who would suddenly be out of work if they could not pursue such courses. Is this simply what happens when we have a lot of people who need to be gainfully employed? The system becomes more inefficient in order to support the maximum number of people...as it should?! :-)

The Future of TV

So I'm a TV junkie. I watch a lot of it, though sometimes that's in big blocks of a single evening rather than really keeping up with shows. There are a few I keep up with, even through this semester. Some of them I freely own up to watching: Heroes, House, Bones and some I sheepishly hang my head when admitting: Grey's Anatomy, and then there are the ones I will never really confess to watching. (Nope, not telling!) Well, this blasted writer's strike is making my break time a little more difficult -- or broadening my TV habits, depending on my mood. And I don't blame the writers, btw. I think the future of TV is the internet, that the watershed moment will occur during the next three years (the length of the contract they negotiate) and I don't think they should settle for less than a fair share of the revenue. The fact that they are also fighting over DVD residuals should show just how much they need to negotiate a favorable rate before the internet boom hits TV. 

On the other hand, the way the studios are rolling out this internet TV mystifies me. I have yet to turn on my television in about a year. Why? Because if a show doesn't show up on-line I don't watch it. Or, if I do watch it, I watch it illegally. (I only do this if I can't watch it on the network. I don't mind commercials -- well, a few -- but I do demand the convenience of the internet and being able to watch shows/catch up on shows at my convenience.) But there are stations that only put up the most recent two or three episodes. Why would you do this? If you want to increase viewership to a show, what a great resource to direct people on-line where they can catch up on the first five episodes and start watching on TV, or continue watching online. How do the networks not see the potential of this? Probably because the stats are low-ish for the number of people who regularly watch tv online. Which is why they need to advertise it...

But the studios appear to be terrified that in posting episodes online they risk loosing control of the show, which is why I think the writers should wise up to the real potential of the internet. The only way a studio makes money off a tv show is if they sell advertisements. So when the tv show is loaded up for free, the writers get their work out, but the studio loses. Somebody Should realize that there is a lot more potential in a TV show for advertising than an obnoxious 15-30 sec commercial. (Particularly if it happens to be the same one that plays 7 times during the same episode. Seriously, the only thing that does is make me determined not to buy Ziploc bags. They're bad for the environment, too, so I'm not just being petty.) 

Here's how I would run a TV show if I were in charge. Get great writers (Joss Whedon, Rob Thomas) and great actors (Kirsten Bell, David Anders, Hugh Laurie, so forth) and write a funny, hip, whatever TV show. Post it online for free and let viewers do whatever they want with it: copy it, burn it, upload it, etc. Then, I'd tap the advertising potential completely. 

Every show has the following: clothing, furniture, cars, food, books, etc. Even if they are not directly referenced in the show (like clothing), they slip quietly into viewer's unconscious. Don't believe me? Find out how many people watch Gossip Girl because of the fabulous outfits! But silly, obvious product placements don't work. Instead, have the set designer, the costume designer, the make-up crew, etc. write a per-episode blog detailing what their inspirations for a costume were, where the materials came from, etc. If the show is hip and well-done, people will flock to these blogs to figure out how to do just the same thing themselves. 

Advertisers should love this b/c they suddenly have an audience that not only is interested in their product, but is more likely to buy it because of the cool factor and its ready accessibility. And this can be done without compromising anything in the way of the show, unlike those ridiculous, "you gave me a car? I just love Saturns, look at the seating and I can take everyone to the game on Friday!!" sorts of ridiculousnesses.

In short, the writers really only need the studio for production space, costs, etc. It's expensive to make an episode. But the studio recoups all that money they spend on advertising -- so if you went straight to the source, wouldn't you be able to cut out the middleman? Wait, this sounds like what Radiohead is doing. Wonder how long it will take to trickle over to the West Coast? 

__________ did!

Update (1/8/08): nice blurb in the NYTimes also suggesting (though not as extensively as I dream of) that tv should just be online and network free. Here's hoping!

Getting My Life in Order

Those of you who know me in real life may remember that crazy job I had in Alpharetta. It was a teaching gig, yet I was required to work from 8 to 5 (b/c "that's normal business hours") and my lunch break was nonexistent. But the commute was an hour each way (after I moved, before it could extend to 1 hr. 45 min. depending on Buckhead traffic). So all told I spent about 11 hours a day just getting to and from work and working. It was hell.

Now I'm a graduate student, doing work I love, but also realizing that the schedule is insane. Wednesday on my way out the door for break, I chatted with one of my professors about how excited we all were for a day or two off. When she heard I hadn't had a full day off since August, she nodded thoughtfully, "That's about right. I finally allowed myself a day off a week when I made tenure." While I enjoy what I do, this takes me away from many other things I enjoy: my family, friends, travel, environmental concerns, blogging, exploring eating locally, sewing, hiking as well as many things I don't enjoy: cleaning house, cooking every single day, etc. The point is, my life still isn't balanced. And when I quit my job at FSA I swore I'd never live like that again.

This semester is the worst yet, though I've developed my academic muscle enough that I'm not discouraged as I was the first semester when I planned poorly for the end of the semester and then wrote really crappy papers. Now I'm just annoyed. At myself and the university. I'm taking three classes, all of which because I'm really interested in them, though one has gone out the window as far as keeping up with it. But I'm also teaching a 50% load (20 hours a week) because I was told to. The combination means that I likely won't have even an evening off before December 24, once I've finished grading the exam I'm giving at 7pm December 21. No, I didn't choose that date! (Hope no one expects Christmas presents on time this year!)

So the purpose of this post, as I'm drinking my cup of tea and trying to rewake up -- I woke up this morning to Finch running around and meowing -- is two fold: 1) to let you know this is never happening again and 2) to let you know what I have to do in the next month so you can feel sympathetic (and I guess stop checking this blog regularly till Christmas, though I often blog more when I'm stressed out since it's refreshing to write about things that are practical).

Why this is over

I demand that my life be in balance. I'm happy reading during the weekends if I can also drop things during the week and say, I'm going for a walk or the Wednesday market (b/c it's not crowded by 8am). But I require flexibility in my scheduling and the ability to say I need a day off.

Next semester, I am again taking 9 credits (usual load = 6), but if I'm assigned a 50% TA assignment, I will talk to the department head about taking a more reasonable 37% load. If that does not work, I will drop my Art History class, though since that's crucial to where I see my scholarly work heading I better not have to do that. 6 of my credits are independent studies/directed readings, which means that I have a lot of say in what we're reading. So my entire semester should be spent reading material that will give me the background to write a seminar paper. (For those of you lucky folk not in graduate school it usually works this way: you read x amount of pages a week for class and then you also read x amount of pages to write a seminar paper.) So this should reduce my overall stress throughout the semester.

For my life, I want to be able to take life on my own terms. I've talked before on this blog about how my years at FSA (4) showed me that I don't want to be at the mercy of a paycheck for the rest of my life. Well, academia has only reinforced that. I want my job to be something I love doing, not a collection of stresses. And I want choice in how my life is balanced. And I am determined to insure that my children have the same choice. Warren Buffet did that -- he told his kids: you can do whatever you want and I'll support you, but you have to be doing something. And they lead productive, interesting lives and he used his money to help save the world. I admire that on so many levels.

Now this does not mean I'm leaving academia, graduate school, etc. That's the life I want to lead. But I don't want the tenure track stress. And I want time to research. And I enjoy teaching when I'm not overwhelmed (or teaching the same thing 4 times a week). So, what this requires is financial independence. Interestingly enough, the people who achieve this usually start their own companies. Where this is going, I'm still working out. But if you think about things, you're closer to fruition than if you keep living paycheck to paycheck.

What I'm doing for the next month
nb: This doesn't include reading for class (which I'm not really going to do) or planning for class (which since I have to be evaluated again I need to do).

Week 1 (25 Nov - 1 Dec)

*Due: book review (1000 words), 3 page paper abstract (my paper's on Julius Caesar and the city)
*Due: 500 word article review on 3 articles (on monsters!)
*Due: 1hr 15 minute presentation (on nativity plays in the York Mystery Cycle)
*Due: finish grading 500 word essays from students (41 left)

Week 2 (2 Dec - 8 Dec)

*Due: Art History presentation on yet unwritten paper (my paper's on two Old English manuscripts and their relation to the political structure of the day)
*Due: Draft of 25-30 page essay (on Medieval poem St. Erkenwald)
*Due: Read & comment on drafts from 3 other students in Medieval class

Week 3 (9 Dec - 15 Dec)

*Due: Early Modern paper (18-20 pages) [nb: am going to ask for a week extension]
*Due: Art History paper (20 pages)
*Due: Revised Medieval paper (25-30 pages) [nb: am going to ask for a week extension]

Week 4 & 4.5 (16 Dec - 23 Dec)

*Due: Grading 70-odd 1100 word essays from students
*Due: Proctor exam and then grade 70-odd essay exams from students

I can do this. I'm not sure how, but I've been busy before and done it. I've written three papers in less time than I have now. So, I'm off to do this! I'll see you Christmas Eve.

"Lyrical Terrorism" and the theory of Free Rights

Now here's a post you can all disagree with vehemently in the comments section!

The Guardian reported that Samina Malik was convicted of "possessing records likely to be used for terrorism." These records consist of two things, according to the article: 1) her own poems that discuss participating in jihad, beheading people and other disturbing subjects and 2) Osama bin Laden's declaration of war, pamphlets from extreme sects and various computer books that discuss the practicalities of war. She worked at Heathrow, but the article does not mention how she was arrested. For that, enter the Telegraph, which gives a more complete picture of the events leading to her conviction. Some of the additional details include writings where she indicated the growing desire to become a martyr and that she published her poems on the internet. It also mentions that her arrest came after an email she sent was found on another person's computer. In America, we have had similar cases where children write stories about killing their teacher and classmates and may or may not have information to accomplish this. In both cases, what disturbs me is two fold: 1) these violent desires among our youth and 2) the response of the authorities to equate reading and writing with terrorist activity.

It is this latter question that I want to analyze. To what extent does what we read and write fall under a different standard of conduct than what we do? The Constitution suggests that the press has freedom to publish, but does not address what happens when that freedom leads one to (to use the standard example) "falsely yell 'fire' in a crowded theatre". There the Supreme Court has suggested that the language was used with ill-intent and that it implicitly contained a threat, which should be punished because it directly incited an action that endangered others. But when you write a story or a poem, you move into a different realm it seems and the question becomes what are the dangers of poetry? Plato expelled poets because their ability to sway minds towards their beliefs was too dangerous to a well-kept citizenry. Poetry has long been a force for moral and religious instruction and celebration, as Holy Books and hymns attest. Yet, do we run the risk in persecuting ideas that are abhorrent when we suggest that authors should not be allowed to write what they do not act upon?

Current terrorist law is moving towards this direction of claiming that authors are responsible for the actions they inspire, but this theory only works when we apply it to terrorism, which is our greatest fear. If we abstract it, can we make the same argument? And should we indulge in Socratic consistency and ignore the potentially real distinctions between "lyrical terrorism" and other forms of writing? First, the example. Stephen King writes scary novels about clowns who kill people. I think. I actually am terrified of SK thus don't read him; but others do and I think this is what they say! So, someone reads his novel, already possesses some inclinations to serial killing, but has never acted on it. Now he dresses as a clown and kills 2 people in exactly the same way SK describes. The intent predates the knowledge, but would the person have acted on the inclinations without the inspiration of SK? Here I would argue that there is a clear distinction between fiction and reality because the author is not responsible for the appropriation of his work by others; he is not responsible for people who wish to turn fiction into reality because books fiction is a medium widely regarded as being a reflection of life, but not life itself. (Unless you're Sidney, who declared that poetry is truer than life. Of course, they didn't have serial killer novels in the Renaissance. Ballads on serial killers, yes, but that was descriptive not imaginative. And I'm not sure Sidney really thought much about ballads.) Is there a difference with terrorism, where a reasonable author can expect there are people who do want to know how to engage in jihad? Does that change the author's responsibility? And how do we judge the intent of the author if we only have their texts to evaluate that intent?

To consider that question, I want to consider the second charge Malik was accused of: possessing works that instruct in terrorism. Two things are at issue: 1) did she intend to use them actively or 2) did she use them as research with her poems? The first is a different issue than what I'm considering (the whole stop terrorists before they attack is a worthy goal, but again has its own complications) and the second leads us back to whether her poems can reasonably be considered as actively participating in terrorism. Beyond this dialectic, though, there is an innate suggestion that you act upon what you read, that having enough books by terrorists makes you a terrorist yourself. (By that account, I'm a poet and a child. Oh, I have a few murder mysteries too. Look out!) This enacts yet another danger to the idea of literature and writing as a realm distinct from the actions of the real world. Do we require that texts we find potentially encourage actual violence (not at issue in this case from what I have read) be censored?

I think with terrorism we blind ourselves to the implications of what we say. We declare that terrorism is "an exception" and that its horror is so great that it demands "new rules," which we foolishly think will not affect other areas of our lives. (Like school shootings.) So, my question is how should we view artistic expression that happens to have a political perspective we disagree with? What happens when that political expression is violent? What happens when that political expression is only violent if someone (else) chooses to make it so? How do we judge intent if it is only expressed through a literary medium?

"Legitimate" Spamming & Alumi Donations

This morning while checking my blogs, I laughed at this post on spam a college friend of mine made. It references what is likely a huge blogosphere controversy since I checked it 7 hours ago: Chris Anderson's public blocking of spam emails. The comments are hilarious, ranging from PR rants about how their voice should be heard, discussions on the ethics (and maturity) of deliberately posting emails so that spammers can pick them up and so forth. Some even led to offenders posting their own "defenses" on their websites; but I'm with Anderson on this one -- there is no defense for sending out unwanted, solicitous emails. So I laughed, went to classes and came home to a perfect test example. So I'm pulling a Chris Anderson (to quote Big Head) and complaining about my alma mater. This is also a general rant about the way universities ask their alumi for money, which I have a long treatise waiting to publish.

It's nearing Homecoming and, of course, the warm and fuzzy memories drive you to pull out your check book and donate to that worthy cause your alma mater. And for those who don't, your alma mater believes that you should be hounded a million times a year (by phone, letter/postcard and now emails) for requests for money. When those are ineffective, they ask again. And when that only raises "just over HALF OF WHAT WE EXPECTED" (today's email) they begin to demand.

Case in Point: Alumni Class Chair has set up a gmail account that I have twice requested to be removed from to no avail. (Which I've now given its very own filter that sends it directly to the trash!) But, apparently since I went to a university I am forever bound to pay attention (and give) money on a regular basis. After all, it was the best time of my life, why wouldn't I want to?

But what annoys me as much as these regular emails, phone calls, letters is the tone. I have seriously seen one (wish I'd kept it, I'd post it for you) that demanded I give to the university because it was my obligation. Yes, that's circular reasoning. Today's email is at once threatening and conciliatory: the subject line -- "[Name of Class Chair] says PAY UP... or else (last volley)." This violates about every known standard of email etiquette, but am I the only one who just finds this tone of expected giving to be completely out-of-line?. Have they noticed the recession? Have they noticed that ever since the Spring of my senior year (they didn't even let me graduate!) I have received this rhetoric of obligation -- this might suggest why I don't actually give? Have they wondered why their methods garner less than ideal results? (Here's the screen shot of the email, btw, so click on the picture & you can read its absurdities for yourself. And, yes, see the name of the class chair.)



More generally, I'm fed up with this whole notion of required college giving. College is expensive. I was given generous scholarships, which I greatly appreciate. They allowed a very poor kid to go somewhere different in life. But I should be able to "pay it forward" (reference to a movie that was awful and don't recommend) in a way I see fit. I hope to one day be in a position to endow scholarships; I use to think that would be at my alma mater. These days, I think I'm more interested in helping people who want to go to many schools rather than those who want to go to only one particular place. Yet, apparently my donations are constrained because I have a duty and obligation to donate to my alma mater. How absurd is this?

I think the general lack of giving among people my age is emblematic of the way we find fundraising to be obnoxious, limiting and even impossible at this juncture in our lives. I wonder, too, if it's because we realize that education is important, but so is giving money for rape victims in the Congo. When so much is at stake, how ridiculous is it to receive 2 emails in the past week on alumni giving?

Are They Mad?

Radiohead is well known for being off label yet still performing, writing and now releasing songs to the general public. This salvo to the music studios declares that personal control over a band's message is important, but also underscores Radiohead's apparent disinterest in making gobs of money the way the music studios define success: in numbers of albums sold. Instead, Radiohead apparently prefers to perform, which if I remember correctly is how musicians actually make money. (Albums being how the music industry makes money.)

Now Radiohead is redefining that relationship between albums, the band and their customer by self-releasing their most recent album, playing around with two different methods of distribution. First, an expensive deluxe album out in December and second, singles that the customer downloads at will and determines the pricing of! It's this last bit that has everyone scratching their heads, though I'm not sure it's necessarily a bad idea. If, for instance, they were only making $1 off each album with the record studios there's no way the public will pay them worse.

What intrigues me is something I've posted about incoherently in singing Google's praise for creating a diverse money stream that everyone can benefit from with little effort on their part. My interest in this stems from the model for financial freedom and independence that it offers individuals who don't have the desire to start their own businesses, but also haven't the patience for the corporate 9-5 world. Radiohead's experiment falls neatly into this category and I hope they will succeed in garnering interest and purchases because of it. The only problem I foresee in this model is the difficulty of making it a model and not an exception; many small artists (folk singers and so forth) do use this word-of-mouth form of advertising to sell tickets and self-produced albums, but in more mainstream music culture this hasn't taken off as the dynamics are directed towards mass appreciation not niche markets. I guess we'll just have to watch and see what happens.

The Care and Feeding of Children

Reading today's NYTimes and ran across this article on Food additives and Hyperactivity with a wonderful quote:

“Even if [the study] shows some increase in hyperactivity, is it clinically significant and does it impact the child’s life?” said Dr. Thomas Spencer, a specialist in Pediatric Psychopharmacology at Massachusetts General Hospital. “Is it powerful enough that you want to ostracize your kid? It is very socially impacting if children can’t eat the things that their friends do.”(emphasis mine)

I'm rather astounded by the concept propounded here that a child's diet is related to a child's popularity or perceptions of social worth.

I remember as a child not being allowed to eat sugar at choir receptions and being miserable because of it, but I still ran around with my friends and played with them at those events without social rejection. And more recently, I've seen articles (again, hearsay evidence, but I'm not sure how the dear Doctor's is any better!) where parents send their children to school with yummy, gourmet leftovers and find their children are envied because their diet is not the one-size-fits-all American lunch parade.

More importantly, though, the suggestion that one cannot instill healthy eating habits because of social pressure just seems ludicrous!! As does the idea that the one cannot replace bad foods with better ones and explain the choices to children who will understand and feel empowered by the decision to take control of one's future health by changing the diet. Who knew: diet as an antidote to social dependency?

School Testing, Evaluation & Money

NB: In running through my posts, I discovered a few unfinished ones so I've revised them and am now posting them. The first two paragraphs were written back in early July.

Lately the NYTimes has covered the issues surrounding school testing from a variety of angles: paying teachers (the article and the letters to the editor after) and then today's article evaluating whether schools should consider bulk test results or follow individual students to gauge progress. I have also mentioned this before in my blog post Sunday Reader. All have at their basis a continued commitment to testing students rigorously and using that as a measure of whether they have learned something. And my basic problem with this idea is that what the tests measure is not really what is important! It's difficult to evaluate whether a student can think critically, weigh information and make an informed decision, use higher order thinking skills and so forth. Some tests do this, but a multiple choice test will always be limited by its possible answers. Regardless, though, this is not what tests are actually measuring for No Child Left Behind.

NCLB tests are minimum competency tests, designed to establish a bottom level of achievement. Today's NYTimes article discusses how schools are finding that gifted students are not achieving better on these tests, which could be accounted for in two ways: gifted teachers realize that what the tests teach are not as important for students who have mastered most of the material before and take up a lot of time and thus those teachers focus on different skills or the tests are really measuring difficult material. But as we're seeing growth on the lower ends (where the tests are most specifically taught to), I'm inclined to go for the first option.

Which pulls us full circle to the issue of what the testing is supposed to accomplish. Are we evaluating the overall achievement of a school population, or seeking to encourage -- and demand -- individual growth and progress. And here is where I think testing diverges from the goals it wishes to achieve -- I'm assuming that the latter is in fact the goal. The one-size-fits-all model of teaching is anathema to individual progress, but changing the way we track students (i.e. judging a school's progress on individuals improving) will not address the more important problem that the basic competency tests are not appropriate or useful for gifted students. They aren't evaluating these students by beginning where these students are competent and then pushing them to excel; rather, they tell them they "exceed expectations" on a scale of minimum comptency and everyone is happy.

So by all means begin tracking students individually (as this will help everyone and insure that no child is overlooked in the race to have 98% achieve a passing rate -- this is the standard in north Fulton County where I used to teach), but this must lead to tests that match the student's ability and can be tailored to an advanced curriculum for advanced students. If we are to continue this testing nonsense, then we need to move towards tests which are geared towards students who score in the 50% percentile (average) and different tests for those who depart from this mean. Otherwise, teachers are forced to teach shopworn material, administer tests (and practice tests) frequently on material that does not effect the student's knowledge at that moment. Perhaps such an approach could also lead to less multiple choice and more short answer and essay questions, which require much more from students than educated guessing. And allow teachers to emphasize critical thinking skills and writing instead of mere factual recall. And maybe this approach will return us to a system where we start teaching again rather than teaching plus teaching for that test.

Minimum Wage

A post! I've been too busy to even update my blog on readings of what I'm reading, but the exam nears (less than 2 weeks!) and then I will have a life for two whole weeks. At any rate, this article from CNN struck me as worth a few minutes of my time -- a quick post, but an important issue.

Ted Kennedy is proposing an increase of the minimum wage to $9.50 an hour and, of course, the idea of minimum wage has many detractors and supporters. The latter (and despite its problems, I'm one of these) maintain that everyone should have a basic standard of living -- and I would add that the figures that say fewer than 5% of people are supporting families on minimum wage doesn't include the number of students who are supporting themselves while maintaining a full course load, etc. Ergo, there is a need for a higher wage. At that rate, someone would make $1520/mo. Which is princely considering what the wage is now; of course, that assumes they work 40 hours a week and with holidays, sick days, etc. no one does that year round.

What struck me in the article was a complaint: that this is too much for a rural area and too little for NYC. (The guy wasn't suggesting that NYC should be higher, just that local markets should determine the wage.) Aside from the obvious arguments (which I won't go into it), I was wondering whether the national average could instead of setting such a blanket rate for all municipalities set an average -- i.e. enough that a person will be out of poverty (or even poor-ness) by working 40 hours a week -- and then each area would adjust. So for instance, 125% of the poverty rate or something like. Regardless, we shouldn't wait around for an ideal situation, when there is a need at the moment. Since when was it too much to ask that people be required to pay workers fairly? Can you imagine such an insulting situation where one works 40 hours a week and still cannot afford to comfortably live?

Monster Tales

Today's NYTimes has an interesting article on a South American monster that scientists are beginning to wonder if it did in fact exist. Reading through it I found this interesting quote:

“It is quite clear to me that the legend of the mapinguary is based on human contact with the last of the ground sloths,” thousands of years ago, said David Oren, a former director of research at the Goeldi Institute in Belém, at the mouth of the Amazon River. “We know that extinct species can survive as legends for hundreds of years. But whether such an animal still exists or not is another question, one we can’t answer yet.”

While reading it, I was struck by the parallels with the Loch Ness Monster, which many people also believe they've seen (dating back in written record to St. Columba's siting in the 6th century). Yet no one really posits that this was ever an extinct species that lives on in memory. Why not?!

Does this have something to do with a different way we treat civilizations that are further developed? Those who visit and report back about Loch Ness tend to be educated, relatively wealthy tourists with the ability to document such sightings. While the reports from the Amazon come from tribe members who describe it in terms of hunting; in other words, this monster is completely integrated into their personal lives.

The article continues by including other fanciful monsters that come from Amazonian myth (though not explicitly stated as such in the article), like the

"boto, for example, is a type of dolphin that is said to be able to transform itself into human form, wearing a white hat to cover its air spout, and seducing and impregnating impressionable young virgins."

This further highlights the distinction between our Loch Ness Monster and their mapinguary; we are more sophisticated and so our monster is a result of mirages created by physical phenomenon (i.e. the popular random gases in Loch Ness theory). Notice how the article has progressed: the Amazonians have myths which they keep alive about fabulous creatures, they go hunting (in a world that is still unfamiliar and untamed -- unlike Loch Ness which I've tour-boated on.) and they return with stories about fanciful monsters that used to exist and have been unconsciously handed down for hundreds of years. While there may be some truth that the mapinquary is in fact a great sloth (and the conclusion seems to suggest this), the article's unconscious perpetuation of stereotypes about the "uncivilized" world is a bit disturbing.

Ads: Destructive Energy?

Found this fascinating website (my brother will say he could have pointed me to a million of them -- and has with Adbusters) that promotes "ad free blogs," which mine decidedly is not (even my academic blog points to Amazon, which will pay me if anyone ever buys something from them!). update: I found the sneaky backdoor for the website! So the above address now works. But in googling it I found a few people (Adrants and a adfreeblog spinoff supporting ads, which I now have on my blog) seem to have disagreed with the position for decent enough reasons. Thought I'd add my two cents worth.

I had a post somewhere near the opening of this blog about what I like about Google & I believe I mentioned their ad service as a way of providing people with alternate streams of money and in a sense opening up the profit schemes which have been more historically limited to publishers with big pockets. A friend was teasing me yesterday about my stocks and how I'm being un-Medieval by creating money from nothing, which I found humorous just because I think creating money from nothing is a wonderful idea! Our current capitalist system is based, though, on pockets and people who invest wisely and the current stock market booms stem from ordinary folk starting to adopt rich men's habits. And we create more wealth and a higher standard of living. The flip side of this is, of course, those who don't make enough money to even participate in this exchange -- or don't know how since it's a hard lesson to learn when you're teaching yourself.

I consider ads on websites as a way to counter that -- at least ideologically. [I am fully aware that that lady Bush praised the other day as a quintessential American (she worked three jobs! working is American! the more work we do the more American we are! -- unfortunately he's right, but not because America is great, but because it needs to be fixed) probably has no time or energy to blog.] But ideologically, we are redistributing wealth without adding to an infrastructure or requiring capital to buy into it. So while ads might be a little distracting -- and some people obviously only have content to steer people towards ads, the overall promise of the medium offers everyone a chance at increasing their capital despite their lack of means in an everyday job.

So, I do support ads on blogs and think that just as a full page ad helps keep the NYTimes afloat and 'independent' (whatever that means!), ads on blogs can help provide alternate, or even primary forms of income. Hopefully, that can help make more people independent in the way that matters most: to be able to determine your own progress in life apart from what your boss says. But complaints on the whole 9-5 work week are another story entirely! (Though quite related as financial freedom is my mantra.)

More update: I forgot that this faqs from ad-free also include a number of great links that discuss the ad industry overall and which I haven't had time to peruse. One day I hope to and then flesh this out more. There are places where I'd be loath to see advertisements pop up: schools (this already happens, particularly with tv shows and movies, but then if that's what the kids are watching there's some sense in incorporating it. When it's worth it. I just couldn't get excited about including WB shows in my classroom content!), cell phone text messages (I get these alot and consider it invasive), etc. But that's another post, too!

Corruption in All Its Forms

I found a reference on a blogline to University Diaries, which looks to be an interesting website devoted to uncovering the false faces of the university and life in general. (Or perhaps it's just b/c I've been reading Chaucer's "Pardoner's Tale" and have deceit on my mind...)

Two posts struck me especially :

• the first just a term -- "sacred corrupt spaces" which resonates with all sorts of philosophical ideas (Bahktin and Agamben's especially) that should be explored someday.
• The second is more universal: PowerPoint. I've had a bugaboo with Power Point since teaching middle school, where the kids loved it yet couldn't properly use it. I always intended to do a lesson on how to use it, but they covered it in Computer Science class and I thought I'd avoid stepping on toes when I had enough to teach. But my problems stemmed from how it's used: cram lots of text onto a page and then deliver the presentation from that text, add cutesy graphics and present. Its only real function is to grab people's attention and offer them an outline of your major points. University Diaries suggests augmenting a presentation with something that you can't do in words: visuals. I think this is a great idea & would be interested to see it put into practice. I can think of a million ways that graphics can help aid a presentation, but few in which words or clipart will. Yet it is becoming a standard in the office world and schools, but, alas, without any real instruction in it. Perhaps it is taught more efficiently when students take a communications class in high school, but at that point bad habits are already ingrained.

So, anyone ever seen any great PowerPoint presentations? What makes a presentation need a PowerPoint? (In fact, this reminds me of what my Dad always says about the purpose of video, but I'll let him comment on that. :->)

Sunday Reader

Today's NYTimes had three articles I want to comment on, ranging in subject from elementary school girls to underprivileged youth. They all consider the intersection between education and personal responsibility, though with a different angle on all of them. Read along! (PS: click on the title links to get to the NYTimes articles)

Role Models

This article presents the usual encomia about the bad it-girls, those whom they influence and then the analysis of what it means. The article struck me because it discussed how these girls are fascinated by the lives of the fallen celebrities, but also censure their life-choices. Course they're also 8-12 and the article points out many times that they still follow their parents' examples. (Which is quite true -- they experiment with other's experiences, but it is controlled by the desire to still be accepted into adult society the same way when it's over).

On the second page, there is a portrait collage of six "good" girls and it occurred to me that a few I don't even recognize and for the most part don't know anything about them except that they stay off the gossip pages. That, in fact, is the only time they show up in them -- when they talk about how their behavior is different from Lindsey Lohan's and so forth.

And that brings me to my point -- why do we rarely hear about the good? With the exception of Angelina Jolie we find ourselves submerged by the scandals. The only time I hear of Hayden Christiansen, for instance, is what she wore to the latest party. (official party, not Britney Spears' party) So why can't someone start writing about the good these girls do? When they visit the soup kitchen, etc. It's not that People is adverse to this sort of reporting -- it's there all the time. It's just that the scandal sells more issues. But what if there were a glossy magazine that told the other side of the stars? That gave those teens and tweens glamour and access, but also established a more well-rounded picture of their favorite celebrities?

Testing, Testing, Testing...

When did a word that means to evaluate before sending the person on to bigger things become the be-all-end-all of academic life?

The people in this article pretty much infuriated me! When students weren't passing the test, the admin realized something was wrong. Which is a given. These tests are so easy that students should be able to take them without much preparation. Teaching, yes, but teaching for the test is absurd. But what these admin did was have the teachers teach what was going to be on the test...but they didn't stop there:

the principal, Jerome S. Schulman, made them rewrite lesson plans to mirror the state’s standards. Every test had to be cleared to make sure it tested material that might be on the state assessment, Mr. Schulman said.

Note the "every test" part -- it assumes that what the state assesses is the most important thing the teacher is teaching. This success was summed up by the superintendent:

“There are superintendents who want to avoid teaching to the test,” Dr. Lodovico said. “I say, we’re going to provide the kind of instruction that the state standards want us to provide. If that is teaching to the tests, so be it.”

The state's standards become reduced to a single test and every lesson becomes reduced to that same test, then.

My problems with this approach is that it eliminates creativity from the curriculum, but also that it stifles a desire to learn. When we say that the basics that we teach on a test need to be the forefront of our curriculum, we reduce the curriculum to easy answers: A, B, C or D. If all you need to do is pick from one of four choices, you quickly fail to be interested in what is outside those boxes. These tests can't evaluate critical thinking (though they do try...or at least the better tests try) and certainly don't allow for students to demonstrate that they can effectively use the information they've been given.

Even writing exams, which ought to allow for such individuality fail to. I had two students A and B take the exam my first year teaching. A wasn't a profound writer; she knew the basics, worked very hard and held a piece together nicely. A teacher of hers had once told her to make sure that she varied her words. So her strategy was to write a piece and then spend a lot of time revising -- she would make lists of words she repeated and then plug in new ones. This made her writing more engaging and the result reflected the work she put into it. But B was a brilliant writer, though still working on the mechanics. His thoughts always delved into a problem, considered it from a few angles and so forth. He also liked to experiment: he would try long sentences, for instance, so long that they became convoluted and un-followable. But he was looking for a unique style and those long sentences became more manageable as he gained practice with them. But who scored a "superior" on the exam? A. And who sored an average? B. And have I really ever seen anything else? Alas, no.

So, in summary these tests should be a starting point and should lead to more individualized instruction (i.e. if the student can pass it with his eyes closed, move to something else; if he can't, find out what his weaknesses really are. Why doesn't grammar make sense? Not, teach him what a complex-compound sentence is.). Further, students need challenge, depth and interest to keep them actively engaged in school. Testing, and the emphasis we place on it, don't provide this.

Overcoming Poverty

Amherst appears to have a great program for attracting, accepting and nurturing Americans from poverty-stricken backgrounds. What I really liked about this article is its focus on the student's achievements rather than what precisely his economic background was. (Too many of these articles detail the exact poverty the people come from.) A number of similar programs just look for the bright students, but Amherst singles out the potentially bright and helps them to achieve the potential they would have if they had been given opportunities.

The only concern I have is the workstudy requirement. 7-8 hours of workstudy is what I did in college as well and if you're juggling catching up in addition to the studying that comes easily to others, 7-8 hours that you could use to study or just relax is a lot. Wonder why the rich kids with all expenses paid, or the scholarship kids whose talent and background earned them the reward, don't have a similar program. While having some spending money, especially when you're around people who have money to blow, is important, I think it would be better offered as part of the scholarship. It just seems a lot to ask a student to work when they've probably been doing nothing but that their whole lives. On the other hand, the work experience might be useful; how about asking them to work during the summer at an unpaid internship (with living expenses covered by Amherst)? Those are the opportunities that really push kids further and only those whose parents take care of their living expenses in NYC can afford such a luxury.

Other than that, kudos to Amherst!

Sins of the Parents

The first question anyone asks at a wedding is, "when will the first kid come?" We consider children to be a visible sign of the love two couples share; the more children they have, the more they must love each other. In a day and age with effective birth control, this is rather absurd! Couples who decide not to have children are still -- even in academia where it's becoming more common -- viewed as only "biding their time" till the inevitable happens. I myself am torn about whether I want to have children. As a child, I was going to have 5 -- the number Anne Shirley had minus the last one I could never remember easily. And as L. M. MontgomeryL. M. Montgomery killed him off in WWI, I imagine she felt a similar difficulty. Now that I've been duly informed of the process of pregnancy, I think I'll pass. That and my boyfriend and Al Gore have introduced me to the concept of population explosion.

Which brings me to today's article: "Children, 'Bad for the planet'". Beyond the provocative title is an interesting concept -- obvious, but anathema: that each child born adds considerably to the overcrowding of an overcrowded planet. This elicits a rather visceral response to most people. Even young adult novels find this disturbing -- Margaret Haddix's Shadown Children Series for instance. On a more basic level, we believe that children are a blessing and that more children are more of a blessing. The cynic might say this is merely a way for men to show their virility and a bit outdated.

Regardless, regulation and studies are rather silly ways to go about this message, which is worth disseminating. We actually need a sea change where it becomes cool not to have celebrity children or adopt massive batches (much as I admire Angelina Jolie, it's becoming a bit of a compulsion for her to save the world) of families. But further, we need to move beyond the idea that individual happiness comes from a brood of "Brothers and Sisters" -- though I'm not sure happiness is the message that tv show reflects. A friend once said to me (I was in college), "you know, you don't have to have children if you don't want to," and I found it a revolutionary message -- I grew up with the clear understanding that my significant purpose in life was children. We need to spread this message -- that people can also be whole by themselves. Or, that at the very least small families are families too. And, finally, that if you want a large family -- which I may still want (I go to the mall to curb this desire quite quickly...) -- adoption is a fine way to go about it.

Professionalism

The Washington Post has an article about a student teacher fired (and not given her degree) because of her MySpace page -- she had a picture labeled "drunk pirate" and was told it was inappropriate for a teacher to publish. The Post listed in their "Offbeat" news section, which ignores how this sort of regulation of a teacher's private life is becoming more common. The rumor in my Atlanta school district was that a DUI would get you fired, for instance. While many agree that this is absurd, others do not. One comment to the Post article suggests that teachers should be held to higher standards, for instance. This, too, is an example of further incursions of the workplace into the homelife of workers in my opinion.

Why do I take issue with this response? I think children can separate the difference between an adult and a child. For instance, their parents say, "don't say *&%!" but occassionally (or frequently) do it themselves. They say, you can't drink until you're 21 when they began drinking at 18. Don't do drugs and ignore the fact that I did (or do). And so forth. In other words, it's important for kids to learn that adults have lives that are separate from their own and that in those lives adults can make their own decisions. Regardless of whether those decisions are considered wise by anyone...including the adult.

Now, does that apply for instance to nude photographs? I think it should. While it is uncomfortable to think of teenage boys doing what they do with their naked teacher on the screen -- or remembering that moment while they are in class -- there are two separate issues involved. First, access. The teacher does not intend that underage students should have access to those pictures (and should make efforts to insure that they are not generally available), thus isn't really at fault here. (Gasp, perhaps the parents should talk to their children about what they see as appropriate and inappropriate.) Second, the teacher has a choice of whether she wants her students to think that way should they come across them. If she can deal with it -- and has placed the pictures on either an art website or one that under 18 should not have access to, she has done all that is required.

We need to stop treating children like fragile creatures who cannot be exposed to anything that is not deemed "appropriate".

Doing Everything Right and Only Being Unhappy

So I finally got around to watching the Grey's Anatomy spin-off episode. I, of course, read all the review articles the day after it aired and was not looking forward to it much. First, the "I'm going to kiss you...with tongue" line is lame (and even worse when he says it -- the outtakes on that must be priceless) and second, what passes for Meredith's insecurities in GA becomes in PP (tongue, peepee...are they telling us something with all the kindergarten background -- wait, there's even a line about "everything I learned in kindergarten" -- fishy) scary to any feminist/post-feminist/whatever-we-call-ourselves-these-days.

On reflecting on this New York Times article (and even People echoed it by terming the women, "whiney"), I started pondering the differences between fact and fiction. See, Naomi (Merrin Dungey's character -- great to see her back on tv!) regrets doing "everything right" yet still ending up divorced and unhappy, saddled with a career and child she loves but also with no memories of anything else. She makes the obvious (for tv) statement that Addison did the opposite, but she is no better off. It's Naomi's character that struck me more as the NYTimes recently had this article, too. This is the article about all those wonderful girls who do everything yet don't get into Harvard. And they do seem to enjoy themselves, but I wonder at what cost we've made achievement a path that is doing "everything right" and still being unhappy. But what strikes me the most is that we understand that Naomi did something wrong in doing what everyone else told her to do, but we feel cheated that these girls are not "good enough" for Harvard. Where do we miss the connections?

Anger and The Cause

I began thinking about this issue while reading the comments on this TreeHugger article and as a result of a conversation I had many months ago with some colleagues. That conversation didn't turn out well because of an idea that the others had that environmentalism is an all or nothing project. If you are participating in anything that is at all trendy, you are not a 'true convert'. Which means, of course, that one ignores two crucial things that effect change: 1) trends and 2) reversing the original problem. For instance, if everyone changes there habits a little, it's more effective than angry old Environmentalist radicalizing his life (i.e. not buying an iPod).

While I see the humor in this issue, it's because I'm a newer convert to the game and because I came from a fundamentalist Christian background (brief stint in high school). And the tactics that are used in the environmental lobby are no different, I've just removed my rose-coloured glasses and can be frustrated now.

So, folks, let's shift the dialogue from what is done wrong, to who does things right, or who makes a change for the better.

THE DANGER