“Money”

From a response to a Salon article by the oddly-named "Hoosier Daddy":

Money does not, in fact, exist. It is merely a concept devised by man to try to control the production and exchange of goods and services. It is a concept just as language and mathmatics are concepts, inventions of the mind of humankind.

However whereas language has been used to produce the works of Shakespeare (along with the feeble words of you and me), and mathmatics has been used to build bridges and design rockets to fly to the moon, money has pretty much served to concentrate power in the hands of a few. We really, really need to improve on this money idea. But, in the end, that's all it is: an idea. It is our invention, and we can control it.

So the deficit, the national debt, and all money problems really are just imagined fears, ones that could be solved by improved thinking. Our economic system could collapse, as we were ominously told might happen any day two years ago, and life would continue.

…from here, he goes off on a screed about "Global Warming," which is unfortunate because he had a good point until he started in on the "New Abortion."

He's right. Money is VIRTUAL. It's based on nothing (thanks to Nixon taking us off the gold standard). It exists only on computer screens. My solution? Get rid of it. Forgive all debt (because it's really meaningless, anyway) and START OVER.

War is Hell

There's a secret war going on in this country. It's not like the widely hyped "War on Drugs" (which is failing after very large amounts of money were poured into it – of course, we don't hear about that money). It's not like the widely hyped "War on Terror" (which is failing after very large amounts of money were poured into it – and of course, the guy who's responsible isn't associated with that money anymore). No, it's bigger, better funded, more mysterious, and far more deadly. There is a War on Education in America, and it's escalating.

it's not about Republican versus Democrat, or even "left" versus "right," although those are all effective smokescreens. It's about the proudly, willfully ignorant versus those of us who want to improve ourselves, to be better thinkers and writers and workers. It's about the pundits who ignore what real, qualified experts have to say (since they never invite any on their shows) in favor of partisan hacks who play political games as they use terms incorrectly (or make up new ones that mean even less), distort the real truth (which is neither "right" nor "left"), and denigrate anyone who dared to go to school instead of the military or the blue collar workforce. The term "elitist" is the key. You are an "elitist" if you have an education, or if you actually consider what they have to say and think, "Are any of these guys really saying anything?" You are an "elitist" if you don't think, believe and act the way they do. You are an "elitist" if you don't tow either "party line." In short, if you think, you are the enemy.

The original definition of the word "elitism" is the following:

1 : leadership or rule by an elite

2 : the selectivity of the elite; especially : snobbery <elitism in choosing new members>

3 : consciousness of being or belonging to an elite

(Merriam Webster - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/elitist)

The definition of "elite" is the following:

elite

 noun \ā-ˈlēt, i-, ē-\

1 a singular or plural in construction : the choice part : cream <the elite of the entertainment world>b singular or plural in construction : the best of a class <superachievers who dominate the computer elite — Marilyn Chase>

(Merriam Webster - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/elite?show=0&t=1288121740)

 

I don't see anything political there, except for "snobbery" in the first definition.

 

But is snobbery tied to education? Doesn't "snobbery" imply you think you're better than everybody else? Or that you belong to a club that won't allow others in because they don't share your unique qualifications? Education, above the mandatory stages, is made up of first time community college students, people who work two jobs and go to school full time, grad students working their butts off with virtual guarantees they'll never make any money, instructors and professors, and people like me who don't use the degrees they have. Am I better than everybody else? Hell, no. Am I smarter at some things? Of course. But ask me to run a cash register or calculate the rise and run of a beam on a building project or know what to do when a baby cries, and there are plenty of people better than me.

It's about money, plain and simple. The true "elites" in this country are the ones who were (mostly) born into wealth, have never worked a real job in their lives, or who "worked their way up" and now believe they shouldn't give anything back because they are "successful." They've paid their dues, and now they want all of us to pay more. Especially in student loans, which we have to get to improve our intellectual skills. And then we're beholdin to the "elites" because we won't be a threat to them. I constantly hear people call into my local talk radio station and say, "I quit the 8^th grade, and I have my own business, and I'm a success." Well, what will he do when the economy collapses and his business goes under? Where will he go?

Education is not about money (except for the huge sum we have to pay to get one); it's about a much higher goal: Intelligence. Freedom. Rationality over emotion. I know a lot of my students read this blog, and I implore you: Keep going. Don't let the War get you down. Don't listen to people tell you you don't need to by any smarter, you just need to get out there and get your hands dirty "like a real working man." I work 60-70 hours a week at 3 jobs; I have a PhD. I know a lot of PhDs who flip burgers for a living. That's exactly what the generals want; they want us to apologize for our education and regret it and just sit around and do what we're told so a multi-millionaire can get another classic car or some more Cocaine for his daughter.

As long as the real elites in this country pit us against each other in silly, meaningless political squabbles that amount to absolutely nothing, the war will continue. It's all an insidious game that maintains the status quo and make REAL Americans (whether we work inside or outside, in dirty boots or cheap ties) pawns in their schemes for global domination. They can't win as long as we don't let them fool us. Change the dialog (or create one, because there really never has been a dialog). Tell them, "Here's what my education is teaching me…here's what I aspire to." Show them that the work we all do in our classrooms, students and teachers, matters. And when they try to cut our budgets again and again and again, let's take to the streets. Peacefully, of course; educated people don't have to intimidate. We just have to SPEAK.

Some Things are Just Stupid

A few months ago, a crazy preacher with 50 followers announced a plan to have a bonfire in which they will burn copies of the Koran. Now, a crazy Tennessee preacher has announced his plan to burn "a Koran," both on the anniversary of 9/11. I certainly appreciate the free speech rights they (and we all) have that enable them to burn a rival religion's holy book, but I have the same right to give my opinion on the matter. Just because you CAN do something, that doesn't mean you SHOULD (I think my mother told me that when I was about 8 years old). And some things, frankly, are just stupid.

General Petraeus made a statement asking the Florida crazy preacher to call off his "protest," saying that such an action will endanger American troops. The preacher basically said, "Screw the troops! American needs to be America again and stand up!"

How is it standing up for America, and being America again, to incite a bunch of crazy Muslims to blow up more of our buildings and kill more of our people, which is exactly what they'll do? After this moron has his little show and his special on FOX News, Al Qaida will retaliate in the most vicious manner imaginable. Protests mean nothing to terrorists; desecration of their holy relics does. America is about freedom and success, not about your fifteen minutes of fame and another 3,000 people dead in the street. America has never been a tolerant nation; we have done some horrible things to people who didn't believe and espouse what we do. Most of that is by individuals who, being insane like these preachers, really think God is going to deliver them for doing some very un-Christian things.

This same Florida preacher has in the past burned copies of versions of the Bible he didn't believe reflected his own view of the world. Where was the outrage about those Bibles? Why didn't Christians renounce one of their own for desecrating their own holy book?

The sad thing is, conservatives from all over the country have sent this idiot a lot of money and a bought and sent a lot of Korans for him to burn. They see this as a monumental gesture to show how tough we are; it's going to get people killed, and they deserve all the blame. Muslim extremists are just waiting for an opportunity to instill more fear and hatred in Americans by violating us again; Christian extremists are giving them that opportunity.

Some things are just stupid. And stupid things are done by stupid people.

Until this country makes another shift, to support reason and understanding and just plain old literacy, we are doomed. We are turning ourselves into mirror images of the countries that produce ignorant, hateful, religiously-charged psychos who will do anything in the name of their religion. But until we stop buying the oil they produce, we will give them a pass and let nutcases get nuttier and nuttier. We need to purge ourselves of the ignorant, the intolerant, and the hateful. This preacher from Florida said we should send all the Muslims in America to an island so we don't have to live with their influence on our vast, diverse culture that used to accept anybody who was willing to get along. I say we take those people too blinded by "faith" to understand the real world doesn't work the way their insulated, childish worlds do and put THEM on an island. Soon they will grow to hate each other due to tiny differences in doctrine, and they'll kill each other off. That's exactly what Darwin was talking about, but these people think the world is 6,000 years old and cavemen rode dinosaurs.

Ignorance can be changed; people can be taught. But stupidity is engrained. And it must not be tolerated in a civilized society.

A Few Questions

I was on online dating sites for 8 years; I still have accounts, and I check them occasionally, but I have somebody in my life, so it's just sort of a morbid hobby. I looked around on one of those sites today out of sheer boredom, and I looked at some profiles. I have a few questions.

With about 2 exceptions, all the women on these sites LOVE the outdoors. Really? Does everybody but me love the outdoors, with the mud and the bugs and the sweat and the hassle? Why would you go outdoors when you have a perfectly good air conditioner and TV at home? I used to fish when I was a kid, because that's what my family did when we went to the coast over the summer. OK, I've fished. You sit for 6 hours in the heat and stick a piece of string in the water, and usually nothing happens. It's like watching televised golf - what is really the point?

And they all say, "I'm not the average woman; I LOVE sports." Are you serious? If one or two of them said it I might believe it, but they ALL say it. I understand the mom who goes to her kids' games, because you're obligated to do that, but do they really sit around with a beer and yell at the TV? And so many have to include, "Go this" or "go that" to prove that they're loyal to multi-millionaires who couldn't care less if they live or die and date gorgeous (but vapid and meaningless) reality stars. Kim Kardashian could have her own team by now. I am not a sports person; I tried almost everything when I was growing up, and I failed at all of it. I didn't understand it, I didn't get why it was entertaining, and I still don't. That's just me, but does that make me a "traditional woman?" Maybe I should put that in my profile, if I ever wrote a new one.

And then there's "I don't want to play games." No, honey, you don't want to play MY games. You want to play yours, and you want me to enjoy it because I'm lucky enough to be with you. "I don't want to play games" means, "I won't have sex with you until you spend enough money on me over a long, drawn out period of time." That is a game in itself; in fact, dating is a game. That's all it is.

No, I'm not bitter, just trying to be funny. But it's amazing how people will say what they think other people want to hear. The clichés are deafening, and I wonder if there's a guide online somewhere that says, "Put this in your profile. Everybody's doing it!" The women I met online were the ones whose profiles were fresh and interesting and who didn't want me to go to seminary.

It's really funny that women who say they're "old fashioned" watch football, go hunting, and make so many demands. Old fashioned women were women who didn't do any of those things

And don't get me started on grammar and spelling. J

From Mickey Hart

Well, it's about the rhythm of things. If you look around at the Gulf, North Korea, or Iran, it's a rhythmic thing I see. We're out of rhythm with the world. It's a rhythmic universe, and nature is very efficient and likes to be in rhythm because it's most efficient. When you break that rhythm and come between it, you have arrhythmic events and it will destroy, it will not build. It will decompose as opposed to compose. Saying the world has gone mad is not a proper way of saying it, but I look at it as the world has gone out of rhythm. If you look at it in rhythmic terms, it's much more explainable. It's gone out of rhythm, and we're not in rhythm with it, and that's the problem we have in all of these hot spots and these scary places with the Islamic militant views and the extremist religious views. All you have to do is tune into the Dalai Lama, who is about the opposite of that. Now, that's a rhythm master. That guy is really in tune with things. So, we need to be listening to more of that, and we need to be thinking of things in terms of getting along in rhythm, and being efficient and flowing, and being more aware of our surroundings. When I look at the news, in total, that's what I think of.

Which Direction Should We Go?

This is a really simple statement, so forgive me for a moment: Why don't people use their turn signals?

I mean, I thought it was a Mississippi thing until I lived in other states. Hardly anybody seems to know what that little lever next to the steering wheel does. I see people just barrel out into traffic without giving anybody the slightest idea where they're going. I've heard horns, I've seen near-accidents many times, all because some idiot doesn't want to waste his or her time flicking a wrist. It drives me CRAZY. Sure, if you're in a turn lane, maybe. But even if you're in a turn lane, do the people coming the other way really know it's a turn lane? I thought when you got a driver's license you were informed that the turn signal is NOT optional. Yet I've never seen anybody pulled over for not using one.

I think it speaks to a larger issue. We as a culture just don't really care about the people around us anymore. Being polite and friendly has been archaic for a long time. It's just polite to use a turn signal, to communicate with the other people on the road. But we're in such a hurry and so busy and so unconcerned (it will be somebody else's fault if we have a wreck) we have stopped doing a lot of very basic things that are simply good manners. And that has filtered down into our rhetoric and our "dialogue." I put it in quotes because there is no "dialogue" in this country; it's all angry, mostly uninformed people spouting off their opinions whether they actually know anything to support those opinions or not. We live the way we drive – rudely, angrily, and without any concern for the people we share the world with. And that's just sad.

Beware Online Workshops

There are a lot of opportunities for writers to share their work online; it's very, very careful to research these opportunities before you commit to them. I've been in a few online workshops, and I just don't really have time to produce that much work or spend that much time reading critiques. But always be aware that there are agendas working. In a classroom, everybody usually has the same agenda – they're there to learn and become better writers. There's a teacher there who, ideally, is going to guide the feedback and make sure everybody is sticking with the work and being constructive. In-person writing workshops with mediators can sometimes be useful, too, but even they can fall pretty to those who want to do more than write and get feedback to improve themselves.

I was on one particular workshop site for a while (I won't mention the name, but I think it's still going) that really gave me problems. I signed up, submitted work, and got accepted. When I posted my profile, I mentioned that I have a PhD in English, which of course I would do because I do have one. It's no big deal to me. But gradually the criticism of my work get nastier and nastier and nastier, with comments like, "I would think a PhD would write better than this." They never really critiqued my work; they were critiquing me for actually studying poetry, which I would think would be a good thing to do if you're going to write it. They were writing pastiches of Ginsberg and Bukowski, and sonnets and stuff like that, and I was always as helpful as possible to help them get where they wanted to go. They weren't bad writers, they just stayed within their own comfortable confines of what reading they had done. Because I essentially knew a lot more than they did, they resented me. And this was a big deal workshop where you had to submit work and be approved; they painted themselves as a really high-class operation.

But they treated me like an alien, an other, because I had lived a different life than they had. And this was maybe ten years ago, maybe even longer than that. But you don't forget being treated like you don't matter. And if you're going to critique somebody else's work, don't get personal. Focus on the language and the structure and the intent, not on the person writing it. It's extremely immature, and more importantly, it's not helpful. I spent years giving positive feedback to people I positively couldn't stand, and negative feedback to people I was really close to, because of the quality of the work. Once during grad school when I was going through a bad breakup, my friends got together and said, "You know, Jeff, your work is really sucking right now. It's depressing and it's self-indulgent, and you're writing like a 13 year old girl." They were right; I was. I eventually snapped out of it and started really working again instead of weeping. Sometimes that's what it takes.

And if you get negative, personally-based feedback, ignore it. It means nothing.

A Real Downer

I'm about to begin a one-man battle against negativity. Our culture has become increasingly negative and sour – people know more about what they're against than what they're for, and authority figures jockey for position by telling us what's wrong with us, or with other people. So I've decided to stop watching the news (on ANY network) and listening to talk radio, and I'm going to keep my internet newsgathering at a minimum. Does it matter what's going on in the world when it's all so bad? I'm one of those people who's affected by negativity; it makes me negative in turn, and sad, and a little depressed. I don't need that. My life is great right now. But every time I am influenced by the negativity that we're bombarded with every day, I forget that. I get wrapped up in all the "US vs THEM" and unfair competition and one uninformed opinion after another. The rule is, if we say it enough times, whether it's true or not, it becomes the inarguable truth. Nobody discusses things anymore; we talk at each other and we're convinced that we are absolutely right, even if we have no idea what we're talking about.

Let me get political for a minute. I hear no end of people jabbering on about how to "fix" education. These are people who have never been at the front of a classroom, who have never been in a faculty meeting, who have no idea what goes on behind the scenes. Quite often, they're barely educated themselves, as evidenced by the way they speak and/or type. They don't know what it takes to educate a child (or an adult, for that matter). They don't know how hard it is. They don't know that a classroom can become a metaphorical combat zone, and that a good teacher has to fight. And they don't care; they just know their way is the right way even though their way is totally unrealistic, unworkable or impossible. They don't know simple things like the vast majority of the money "thrown at" education goes to pay salaries. If you want smaller classrooms (which everybody who knows agrees is a very good solution), you have to hire more teachers. It's very simple math – even I could do it. But they don't know, and no matter how many times they're told, they don't care. But that's not my point; my point is that these people create a negative atmosphere that leads others to believe the same stupid things they believe. And that atmosphere drags education down further, because the realistic solutions aren't heard. They don't want to hear the truth. Most of us don't want to hear the truth, about most things anymore. We treat actual experts like the enemy in the name of free speech. However, free speech isn't free; you have to work for it. You have to listen as well as speak to make it work.

I want out of all that. They won't listen to an educator because of my degrees or my politics (whatever they may be) or my experience. Why should I participate in a "debate" in which my voice is not heard? I don't need the stress. I don't need the negativity.

I listen to the radio (and I'm not just talking about radio, but this example fits) three times during the day: One the way to work, back and from lunch, and on the way home. In those first two instances today, I heard FOUR car insurance commercials that did nothing but insult their competition's methods and ads and effectiveness. "And oh, yes, we'll do this…bye!" Are they not good enough companies that they can just tell us what they offer and let the consumer decide? Yes, it's good to examine the competition's prices, but does that have to escalate into name calling and nastiness? Have we lost all sense of civility and fair play? Am I being naïve? It doesn't really matter if I'm naïve or not, because I don't want to hear it. I don't like where we're going, and I'm afraid it's only going to get worse. I want to be happy and content and professional and make my own contributions to the world without insulting anybody else. And I'd like to be treated the same way. Remember "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you?" A lot of people don't, and some of them quote a lot of other verses as they're slandering people with different opinions and ideas. And this isn't really new – it's been getting steadily worse for at least 20 years. I'm not one of those people who moan about "the good old days," but there really was a time (I think) when people minded their own business and kept their mouth shut and didn't feel a need to feel superior to everybody else.

It's not a left or right thing; there are people from both extremes who are doing this. And as somebody who doesn't fall into either of those camps, I feel no need to make them happy by letting them get me down.

I think we all need more happiness in our lives, and to do what we can do to make our own and other people's lives better, not worse.

First Night

I'm very, very nervous about tonight's first night at Holmes. I always get nervous; throughout my 20 something years teaching, I have always been nervous the first night. Imagine standing in front of 30 strangers you've never seen before trying to convince them that you know what you're talking about, especially if you've just spent a couple of months off. You don't know exactly what's going to happen (even though planning is always done), you don't know how everybody's going to react, you don't know whether to be serious or funny or goofy (which is my chosen method). Put the students at ease; make them wonder what you're going to do next. Plan things so there's a good flow of information, and good movement that's going to be interesting and fun. Everybody likes shiny things.

It's all about high expectations. I care A LOT about making a good first impression; we all do (well, most of us do. I've known people who didn't care, and I never quite understood that). Teaching is its own kind of specialized performance art, and everybody reacts differently. But I'm prepared; I know what I'm going to say, I know what we're going to do (although I'll be very nervous and probably make it look like work), and I'm confident that my students will be put in a good place that will enable them to learn, write, keep learning and keep writing. And before you know it it will all be over and I'll be staring at another sea of strange faces. With a lot of grading in between.

Wow

I finally saw KICK-ASS. I bought it last week when it came out, but didn't have time to watch it until now. Those of you who know me know I'm not prone to exaggeration, but it may be the best piece of action cinema I've ever seen in my life. Period. It may be the perfect film - it has deep character development, great stunts and effects, beautiful cinematography, and an edge like nothing you've ever seen. Yes, it's INCREDIBLY violent (which I don't usually like) and it's INCREDIBLY profane (there's a 10 year old girl who cusses like a sailor), but it has a depth and a reach that are unparalleled by anything I've seen in years. It's definitely not politically correct, and if you only watch Disney films you want to stay FAR away from it. But I'd suggest that you don't. It actually made me cry numerous times, and action movies aren't supposed to do that, and I don't cry at the drop of a hat. It's a truly beautiful film, and the fact that it wasn't a gigantic hit only underscores the fact that Hollywood is so careful and so homogenized. Just when you think the film is going to go one direction, it shifts gears on you and does something you don't expect. Are the good guys really good, or is that relative? Is it noble to kill the bad guys? We do it in war every day and explain it away; can superheroes do it? It sounds silly to say so, but this film made me want to be a superhero, just like KICK-ASS. It inspired me. It amazed me. It takes the whole superhero genre (which I happen to like) and turns it upside down. It's funny and wild and crazy and a little sentimental. It's a literal thrill ride, and all the performances are outstanding. They go WAY over the top, and they own it. I never read the comics, but now I want to. It's just simply amazing, and I may post a more intelligent review down the road. For right now, though, as the credits roll, I feel absolutely exhilarated. Action films never do that for me; they always leave me cold because they're more about explosions than people. This film is about flawed people who want to make a difference, or avenge wrongs. I truly feel transformed from watching this film, and again, I don't exaggerate very often. If you want to see a film that pulls out all the stops and "goes there," see it. It's amazing.

Aging?

Maybe it's a function of getting older, but I've noticed something interesting over the past year or so. I used to read Modern Drummer magazine from cover to cover (I've even published a few articles with them), and when I turned on the E! channel I knew every celebrity on there. I thought my cultural I.Q. was pretty good, even very good.

But lately I pick up a Modern Drummer and think, "Who are you? Who are you? Who are you?" These are guys from bands I've never heard of, who I guess are good and all, but they're not what I choose to listen to. I listen to music that's quite off the beaten path these days, so I'm not up on who's drumming for Pink (who I have heard of, of course; I just don't care). And when I turn on E!, it's a bunch of reality "stars" from shows I never watch who mean nothing to me. Whatever happened to actual celebrities who do something? Yes, I know who Kim Kardashian is, and I respect that booty a great deal. But that booty would never give me a second glance, so who really cares? She's famous for being famous, and that's just ridiculous. Remember when it was only Paris Hilton, and everybody made fun of her? I do. I guess those were the good old days.

And Lady Gaga. WTF? Really? Let's all be Madonna, but INCREDIBLY WEIRD. Same gay following, same provocative videos, same lame, formulaic music. I guess she'll be in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, too, and Rush still won't get in. But Rush don't want or need the Hall of Fame, according to them. And so they don't. But I can still complain. Just remember the Peter Gabriel Genesis didn't get into the Hall; it was only the poppy Phil Collins version. That's why Peter didn't show up; he knew. Phil and the boys were gracious, but they knew, too. And anybody who knows anything will never forgive them for "Invisible Touch."

So my cultural I.Q. is sliding into the abyss. Who the HELL is Chad Ochocinco, and why should I care about who he dates? Is he some sort of sports figure? Do I care?

I feel like I'm gradually becoming an old man hoarding my outdated CDs and VHS tapes and crawling away from the world.

I'm watching the Saturday Night Live season two boxed set on DVD, since I still don't have cable that works (which is more painful than I thought it would be), and I had really forgotten how absolutely brilliant Gilda Radner and Bill Murray were. Gilda was iconic - every character (Emily Litella, Baba Wawa, etc.) was thoroughly drawn and clean and hilarious. I saw a sketch in the Candace Bergen episode where she advocates for "extremely stupid people," and Candace starting breaking up within about a minute; Gilda just kept going, adapting her lines to what she had to say. It was beautiful. She deserved a far bigger career than she got; she should have done movies and TV shows and books and whatever. Why Hollywood didn't clamor for her, I really don't know. She was a real gem. Maybe she was TOO talented. That happens. Look at Andy Kaufman (who I'm watching right now), and many others. If you're mild and tame (see Tom Hanks), you make millions; if you have a wild, untamable talent, you can't get a job.

Bill Murray, on the other hand, has had a stellar career, from Caddyshack to Lost in Translation and beyond. But, on SNL, he was everything - he played such a variety of characters it was dizzying. He was a true comic talent (and still is), just showing off what he could do for the first time. Even in a bit part he could steal the stage.

Where are today's Gilda Radners and Bill Murrays? Today we get Dane Cook and a bunch of other "comics" who know nothing about improv, and nothing about acting, and everything about being a celebrity. I'm so tired of celebrities...I want to see somebody with TALENT. We're in danger, I think, of losing American Humor to people who know nothing about it, but who know how to walk a red carpet. Where are the Woody Allens? The Johnny Carsons? Some may say it's an evolution. Sorry; in this case Darwin is wrong. It's a Devolution. We're making a move back to dumbass humor, and that's not a good thing. How many films have you really laughed at lately? We are letting humor become less of an art and more of an assembly line jokefest. It's sad.

I love American humor. It is a unique art form. But we have let it sink into a miasma of jokes and goofiness. When do we get our intelligence back?

Untitled (for now)

Wandering the now-empty
house searching for a lighter,
the air has lost its perfume
and the cat has given 
herself a pedicure
on the couch, leaving rags.
She rolls over for a belly
rub, but no one gives it.

It's started to rain outside,
cold for June, and the dark
wraps around the cigarette
like an old lover, cradling
the smoke and releasing.
As the patio begins to puddle
something dings in an adjacent
apartment; something finished.

Healing?

Sometimes things happen that shake us up, and make us question everything. We have to re-prioritize, make other plans, adjust our views of the world. There's pain, and there's confusion, and there's difficulty. Things aren't as they seemed, and the world turns topsy turvy. I promised I wouldn't talk about personal things in this blog, but I'm making one exception. I have had one of those things happen.

My girlfriend of almost a year (we would have had an anniversary in August) broke up with me over the weekend. It went VERY badly. I took it very badly. I was immature and stupid. I finally deleted her phone numbers from my phones last night and stopped calling. It's been really kind of pathetic. But it was a bad relationship – she had a lot of baggage, and she didn't treat me with much respect. She used me for my money and didn't really give me anything or respect my feelings. She's a very selfish, small person, and I overlooked all that to be her knight in shining armor, which I was. But I guess it got old, being taken care of.

I don't understand a lot of things still. I'm so upset I literally can't feel anything. I can't sleep, I can't eat, I can't write except about this. I can kind of work, but I'm just treading water. I'm posting this because I know you've all been here at one time or another and that I'm touching on a common experience.

But can things like this be healthy? Even though it's going to be a long time before I come out of it, I think so. I think back to other breakups from equally toxic women (I have a very poor track record with women) and I see how I grew after I got over feeling betrayed and hurt. I see how I learned to be alone and rely on myself only – I've been alone most of my life, and I can do that. There's a certain comfort in being alone and taking care of yourself. Nobody's ever offered to take care of me, so I don't know anything else. I'm always the caretaker. I also see how smart and capable I am, and how I work very hard and do what I have to do, what needs to be done. I see my morality and ethics, and the way I treat other people. It's only through pain that I realize I'm actually a pretty good person. And I try to be a good person, so I'm accomplishing something.

Of course, I don't feel any of that now; it's all just a series of remote memories I can tap into intellectually but can't access emotionally. I feel dead inside, but it's only been a couple of days. I'm still in the self-abuse phase of things. I'm blaming myself, wondering what's wrong with me and what I did wrong, wishing I could just dry up and blow away. And I have to do that, I have to go through that to get to that good place.

Damn, life is complicated. J

Funny

I had a horrible weekend with devastating things happen, and in the process of trying to work through the emotions I decided to think about funny things. "Funny" is such a relative term; all the time online in the comment forums for blogs and news items, somebody like Conan O'Brien will be the subject and some people will say, "Well, he's not funny" while others talk about how funny this bit and that bit are. I think a sense of humor says a lot about a person; the way we develop that sense shapes what we will and will not accept into our laugh zone.

I remember first discovering Woody Allen's first books, and Steve Martin's early work like Cruel Shoes. They were simultaneously different and exotic and slapsticky and silly. In both cases, there was obviously an intellect working behind the yucks. Their movies, too, exhibited that same kind of thing; even though The Jerk's Navin Johnson is clearly an idiot, the film that features him is very clever. Allen's early films are very absurd and Jewish and intellectual in nature; it took me years to get some of the references, and there a few I still don't get. I used to get that same sense from Dennis Miller before he stopped being a comic and started being a political hack. He used to be mean-spirited about and to everybody, and I thought that was funny. Now he's picked a side, and he sounds like an erudite Rush Limbaugh. Not as purely funny.

I like intelligent humor that takes whole worlds into account. I can watch a Larry the Cable Guy concert, but I don't really laugh much. He's funny sometimes, but his schtick gets old for me. And his movies are awful, just one bodily function joke after another. I have known people who like that sort of thing, but I have very little in common with them.

Then again, I've never cared for Jerry Seinfeld. His whole "observational" thing is very 70s to me. I watched his show a few times and had the same reaction I had to Friends: "OK. Next!" I do, however, love Larry David's Curb Your Enthusiasm. I know it's the same guy producing both shows, but Curb just does it for me. The show where he goes to heaven and meets his dead mother (played by the wonderful, late Bea Arthur) is hysterical.

I think standup comedy has gotten old and overexposed. There's just too much of it on TV anymore, and they all sound alike. Unless it's somebody like Lewis Black, who is unique and fresh, I'm more than likely bored. Do we really want to watch somebody stand there and tell jokes? I don't think I really like jokes very much. Situations, maybe. Stories. Things with layers.

“Time Heals” by Todd Rundgren

If you're bleeding,
Then everyone can see you're bleeding
They can call for the doctor,
Who'll provide what the diagnosis says you're needing
Then he'll take away your pain
But if your heart,
Your heart has been broken
And you don't wear it on your sleeve
No one can tell,
Your hell goes unspoken
But there's one thing you must believe

Time heals the wounds no one can see
Time heals the wounds that no one can see

If you're crying
Then everyone can see you crying
And they all sympathize
But it just doesn't matter
Though they may be trying,
They can't feel the hurt inside
You can't go on,
You've gone to the limit
And your life seems to slip away
You're on your own
Alone you must face it
And tomorrow's so far away

You got to hold on baby
Got to give it time to heal
Time heals the wounds that no one can see
You must believe what they say is true
It do's wonders for ya, yeah, yeah

A Linguistic Pet Peeve

You know what bugs me? People who use the word "fail" as a noun, as in "Obama? FAIL." How cliquish and cutesy and "nettish" can you get? It's started popping up all over the place (on the internet, of course), and I hope it doesn't extend far beyond it. Those kinds of deformations are really, really annoying because they mean absolutely nothing and they're just insulting. You can't just say, "That sucks?" I am NOT in favor of the "movement" that says language has to get more and more compact until it barely exists anymore. Words are beautiful things, and cramming them into tiny little electronic containers so they'll fit on a text messaging screen or whatever is just ridiculous. It takes me hours to send a text message, and my system doesn't have all the punctuation I need. It's like censorship!

It's a very frat boy kind of thing to do, that kind of mentality where everything has to be cute and uniform and everybody has to be alike. I've never lived that way, and never will. Well, I play a corporate cog at work…

More on Whole Language

Here's a very flawed treatise on how Whole Language doesn't "work," based on the writer's biases against new ideas and techniques: http://www.halcyon.org/wholelan.html

 

Here's a more unbiased view that just lays out the theories and doesn't take a position. Wouldn't it be nice to have more articles like this? http://www.funderstanding.com/content/whole-language

One quote from this article that I have to share; it sums up my whole concept of teaching writing:

"We learn language cumulatively by using it. Each language encounter, whether oral or written, builds more knowledge about the world, the function of symbols, and communication strategies. Consequently, each language transaction helps us perform the next one, whether it be oral, written, or mental. A whole language curriculum immerses students in situations requiring open-ended, complex language use."

This goes back to my baseball/cooking/instrument analogy cluster.

 

And finally, some mythbusting from the Center for Expansion of Language and Thinking (and how can you argue with a name like that?):

http://www.celtlink.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=52:what-whole-language-is-not-common-myths-and-misunderstandings&catid=34:fact-sheets&Itemid=57

Anybody Remember Ebonics?

I remember Ebonics extremely well. For those of you who don't know, Ebonics was a movement in the early-to-mid 90s that encouraged African Americans to use their "native language," i.e. the language of rap and "the street." It was briefly studied in universities, and some school curriculums were changed to reflect the non-standard use of English in the name of freedom or something like that. I was teaching at a historically black college at the time, and we had many discussions about Ebonics. Some of my students, who already spoke this way, championed their right of refusal to use proper grammar, syntax or any other facet of the language. A few faculty members thought it was a decent idea, but most were horrified (and I was the only white male at the school at the time). Why? Because language is about MAKING YOURSELF UNDERSTOOD.

As someone who grew up in the south, I remember both blacks and whites who butchered the language on a regular basis. They were all very difficult to understand, and they didn't get very far in life. Communication is one of the most important gifts we have as humans; we are able to make ourselves understood and share ideas and dreams and information. I believed then, as I believe now, that deliberately teaching to a faddish proto-language that very few people speak and that has no relation to communicating with others is a mistake. Yes, it might have been empowering for a while, but if I'm right, Ebonics died because nobody had any idea what these people were saying.

It's not a racial thing, at its core; it's a social thing. Some people are trying very hard to make the over-abbreviated, barely coherent mess that constitutes text messaging and twittering an "official language." I've had students who use net abbreviations (and even smileys!) in their papers. The honestly think that's acceptable language when you're trying to communicate with a broader segment of society. I'm hardly a conservative (for the record, since I get asked, I'm best described as a left-leaning Libertarian who sometimes thinks anarchy might not be a bad idea), but I do believe in proper English. Our teachers should be skilled in using the language (including writing, of course), and they should convey a love for our native language to their students. It's not about tradition; it's about communication. Our children should be prepared for the world they're going to go into, and a large part of that preparation is being able to present themselves intelligently in both spoken and written language. I read letters to my local newspaper online that are barely intelligible, and these are the people who ask why kids today don't get "the great educashun they done got."

Ignorance is never an excuse; it's sad, and it's preventable. I have a quote I attribute to myself, because I can't find anybody who's said it (please let me know if I'm stealing): "The minute you claim you know everything you need to know is the moment in which you know nothing." It's truly sad to me that today's kids are more concerned with choosing the right verb tense on a standardized test multiple-guess question than in writing an effective, logical paragraph. I see those kids every semester, and they struggle, not because they don't have writers in them, but because they have been taught to fill in little circles with number two pencils instead of USE the language. You don't learn to throw a baseball by taking a test on the way a baseball is made; you don't learn to cook by reading a cookbook. You don't learn to play a musical instrument by listening to music (and don't get me started on Guitar Hero). You learn these things by doing them, over and over again until you get them right. Writing is the same way. A grammar worksheet doesn't teach you how to write a grammatically correct sentence; at best, it shows you what to look for. But in my experience, very few students make that connection.

Speaking of movements, there was/is a movement in kindergartens called "Whole Language." It involves/d (among other things) letting the children write stories on big sheets of paper using whatever they want – some scribble, some draw pictures, some just sort of do whatever…but what they "write" is their story. When prompted, most children will "read" the same story virtually verbatim every single time. They are, for all intents and purposes, reading. The idea is to get them ready for the mental operation of writing, of creating, before they're ready to form letters and words and sentences. Then they can build upon that foundation by learning those very things, including (yes, critics…you're WRONG) phonics. The "Whole Language" classrooms I've observed were fascinating; the kids were so into their own little "writing styles," and they were exercising their creativity in a variety of ways. But as I think I've said before, creativity is a dirty word in today's America. We don't want our children to be "creative"; we want them to "practical." Look at any wealthy or famous person and you'll see somebody who did something creative that paid off. Nobody wins by being "practical." That just makes us sheep. We should be encouraged to be creative within reason, within the rules that have been set forth for us, and we should look for ways to bend those rules. Bend them, not break them…Ebonics, and other "movements" like it, sought to change the rules by ignoring them. The only way to change the system is from within, and if we encourage our children to be creative and think critically and question the world around them rather than letting others do their thinking for them, they'll be successful. I believe that passionately.

The Wonderful Catherine Keener

Catherine Keener is one of Hollywood's best kept secrets. She's been in so many films it's staggering, yet she's not the star she deserves to be. She's been involved in almost every aspect of the film industry, yet she's not a mover or a shaker. She is absolutely gorgeous, but she's not spoken of in hushed tones like a Nicole Kidman. She's a brilliant actor, but she's not held in the kind of esteem of a Meryl Streep, who wouldn't play some of the roles she's played.

I remember Catherine best for two roles: Nicole Springer in Living in Oblivion (with a great star turn by Steve Buscemi) and Trish in The 40 Year Old Virgin. In both films, she's the stabilizing influence in the main male character's life; she keeps him going; she gives him a reason to live. It's that strength that comes through the readily in her performances. She's not afraid to be strong, to not be the ingenue, to be a real, living, breathing woman in an industry that expects waifs. She's not afraid to be vulnerable, either, to show her weaknesses and work through them the way real people have to. She's very much a real person in her performances, and that's what I love about her. A good writer and a good director know how to work Catherine; they let her live her character and show that strength and that weakness all at once, to let her be a real person and let us live with it. She's so incredibly real. I, of course, don't know her personally (although I wish I did), but I would imagine she's just as real in person, no pretensions, no BS, just a person who does a job and does it well. Kind of like most of us.

I would seek out films with Catherine Keener in them. She's long been considered "The queen of the indies," but The 40 Year Old Virgin showed she can carry a major film. I'm waiting for her to star in a serious, big Hollywood film and burst into flame like nobody ever has before. She's earned it; anybody who works that hard for that long with that kind of talent is going to get their moment eventually.

Links

Laura Miller has an article in Salon.com about the way we use links in blogs. It's an interesting read, and she proposes (as I think others have before her) using endlinks, or endnotes if you will. As a former academic and current part-time teacher, I certainly recognize the MLA/APA influence, and the sense in it. What do you think? Does it make more sense to put links within the body of a blog, where they might be a distraction, or to place them separately at the end so they're all in one place and unobtrusive? Of course, I'm just throwing my link out, so there…

 

http://www.salon.com/books/laura_miller/2010/06/09/links

What Is The Writing Process?

We talk a lot about the "Writing Process" in freshman composition and creative writing classes (and some other classes, too), yet it always seems to be something abstract, a remnant of the 1970s mentality that discovered it. Yet do we really think about our own process? In today's individualized, "me first" society, the Writing Process should be a perfect fit. But my students don't seem willing or interested in exploring the way they write, not just their content. It's not unexpected, at least not by me; we also live in a society that expects instant results, and generating a bunch of ideas that we may throw away and not use just seems inefficient and wasteful.

The use of computers has changed the way we view writing as well – why take the time to do a bunch of stuff by hand when you can just key it in all at once? The logical sense of the wired world seems to fly in the face of the messiness of the human mind. Yet our minds are every bit as messy as they've always been – we don't think in a linear, robotic fashion. We have thoughts and ideas floating or flying by all the time (some of us more than others). Applications like Microsoft's OneNote (which I've only just started playing with) seem to be designed to cater to our messy, pigeonholed natures. I would love to do an extended study on using OneNote as a prewriting tool, in an electronic classroom with real students. Hopefully, Holmes will have a Writing Lab before too long and I'll be able to get a grant for that or something.

But there's still a use for the Writing Process, and maybe somebody is working on adapting it for the internet age (although the "internet age" has been around for a while).

OK, now I'm Googling it; here are some choice returns:

http://www.ldonline.org/firstperson/How_Computers_Change_the_Writing_Process_for_People_with_Learning_Disabilities

http://edweb.sdsu.edu/courses/edtec596r/students/Marushige/Marushige.html

http://www.edtechleaders.org/Resources/Readings/UpperElemLiteracy/Wood_ComputersWriting.htm

http://technologysource.org/article/writing_process_in_a_multimedia_environment/

http://www.tojet.net/articles/548.pdf

…just a few examples. Looks like a lot has been done on this. That's nice. I'm actually going to study this stuff. If you're one of my students, get ready for some computer-oriented "stuff."

But at its base, the Writing Process is just that – the way we write as individuals. Everybody's process is different. The "steps" are just basic categories the researchers came up with to describe the general work writers do. Each writer approaches his or her tasks uniquely, and the process can change depending on the nature of the task.

For instance, I am a technical writer for a living. My process for creating and maintaining Help and other software-related documents is different than that I use for other types of writing. I do a lot of prewriting – when a new feature comes up or something is changed in the software, I take a lot of notes in meetings where they tell us about what's being done. I draw screens where necessary and diagrams and whatever else I need so I'll understand what's being done. Then I draft based on those notes; I pick and choose the things my users need to know and take out the stuff that's for internal use only, or which they just don't need to know for whatever reason. I will often draft in my release notes, then transfer that draft (marking an additional revision, based on the fact that Help and release notes are aimed at different audiences) into the Help. My documents change form (and sometimes format) numerous times as the documents are revised and improved via meetings with my collaborators and the people who are doing the programming and testing. Quite often something will be rewritten in a grammatically incorrect way, so I have to fix it; that's always fun. It's constant revision and editing, and multiple drafts.

When I write for myself, my process is different. I don't have any collaborators, and I have nobody to please but myself (I do believe in an audience for poetry and fiction, but that's another blog). I tend to prewrite in form, meaning I don't freewrite or list or draw circles or any of that stuff; if I'm drafting a poem, I do it with linebreaks and a structure that finds itself as I write. Now, I have published poems that were first drafts, and I've done hundreds of drafts of poems nobody wants and everything in between, so I don't claim any success with any number of drafts. It all depends on the piece. I've even published a few short stories and magazine articles that were first drafts. If I'm "in the zone," I let it carry me. This, by the way, has not happened in a long time. When I was writing every day, it was much easier to get "in the zone." Now it's very difficult. I haven't written much of anything since I moved into my apartment. But I am inspired and energized by diving in and playing around with form from the get go. Mark Cox used to fuss at me about not prewriting properly, because he does; all I could say was that I found meaning in the form as well as the content, and they evolved together. If I'm going to freewrite, what comes out of that freewrite is likely to be prose. I'm not going to shove linebreaks into it for the sake of making a poem.

This is getting long. I could talk about the Writing Process all day; it's fascinating to think about the way you write, or the way you do anything and why. Think about the way you write, and why you do it that way. A few minor adjustments can make your writing more efficient and more effective in the long run as you find yourself not having to start from scratch when you need new information.

The Nature of Blogging

I had a blog for a few years; very few people saw it, I don't think. It got very political and very personal, and it just wasn't very nice or productive. Several weeks ago, a student in one of my University of Phoenix Creative Writing classes asked if I had a blog, because she wanted to read more of my writing. I was ashamed of the blog I had, so I couldn't give her a link.

That experience got me thinking: Why not have a blog where I use my real name and talk about the things I'm passionate about (besides politics and personal issues)? I teach composition (and sometimes English Lit and Creative Writing) at Holmes Community College – Ridgeland, and I teach Creative Writing and Film along with a couple of other courses for the University of Phoenix Online. Even though I gave up the majority of my instruments to move into my new apartment, I still consider myself a musician (definitely a fan, if not "practicing"). And I write as often as I can given the fact that I have 3 jobs that take up a lot of my time. I really do have a lot to say, and I can be much more constructive than to complain about online dating sites (which I did a lot before I got a girlfriend, and thanks, that's going well) or "out" hateful people or talk about conservatives when I really couldn't care less what they do as long as they leave me alone.

So this is my experiment, and I'm going to post a link to this blog for my students in case they're curious; isn't that the thing to do these days? I will be more careful with my language to engage a broader audience, and I'll talk about things I know and think about regarding all the stuff I do. So we'll have some writing stuff and some film stuff and maybe even some stuff on ethics (I teach a "capstone" course for the UOP on ethics and critical thinking). Will I get political? Occasionally, I'm sure; somebody is bound to have said "Everything is political" (although I can't find a quote). I won't fall for the standard "left-right" politics, though. More sexual politics or personal politics or academic politics or office politics. My new favorite quote:

"How can you govern a country which has 246 varieties of cheese?" - Charles De Gaulle

I did find an interesting article by Stanley Fish in the Chronicle of Higher Education (which I'm going to start reading again) about the notion that "Everything is political":

http://chronicle.com/article/Is-Everything-Political-/45993

Stanley Fish is like Noam Chomsky to me; you don't have to agree with him, but you have to admit he's done his homework.

This is my "adult blog." I had to go through a few years of posting on and off and really bottoming out on what I had to say before I realized I have more responsibility than that. And I might just make somebody think, or respond and start a great dialogue. This, hopefully, will be the blog people will read.

And oh, the title? I didn't know what to call it, so I typed something random, thinking it would be taken. It wasn't, so I'm sticking with it. I'm not nearly that arrogant. I hope if you know me you already know that. J