Love Letter In Care Of My Employer's IT Department

To whom it may concern:

I say "to whom it may concern" because I'm not quite certain whom it may concern. I'm fairly certain that the IT department knows, as it is responsible for carrying out your decisions. However, being that this is __________________, it's entirely possible that your decisions are filtered through so many layers of bureaucracy that the IT is ignorant of your existence. Perhaps, like the good angel portrayed by Al Pacino under the name John Milton, you prefer to keep your influence subtle and understated. In which case, I beg the IT department to forward this as best it knows. If the IT department itself is responsible for these policies, it may be wisest to remain silent; my love for the person in question is quite abundant and probably best enjoyed from a safe distance.

First, let me say that I appreciate how difficult your job is. So much lies within your purview: ensuring student safety, intellectual integrity, and above all wise use of time in an era where that horrible demon, the Internet, provides so many temptations to degradation, dishonor, and dissipation. Why, if you didn't block Wikipedia from student access, they might copy/paste info from it at school rather than at home! Worse, they might actually begin to research at school, starting in the familiar place, rather than giving up and googling whatever comes to mind. Indeed, this is so important that I understand when my own access is similarly blocked. I'm sure I'll find a detailed dissection of the differences between film and book elsewhere. Nothing makes me happier than seeking information and clicking on a link that leads immediately back to your "Blocked by ______" page - as per "student policies". It makes me feel so warm and fuzzy, knowing you think of me just like a student.

I'm also glad for the numerous blocks on "adult content". Heaven knows, high schoolers will never find a way to find pornographic material on school grounds as long as you block such sites as Cracked. Although it may sometimes impede searches for clever, witty examples of literary, scientific, and historical note, it helps me rest more easily, knowing that students who want smutty material are restricted to the very active hacked file in our school's student directory.

Ah, but most of all, I appreciate the way you block timewasters like blogs. Who knows how much time and effort might be wasted if teachers were allowed to participate in social sites while on school computers? Yesterday, instead of participating in social sites, I was strictly limited to helpful educational sites listing logical fallacies in helpfully exhaustive groups. Not once in my two hours of searching for helpful information was I distracted by a social networking site. Alas, I was unable to complete (or properly start) the lesson with such a wealth of information and was required to retire home. From home, I resumed my search. Not thirty seconds in, I was led astray by a socially networked blog by a teacher who had a detailed lesson plan on exactly the topic I intended to teach, complete with handouts and materials which probably saved me two hours on prep work.

I'm so glad you help by blocking blogs and social networking sites. I'm so glad that I can post this, secure in the knowledge that this will be so difficult to access from school that it will probably never come to your attention.

Love and kisses,
Mouse

Growing Pains

"Aslan," said Lucy, "you're bigger."
"That is because you are older, little one," answered he.
"Not because you are?"
"I am not. But every year you grow, you will find me bigger."

--from Prince Caspian by C.S. Lewis

I was thinking about this a lot last night at Bible study. We were studying the relationship between sin and grace. We started with a diagram that looked something like this:

On one hand, I have my awareness of God's holiness. On the other, I have my knowledge of my own sin. (These both tend to increase with time.) When one first becomes a Christian, the Cross tends to just barely bridge the gap. How could our understanding of God's grace exceed our knowledge of the gap between? For Christians like me, who converted at a very young age, the cross tends to start out very small. Unfortunately, sometimes it stays that way.

As time passes, the cross can seem to diminish in size. Sin not only fails to disappear after conversion - it growls and snarls and grows more rapidly than a hydra. God is not only as inaccessibly perfect as we had known at first - he is more so. And yet the cross too often fails to bridge the gap. So what do we do?

We fill the gaps artificially. We try to do good deeds - or have regular Bible studies - or pray - or something - to cover that extra gap between the top of the cross and God's holiness. We become increasingly dishonest - either with ourselves ("I'm not that bad") or with others. Oh, how very good I am at that last. I don't and wouldn't lie, of course. I just sit there uncomfortably silent when people ask for prayer requests when I desperately want prayer for x embarrassing spiritual problem in my life. (Note that I can't bring myself to specify a specific example even as I discuss the problem.) I just quietly despair as I compare my own lack of faith with my neighbors' faith. I can grow resentful of others' success and peace of mind; I can become peevishly convinced that everyone is a bunch of similar hypocrites anyway (or something like the world through the devil's mirror). It gets ugly.

You might notice how I flit around between "I do this", "one does this", and "we do this" in this post. It's because I'm still working through which applies where. Hey, let my confusion be reflected in stylistic confusion. One thing I wonder - is the fact that my first thought is of Aslan a sign that "Aslan" hasn't grown big enough for me? Have I failed to get to know him sufficiently in my own world? How can I get to where the cross is sized appropriately?

One thing's for sure: John 3:30. "He must increase, but I must decrease."

What Is Right and What Is Easy

I find myself in an awkward position regarding the Church and social morality. Well, it's not awkward on all fronts: I find that any "Christian" agenda which fails to provide for the poor and despised in our society is no Christian agenda at all. That's simple. I can even feel a bit smugly (self-?)righteous in the "caring for the despised" category, because not everyone is able to see this obvious point. But in the field of sexual morality, things get complicated. Largely because I can see traces of smug self-satisfaction in both the major visible camps, traces I can see in myself whichever stance I take.

I have grown up in a conservative environment. I've long understood the arguments against abortion, and I agree with them. I've long understood the arguments in favor of limiting sexual relationships to a heterosexual monogamous context, and I cannot disagree with them. Abortion is bad because it kills humans. God created sex for a purpose, and that purpose is clearly outlined in the Bible. Fairly simple.

Unfortunately, it got more complicated when I encountered a liberal environment. I understand the arguments against-against abortion (few, I find, are simply "for" it), and I agree with them. I understand the arguments in favor of permitting sexual relationships in a variety of contexts, and I cannot entirely disagree with them. Abortion can save lives. I find myself disgusted by finding some "pro-life" arguments which show exactly the sort of misogynistic anti-choice logic which I had dismissed as abortionist anti-life caricature. (But I never would argue for the life of the fetus over that of the mother without the mother's consent!) (But some would.) (But I would never demand that an unviable fetus be carried to term at the risk of the mother!) (But some would.) (But I don't want to punish women for promiscuity by refusing birth control, demanding they raise the baby, while permitting the man freedom from judgment! That would be totally contrary to even the Law of Moses!) (But some would.) As for alternatives to heterosexuality (yes, alternatives plural, for those concerned about a monolithic "homosexual agenda") - well, here's where I get into the really murky waters.

It is easy for me to condemn the sins which tempt me little.

It is easy for me to condemn the sins which I have buried in shrouding denial.

It is easy for me to condemn the sins which, condemned, still permit me to maintain my familiar lifestyle.

It is easy for me to condemn the sins which permit me to pretend love and Christian concern.

It is easy for me to condemn the sins which permit me to hate my enemy, curse them that curse me, do evil to them that hate me, and pray against them which despitefully use me and persecute me.

It is easy for me to condemn the sins which permit me to hate my neighbor as I hate myself.

I find that it is easy for most Christians to do these things. We want to take bold stands for Christ and stand for the right thing in despite of the World, the Flesh and the Devil, but we want to do so at the least possible cost to ourselves. History demonstrates that Christians have always been divided sharply when the time came to choose between right and wrong. I will be the first to point out the large role of the Church in abolition - but other members of the Church used the Bible, with more ease, to justify slavery, because abolition would involve change, discomfort, and an admission of sin. I will be the first to point out the large role of the Church in the Civil Rights movement - but other members of the Church used basic common sense to show how "unnatural" such indiscriminate Christian brotherhood would be.

I cannot take the liberal step of assuming the heterosexuality issue is identical to these previous issues. I cannot say that that which is inborn is inevitable. But I can and must note that conservatives have long declared homosexuality (let alone other sexualities) so impossible that it is invisible in much of the conservative community. It's one of the easy sins of the "other". Abortion is redefined as the lazy, cowardly, or callous slut's easy way out, and becomes one of the easy sins of the "other". So, conservatives: how do we know the Lord's will on sexuality is more literal and obvious in the Bible than His will on slavery or racial mixing? And every frickin' person debating abortion: how do we know the point at which the cells transform into an independent human being? Because those who assert the answer without considering it are less concerned with human rights than with the rights of the human they choose to like better.

I know, it's a set of tired, tired debates. But I worry that the divide in the Church is largely along the lines of what is easy for each side to declare right, and therefore making it possible to make what is easy = what is right. And what is right is rarely the same thing as what is easy. And the right way to determine what is right in a heated debate is rarely the same thing as the easy way to determine what is right.

Regarding the London Riots and Responsible Society

This was posted as a series of tweets by Tony Evans of The Times around noon British Summer Time today, and really struck me with truth. (Thanks to JoshR commenting on this interesting Mightygodking article for bringing it to my attention!)

First off, I don’t know what’s best. But this is what I do know. Unlike most of you, I’ve fought with police, I’ve thrown missiles at them, I’ve kicked in shop windows and looted stuff. I was born into an area that people told me was full of ‘the dregs of society’. I’ve been young, poor and angry. I’ve felt there was no opportunity in life and all that stretched in front was a bleak, penniless future. And I know that most people with happy, fulfilled lives don’t go on rampages of violence. I also know that successive Governments have put the pursuit of wealth ahead of maintaining a sense of community. When you’ve been told there’s no society, why would you care about other people? When you see the bankers nearly destroy capitalism and still get their bonuses, what do you think of personal responsibility? The key is making people believe they have opportunities in life, not opportunities to loot. And maybe the money spent intervening in a civil war in Libya would be better spent on schools. I could go on, but most of you have made up your minds. You get the society you create. Enjoy it.

AD- Ooh, Shiny!

I’m fairly certain I have ADHD – or, as a friend taught me to prefer calling it, ADOS (Attention Deficit – ooh, shiny!).

One of the things that most helps me to make sense of the rapid-fire thoughts in my brain is writing. Although I cannot string together five coherent thoughts in my brain, I can keep track of five coherent sentences (if only because I can reread what I’ve just written). Parentheses and dashes figure prominently, if only so I can interject – wait, I was supposed to put some crazy random idea there, but honestly the trees outside aren’t that random and attempts to write a stream of consciousness have generally been disastrous.

If there were a god of ADHD, it would surely be Mercury, the ever-changeable god of thieves, travel, and messages. And sometimes medicine. And pranks. And athletes. You get the idea. Mercury, the origin of the word for "mercurial", unpredictability, and the element once known as quicksilver...

Quicksilver-thoughts
Droplets rolling, roiling, pairing, parting
Never-still never-same – patterning poorly
Irregular, unexpected
Interjected
Accepted, rejected, undetected
Beautiful impossible shiny fishes slithering away
Flipping flippantly fluidly ungraspably
How does one order?
How can one make them line up straight and neat
Like iambs marching meekly in a row,
Not one undone, not one left incomplete
Each clearly placed just where it ought to go?
How does one trim the tangled skein of knots
To show a web of tidy tied-up thoughts?
And then the volta's early, out of place
Throwing off the rhythm and the rhyme
Uncertainty comes running on apace
Off-kiltering the slightly twisted line
The yarn unravels, raveled at the ends
Fibers fraying every which-a-way
The rhythm falters, breaking as it expends
Fails the ordering, all thought gone astray.
Empty
Gone
Ashes, dust, decay
Order drives quicksilver thought away.

That poem, by the way, makes more sense if you’re familiar with the sonnet form. (English teacher here; English class is, at least, good for helping you understand an English teacher’s metaphors!) The lines in between “How does one order?” and “Empty” are a warped sonnet. A classic sonnet is fourteen lines, each line in iambic pentameter (iamb: da-DUM beat; pentameter: five such beats) and following a fairly rigid rhyme scheme (multiple options here). The two most popular sonnet forms, Petrarchan and Shakespearean, both usually have a volta, or switch in tone, toward the end. The volta is usually after the eighth line or twelfth…

I miss the classroom.

This is why I’m a teacher, employed or not. I find this stuff so incredibly interesting, I can go on for ages.

And I adore sonnets. It’s doubtful I’ll ever consider myself a poet, but the organization of thought is wonderful.

And this whole post I’m typing in Word in my car on the way home, and I’ll probably edit it heavily before posting, but sometimes… sometimes it’s necessary to think out on paper. Even if thoughts come in ADHD-disorganized fashion. Squirrel!

Note: Didn't end up heavily edited at all. Although I did do a bit of fact checking; on what, I dare not reveal. ;)

The Magic Chord Progression

This is a real digression from my usual blog topics, and given my readership (limited, I believe, to various friends and relatives countable on fingers and toes) I'm unlikely to get any useful new info, but hey...

I love playing around with music. I've even written a song or two. And yes, most popular music is very limited in chord structure. (Have I scared you with the words "chord structure"? It will get more technical. Perhaps now is the time to bail out.) Most songs use the same three or four chords in any of the dozen different major keys. Being a keyboardist first and foremost, I tend to think of them in the key of C: C, F, G, maybe some Am or Em action, D7 if you want some variety... but you can get a lot of mileage out of just C, F, and G if you can get the song in that key.

Despite the fact that there are only a few chords, however, the potential variety of chord progressions is pretty good. "Rock Around The Clock" has F C G and a final resolve to C on its famous chorus (averaging to one chord per line - and yes, I transposed it), while "Blowin' In The Wind" just repeats CFGCFGCFG on its verses... I'm sure that there's a technical term in music theory for these patterns, but the point is, same chords do not equal same chord structure. Same chord structure is much rarer.

I don't know when I first noticed the magic chord progression, but it was some time before I wrote my first proper song. In Roman numeral notation, it goes vi-IV-I-V - in the key of C, it comes out A minor - F major - C major - G major. And it's my theory that songs with this progression are inclined to Awesome.

It's in the chorus of "All You Wanted". It's in the whole dang song "Save Tonight".  It's in the verse of "Lord Have Mercy". It's in the chorus of "My Savior My God" and "Defying Gravity". It's in the chorus of "Our God" and "Better Than A Hallelujah" and "One Of Us".

The feeling is just one of moving from smallness to greatness, wavering between pain and indescribable joy. And I love it.

So, if I have any readers with whom I have not discussed this ad nauseum in real life: can you think of any others? And can you think of any which somehow fail the Awesome criterion (except possibly on the basis of lyrics)?

ETA: How could I have forgotten "Save Tonight"???

Dear Prospective Employer

Dear Prospective Employer,

I'm looking for a job. I'm looking specifically for a job teaching the English language (such as is useful for students with a working fluency already) and literature published in the English language. And your school looks like one I'd really love to work at. I can't say how badly I want to work there. Or else your school looks like one I'd tolerate working at in preference to giving it all up to become a stock trader. (I hate complicated money issues, competition, and regular risk-taking. Stock trading rates below digging ditches on my potential job interests.) Sadly, I can't tell you if you're merely tolerable, and if your school is one I love, the praise sounds like flattery. There's no winning there.

Of course, I can't tell you why I'm no longer at my last job; I'm not too clear myself. The only thing I'm clear on is that it wasn't my choice, and I'm pretty sure you don't want to hear that. Not sure you want to hear that "I'm a potentially amazing teacher if I get some help in these areas", but it's true. I have a ton of assets that I can bring to the job. I'm just not entirely self-sufficient.

But you don't want to hear that, do you? You want to hear about my exquisite perfection as a potential employee. You want to hear about how great I am, how flawless I am, etc etc. And I guess I could brag on myself some more. Thing is, though? I'm much more aware of my faults. I spend a lot more time worrying about them.

But enough about me. Let's see what you want to know. Sadly, those of you who fall into the "love" category have not told me much; all I know is what the "tolerable" folk want to know:

After a bad day...

He appeared to be a singularly ill-used man. His parents had never appreciated him and none of the five schools at which he had been educated seemed to have made any provision for a talent and temperament such as his. To make matters worse he had been exactly the sort of boy in whose case the examination system works out with the maximum unfairness and absurdity. It was not until he reached the university that he began to recognize that all these injustices did not come by chance but were the inevitable results of ...

-C.S. Lewis, The Great Divorce

I cut the quote where it stopped being remotely relevant to me (digressing into political issues), but the remainder might be summarized as "two further pages of displacing all responsibility."

Feeling this today. I am exactly the sort of girls in whose case the examination system works out with the maximum unfairness and absurdity - in my favor. It is all the fault of the system that my childhood and adolescence taught me that hard work and responsibility are legendary things which, in my own case, are entirely useless for anything but spoiling fun. It is the fault of the system that I now lack the discipline and willpower to do everything needed in my life.

It's the fault of the system entirely.

In other news, taught my students about irony today. Hope this is recognizable as verbal irony.

Fair Use and Film

"In thinking it through, I made the analogy that if a student had written a paper that utilized four cleverly selected quotes from significant novels to make their point [instead of using four video clips], I would be exceedingly impressed by their literacy skills." -Quoted in The English Teacher's Companion by Jim Burke, page 326

This line struck me like a thunderbolt as I was reading for class. Since the inception of copyright law, fair use clauses have permitted people to quote limited amounts without any concern for copyright. I don't need to pay the author to lift a line or two, as long as I don't claim that author's work as my own; I can quote for reviewing or academic purposes freely, and no one cares if I quote a few lines in an original work of my own (again, as long as I give credit where credit is due).

So what's the deal with fair use for films? A quick Google search yields no regulations about film use, but there's a certain illicit feel to film clips and screencaps. Am I legally liable if I arrange a bunch of film "quotes" from copyrighted works into a new work? If I use a series of screencaps for a show? Why is there a distinction, and why are companies permitted to employ DRM which prevents even fair use of their works?

I don't deal in music and video editing, so the relevance to my life is limited. But with YouTube becoming increasingly regulated re: copyright, I can't help wondering whether anyone will remember the vital use of fair use in analysis, study, and creativity.

A tale of two puppies

My beloved dog has lived with our family for almost all of her fourteen years. Even though she is now old, graying and arthritic, she is still Puppy to me. When we take her for walks, she is still mistaken for a puppy (she's vaguely the size and shape of a half-grown Lab, enough that someone who doesn't know dogs well will think she is one despite a rather different build), so I guess I may be a bit justified in my opinion.

Which makes it hard to think of how to compare her to my sister's six-month-old boxer/pit bull mix. He is far more a puppy than Puppy, but is probably ten to twenty pounds heavier and altogether on a different scale. Already I'm calling him Beast. Last night went something like this:

Beast-Puppy: Play!
Old-Puppy: Yay! I feel young!

*five minutes later*

Beast-Puppy: Play harder!
Old-Puppy: Gettin' tired...

*five minutes later*

Beast-Puppy: Play?
Old-Puppy: Sleepin' now in bed. Go 'way.

Christianity And

My dear Wormwood,
The real trouble about the set your patient is living in is that it is merely Christian. They all have individual interests, of course, but the bond remains mere Christianity. What we want, if men become Christians at all, is to keep them in the state of mind I call 'Christianity And'. You know -- Christianity and the Crisis, Christianity and Faith Healing, Christianity and Psychical Research, Christianity and Vegetarianism, Christianity and Spelling Reform. If they must be Christians let them at least be Christians with a difference. Substitute for the faith itself some Fashion with a Christian colouring...

That would be the introduction to the 25th Screwtape Letter, and if you don't know what that means, please see the link. C.S. Lewis at his finest.

I have grown particularly sick of the current Fashion in America to describe Christianity as Christianity and Conservatism, or Christianity and Republicanism, or the battle cry "For God, America and St. George W. Bush!" (or whomever shall replace said fallen idol). While God may have opinions in American politics, I doubt very much that He has anointed any particular political party or political organization with the whole measure of His blessing and favor; democracy leaves little room for the divine right of kings, after all, and if God favors America, He surely favors democracy. The inherent conflation of "religious" and "neither left nor center" in "Religious Right" worries me, especially the gnawing suspicion that some members see a different "right" in that phrase - "We are the ones to the right; therefore, we are the ones IN the right!"

Still, I know plenty of people who belong to the Religious Right who place their faith in God first and foremost, who are wonderful, decent Christians and possibly better in their faith than I can ever be. The movement, therefore, is not spawned of Satan, whatever I would like to believe when Religious Right spokespeople appear on television. I've learned to view quite a lot of fallacies as either merely amusing or fallacies on the part of the liberal interpreter rather than the conservative speaker.

Therefore, I was shocked to learn about the Conservapedia Bible Translation Project. Now, my link is to an outside source. This is intentional. I do not wish to encourage the project by diverting any traffic its way, and this article does a fairly good job describing and quoting it. If, like me, you find it unbelievable, an exaggeration or joke, there is a link to the actual project inside the article. The link to the actual project may not work at the moment; Stephen Colbert set the Colbert Nation to work last night vandalizing the project, and probably-not-coincidentally the servers for the Bible Project are currently unreliable. But you know. You can figure it out.

This project, ladies and gentlemen, proposes that the Bible itself is too liberal as received and needs to be adjusted accordingly. There appears to be some restraint; excisions are technically limited to later additions to the text and the suggested word replacements have at least a shred of validity. But any "translation" which works by adjusting the KJV by fiat rather than learning and interpreting the original languages... does not deserve the name "translation". At best, it is a paraphrase; at worst, a retcon. The guidelines look suspiciously like a retcon. (I was not aware, for instance, that Jesus' parables were supposed to be a clear and unambiguous statement of support for the free market.) This is considerably beyond Christianity And. This is getting into And Christianity. Or, Is Christianity. We can change the Bible, because if God Himself supports our ideology, we are justified in putting words in His mouth to clarify His position.

This is exactly the kind of thing I hate. Christianity is loving the Lord thy God and loving thy neighbor as thyself. Christianity is doing unto others as thou wouldst have them do unto thee. Christianity is not defined by capitalism, small government, military spending, the death penalty, or harsher jail sentences by any logical stretch. Christian politics ought to have priorities in line with Christ's. To me, this means that homosexual marriage is a nonissue; divorce is a more pressing one. If abortion is to be a priority issue, for the love of all that is holy, hold politicians accountable - don't permit a politician to buy your vote with an entirely empty promise to "support" abortion prevention, and don't permit a politician to give lip service to that ideal while performing unChristian acts in every other area.

Got that?

Now here's the hellishly tricky part for me. It's incredibly tempting to fight Christianity and Conservatism by becoming Christianity and Anti(Christianity and Conservatism). I have friends who entice me into Christianity and Liberalism - which, with some idiot Conservapedia people thinking that forgiveness is a Liberal concept (fine, I caved and linked directly), seems awfully tempting to believe. If being forgiving is inherently liberal, wouldn't that mean that Christianity is inherently liberal? The only judgment and damnation I recall in the NT was on people who claimed to be believers but acted falsely. There I go, buying into the Christianity And Anti-Anti-Christianity again.

It comes back to learning to stand - learning to follow God Himself, to stand for God rather than against something else. I am not called to rant about the follies of legalism. (Howevermuch fun Paul might have had doing so. So, so much fun.) I am not called to go out of my way to confront fringe elements, and it's not like I have any erring high authorities to correct in the daily course of things. I have to drop "Christianity And", even when the "and" is fighting "Christianity And". Of course, this can create an infinite regression of Christianity And Anti(Christianity And)...

I see only one thing to do at the moment. Your patient has become humble; have you drawn his attention to the fact? All virtues are less formidable to us once the man is aware that he has them, but this is specially true of humility. Catch him at the moment when he is really poor in spirit and smuggle into his mind the gratifying reflection, 'By jove! I'm being humble', and almost immediately pride - pride at his own humility - will appear. If he awakes to the danger and tries to smother this new form of pride, make him proud of his attempt - and so on, through as many stages as you please.

Oh, Number 14, how thou knowest me.

New look

Look! A shiny new template. I'n'it pretty?

Screw introspection, dangit

And the question pops up again, making me want to tackle innocent bystanders until it gets answered.

Did you click the link?

No?

I can wait till you do.

Okay, hopefully you clicked the link and hopefully it took you to Johnny the Tackling Alzheimer's Patient. If not, look it up. It's worth it. Best Scrubs-joke-to-become-a-running-family-joke ever.

Who am I?

At the moment, I'm not terribly concerned about the deep philosophical implications. I feel like I know myself pretty well. The whole existential who-are-we-as-human-beings thing? It's an interesting question to pursue, but not one I have a pressing need to figure out at the moment. I'm good with self-knowledge and pretty happy with my current level. 'S all good.

But apparently, it's not enough to know myself. I have to explain myself to everyone else - within the space of a single piece of paper. Or multiple pieces of paper. You see, I'm doing a job application which involves not only a resume, but also an autobiographical statement. Simultaneously, I'm having to revise my "Who am I?" essay for my teaching class. I have to figure out, not who I am, but how best to project my identity onto a few pieces of paper - and not even my identity, but that part of my identity which is acceptable for introducing myself to a stranger who may wish to employ me. So I have to figure out the balance between honesty and reserve - as Hitch would say, "not show it all at once, but show the real you." What part of me is the part that needs to go on that paper?

And do I really care?

I'm irreverent and flippant and silly, because I'm passionately, fervently and intensely dedicated to things that either don't interest or outright scare other people. (Old stories and language would be in the former, religion the latter.) I'm slow to commit and I keep my commitments few on the ground, because I'm intensely loyal and I'll give my all once I'm committed. I follow the rules meticulously when I agree with them and break them spectacularly when I don't - which makes me an unpredictable employee. Don't get me wrong, I don't randomly break rules - I go through discussing, disputing, etc if something really doesn't work for me. I'm just going to do what I think is right, and if negotiation doesn't work...

Well, that's not something you put on stuff for an employer to see. "Creative," "determined," what have you, but not "occasionally stubborn as a mule." Also, "laid back" and "adaptable" can be good, but "lazy" really can't. Not that I'm okay with laziness, but if I'm talking about myself...

Also I have a possible addiction to ellipses...

But I'm not sure...

Gah. This doesn't even get into detailing accomplishments for my resume. I hate resumes.

And I don't wanna talk about me. Don't wanna talk about "I". And if I want to talk about Number One, that's some other Guy. Why? Why? Why?

Screw introspection. And linguistics, while we're at it.

Nothing to say

I really don't have anything to say as I start this post. I've simply had my fill of reading, reading, reading for my class on Differentiating Instruction and must transition to writing somehow. Of course, the ideal outlet would be to write on my reading in the class forums, but I find I am disinclined to acquiesce to that suggestion.

This taking-classes-online thing is tricky, especially for an unemployed person with poor natural time-management skills. I also find myself with far too little time to write, too little time to talk, too little time to connect with people - because the natural connections of work and class have been broken. I suppose I could still write (look! I write! I'm a writer!), but I'm always left with the feeling that time could be better spent doing homework.

Perhaps this time could be better spent journalling ...

*glares at spellcheck*

You know, there is no law in the English language which definitely governs whether one does or does not double the final consonant when adding a verb ending. This little Microsoft Word convention seems to have caught on everywhere, but doubled final consonants are traditionally just an alternative, albeit more common in British usage than American. "Journalling" ought to be as acceptable as "journaling"...

...oh.

It is? Equally unacceptable?

Then learn a new verb. And learn also the word "spellcheck." You might find it useful.



There. Done. Where were we? Ah, yes, I could be journalling or working on fiction as well, but that requires that I actually feel like talking to myself (hmm, most of my recent journal entries are discussions of what I'm learning in class) or that I have an idea for a fiction story. Perhaps I should start a blog, even less frequently updated, wherein I publish my short fiction and poetry. It would be eagerly mobbed as people marveled (fine, I didn't double it, are you happy spellcheck?) at my brilliant ideas, then abandoned (or torch-and-pitchforked; maybe I should invest in a ruined castle or old windmill?) as everyone realized that I never get beyond ideas into an actual finished work worth reading. Except in essays where teachers insist on my finishing. Perhaps I should try reworking old essays for blog posts? But this of course will not interest many people. I find it brilliant that I pitted Beowulf against St. Andrew and brought in Sir Gawain to comment on the balance of faith and physical strength, along with Unferth making snide comments about Beowulf and St. Augustine pulling for Andrew, but few people will have both the knowledge base and the right sense of humor to appreciate it.

There's really only one solution. Post, and wikilink it to death so that everyone will learn more about these important topics! Now if only I can find a text of Andreas online.

And now for something completely late

As a junior in high school, I wrote an essay of which I was rather proud. I was given two months to write a comparison/contrast essay on a topic of my choice. I chose men and women. I learned a vitally important lesson: never choose the topic covered by the Dave Barry column you read in class. Your essay will not measure up.

We had to write multiple drafts, and I realized my mistake by the end of the first draft. Unfortunately, I then had only one night left to complete my remaining four required drafts. I was panicking (my notes show that I was considering comparing/contrasting Batman with Larry-Boy). Then, in a moment of inspiration, I discovered a topic and wrote one of my favorite compositions.

I typed it at the school library and failed to save a copy, which distressed me for years. Then, cleaning out my room one day, I discovered a folder full of schoolwork that I had considered important. Inside was my essay! There was much celebration. I determined to transcribe it as soon as possible. It has been a few years since.

In the frantic atmosphere of the end of the semester, I thought of this paper often. Now, having finished my last take-home final, I think it is time to transcribe the essay. Call it deep, call it important, call it thought-provoking - if you can do so with a straight face. And now, after nine years, I present my well thought-out Englilsh paper:

The Procrastinator and the Planner

Snapshots of Stefansdom

Flipping through my Bible, I notice that God is described in many ways, often with contradictions or complications. It's very hard to get a bead on the details of who this God person is. Sometimes, he is outraged by sin, reduced to sputtering name-calling by the offenses of his people. Sometimes he insists that he can never lose patience, never leave, never forsake. Sometimes God is just, and sometimes God has no patience for those who insist on justice over mercy, nor for those who ask for signs of justice in a horrible, unjust situation. David begs God to stay near, because God's presence is a comfort and strength; Job demands God leave him alone, because God's presence is agony. Sure, the loving God comes out more often, but these various portraits don't always line up, and no amount of theological explanation will ever truly fix the fact that we live in a world with evil and ugliness that simply do not fit with our beautiful Savior.

I see the same disjointedness in people discussing God. Sure, a lot of attributes overlap, but some people mostly notice that we fall short of God's glory - the whole "and God saw that it was very good" and "we are God's workmanship" are anomalies. Some people just love their Jesus and their Jesus loves them, and it seems like their Jesus is an exceptionally huggy teddy bear to those of us who feel our dry spells more keenly. Some people fear God's judgment, others feel God's compassion for the needy, and some people seem to think that God is a cosmic boss who sort of checks in now and again to make sure you're making quota, but doesn't notice much as long as you're doing your job okay.

(An unrelated note: why does this spellcheck not like "okay", or "spellcheck" for that matter? Fine, "spellcheck" is a dubious word, but "okay" has been with us for decades. Learn it, o dictionary.)

We work very hard trying to consolidate and piece together these different concepts of God, adjusting for bias, etc. But forming a detailed AND coherent picture seems impossible. It reminds me of my attempts to piece together my snapshots of Stefansdom.

I visited Stefansdom, or St. Stephen's Cathedral, in Vienna in 1996, and I was awed by its Gothic grandeur. From the courtyard, I started frantically taking pictures with my boxy Barbie camera, working my way ever so carefully from the foundation to the top of the steeple, planning the overlap, so that when I got home I could reconstruct the entire view of this impressive structure. I believe eight pictures were needed. A few months later, I was nearly in tears. For some reason, the lines simply wouldn't line up. The collage was fractured, an image collected through shattered glass. I didn't understand - I hadn't walked around or anything.

It wasn't until my high school photography class that I learned exactly what had gone wrong. Careful as I had been, I'm only human. To collect pictures and have even a chance at assembling them neatly, the camera needs to be held at exactly the same point, swiveling and tilting from a perfectly fixed center - and even then, the photos will fit together far better in a three-dimensional space than in a flat scrapbook.

Now try applying this to our image of God! Our lenses aren't anywhere near big enough to grasp the whole thing. We have to be content with assembling snapshots from different perspectives, different distances, different times - and then pulling them together in a small, flat space to look at. Of course the result is going to be crazed. From a hundred feet away, a matter of seconds and the tilt of my twelve-year-old head from a fixed point was enough to shatter Stefansdom. The difference from those close to God, those far, those hiding, those now and then is enough to cause a lot more confusion.

Still, those snapshots do serve a purpose. Shattered though the image may be, I can still recognize Stefansdom when I see it in my pictures. If we collect enough snapshots, maybe we can reconstruct God enough to recognize him when we see him. Once we see him, the snapshots can be filed away. They are nothing to the sight we see before us in life.

Religion in schools

I was required to write on a "contemporary issue" for my secondary experience class, and we've been talking about religion and schools. Guess what I ended up writing on?

Bear in mind that I'm writing to an audience of scientists very dismissive of religious priorities, and I'm wishing I could address my fellow Christians. My tone gets kind of confusing otherwise.

I've discussed religion frequently in the eJournals, but I can't help bringing it up again. Perhaps it is in part because I wish I could explain to the fervent fundamentalists how much a thoroughly secular education has helped my own faith. I also grow tired of defending my love of God and my love of scholarly analysis; it seems I am expected to choose one or the other. The culture wars are just as much an issue in the modern church as in any secular sphere, and as hotly debated. So much for "if it is possible, so far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone"! And, of course, at least one college friend has asked condescendingly how I can be so smart and still be religious. So much for open-mindedness!
Religion is at the core of our lives, and defines us if it is itself defined. This is the crucial understanding for a secular school. We do not want to deny that which defines many of our students in a positive way. Imagine if all mention of football or art were forbidden at school! Yet to truly allow religion, we cannot advocate any one religion. My test has always been this: would I be happy if the same lesson were given with an equally Muslim/Jewish/Hindu/Buddhist slant? If we are discussing the history of the Reformation or the influence of Christianity on literature, yes, I generally would be happy. It would be beneficial to learn more about the Sunni/Shiite split or the Eastern influence on Modernism. I actually came up with my idea for a religion/philosophy class because of the variety of philosophies I've encountered in debates. It's impossible to understand how reasonable minds can differ if we do not understand the other reasonable minds. Fundamentalists ought to recognize the value of knowing their demographic if they view all other faiths as merely the unconverted awaiting conversion. Non-fundamentalists know that intolerance can be broken only by understanding and empathizing.
In the humanities, it's easy enough to stick to factual ground - "x people believed this and acted thus". Ironically, it's the sciences where religion gets dodgy. And again ironically, it's the immense respect which the ignorant have for science which causes some of the problem. Creationists fear evolutionary theory not because they think science is worthless, but because they think science proves truth. Knowing truth cannot contradict truth, and knowing the Bible is true, they think the science supporting evolution must be faulty. The creationists I know earnestly believe that credible science must prove the Bible, and that the creation science must therefore be more credible than evolutionary science. It then becomes a simple question of whether we intend to teach real science or a flimsy excuse to support atheism.
Isn't it lovely how the problem gets inverted? Therefore, the biggest mistake any teacher can make, the biggest mistake any other person can make, is to treat it as simply a religious debate - because we don't want to cede the religious debate to the godless atheists. Similarly, it's silly to think we'll persuade everyone that science could draw a conclusion that might contradict the infallible Word of God.
In a broad-minded community, I don't think the problem would get too severe. In a narrow-minded community, I might encourage biology teachers to teach the entire course through the lens of evolution, to allow time to deal with all the objections. I would introduce the course with a discussion of Bacon and secondary causes - the idea that science started with the assumption that God did it, but that "God did it" is not a sufficient answer, and that science is about examining secondary causes - if God did it, how God did it. The class could then examine the evidence for evolution themselves. Parents could be allowed to participate. What is our best guess for how God did it? Plenty of intelligent design folks would be happy to provide evidence that young earth is unlikely, and coming from a source designed to combat godless evolution, a religious community might be more ready to accept the flaws in young earth theory. Gaps in evolutionary theory could be admitted with the caveat that just because we don't know, it doesn't mean we'll never figure out a good reason for this. Children inclined to explain this with intelligent design could: though intelligent design is an unscientific theory (because it involves God, not just secondary causes), it is not problematic as a philosophy. The problem could be a marvelous opportunity to examine what science is and isn't, and how conclusions are reached. However, it would require a great deal of time, because creationism delights in posing complicated questions and demanding simple answers.
Prayer in schools, the Ten Commandments in schools... honestly, if people can't tell the difference between their faith and the trappings of their faith, they're in trouble. No person's right to pray in school should be abridged. No person's right to display religious teachings should be abridged. I'm inclined to think that if someone wants to say a prayer at a commencement, as long as it doesn't include terms of "and smite/enlighten the godless heathens here present" or "give us faithful victory", it should be considered acceptable; good wishes should always be acceptable, and those good wishes expressed through prayer can be the more earnest. If the Ten Commandments are on display, it had better be for a comparison with Hammurabi's Code or some such, because otherwise one might as well post the rules on kosher or the five pillars of Islam. Again, if a similar thing involving another faith would be offensive, your faith shouldn't be privileged.
As for abstinence and other questions of sexuality, I think a little pragmatism is vitally important. Parents need to take the responsibility to teach their children their values on sex and drugs; it is the duty of the school only to teach what is wise and foolish according to secular standards. In secular America - well, I almost typed "sexular America" there, and I'm not sure that Freudian slip isn't accurate. If parents do not wish their children to learn what can be discovered everywhere in America, those children should be kept safely at home. If parents do not believe even in safe sex outside marriage, they should be able to explain to their children why. It might be wise for schools to include the emotional aspects of sex in sex education, but the responsibility for transcending the secular standard lies at home. Perhaps youth group Sunday Schools should start sex ed!
This paper may have been more of a description of my beliefs than an action plan, but what can I say? My beliefs will be integral to how I act on this issue. I may as well know what they are. I don't think America's future depends on solving our religious conflicts. Conflicts, smart and stupid, have been here throughout America's history, and this fight causes less damage than some. I think the future of the faithful, though, looks grim if they can't stop fighting for God to follow God.

I'm a teacher! I teach! - The First Hurdle

Today was a very important day. Today, for the first time, I faced down a class of high school students and taught them a lesson. I am officially a teacher!

(That is, until I'm flushed with triumph about teaching with my first official lesson plan in my methods course next semester. Or until I'm student teaching next spring. Or until I get my license. Or until I have my own classroom. Or until I've finished my first year. Or until that magic day when the class REALLY gets it. I reserve the right to name any and all future days The Official Start Of My Teacherness.)

How did I manage? Heroically, considering my deep dislike of presentations. I took presenting an old Scottish ballad to a bunch of apathetic, academically indifferent teenagers, looked it squarely in the eye, and... got myself good and drunk first, my old coping mechanism for nerve-wracking assignments.

Those who do not know me will have entirely the wrong impression now; those who do will be utterly confused. I do not use alcohol or any other foreign chemicals to get plastered. I simply distract myself working or surfing the Net or reading till the not-so-wee hours of the morning, and fatigue poisons do the rest. I used to think it was just procrastination; now I wonder if it's a half-deliberate attempt to hit an altered state of consciousness where I no longer feel nervous or frustrated, only euphoric or depressed.

Anyway, I chose my poem well. I managed to get the kids discussing the nature of fairies, and I managed to stop them at the point when they were looking at me funny by explaining that I wanted to discuss the magical kind. And they stuck with that! The first two verses, I let 'em struggle with the original poem. Then I asked them what they thought it meant, when the last stanza warns "'And nae maid comes to Carterhaugh /And a maid returns again.'" They seemed to agree with the girl who decided it must mean no maid ever comes back alive. All attention was riveted on me when I explained that the second time, "maid" was being used in the sense of "virgin". :-D It's sad how predictably it works, actually - load on the sex, and the kids are completely involved. After that point I gave them my quick translation so they could follow without getting utterly lost.

I lost their attention during the lengthy passage on how to free Tam - in retrospect, I should have emphasized more the odd situation of the man being the damsel in distress. Overall, I felt like I did an adequate job, but I could have done better. I also felt like I was getting off easy. This class was taught by an extremely experienced, competent, and deft teacher whose students were polite and well-behaved for this stranger while their teacher was watching. The teacher had also gotten their sympathy for me by comparing my student teaching to their senior exit presentations. The teacher also covered what would have been a woeful lack if I had been going solo - I completely neglected to review, highlight important points, take questions, etc. The teacher covered for me so naturally that I doubt the students noticed. I'm just glad it wasn't a formal lesson assignment. The review is the part where you actually hammer the lesson home; otherwise, odds are it'll be forgotten by nightfall. The teacher also improvised an excellent assignment: allow the students to write their own ballad. I would have spent more time collectively plotting before splitting the students into groups to work on different sections, but then, I would have planned this in advance or I wouldn't have been able to think of it at all. The teacher was improvising brilliantly with the time I left over.

I'm not being too hard on myself; I did well for what it was, and it's okay that I still have things to learn to pay attention to. (Dangling prepositions will be permitted in my class, thank you very much.) Still, it did get me thinking. I did a fraction of what a teacher needs to do, and I got the following review from a teacher who knows enough to know the lack:

"Ms. [gosh, it's weird to be called by my last name] taught a lesson on ballads (emphasis on "Tam Lin") on April 18. She had a class of 17 English IV Standard students in the palm of her hand. When she completed her lesson, the class decided she should be their teacher until the end of the year. :)"

Is it blasphemous that I spent the latter half of the period thinking about how God covers for us? We're allowed to stand or fall for the part we're ready to play, but for the rest, He covers so deftly that we look like we did something we can't. Here, a teacher made it look like I can teach a class. (Actually, God was probably involved too. Three hours of sleep following a sleep-deprived week, then no caffeine... but then, adrenaline does something too.) Another time, I might hold my temper with that complete and utter idiot, or I might offer good emotional support, or some sudden insight... but the minute I think I'm really doing well, that it's my contribution that's making the most difference, I'm kidding myself.

Still lots to learn and grow into!

The Terrible Trivium

Yes, I'm starting with another quote. Let's face it: quotes are how I frame the world.

The Humbug whistled gaily at his work, for he was never as happy as when he had a job which required no thinking at all. After what seemed like days, he had dug a hole scarcely large enough for his thumb. Tock shuffled steadily back and forth with the dropper in his teeth, but the full well was still almost as full as when he began, and Milo's new pile of sand was hardly a pile at all.

"How very strange," said Milo, without stopping for a moment. "I've been working steadily all this time, and I don't feel the slightest bit tired or hungry. I could go right on the same way forever."

"Perhaps you will," the man agreed with a yawn (at least it sounded like a yawn).

"Well, I wish I knew how long it was going to take," Milo whispered as the dog went by again.

"Why not use your magic staff and find out?" replied Tock as clearly as anyone could with an eye dropper in his mouth.

Milo took the shiny pencil from his pocket and quickly calculated that, at the rate they were working, it would take each of them eight hundred and thirty-seven years to finish.

"Pardon me," he said, tugging at the man's sleeve and holding the sheet of figures up for him to see, "but it's going to take eight hundred and thirty-seven years to do these jobs."

"Is that so?" replied the man, without even turning around. "Well, you'd better get on with it then."

"But it hardly seems worth while," said Milo softly.

"WORTH WHILE!" the man roared indignantly.

"All I meant was that perhaps it isn't too important," Milo repeated, trying not to be impolite.

"Of course it's not important," he snarled angrily. "I wouldn't have asked you to do it if I thought it was important." And now, as he turned to face them, he didn't seem quite so pleasant.

"Then why bother?" asked Tock, whose alarm suddenly began to ring.

"Because, my young friends," he muttered sourly, "what could be more important than doing unimportant things? If you stop to do enough of them, you'll never get to where you're going." He punctuated his last remark with a villainous laugh.

"Then you must -----" gasped Milo.

"Quite correct!" he shrieked triumphantly. "I am the Terrible Trivium, demon of petty tasks and worthless jobs, ogre of wasted effort, and monster of habit."

And, to follow this with a related obstacle earlier in the story, with the Lethargians:

"Well, if you can't laugh or think, what can you do?" asked Milo.

"Anything as long as it's nothing, and everything as long as it isn't anything," explained another.

"There's lots to do; we have a very busy schedule-

"At 8 o'clock we get up, and then we spend

"From 8 to 9 daydreaming.

"From 9 to 9:30 we take our early midmorning nap.

"From 9:30 to 10:30 we dawdle and delay.

"From 10:30 to 11:30 we take our late early morning nap.

"From 11:00 to 12:00 we bide our time and then eat lunch.

"From l:00 to 2:00 we linger and loiter.

"From 2:00 to 2:30 we take our early afternoon nap.

"From 2:30 to 3:30 we put off for tomorrow what we could have done today.

"From 3:30 to 4:00 we take our early late afternoon nap.

"From 4:00 to 5:00 we loaf and lounge until dinner.

"From 6:00 to 7:00 we dillydally.

"From 7:00 to 8:00 we take our early evening nap, and then for an hour before we go to bed at 9:00 we waste time.

"As you can see, that leaves almost no time for brooding, lagging, plodding, or procrastinating, and if we stopped to think or laugh, we'd never get nothing done."

"You mean you'd never get anything done," corrected Milo.

"We don't want to get anything done," snapped another angrily; "we want to get nothing done, and we can do that without your help."

"You see," continued another in a more conciliatory tone, "it's really quite strenuous doing nothing all day, so once a week we take a holiday and go nowhere, which was just where we were going when you came along. Would you care to join us?"

"I might as well," thought Milo; "that's where I seem to be going anyway."

Those are from The Phantom Tollbooth by Norman Juster. Shel Silverstein seems to have heard of the Lethargians:

I've been working so hard you just wouldn't believe,
And I'm tired!
There's so little time and so much to achieve,
And I'm tired!
I've been lying here holding the grass in its place,
Pressing a leaf with the side of my face,
Tasting the apples to see if they're sweet,
Counting the toes on a centipede's feet.
I've been memorizing the shape of that cloud,
Warning the robins to not chirp so loud,
Shooing the butterflies off the tomatoes,
Keeping an eye out for floods and tornadoes.
I've been supervising the work of the ants
And thinking of pruning the cantaloupe plants,
Calling the fish to swim into my nets,
And I've taken twelve thousand and forty-one breaths,
And I'm TIRED!

I'm astounded at how literature can be so aware of my busy schedule! It forgets blogging and Internet surfing for quotes, though. Also meticulously editing invisible HTML to clean it up where it won't be noticed.

Handy trick

My roommates and several other people I know memorize Scripture by writing verses on cards or slips of paper and sticking them where they will be frequently seen.

I have begun to set the appropriate passage as my browser's home page.

Because gosh darn it, as often as I want to quote I Corinthians 1:18-29, I ought to memorize it.