BTW, a little bit of a parental advisory on these links.
Usually when I am in a boring meeting I just have a country music song stuck in my head.
Maybe he was just taking a former Surgeon General's teaching to heart.
And you wonder why people home school.
H/t Michelle Malkin
Showing posts with label education. Show all posts
Showing posts with label education. Show all posts
Saturday, June 19, 2010
Friday, June 18, 2010
Teach your children well
Something folks may not know about me: I never graduated from dear ol' R.U.
My time on the banks of the old Raritan, my boys, was fraught with self-caused misery, only some of it academic. Sure, good times too. Found Christ at college, so net-plus, and made a number of life-long friends whom I see or speak with regularly. (One of them I share a blog with.) But still... it took me ten years after I'd finally bottomed out to finally finish paying the student loans.
Now, had I managed a degree, that would have been a quicker process: but still, that's TEN years for paying off a relatively-small debt burden from a university that charges less to in-state residents such as myself. (Remember, I didn't finish - I didn't have four or five full years of tuition and costs to pay off.)
Now imagine going to an Ivy League school for four years, with loans covering much of it. Yowch.
I've long thought that if you didn't need college for what you wanted to do (or were likely to find yourself doing) then it was probably a lot of hassle for little gain. My brother, for example, never went to college and he out-earns me as a mechanic. (And is this sort of thing typical for the HVAC industry, Spider?)
Part of me also suspects that four years of higher education for certain jobs is probably overkill, and you could do them with two or three years of specialized training - with the benefit of starting a career earlier, with less debt, and wasting less of your precious time fiddling about with topics of no interest. Rutgers, like many colleges and universities, requires its students to satisfy a long list of conditions before conferring a degree.
I'm not saying that schools should just start tossing sheepskin into the air like confetti. But if I wanted to go to school to be a scientist, why do I need a major AND a minor (or two majors, if I perferred)? Why do I also need two humanities courses, two social sciences, a non-Western, etc etc - by rule? Instead of letting me focus on the twelve or fifteen courses that will outfit me for my chosen career, and then a smattering of what actually interests me, I wind up spending a lot of money and at least a full year on courses of no value to me, either economically or academically. It's not like it would be difficult to include a course in the major that covers important non-technical matters. But all the rest strikes me as the college doing what should properly be done in high school - giving me a basic well-rounded education and general skills useful to anyone.
It's not like you can't go to college parties without taking classes. (I know a lot of students who managed that quite well.) You can make friends and socialize anywhere. You can find Christ in the unlikeliest places. So if you don't want to be there and don't need it, why do it? Why do so many jobs require full-on Bachelor's degrees (and sometimes, Masters is preferred) when the actual job will use nearly none of what you learn getting the degree?
My time on the banks of the old Raritan, my boys, was fraught with self-caused misery, only some of it academic. Sure, good times too. Found Christ at college, so net-plus, and made a number of life-long friends whom I see or speak with regularly. (One of them I share a blog with.) But still... it took me ten years after I'd finally bottomed out to finally finish paying the student loans.
Now, had I managed a degree, that would have been a quicker process: but still, that's TEN years for paying off a relatively-small debt burden from a university that charges less to in-state residents such as myself. (Remember, I didn't finish - I didn't have four or five full years of tuition and costs to pay off.)
Now imagine going to an Ivy League school for four years, with loans covering much of it. Yowch.
I've long thought that if you didn't need college for what you wanted to do (or were likely to find yourself doing) then it was probably a lot of hassle for little gain. My brother, for example, never went to college and he out-earns me as a mechanic. (And is this sort of thing typical for the HVAC industry, Spider?)
Part of me also suspects that four years of higher education for certain jobs is probably overkill, and you could do them with two or three years of specialized training - with the benefit of starting a career earlier, with less debt, and wasting less of your precious time fiddling about with topics of no interest. Rutgers, like many colleges and universities, requires its students to satisfy a long list of conditions before conferring a degree.
I'm not saying that schools should just start tossing sheepskin into the air like confetti. But if I wanted to go to school to be a scientist, why do I need a major AND a minor (or two majors, if I perferred)? Why do I also need two humanities courses, two social sciences, a non-Western, etc etc - by rule? Instead of letting me focus on the twelve or fifteen courses that will outfit me for my chosen career, and then a smattering of what actually interests me, I wind up spending a lot of money and at least a full year on courses of no value to me, either economically or academically. It's not like it would be difficult to include a course in the major that covers important non-technical matters. But all the rest strikes me as the college doing what should properly be done in high school - giving me a basic well-rounded education and general skills useful to anyone.
It's not like you can't go to college parties without taking classes. (I know a lot of students who managed that quite well.) You can make friends and socialize anywhere. You can find Christ in the unlikeliest places. So if you don't want to be there and don't need it, why do it? Why do so many jobs require full-on Bachelor's degrees (and sometimes, Masters is preferred) when the actual job will use nearly none of what you learn getting the degree?
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Not so fast
Andrea Harris has a favorite stop of mine in blogworld. (You can see her off to the side there in the Pantheon.) This post of hers, about tourists having mental meltdowns when their real trip abroad destroys their romantic notions of the destination, brought brought out a comment that is making me scratch my head a bit:
Since images and feelings are more immediate, most art aims for those instead of thoughts. No argument on that point. I do think that to simply call the whole thing "lies" by design is to miss the point, however. One of the earliest moving pictures was in fact used to truthfully answer a question: does a horse pick all four feet off the ground at once while galloping? (Turns out that they do.)
Look - I'm a storyteller by nature, if not by profession. (And there's a long post brewing about that conflict: stay tuned.) This is my passion. I would be willing to go on a limb and say that for most creative community, that passion is a primary motivation. They have turned that passion into a job.
Once you turn a passion into a means of commerce, things change. As long as I'm just writing, I can just write. Once I am also selling, then the writing has to meet the demands of those to whom I wish to sell. It's a dilution - not much of one, since an audience wants a compelling story above all, and storytellers are nothing if not compelled. Still, they may have no taste for the story struggling to free itself from my mind. At that point it's the old familiar choice: give 'em what they want or say what I need to say?
Here's the thing, though: that tension exists in EVERY business. Some people's passion is food. They become amazing chefs. They also have to consider: will people pay money to eat this? How much? Again, the dilution is slight. People want great food, chefs want to cook great food. But people can scarcely afford $100 meals every night, not in great enough numbers to keep the chefs themselves fed. So ingredients are swapped, flavors change, and viola - Chili's. Or Wendy's.
I won't pretend that line cooks at a chain restaurant give two shakes of a rat's patoot about Great Food in the abstract, but they care at least about how the particular food they're actually cooking, that it should be done properly and please the customers. And the people who develop the menus care much more about that abstract, the ideal of flavors. Even Dave Thomas, the founder of Wendy's, cared a great deal about it, even if it was just burgers and fries. He may not have been a chef on the par of a Gordon Ramsay or Julia Child, but he cared. He had to. Ultimately, if you make too many changes for commerce - too much dilution - then one loses both the passion and the commerce.
You will find the same tension in every walk of life: in education, in politics, in construction, in sports. There is a perfect ideal, that drives everyone with a passion, and then there is the economic reality. It would cost too much to make every teacher an Ivy League-quality professor (and not every one of them could be, anyway), though the children would benefit. It costs money to campaign, money to run a government - too much to run unelectable candidates no matter how great they may be at governing. Should my house get obliterated by meteorites or something, it would cost twice as much to construct the way it was originally built vs. using modern materials like sheetrock. And the greatest players in the world command a great deal of money, more than any one franchise could pay (even the Yankees or Red Sox); so they make do with affordable players rather than pursue the perfect ideal of 162-0.
Yet those ideals exist. Those passions are real. Every teacher wants to teach as well as possible, every politician hopes to govern, every housebuilder (and homeowner!) wants the home to endure, and every team wants to win every game, or at least their league's chamionship. Without those ideals, that passion, there would be no point in even starting.
That's why I say again that filmmaking is about ideas and stories, not lies. Based on some of the loopier things that movie-folk say and do, it's easy to believe that Hollywood is full of narcissists who dictate What is Acceptable to the rest of us, when in fact they are full of crap. There is some justice in the claim, perhaps, in certain examples. Certainly Tim Robbins and Sean Penn have done more than their share of loopy lefty proselytizing. But they didn't become actors to be able to dictate What is Acceptable, they did it because their passion is in the stories they tell. Those who have lost that passion are usually the worst at their profession, and again, this holds across all walks of life.
Not surprisingly, when singers and athletes and kindergarten teachers also lose that passion, they become fairly useless in their fields as well. That doesn't mean that music, sports, and knowledge itself is intended and designed only to convey lies, does it?
(Funny how this comes up when I'm working on a story that indirectly touches this idea - that of the storyteller as a professional liar. Reality keeps anticipating me. Bad reality! No cookie!)
Pity they didn’t bother to read about Paris (especially material not put out by the travel industry) rather than rely on a medium intended and designed to transmit lies.I object to this, and I will explain why. (At length - lucky you!) Movies are not a medium intended and designed to transmit lies, any more than television, or novels, or plays, or art, or video games. All these are media intended and designed to transmit IDEAS or STORIES. Some of those may well be outright lies; some of those are excellently-crafted. There are also truthful stories, and beautiful ideas, and nobility and kindness and grandeur.
Since images and feelings are more immediate, most art aims for those instead of thoughts. No argument on that point. I do think that to simply call the whole thing "lies" by design is to miss the point, however. One of the earliest moving pictures was in fact used to truthfully answer a question: does a horse pick all four feet off the ground at once while galloping? (Turns out that they do.)
Look - I'm a storyteller by nature, if not by profession. (And there's a long post brewing about that conflict: stay tuned.) This is my passion. I would be willing to go on a limb and say that for most creative community, that passion is a primary motivation. They have turned that passion into a job.
Once you turn a passion into a means of commerce, things change. As long as I'm just writing, I can just write. Once I am also selling, then the writing has to meet the demands of those to whom I wish to sell. It's a dilution - not much of one, since an audience wants a compelling story above all, and storytellers are nothing if not compelled. Still, they may have no taste for the story struggling to free itself from my mind. At that point it's the old familiar choice: give 'em what they want or say what I need to say?
Here's the thing, though: that tension exists in EVERY business. Some people's passion is food. They become amazing chefs. They also have to consider: will people pay money to eat this? How much? Again, the dilution is slight. People want great food, chefs want to cook great food. But people can scarcely afford $100 meals every night, not in great enough numbers to keep the chefs themselves fed. So ingredients are swapped, flavors change, and viola - Chili's. Or Wendy's.
I won't pretend that line cooks at a chain restaurant give two shakes of a rat's patoot about Great Food in the abstract, but they care at least about how the particular food they're actually cooking, that it should be done properly and please the customers. And the people who develop the menus care much more about that abstract, the ideal of flavors. Even Dave Thomas, the founder of Wendy's, cared a great deal about it, even if it was just burgers and fries. He may not have been a chef on the par of a Gordon Ramsay or Julia Child, but he cared. He had to. Ultimately, if you make too many changes for commerce - too much dilution - then one loses both the passion and the commerce.
You will find the same tension in every walk of life: in education, in politics, in construction, in sports. There is a perfect ideal, that drives everyone with a passion, and then there is the economic reality. It would cost too much to make every teacher an Ivy League-quality professor (and not every one of them could be, anyway), though the children would benefit. It costs money to campaign, money to run a government - too much to run unelectable candidates no matter how great they may be at governing. Should my house get obliterated by meteorites or something, it would cost twice as much to construct the way it was originally built vs. using modern materials like sheetrock. And the greatest players in the world command a great deal of money, more than any one franchise could pay (even the Yankees or Red Sox); so they make do with affordable players rather than pursue the perfect ideal of 162-0.
Yet those ideals exist. Those passions are real. Every teacher wants to teach as well as possible, every politician hopes to govern, every housebuilder (and homeowner!) wants the home to endure, and every team wants to win every game, or at least their league's chamionship. Without those ideals, that passion, there would be no point in even starting.
That's why I say again that filmmaking is about ideas and stories, not lies. Based on some of the loopier things that movie-folk say and do, it's easy to believe that Hollywood is full of narcissists who dictate What is Acceptable to the rest of us, when in fact they are full of crap. There is some justice in the claim, perhaps, in certain examples. Certainly Tim Robbins and Sean Penn have done more than their share of loopy lefty proselytizing. But they didn't become actors to be able to dictate What is Acceptable, they did it because their passion is in the stories they tell. Those who have lost that passion are usually the worst at their profession, and again, this holds across all walks of life.
Not surprisingly, when singers and athletes and kindergarten teachers also lose that passion, they become fairly useless in their fields as well. That doesn't mean that music, sports, and knowledge itself is intended and designed only to convey lies, does it?
(Funny how this comes up when I'm working on a story that indirectly touches this idea - that of the storyteller as a professional liar. Reality keeps anticipating me. Bad reality! No cookie!)
Monday, April 12, 2010
Charlie's options...
..since Rubio is beating him like a rented mule (57%to 28%)
April has been the cruelest month for Charlie. First, moderate Republican Rudy Guiliani endorsed Rubio. (That's what you get for endorsing McCain at the last minute in the 2008 Florida Presidential primary. And McCain won't come to your rescue - he's too busy pretending to be a conservative in his own primary).
Second, an education reform bill that the teacher union hates and Jeb Bush loves is on his desk to be signed into law. Charlie (of course) can't make up his mind to sign it or veto it.
Third, this Rassmussen poll comes out which is devastating to his campaign.
Fourth, Mario killed him in fundraising last quarter $3.6 to $1.1 million.
Charlie has till April 30th to decide whether to stay in the GOP primary or run as an independent. Here are his options:
1. Veto the education bill and amnounce an independent run as governor. He will have to after Jeb Bush endorses Rubio in the primary. He still loses, but has a better chance of winning if it's discovered the Rubio has a girlfriend in Argentina. Going independent will severly damage a future run for president as a GOPer.
2. Sign the bill into law which may keep Jeb out of the primary. Hope that the Argentine girlfriend turns up before August 24th.
3. Call Rubio and offer to drop out of the race if Marco will promise to endorse Charlie vs. Bill Nelson for the other Senate seat in 2012. Nelson can be beat by any Republican who is sane and to the right of Nelson Rockefeller.
I know that Jesus would not derive the kind of pleasure I am from the misfortunes of our governor. But this weasel has been hugging the middle for so long it is a joy to see him finally pinned down.
April has been the cruelest month for Charlie. First, moderate Republican Rudy Guiliani endorsed Rubio. (That's what you get for endorsing McCain at the last minute in the 2008 Florida Presidential primary. And McCain won't come to your rescue - he's too busy pretending to be a conservative in his own primary).
Second, an education reform bill that the teacher union hates and Jeb Bush loves is on his desk to be signed into law. Charlie (of course) can't make up his mind to sign it or veto it.
Third, this Rassmussen poll comes out which is devastating to his campaign.
Fourth, Mario killed him in fundraising last quarter $3.6 to $1.1 million.
Charlie has till April 30th to decide whether to stay in the GOP primary or run as an independent. Here are his options:
1. Veto the education bill and amnounce an independent run as governor. He will have to after Jeb Bush endorses Rubio in the primary. He still loses, but has a better chance of winning if it's discovered the Rubio has a girlfriend in Argentina. Going independent will severly damage a future run for president as a GOPer.
2. Sign the bill into law which may keep Jeb out of the primary. Hope that the Argentine girlfriend turns up before August 24th.
3. Call Rubio and offer to drop out of the race if Marco will promise to endorse Charlie vs. Bill Nelson for the other Senate seat in 2012. Nelson can be beat by any Republican who is sane and to the right of Nelson Rockefeller.
I know that Jesus would not derive the kind of pleasure I am from the misfortunes of our governor. But this weasel has been hugging the middle for so long it is a joy to see him finally pinned down.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Mehr Hitlerjungend
Dieses sieht wie es wurde getan vor Eltern bei einer PTA Sitzung aus. Youtube ist vom Material so voll.
Verzeihen Sie mir für das Brechen von Godwin' s Law.
Verzeihen Sie mir für das Brechen von Godwin' s Law.
Friday, July 24, 2009
Man the bails!
The tank is springing leaks...
I'm not sure if the screen cap is legible, so let me quote the subhead: President strong-arms educators by linking $4-billion package to reform.
Yeah, MSNBC actually went there with His Presidency. Those leg-thrills don't last very long once the election's done and the guy has to actually start doing some governing.
The story is interesting to me beyond the "bloom off the rose" angle, for two reasons.
First: the government can rightly be said to already own all these schools, since they are public. This seems almost as if the President is trying to re-buy them. The difficulty is, if you own something it's usually a bad idea to decide not to pay for its proper function. I can see the local school districts gearing up and suing the Feds for their funding.
(That is of course the exact opposite of everything Obama wants to do. His impulse seems to be to buy, on credit, everything he sees: banks, car companies, the entire insurance industry... That's the whole reason our economy pinwheeled off a cliff to begin with, so it seems akin to digging one's way out of a swamp ditch - but I hain't no expurt or nuthin'.)
Second: the guy is bleeding supporters and approval points faster than a celebrity on a quack diet sheds pounds. Can he really afford to start jacking around with the NEA?
I'm not sure if the screen cap is legible, so let me quote the subhead: President strong-arms educators by linking $4-billion package to reform.
Yeah, MSNBC actually went there with His Presidency. Those leg-thrills don't last very long once the election's done and the guy has to actually start doing some governing.
The story is interesting to me beyond the "bloom off the rose" angle, for two reasons.
First: the government can rightly be said to already own all these schools, since they are public. This seems almost as if the President is trying to re-buy them. The difficulty is, if you own something it's usually a bad idea to decide not to pay for its proper function. I can see the local school districts gearing up and suing the Feds for their funding.
(That is of course the exact opposite of everything Obama wants to do. His impulse seems to be to buy, on credit, everything he sees: banks, car companies, the entire insurance industry... That's the whole reason our economy pinwheeled off a cliff to begin with, so it seems akin to digging one's way out of a swamp ditch - but I hain't no expurt or nuthin'.)
Second: the guy is bleeding supporters and approval points faster than a celebrity on a quack diet sheds pounds. Can he really afford to start jacking around with the NEA?
Thursday, July 02, 2009
Your kid is probably on the ball...
...but kids in Arizona are dumber than a box of hammers.
You know those groan-inducing spots on late-night television when the typical person-on-the-street can't identify the vice president?
That's akin to what happened to the state's education system Tuesday, with the issuance of a new report that found only 3.5 percent of traditional public high school students would be able to pass a U.S. citizenship test— bombing out on questions such as who was America's first president, who wrote the Declaration of Independence and what do we call the first 10 amendments to the Constitution.
Later in this article is the teacher's union hack trying to spin this:
But John Wright, the head of the state teachers union, the Arizona Education Association, dismissed the report as a "gotcha piece of writing."
"I think there's already an ongoing discussion of standards and assessment, but it is not informed by this kind of survey," he said, adding that for all of its shock value, he didn't find it very analytical.
I'll cut them some slack on Question # 6 because it's out West and I spend many childhood summer days in this body of water, but only 58.8% of the kids Mr. Wright's union members teach know that the body of water on the East Coast of the USA is the Atlantic Ocean! Come on!
You know those groan-inducing spots on late-night television when the typical person-on-the-street can't identify the vice president?
That's akin to what happened to the state's education system Tuesday, with the issuance of a new report that found only 3.5 percent of traditional public high school students would be able to pass a U.S. citizenship test— bombing out on questions such as who was America's first president, who wrote the Declaration of Independence and what do we call the first 10 amendments to the Constitution.
Later in this article is the teacher's union hack trying to spin this:
But John Wright, the head of the state teachers union, the Arizona Education Association, dismissed the report as a "gotcha piece of writing."
"I think there's already an ongoing discussion of standards and assessment, but it is not informed by this kind of survey," he said, adding that for all of its shock value, he didn't find it very analytical.
I'll cut them some slack on Question # 6 because it's out West and I spend many childhood summer days in this body of water, but only 58.8% of the kids Mr. Wright's union members teach know that the body of water on the East Coast of the USA is the Atlantic Ocean! Come on!
Sunday, March 08, 2009
I'll let you teachers take a crack at this
There is a new curriculum at our local Tampa schools. Some English teachers don't like it because it does away with some of the classics. I am suspicious because the Advanced Placement students (The classes with college credit) are exempt from this new stuff. And I can't get used to the idea of kids watching movies in class (I know how I sound - get off my lawn!)
How did we get this new program? As our Lord would say, "Where your treasure is there your heart is also", and the late Mark Felt (AKA Deep Throat) would add, "Follow the money." When the Hillsborough County School District tried SpringBoard at four of its 25 high schools last year, teachers balked at giving up favorite lessons and making drastic changes with little training. There was more angst when the district suddenly announced a districtwide rollout for this school year as it jumped at the chance for $30 million in federal grants to pay for the program over five years. When you take Obama's money, you must do what Obama says. Are you listening, Governor Crist?
That's all I've got on the subject. If you teachers out there want to weigh in, feel free. Here is a comparison of the old and new.
How did we get this new program? As our Lord would say, "Where your treasure is there your heart is also", and the late Mark Felt (AKA Deep Throat) would add, "Follow the money." When the Hillsborough County School District tried SpringBoard at four of its 25 high schools last year, teachers balked at giving up favorite lessons and making drastic changes with little training. There was more angst when the district suddenly announced a districtwide rollout for this school year as it jumped at the chance for $30 million in federal grants to pay for the program over five years. When you take Obama's money, you must do what Obama says. Are you listening, Governor Crist?
That's all I've got on the subject. If you teachers out there want to weigh in, feel free. Here is a comparison of the old and new.
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Little Decalon is going to Hawaii!
Seven-year old Decalon told his teacher that he was going to Hawaii!
Little Decalon goes to Hawaii every February. That's because his daddy is Buccaneer eternal Pro Bowler Derrick Brooks.
I know little Decalon's teacher. She is a wonderful Christian lady. Fly, what is it about those schoolteachers?
Little Decalon goes to Hawaii every February. That's because his daddy is Buccaneer eternal Pro Bowler Derrick Brooks.
I know little Decalon's teacher. She is a wonderful Christian lady. Fly, what is it about those schoolteachers?
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Your disease is too white...
....to get charitable support.
OTTAWA -- The Carleton University Students' Association has voted to drop a cystic fibrosis charity as the beneficiary of its annual Shinearama fundraiser, supporting a motion that argued the disease is not "inclusive" enough.
Cystic fibrosis "has been recently revealed to only affect white people, and primarily men" said the motion read Monday night to student councillors, who voted almost unanimously in favour of it.
But I saw 18-year-old kids lose their minds. Never have I been in a place where so many people obsessed over their skin color, or their gender, or which gender they wanted to bed. I once had a talk with a guy who was bent out of shape because Jesus Christ was black and know one knew it. Of course I obsessed over Jesus Christ being the Savior of the world and not enough people know about it.
There were people walking around who thought I served in Vietnam. "Sure, back in 1970 when I was 11." During the first Gulf War I saw porn being used as a form of political protest. Fake draft notices were put in student mailboxes.
Hopefully, most of these people came back to their senses when they set out into the real world.
(h/t to Michelle Malkin)
OTTAWA -- The Carleton University Students' Association has voted to drop a cystic fibrosis charity as the beneficiary of its annual Shinearama fundraiser, supporting a motion that argued the disease is not "inclusive" enough.
Cystic fibrosis "has been recently revealed to only affect white people, and primarily men" said the motion read Monday night to student councillors, who voted almost unanimously in favour of it.
I came to RU as a 28-year-old freshman, I mean, first year student. I had already been brainwashed at Lackland AFB, then later on by the Holy Spirit, so by the time I got to RU I was impervious to efforts of Rutgers to indoctrinate me.
But I saw 18-year-old kids lose their minds. Never have I been in a place where so many people obsessed over their skin color, or their gender, or which gender they wanted to bed. I once had a talk with a guy who was bent out of shape because Jesus Christ was black and know one knew it. Of course I obsessed over Jesus Christ being the Savior of the world and not enough people know about it.
There were people walking around who thought I served in Vietnam. "Sure, back in 1970 when I was 11." During the first Gulf War I saw porn being used as a form of political protest. Fake draft notices were put in student mailboxes.
Hopefully, most of these people came back to their senses when they set out into the real world.
(h/t to Michelle Malkin)
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Malcolm X Shabazz High School
...just lost a home game.
Two suburban high schools refused to play football games tonight in Newark, citing worries about safety after a spate of drive-by shootings in the city Friday left two people dead and another injured.
Scotch Plains-Fanwood High School and Cranford High School balked at playing games rescheduled from last Friday and Saturday. Newark school Superintendent Clifford Janey had suspended all athletic events districtwide while police were hunting for suspects in the Friday afternoon shootings.
If I were going to write a parody of an inner city predominately black high school I would name it Malcolm X Shabazz High School. To the best of my knowledge, I don't think he ever called himself that. When Malcolm Little joined the Nation of Islam he renounced his slave name and took his X. When he completed the Hajj and became an orthodox Muslim he received the name El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz.
Here in Florida the reason why we are polite to each other is because we all own guns.
Two suburban high schools refused to play football games tonight in Newark, citing worries about safety after a spate of drive-by shootings in the city Friday left two people dead and another injured.
Scotch Plains-Fanwood High School and Cranford High School balked at playing games rescheduled from last Friday and Saturday. Newark school Superintendent Clifford Janey had suspended all athletic events districtwide while police were hunting for suspects in the Friday afternoon shootings.
Don't you guys have strict gun control laws in New Jersey? Don't you have all those gun buy back programs? How could something like this happen?
If I were going to write a parody of an inner city predominately black high school I would name it Malcolm X Shabazz High School. To the best of my knowledge, I don't think he ever called himself that. When Malcolm Little joined the Nation of Islam he renounced his slave name and took his X. When he completed the Hajj and became an orthodox Muslim he received the name El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz.
Here in Florida the reason why we are polite to each other is because we all own guns.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
First Grade Field Trip
We’ve all been on school field trips when we were young skulls full of mush. One of the blessings of being raised in New Jersey is the historic sites to visit. I’ve been on school trips to Batsto Villige, where Revolutionary Cannons were made. I’ve been to Valley Forge and Independence Hall in Philly. In high school I even went in a field trip to Ancora Psychiatric Hospital. I serenaded my fellow students with Paul Simon’s “Still Crazy After All These Years” on the way back.
But this is one I missed.
In the same week that the No on 8 campaign launched an ad that labeled as “lies” claims that same-sex marriage would be taught in schools to young children, a first grade class took a school-sponsored trip to a gay wedding. Eighteen first graders traveled to San Francisco City Hall Friday for the wedding of their teacher and her lesbian partner, The San Francisco Chronicle reported. The school sponsored the trip for the students, ages 5 and 6, taking them away from their studies for the same-sex wedding. According to the Yes on 8 campaign, the public school field trip demonstrates that the California Supreme Court's decision to legalize same-sex marriage has real consequences.
This is a press release from the folks in favor of the marriage amendment, and to be fair, other news reports say that parents could opt out. But would a grade school in your town do something like this?
Are the people of San Francisco like you and I? In Genesis 18:20-33, God and Abraham are looking over Sodom and God tells Abraham of His plans to destroy the city. In an attempt to save Sodom, Abraham debates with God. “What if there are fifty righteous in the city, will you not spare it for their sake?” Abraham manages to negotiate God down to ten. Sadly, that didn’t save Sodom & Gomorrah.
If God and Abraham were looking over San Francisco, what kind of conversation would they have?
But this is one I missed.
In the same week that the No on 8 campaign launched an ad that labeled as “lies” claims that same-sex marriage would be taught in schools to young children, a first grade class took a school-sponsored trip to a gay wedding. Eighteen first graders traveled to San Francisco City Hall Friday for the wedding of their teacher and her lesbian partner, The San Francisco Chronicle reported. The school sponsored the trip for the students, ages 5 and 6, taking them away from their studies for the same-sex wedding. According to the Yes on 8 campaign, the public school field trip demonstrates that the California Supreme Court's decision to legalize same-sex marriage has real consequences.
This is a press release from the folks in favor of the marriage amendment, and to be fair, other news reports say that parents could opt out. But would a grade school in your town do something like this?
Are the people of San Francisco like you and I? In Genesis 18:20-33, God and Abraham are looking over Sodom and God tells Abraham of His plans to destroy the city. In an attempt to save Sodom, Abraham debates with God. “What if there are fifty righteous in the city, will you not spare it for their sake?” Abraham manages to negotiate God down to ten. Sadly, that didn’t save Sodom & Gomorrah.
If God and Abraham were looking over San Francisco, what kind of conversation would they have?
Monday, June 16, 2008
Karma Sutra gonna get you
In moving to the DC area, Dawn Eden winds up getting closer to the action - in a manner of speaking. The action is represented by a column by Ms. Ally Pregulman in The Hatchet, the student newspaper of George Washington University. Be warned, this is tough reading for anyone who has a daughter or younger sister, but it needs to be read.
(Aside - nice touch not calling it the Daily Hoya or something. The name shows more imagination than much of the content.)
Ms. Eden quotes a few standout items and asks for a kindly rebuttal...
At the outset, let's get the dull business of "prudery" out of the way. This is not going to be a post full of naive disbelief that college students are actually (gasp) having ess-eee-exx with each other. In fact, I find that the naivete is usually from the kids towards the oldsters. Whenever one tries to talk sex with the younger generation, they assume "you don't know how things are nowadays," and forget a few facts. For one, we oldsters (or not so oldsters) were once youngsters ourselves - we remember our own days of frolic. In fact, we are many of us not quite removed from those days. (Where do you kids think you came from, anyway? Didn't we have that talk?) In fact, it is usually teens who are horrified that their parents are actually (gasp) having ess-eee-exx with each other. So much for prudery.
What's more, the young-uns don't draw the obvious conclusion - we were there, and now we're here. They'll age, too. Their bright vanguard of the hip and knowing will be inexorably overtaken by the ranks of the square and staid. As such, the advice that we have now is borne of the experiences we had then; those experiences are not nearly so foreign or unrealistic as their own. This isn't mere hypothesis that fails in the face of reality, but reality itself distilled into workable theory. It's they, not us, who are flying in the dark when they disregard what their elders have learned the hard way.
As such, when Ms. Pregulman starts her column by saying that "Mom and Dad's move-in day advice won't be anything like this," we can agree. For the sake of young adults everywhere, we certainly hope their parents' advice is different. What's offered here is, in short, a disaster - ironically offered up as the fruits of experience. In fact, one commenter at the Dawn Patrol calls it "harm mitigation," and that sums it up perfectly. Does anyone think it's wisdom to talk about mitigating harms that are simple to avoid? It's as if we decided to teach kids how to bounce off cars rather than teaching them how to look both ways and not to play in the street. What's more, Ms. Pregulman has utterly nil to say about mitigating the harms that following her advice will probably cause.
There will be fisking later, but first let's have some actual advice. Rather than mitigating one's risks when it comes to sex, it's simpler to avoid them. Chastity is not only perfectly acceptable, it is by far the most reasonable and charitable way for anyone to live.
To start, chastity isn't merely "abstinence über alles." Just as honesty is a positive value beyond "don't tell lies" and temperence is a positive value beyond "don't overindulge," chastity is a positive value beyond merely not hooking up. It is, in short, integrity in one's sexual being.
We see integrity as very important in other areas of life. We need to be honest with others; with ourselves moreso, if we hope to understand what we desire out of life. We then need to be prudent, to understand what will and won't advance our goals. We need to be charitable, so that our pursuits won't harm others. We need to be brave so we won't turn back when opposed. We need to have understanding, so we can learn from life and know best how to apply those lessons. And we need willpower - both to chose, and then to persist. One simply goes further in life when all of one is moving in the same direction.
Damage to our integrity in those areas shows pretty quickly in the bottom line, so to speak: we don't get where our hopes would take us. We wind up being unhappy, and making others unhappy. It's usually obvious when the problem is telling lies, or failing to stick to our studies, or an overfondness for double-chocolate extra-thick chocolate chunk sundaes (with chocolate sauce). But when it comes to chastity, these simple truths have been pretty well obscured by a lot of talk about being well-adjusted, having control over our own bodies, and enjoying a great gift freely. As a result, if we fail to be chaste we not only wind up with the same troubles as other failures in integrity, we often don't know why we're unhappy. We're smart, work hard, tell the truth, care for others, and know where we want to be, so what's up?
For one thing, we have an integrity problem we don't recognize. For another, chastity involves not only sexual integrity, but a lot of the other areas of integrity as well. A deficit here starts draining the other areas of integrity as well - we start to lie to ourselves about our real problem, we become sidetracked trying to avoid something we need to practice, or else we become less sure that we need it.
We do need it. We don't often believe that utter fulfillment is to be found in lies, or in exquisite foods, or in ruthlessly trampling others. We can fall for it for the moment but it's hard to found a bedrock philosophy on such things. Those who show the least care for themselves in these areas are usually quite quick to cry foul when it's done to them; which shows that whatever they may say, integrity is important to them - at least, in other people. ("Hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue.") We do, however, fall quite often for lies about sex, as described above.
There's a good reason for that: the things we're told about being well-adjusted, having control over our own bodies, and enjoying a great gift freely are all true. The lie is that we gain all of that by indulgence in sex, whenever and wherever. But five minutes' thought should show us the reality: when it comes to sex, it is the chaste who are well-adjusted, controlling our own bodies, and enjoying the gift freely. Well-adjusted, in that their sexual nature is in accord with the rest of themselves, and not at odds; in control, in that the will chooses rather than blind moods; and freely enjoyed as I hope to explain below.
Setting aside for the moment all of the complications of disease and pregnancy, there's the question of emotional and spiritual involvement in sex. True sex demands integrity, not just in abstention but also in practice. It's meant to connect us in the body, but also in mind and spirit through the body. Sex whenever with whomever invariably runs in to a contradiction - because the mind and the spirit have to be divided to be thus completely given to more than one other person. This is not integrity with others - not in honesty, not in charity, and certainly not in sexuality. It's also not integrity with oneself, because one has to divide oneself into little boxes in order to keep the damage from spreading into the other areas of one's character: sex in this box, and all of things that sex was meant to connect in other boxes. One is no longer having sex to the full - it may be pleasurable but it is not possible to describe it as free enjoyment, because one is by definition not free to let one's full self flow into the union.
Nor is one capable of accepting all that flows in the other direction. How could one accept the full trust and vulnerability of the other in a sexual union and then betray them later? There are two answers: either one can't, in which case one must refuse to receive what is given; or else one can, in which case one is rather a total bastard - treacherous and untrustworthy, ruinous to self and others.
It takes a lot of integrity to be oneself instead of what other people expect. It takes discipline and self-command to take the direction that will do good for you and others, rather than the easy way. There's a saying that any log can simply float downstream; all the strength and willpower comes from heading the other way, first to choose that path and then to travel it. That holds true in virtue as well, and virtue about sex is no exception.
So a chaste person also gets a good amount of training in things like courage and prudence and honesty. The show respect for themselves and others, no less than they do by being honest or brave or thoughtful. They also gain in knowledge, because if anyone wants to their limits, they are best served by testing their strength against something that pushes back. Sex pushes on us from every angle - and most strongly from within. The outer pressures for sex would be far fewer, and weaker, if it were not so. Ads use the language of sex as a selling point because it speaks to us in a way we readily understand, for example. Simply indulging whenever we feel the urge can teach us little about ourselves. In fact, it simply means that sex (being strong) will push us anywhere the urge goes. We lose our power to choose when we simply go along. It's easier to laugh when the bully kicks the class bookworm; or to go along with a group lie when somebody starts to ask hard questions. We don't normally think much of ourselves when we do those things. Chastity should be no exception in our mind, since it is no exception in reality.
(Aside - nice touch not calling it the Daily Hoya or something. The name shows more imagination than much of the content.)
Ms. Eden quotes a few standout items and asks for a kindly rebuttal...
At the outset, let's get the dull business of "prudery" out of the way. This is not going to be a post full of naive disbelief that college students are actually (gasp) having ess-eee-exx with each other. In fact, I find that the naivete is usually from the kids towards the oldsters. Whenever one tries to talk sex with the younger generation, they assume "you don't know how things are nowadays," and forget a few facts. For one, we oldsters (or not so oldsters) were once youngsters ourselves - we remember our own days of frolic. In fact, we are many of us not quite removed from those days. (Where do you kids think you came from, anyway? Didn't we have that talk?) In fact, it is usually teens who are horrified that their parents are actually (gasp) having ess-eee-exx with each other. So much for prudery.
What's more, the young-uns don't draw the obvious conclusion - we were there, and now we're here. They'll age, too. Their bright vanguard of the hip and knowing will be inexorably overtaken by the ranks of the square and staid. As such, the advice that we have now is borne of the experiences we had then; those experiences are not nearly so foreign or unrealistic as their own. This isn't mere hypothesis that fails in the face of reality, but reality itself distilled into workable theory. It's they, not us, who are flying in the dark when they disregard what their elders have learned the hard way.
As such, when Ms. Pregulman starts her column by saying that "Mom and Dad's move-in day advice won't be anything like this," we can agree. For the sake of young adults everywhere, we certainly hope their parents' advice is different. What's offered here is, in short, a disaster - ironically offered up as the fruits of experience. In fact, one commenter at the Dawn Patrol calls it "harm mitigation," and that sums it up perfectly. Does anyone think it's wisdom to talk about mitigating harms that are simple to avoid? It's as if we decided to teach kids how to bounce off cars rather than teaching them how to look both ways and not to play in the street. What's more, Ms. Pregulman has utterly nil to say about mitigating the harms that following her advice will probably cause.
There will be fisking later, but first let's have some actual advice. Rather than mitigating one's risks when it comes to sex, it's simpler to avoid them. Chastity is not only perfectly acceptable, it is by far the most reasonable and charitable way for anyone to live.
To start, chastity isn't merely "abstinence über alles." Just as honesty is a positive value beyond "don't tell lies" and temperence is a positive value beyond "don't overindulge," chastity is a positive value beyond merely not hooking up. It is, in short, integrity in one's sexual being.
We see integrity as very important in other areas of life. We need to be honest with others; with ourselves moreso, if we hope to understand what we desire out of life. We then need to be prudent, to understand what will and won't advance our goals. We need to be charitable, so that our pursuits won't harm others. We need to be brave so we won't turn back when opposed. We need to have understanding, so we can learn from life and know best how to apply those lessons. And we need willpower - both to chose, and then to persist. One simply goes further in life when all of one is moving in the same direction.
Damage to our integrity in those areas shows pretty quickly in the bottom line, so to speak: we don't get where our hopes would take us. We wind up being unhappy, and making others unhappy. It's usually obvious when the problem is telling lies, or failing to stick to our studies, or an overfondness for double-chocolate extra-thick chocolate chunk sundaes (with chocolate sauce). But when it comes to chastity, these simple truths have been pretty well obscured by a lot of talk about being well-adjusted, having control over our own bodies, and enjoying a great gift freely. As a result, if we fail to be chaste we not only wind up with the same troubles as other failures in integrity, we often don't know why we're unhappy. We're smart, work hard, tell the truth, care for others, and know where we want to be, so what's up?
For one thing, we have an integrity problem we don't recognize. For another, chastity involves not only sexual integrity, but a lot of the other areas of integrity as well. A deficit here starts draining the other areas of integrity as well - we start to lie to ourselves about our real problem, we become sidetracked trying to avoid something we need to practice, or else we become less sure that we need it.
We do need it. We don't often believe that utter fulfillment is to be found in lies, or in exquisite foods, or in ruthlessly trampling others. We can fall for it for the moment but it's hard to found a bedrock philosophy on such things. Those who show the least care for themselves in these areas are usually quite quick to cry foul when it's done to them; which shows that whatever they may say, integrity is important to them - at least, in other people. ("Hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue.") We do, however, fall quite often for lies about sex, as described above.
There's a good reason for that: the things we're told about being well-adjusted, having control over our own bodies, and enjoying a great gift freely are all true. The lie is that we gain all of that by indulgence in sex, whenever and wherever. But five minutes' thought should show us the reality: when it comes to sex, it is the chaste who are well-adjusted, controlling our own bodies, and enjoying the gift freely. Well-adjusted, in that their sexual nature is in accord with the rest of themselves, and not at odds; in control, in that the will chooses rather than blind moods; and freely enjoyed as I hope to explain below.
Setting aside for the moment all of the complications of disease and pregnancy, there's the question of emotional and spiritual involvement in sex. True sex demands integrity, not just in abstention but also in practice. It's meant to connect us in the body, but also in mind and spirit through the body. Sex whenever with whomever invariably runs in to a contradiction - because the mind and the spirit have to be divided to be thus completely given to more than one other person. This is not integrity with others - not in honesty, not in charity, and certainly not in sexuality. It's also not integrity with oneself, because one has to divide oneself into little boxes in order to keep the damage from spreading into the other areas of one's character: sex in this box, and all of things that sex was meant to connect in other boxes. One is no longer having sex to the full - it may be pleasurable but it is not possible to describe it as free enjoyment, because one is by definition not free to let one's full self flow into the union.
Nor is one capable of accepting all that flows in the other direction. How could one accept the full trust and vulnerability of the other in a sexual union and then betray them later? There are two answers: either one can't, in which case one must refuse to receive what is given; or else one can, in which case one is rather a total bastard - treacherous and untrustworthy, ruinous to self and others.
It takes a lot of integrity to be oneself instead of what other people expect. It takes discipline and self-command to take the direction that will do good for you and others, rather than the easy way. There's a saying that any log can simply float downstream; all the strength and willpower comes from heading the other way, first to choose that path and then to travel it. That holds true in virtue as well, and virtue about sex is no exception.
So a chaste person also gets a good amount of training in things like courage and prudence and honesty. The show respect for themselves and others, no less than they do by being honest or brave or thoughtful. They also gain in knowledge, because if anyone wants to their limits, they are best served by testing their strength against something that pushes back. Sex pushes on us from every angle - and most strongly from within. The outer pressures for sex would be far fewer, and weaker, if it were not so. Ads use the language of sex as a selling point because it speaks to us in a way we readily understand, for example. Simply indulging whenever we feel the urge can teach us little about ourselves. In fact, it simply means that sex (being strong) will push us anywhere the urge goes. We lose our power to choose when we simply go along. It's easier to laugh when the bully kicks the class bookworm; or to go along with a group lie when somebody starts to ask hard questions. We don't normally think much of ourselves when we do those things. Chastity should be no exception in our mind, since it is no exception in reality.
Feeling fisky
(Part one above.)
Keeping all that in mind, we can now read Ms. Pregulman's column with open eyes.
This may be your first time sharing a room. Respect your roommates by not hooking up when they are there - even if you think they are asleep.
Neither here, nor anywhere else, will you observe the author advising us to respect ourselves. One can at least congratulate her for her lack of hypocrisy.
So please, for the sake of your sex life, have a signal; put a ribbon on the door, anything to show the room is occupied. Even better, meet an upperclassman that has a single bedroom and go there.
This advice is in response to nearly being caught mid-frolic with her boyfriend. Now, many people would describe this as a wake-up call, but the author has hit the snooze button. Let us not be caught napping ourselves: a ribbon on the door is not a solution. My generation used a rubber band or some other subtle signpost. Believe me, when the roomie's dad walks her back to her dorm and she sees the ribbon (or whatnot), it isn't going to spare one the embarrassment: he is going to see it, and he is going to know. If one is worried about one's good reputation, one needs to actually preserve it, and not merely keep up the pretense. Pretenses slip - for example, when one writes a column exposing the reality behind the appearance, with one's name for a byline - or just when one grows incapable of keeping track of what one told whom, when. Here, the advice of Joe Torre comes into play: "I always tell the truth. This way, I never have to remember anything." *
And, under the heading of "harm mitigation" - if any young ladies are reading, please do NOT choose a beau simply based on how many other people are in the house with him. And if you do feel the utter and absolute need to frolic, do NOT give up control of your surroundings by going to his place, and ESPECIALLY if he lives alone. Should you suddenly feel differently, you have less resource to escape or refuse there, and less reason to hope that somebody will interrupt to your benefit.
Always use a condom. I know it's old news, but just do it. I have a friend who takes birth control and stopped using condoms to "see what it feels like." So far she has been lucky, but I don't want to be the one to take her to Planned Parenthood. The abortion clinics in D.C. have the most protesters because of their location - you don't want to be harassed while taking care of an unplanned situation.
This is high on the list of positive values in the zeitgeist - the Freedom Not to be Hassled. ** In fact, you can see it here before the author ever reaches her gripe about protestors: "I don't want to be the one to take her..." Why not? Better that she have to get harassed by herself, so the author doesn't have to be bothered? Being there for others means taking on some hassles; it comes with the territory. In fact, any attempt to achieve mastery (or even competence) requires that we take some trouble; we have to learn, we have to persevere, and we often have to stop our ears to people who tell us we're wasting our time. It holds true for education or athletics or hobbies or creativity, and it certainly holds true in love. Refusing this essential aspect of life is a major indication that the author isn't ready for sex at all, and her advice on the topic is not likely to be helpful.
A little bit of bubbly never hurt anyone's libido, but girls, don't go home with the guy you've been taking shots with all night. Get a number and call later.
"Hi, is this Ally? Hi. We were getting totally blitzed the other night, remember? Vaguely? Yeah, so, uhm... want to get together for some lunch after the polysci lecture?" This can't really be serious. Again, ladies - don't waste your time on a guy whose appeal rises as the bottle empties. You have to sober up sometime. Besides, a guy whose self-control can't keep him on his own two feet (or on the road) for the trip back home is going to reveal that little character flaw in a lot of other areas too.
And guys, too much to drink will seriously hurt your game. You don't want to be known as the freshman who couldn't get it up.
This is the second time the author mentions freshmen having sex. Again, not that it's shocking or anything, but seriously, what's wrong with being known as the freshman who isn't sleeping around? For that matter, is there anything wrong with not having one's prowess known at all? College should be about classes every once in a while. Nor do I see any sort of health in this catty dishing about other people's personal issues. The first part of this column said, in effect, "protect your good name." This part of it helpfully adds, "because nobody else will." This is more than a point in favor of sobriety; it's also a good reason to keep zipped.
Hooking up in bathrooms is never OK. If you wouldn't want to touch it, don't have sex on it. However, if your roommates are home and you need to get it on, the shower is a suitable alternative.
One is tempted to regard the whole column as parody at this point. Is this supposed to encourage us to have sex? First step - have no self-control as who else is around; second step - have no ability to stop once one is started; third step - go to a shower, where heck-all knows what else has gone on before one's arrival, and go to it there. Presumably, the shower is a far more public domain in a dorm or apartment than is the room itself, which at least has a lock on the door. In my freshman dorm, the bathrooms and showers for the whole floor were the same room; further, one wing was guys and one wing was girls, which meant that it would be 9000 times harder to make a clean getaway, no matter how much body wash one used. (But by all means, protect your reputation with a ribbon on the door that everyone knows the meaning of, including everyone else on the floor.)
Guys, don't text a girl you hooked up with a month later for round two. Chances are she's moved on to bigger and better and isn't interested in you anymore. Regardless of your intentions, call back within two weeks. After that, she's moving on.
If everyone followed all the rest of the advice, this isn't really going to make a difference, is it? Guys will also have moved on, to the next young woman who's reading the column.
If it's red and itchy, go to the doctor. Student Health Service has seen worse and it's never OK to leave something untreated. I know its uncomfortable, but you don't want to sit on the bench too long; get tested and get your head back in the game. Plus, they have free condoms.
At least this is slightly good advice. Never leave a health problem untreated. But here I think the author fails to notice an obvious contradiction - she knows this is uncomfortable but is giving advice that is guaranteed to land the reader in many future uncomfortable situations; and as she's said above, she doesn't want to be the one to help the reader through it.
Oh, and free condoms! Rather than, say, condoms that one must purchase oneself, thus taking ownership of what one will be using them for.
College is a great time to try new things.
A subject you've never read before? New foods? Yoga?
Ask your girl to bring over a copy of Cosmopolitan. There's always a list of 100 things you've never tried or even thought existed.
Or that you missed when it ran two years ago.
If you're feeling really adventurous, pick up the Karma Sutra and learn about ancient civilizations.
One would be better served in reading a history book. (One hopes that the kids won't get a similar taste for cannibalism, human sacrifice, ritual drug use, or other hallmarks of ancient civilizations; I know the hour is late on some of this as well.)
Girls, I know it's been a while since high school cheerleading, but I promise your flexibility will return.
And if you were just on the flag squad, tough. Sex is for pretty people!
With all this new learning, don't forget about studying! Give yourself goals and reward yourself for doing well. Guys, don't get discouraged. Every girl has different needs. If something tried and true lets you down, pay more attention in anatomy or discover it for yourself... you will be rewarded for your findings.
Lest anyone else miss that Blinding Flash of the Obvious, let's go ahead and spell it out: swapping partners every few weeks is an impediment to gaining skill, not a help. One is starting over every time - and not from zero, either, but from less than zero, because they have to unlearn the habits that were good for a previous beau in order to please the new beau.
How many people who are "lousy in bed" could have saved themselves endless trouble by waiting until they got married? Sure, they would have been awkward and ignorant; but they also would have only one learning curve. They would have been awkward and ignorant in a secure place, committed to the other, and committed to by the other, with a whole lifetime to learn and enjoy, in full freedom and peace. (If Cosmo is such fun, how about twenty years' worth of issues?) Best of all, they can show the same charity to their best beloved, and neither would have to worry about competing against the memories of sex with other people. They get full enjoyment of each other without wasting their mind and heart on comparisons and cold judgments. Again - that is the true reward for one's findings, and again, it is given not to the indulgent but to the chaste.
The fisking was, alas, grouchier than the column. That's inherent, I suppose, in criticism as compared to offering a sound positive alternative.
* As an example of what I mentioned at the beginning - Torre said this in the bygone days when he managed the Atlanta Braves; back when there was big-league baseball in Montreal and neither that nor NHL hockey in the entire state of Florida. Reagan wasn't even president YET. And where's my prune juice and tapioca, consarnit?
** If it came with the reciprocal Freedom Not to Hassle Others it would have more to recommend it. But instead it's paired with the Freedom to Hassle as We See Fit: it demands the right to lecture instead of converse, making the other person a target rather a participant in an exchange of ideas. As a result it makes people rude and ignorant, trampling other people while shutting off any possible attempt to learn from their reply. What if they have new or overlooked information? What if they notice a flaw in your thinking? If it's really that important to be right, then maybe that flaw is something one would like to correct.
Keeping all that in mind, we can now read Ms. Pregulman's column with open eyes.
This may be your first time sharing a room. Respect your roommates by not hooking up when they are there - even if you think they are asleep.
Neither here, nor anywhere else, will you observe the author advising us to respect ourselves. One can at least congratulate her for her lack of hypocrisy.
So please, for the sake of your sex life, have a signal; put a ribbon on the door, anything to show the room is occupied. Even better, meet an upperclassman that has a single bedroom and go there.
This advice is in response to nearly being caught mid-frolic with her boyfriend. Now, many people would describe this as a wake-up call, but the author has hit the snooze button. Let us not be caught napping ourselves: a ribbon on the door is not a solution. My generation used a rubber band or some other subtle signpost. Believe me, when the roomie's dad walks her back to her dorm and she sees the ribbon (or whatnot), it isn't going to spare one the embarrassment: he is going to see it, and he is going to know. If one is worried about one's good reputation, one needs to actually preserve it, and not merely keep up the pretense. Pretenses slip - for example, when one writes a column exposing the reality behind the appearance, with one's name for a byline - or just when one grows incapable of keeping track of what one told whom, when. Here, the advice of Joe Torre comes into play: "I always tell the truth. This way, I never have to remember anything." *
And, under the heading of "harm mitigation" - if any young ladies are reading, please do NOT choose a beau simply based on how many other people are in the house with him. And if you do feel the utter and absolute need to frolic, do NOT give up control of your surroundings by going to his place, and ESPECIALLY if he lives alone. Should you suddenly feel differently, you have less resource to escape or refuse there, and less reason to hope that somebody will interrupt to your benefit.
Always use a condom. I know it's old news, but just do it. I have a friend who takes birth control and stopped using condoms to "see what it feels like." So far she has been lucky, but I don't want to be the one to take her to Planned Parenthood. The abortion clinics in D.C. have the most protesters because of their location - you don't want to be harassed while taking care of an unplanned situation.
This is high on the list of positive values in the zeitgeist - the Freedom Not to be Hassled. ** In fact, you can see it here before the author ever reaches her gripe about protestors: "I don't want to be the one to take her..." Why not? Better that she have to get harassed by herself, so the author doesn't have to be bothered? Being there for others means taking on some hassles; it comes with the territory. In fact, any attempt to achieve mastery (or even competence) requires that we take some trouble; we have to learn, we have to persevere, and we often have to stop our ears to people who tell us we're wasting our time. It holds true for education or athletics or hobbies or creativity, and it certainly holds true in love. Refusing this essential aspect of life is a major indication that the author isn't ready for sex at all, and her advice on the topic is not likely to be helpful.
A little bit of bubbly never hurt anyone's libido, but girls, don't go home with the guy you've been taking shots with all night. Get a number and call later.
"Hi, is this Ally? Hi. We were getting totally blitzed the other night, remember? Vaguely? Yeah, so, uhm... want to get together for some lunch after the polysci lecture?" This can't really be serious. Again, ladies - don't waste your time on a guy whose appeal rises as the bottle empties. You have to sober up sometime. Besides, a guy whose self-control can't keep him on his own two feet (or on the road) for the trip back home is going to reveal that little character flaw in a lot of other areas too.
And guys, too much to drink will seriously hurt your game. You don't want to be known as the freshman who couldn't get it up.
This is the second time the author mentions freshmen having sex. Again, not that it's shocking or anything, but seriously, what's wrong with being known as the freshman who isn't sleeping around? For that matter, is there anything wrong with not having one's prowess known at all? College should be about classes every once in a while. Nor do I see any sort of health in this catty dishing about other people's personal issues. The first part of this column said, in effect, "protect your good name." This part of it helpfully adds, "because nobody else will." This is more than a point in favor of sobriety; it's also a good reason to keep zipped.
Hooking up in bathrooms is never OK. If you wouldn't want to touch it, don't have sex on it. However, if your roommates are home and you need to get it on, the shower is a suitable alternative.
One is tempted to regard the whole column as parody at this point. Is this supposed to encourage us to have sex? First step - have no self-control as who else is around; second step - have no ability to stop once one is started; third step - go to a shower, where heck-all knows what else has gone on before one's arrival, and go to it there. Presumably, the shower is a far more public domain in a dorm or apartment than is the room itself, which at least has a lock on the door. In my freshman dorm, the bathrooms and showers for the whole floor were the same room; further, one wing was guys and one wing was girls, which meant that it would be 9000 times harder to make a clean getaway, no matter how much body wash one used. (But by all means, protect your reputation with a ribbon on the door that everyone knows the meaning of, including everyone else on the floor.)
Guys, don't text a girl you hooked up with a month later for round two. Chances are she's moved on to bigger and better and isn't interested in you anymore. Regardless of your intentions, call back within two weeks. After that, she's moving on.
If everyone followed all the rest of the advice, this isn't really going to make a difference, is it? Guys will also have moved on, to the next young woman who's reading the column.
If it's red and itchy, go to the doctor. Student Health Service has seen worse and it's never OK to leave something untreated. I know its uncomfortable, but you don't want to sit on the bench too long; get tested and get your head back in the game. Plus, they have free condoms.
At least this is slightly good advice. Never leave a health problem untreated. But here I think the author fails to notice an obvious contradiction - she knows this is uncomfortable but is giving advice that is guaranteed to land the reader in many future uncomfortable situations; and as she's said above, she doesn't want to be the one to help the reader through it.
Oh, and free condoms! Rather than, say, condoms that one must purchase oneself, thus taking ownership of what one will be using them for.
College is a great time to try new things.
A subject you've never read before? New foods? Yoga?
Ask your girl to bring over a copy of Cosmopolitan. There's always a list of 100 things you've never tried or even thought existed.
Or that you missed when it ran two years ago.
If you're feeling really adventurous, pick up the Karma Sutra and learn about ancient civilizations.
One would be better served in reading a history book. (One hopes that the kids won't get a similar taste for cannibalism, human sacrifice, ritual drug use, or other hallmarks of ancient civilizations; I know the hour is late on some of this as well.)
Girls, I know it's been a while since high school cheerleading, but I promise your flexibility will return.
And if you were just on the flag squad, tough. Sex is for pretty people!
With all this new learning, don't forget about studying! Give yourself goals and reward yourself for doing well. Guys, don't get discouraged. Every girl has different needs. If something tried and true lets you down, pay more attention in anatomy or discover it for yourself... you will be rewarded for your findings.
Lest anyone else miss that Blinding Flash of the Obvious, let's go ahead and spell it out: swapping partners every few weeks is an impediment to gaining skill, not a help. One is starting over every time - and not from zero, either, but from less than zero, because they have to unlearn the habits that were good for a previous beau in order to please the new beau.
How many people who are "lousy in bed" could have saved themselves endless trouble by waiting until they got married? Sure, they would have been awkward and ignorant; but they also would have only one learning curve. They would have been awkward and ignorant in a secure place, committed to the other, and committed to by the other, with a whole lifetime to learn and enjoy, in full freedom and peace. (If Cosmo is such fun, how about twenty years' worth of issues?) Best of all, they can show the same charity to their best beloved, and neither would have to worry about competing against the memories of sex with other people. They get full enjoyment of each other without wasting their mind and heart on comparisons and cold judgments. Again - that is the true reward for one's findings, and again, it is given not to the indulgent but to the chaste.
The fisking was, alas, grouchier than the column. That's inherent, I suppose, in criticism as compared to offering a sound positive alternative.
* As an example of what I mentioned at the beginning - Torre said this in the bygone days when he managed the Atlanta Braves; back when there was big-league baseball in Montreal and neither that nor NHL hockey in the entire state of Florida. Reagan wasn't even president YET. And where's my prune juice and tapioca, consarnit?
** If it came with the reciprocal Freedom Not to Hassle Others it would have more to recommend it. But instead it's paired with the Freedom to Hassle as We See Fit: it demands the right to lecture instead of converse, making the other person a target rather a participant in an exchange of ideas. As a result it makes people rude and ignorant, trampling other people while shutting off any possible attempt to learn from their reply. What if they have new or overlooked information? What if they notice a flaw in your thinking? If it's really that important to be right, then maybe that flaw is something one would like to correct.
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
Symbols...
...of the notorious B16 gang.
Never did Jaime Salazar imagine that wearing a rosarylike crucifix to school would provoke a national stir.
But when the 14-year-old and his 16-year-old friend Marco Castro were suspended recently for refusing to remove the religious beads because they were "gang-related," it thrust Oregon into the headlines and has triggered questions over the evolving role of rosaries in religion, fashion and street gangs.
In the latest cultural take of a symbol that's gone from Catholic altars to Britney Spears' bosom, the rosary is blurring the lines of liberty and safety on campus.
Some call the rosary-gang connection a stretch and urge caution. But for educators and public safety officials charged with blocking fluid gang trends, rosaries in the past few years have become one more marker to track suspicious activity.
Suspicious activity? Like prayer and meditation?
One thing I can say, and those of you who are members of the dreaded B16 gang please chime in, is that in this article it talks about people wearing rosaries as fashion statements, (Brintey is spoken of here, but those of us over 35 remember Madonna being the purveyor of regilious symbols as fashion)
Much in the same way that some would wear a cross and care not for the One would was nailed upon it.
Never did Jaime Salazar imagine that wearing a rosarylike crucifix to school would provoke a national stir.
But when the 14-year-old and his 16-year-old friend Marco Castro were suspended recently for refusing to remove the religious beads because they were "gang-related," it thrust Oregon into the headlines and has triggered questions over the evolving role of rosaries in religion, fashion and street gangs.
In the latest cultural take of a symbol that's gone from Catholic altars to Britney Spears' bosom, the rosary is blurring the lines of liberty and safety on campus.
Some call the rosary-gang connection a stretch and urge caution. But for educators and public safety officials charged with blocking fluid gang trends, rosaries in the past few years have become one more marker to track suspicious activity.
Suspicious activity? Like prayer and meditation?
One thing I can say, and those of you who are members of the dreaded B16 gang please chime in, is that in this article it talks about people wearing rosaries as fashion statements, (Brintey is spoken of here, but those of us over 35 remember Madonna being the purveyor of regilious symbols as fashion)
Much in the same way that some would wear a cross and care not for the One would was nailed upon it.
Saturday, March 01, 2008
Less Protesting, More Studying
Hit the books, not the cops.
MIAMI(AP) - Police responded in force Friday at a high school where a protest became unruly, and more than a dozen students were hauled away in handcuffs.
The disturbance at Miami Edison Senior High School occurred during a protest over the arrest Thursday of another student, a Miami-Dade County schools police spokesman said
.
"That protest became very unruly," Charles Hurley, a schools police commander, told WSVN-TV. He said some students threw water bottles, books and other items at police officers.
"That protest became very unruly," Charles Hurley, a schools police commander, told WSVN-TV. He said some students threw water bottles, books and other items at police officers.
Dozens of police cars responded to the school north of downtown Miami.
Fire rescue officials said one student and three police officers had minor injuries. School officials said classes returned to normal shortly after police responded.
Miami Edison recently celebrated its move from a designation of an "F" or failing to "D" based on Florida's ranking of public schools. Last year only 10 percent of students met reading standards. Less than a third met state math standards.
Only ten percent of you can meet reading standards? 1/3 meet math standards? Florida taxpayers should be the ones protesting at your school.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)