Thursday, May 31, 2007
Re: A Little Quiz
Fundamentals. Fundamentals. Fundamentals. How many of the sentences in the quiz can you correct? I'll publish answers if the quiz gets any "hits.
A Little Quiz
GRAMMAR AND USAGE
Each of the following sentences is incorrect. The mistakes concern grammatical agreement, correct verb forms, correct pronoun use, parallel structure, formal vs. informal English and other problem areas. Rewrite each sentence making the proper corrections. Make only the corrections required. Be ready to justify your answer.
Each of the many different varieties have a unique history.
Neither his secular music nor his religious compositions appeals to the public.
Are you one of the boys who was tardy?
Who's purse is lying on the floor?
Where is my book and my pen?
The sled's runners slid smooth over the ice.
Have either of the orders been sent?
Neither of the remaining contestants know the answer.
Everyone accept you likes peanut butter.
Cottage cheese and cream cheese ranks high in popularity.
The vessel, along with its entire crew, were lost.
I own a large number of campaign buttons.
Take your cousin with you when you come to my house tonight.
The players and the coach wants a better bus.
There are less students enrolled here than last year.
Hitler prosecuted people who he felt were inferior.
Neither of her maternal grandparents are living.
Every one of the campers were hungry.
There's too many selfish people in the world.
This is one of those pens that writes underwater.
Either the tigers or the lion are growling furiously.
Good speakers adopt their messages to their audiences.
He resented his parents' frequent illusions to his poor grades.
We hadn't but one choice to make.
Leave me give you a little good advice.
College life and high school life is vastly different.
Fifteen minutes are enough for this exercise.
She was not only industrious, but she could be depended upon.
Radio reception on the top floor is usually clearer than the ground floor.
We watched the big massive cloud cover the afternoon sun.
Each of the following sentences is incorrect. The mistakes concern grammatical agreement, correct verb forms, correct pronoun use, parallel structure, formal vs. informal English and other problem areas. Rewrite each sentence making the proper corrections. Make only the corrections required. Be ready to justify your answer.
Each of the many different varieties have a unique history.
Neither his secular music nor his religious compositions appeals to the public.
Are you one of the boys who was tardy?
Who's purse is lying on the floor?
Where is my book and my pen?
The sled's runners slid smooth over the ice.
Have either of the orders been sent?
Neither of the remaining contestants know the answer.
Everyone accept you likes peanut butter.
Cottage cheese and cream cheese ranks high in popularity.
The vessel, along with its entire crew, were lost.
I own a large number of campaign buttons.
Take your cousin with you when you come to my house tonight.
The players and the coach wants a better bus.
There are less students enrolled here than last year.
Hitler prosecuted people who he felt were inferior.
Neither of her maternal grandparents are living.
Every one of the campers were hungry.
There's too many selfish people in the world.
This is one of those pens that writes underwater.
Either the tigers or the lion are growling furiously.
Good speakers adopt their messages to their audiences.
He resented his parents' frequent illusions to his poor grades.
We hadn't but one choice to make.
Leave me give you a little good advice.
College life and high school life is vastly different.
Fifteen minutes are enough for this exercise.
She was not only industrious, but she could be depended upon.
Radio reception on the top floor is usually clearer than the ground floor.
We watched the big massive cloud cover the afternoon sun.
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Decline of Debate Background
One of the columnists for the local paper decided to give me some grief over a column I wrote. I took my revenge.
The Decline of Debate
Monty Python fans are familiar with “The Argument Clinic” sketch in which Michael Palin purchases an argument from John Cleese. Palin is disappointed, however, when Cleese simply negates every proposition Palin puts forth. Unfortunately, what society calls debate these days is often not a series of points and counterpoints meant to establish the more reasonable position. Instead, today’s “debates” are rhetoric-laden, propaganda-ridden attempts to attain victory by any means possible.
Take, for example, the argument that if one has problems with anything the current administration has done (gone to war, dropped the ball regarding Hurricane Katrina, gathered the phone records of thousands of citizens, well, you get the idea), then one is “for” the terrorists. This is called Drawing the Line, or drawing sharp distinctions where they should not be drawn. It is possible to be against the terrorists and still have objections to things that the government does in the name of anti-terrorism. Wasn’t one of the reasons this country was founded was to give everyone a voice?
In much the same vein, people of various religious persuasions try to shout down opponents to their views by accusing them of “doing the devil’s work” or some such tripe. It’s so much easier to demonize your opponent than argue with him. Oh, I’m not talking about just Islamic Fundamentalists; there’s plenty of Drawing the Line going on in pulpits all over the good old USA. Whatever happened to embracing the diversity of religious expression?
On a recent long drive back from Georgia, I took the opportunity to tune in Rush Limbaugh, just to see what particular burr is under his saddle these days. (That was a propaganda technique called Metaphor—it may be inappropriate to compare Rush to a horse.) I listened to Rush for hours and was assailed by so many propaganda techniques that I lost count. Rush, like so many talk show hosts, is guilty of Attacking a Straw Man, misstating his opponent’s position and exaggerating the consequences of that position. Since Rush’s previous stance against drugs has somehow widened to embrace his own drug addiction, he’s guilty of Victory by Definition, defining one’s position in such a way that it cannot be attacked. Of course, whenever Rush does those clever imitations of Bill Clinton’s or John McCain’s voices, he’s guilty of Appeal to Ridicule, making fun of one’s opponent to influence one’s audience. To all you dittoheads out there: Rush is an ENTERTAINER, not the savior of Western Civilization.
Pleasant Prairie’s most recent election brought out a rash of Ad Hominem propaganda, attacking one’s opponent instead of his arguments. This used to be called mud-slinging; now, it’s called business as usual.
I, too, have been the target of faulty thinking. A few months ago, I wrote a piece in which I complained about long waits in the doctor’s office, among other things. Evidently, I set off some nuclear retaliation response in Bill Guida. I believe he referred to my complaint as a “yowling rant” or some such thing. Tsk, tsk, Bill. That’s Emotional Terms, deliberately using language which causes feelings for or against someone or something. In this case, I think it was definitely against. Imagine my surprise, when my position, as Bill saw it, smacked of ingratitude for the insurance plan I enjoy as a retired teacher. There’s that pesky Straw Man again. Then, Bill made a reference to my “heft.” Admittedly, I’ve been a big person almost all my life. I just saw no relationship between my size and anything I argued for or against. Could it be that darn old Appeal to Ridicule (not sophisticated enough to be an Ad Hominem) sneaking into Bill’s logic (or lack thereof)? Now, I could respond to Bill by saying that he’s a typical emotional Italian, but then I’d be guilty of judging a group by a single example (Hasty Generalization). Some might say that such a statement exhibited Prejudice, but I like Italian people whether they’re hefty or not. I could say that Bill’s conclusions don’t follow from the premises (Non Sequitor) but I might be putting too many Latin expressions out there for Bill’s comfort level. (Oops—Appeal to Ridicule—sorry). I could assume any of those things, but I choose to believe that Bill’s “idea well” was a mite dry that day, so he decided to defend the medical profession, insinuate that I eat too much at McDonald’s (that’s called Innuendo, by the way), and cast me as an ungrateful profligate, just because I despise waiting for some overbooked doctor.
Because my heart is just as “hefty” as the rest of me, I was not upset then and I’m not upset now. What does bother me is that too many people govern their lives by believing that something will happen simply because they want it to (Wishful Thinking) or, conversely, refusing to believe in something simply because they can’t imagine it to be true (Inconceivability). People who are addicted to buying lottery tickets are guilty of the first; anyone who bursts a blood vessel at the mere mention of, say, evolution is a victim of the second. (Please, all anti-evolution people, it was just an example). Some would-be debaters cite examples which support their position but ignore the ones which don’t (Selected Instances). I could go on forever.
One of my favorite units to teach centered on propaganda. I wanted my students to go into the world with the ability to think rationally and clearly, since so many others around them wouldn’t. Perhaps the best compliment on this unit came to me in the form of a complaint. “Mr. Lawler,” this student said, “I can’t watch commercials anymore.” “Why not?” I asked. “Because all I can do now is try to figure out how I’m being manipulated,” he responded. I was fairly sure that kid was going to do all right. We all need to be more aware of the ways in which we are being manipulated by others and stop our own manipulation of those around us. Let’s bring back the ART of argumentation (that’s called Emphasis).
Take, for example, the argument that if one has problems with anything the current administration has done (gone to war, dropped the ball regarding Hurricane Katrina, gathered the phone records of thousands of citizens, well, you get the idea), then one is “for” the terrorists. This is called Drawing the Line, or drawing sharp distinctions where they should not be drawn. It is possible to be against the terrorists and still have objections to things that the government does in the name of anti-terrorism. Wasn’t one of the reasons this country was founded was to give everyone a voice?
In much the same vein, people of various religious persuasions try to shout down opponents to their views by accusing them of “doing the devil’s work” or some such tripe. It’s so much easier to demonize your opponent than argue with him. Oh, I’m not talking about just Islamic Fundamentalists; there’s plenty of Drawing the Line going on in pulpits all over the good old USA. Whatever happened to embracing the diversity of religious expression?
On a recent long drive back from Georgia, I took the opportunity to tune in Rush Limbaugh, just to see what particular burr is under his saddle these days. (That was a propaganda technique called Metaphor—it may be inappropriate to compare Rush to a horse.) I listened to Rush for hours and was assailed by so many propaganda techniques that I lost count. Rush, like so many talk show hosts, is guilty of Attacking a Straw Man, misstating his opponent’s position and exaggerating the consequences of that position. Since Rush’s previous stance against drugs has somehow widened to embrace his own drug addiction, he’s guilty of Victory by Definition, defining one’s position in such a way that it cannot be attacked. Of course, whenever Rush does those clever imitations of Bill Clinton’s or John McCain’s voices, he’s guilty of Appeal to Ridicule, making fun of one’s opponent to influence one’s audience. To all you dittoheads out there: Rush is an ENTERTAINER, not the savior of Western Civilization.
Pleasant Prairie’s most recent election brought out a rash of Ad Hominem propaganda, attacking one’s opponent instead of his arguments. This used to be called mud-slinging; now, it’s called business as usual.
I, too, have been the target of faulty thinking. A few months ago, I wrote a piece in which I complained about long waits in the doctor’s office, among other things. Evidently, I set off some nuclear retaliation response in Bill Guida. I believe he referred to my complaint as a “yowling rant” or some such thing. Tsk, tsk, Bill. That’s Emotional Terms, deliberately using language which causes feelings for or against someone or something. In this case, I think it was definitely against. Imagine my surprise, when my position, as Bill saw it, smacked of ingratitude for the insurance plan I enjoy as a retired teacher. There’s that pesky Straw Man again. Then, Bill made a reference to my “heft.” Admittedly, I’ve been a big person almost all my life. I just saw no relationship between my size and anything I argued for or against. Could it be that darn old Appeal to Ridicule (not sophisticated enough to be an Ad Hominem) sneaking into Bill’s logic (or lack thereof)? Now, I could respond to Bill by saying that he’s a typical emotional Italian, but then I’d be guilty of judging a group by a single example (Hasty Generalization). Some might say that such a statement exhibited Prejudice, but I like Italian people whether they’re hefty or not. I could say that Bill’s conclusions don’t follow from the premises (Non Sequitor) but I might be putting too many Latin expressions out there for Bill’s comfort level. (Oops—Appeal to Ridicule—sorry). I could assume any of those things, but I choose to believe that Bill’s “idea well” was a mite dry that day, so he decided to defend the medical profession, insinuate that I eat too much at McDonald’s (that’s called Innuendo, by the way), and cast me as an ungrateful profligate, just because I despise waiting for some overbooked doctor.
Because my heart is just as “hefty” as the rest of me, I was not upset then and I’m not upset now. What does bother me is that too many people govern their lives by believing that something will happen simply because they want it to (Wishful Thinking) or, conversely, refusing to believe in something simply because they can’t imagine it to be true (Inconceivability). People who are addicted to buying lottery tickets are guilty of the first; anyone who bursts a blood vessel at the mere mention of, say, evolution is a victim of the second. (Please, all anti-evolution people, it was just an example). Some would-be debaters cite examples which support their position but ignore the ones which don’t (Selected Instances). I could go on forever.
One of my favorite units to teach centered on propaganda. I wanted my students to go into the world with the ability to think rationally and clearly, since so many others around them wouldn’t. Perhaps the best compliment on this unit came to me in the form of a complaint. “Mr. Lawler,” this student said, “I can’t watch commercials anymore.” “Why not?” I asked. “Because all I can do now is try to figure out how I’m being manipulated,” he responded. I was fairly sure that kid was going to do all right. We all need to be more aware of the ways in which we are being manipulated by others and stop our own manipulation of those around us. Let’s bring back the ART of argumentation (that’s called Emphasis).
For My Mother-In-Law, Eileen Zuehlsdorf--We Miss You
It is very appropriate that this site houses the Memorial Brick Walk since Kemper, itself, is steeped in memories. Many young women and, eventually, men, spent countless hours here, attending classes, forging friendships, and discovering their own potential. For me, Kemper holds many memories from two specific sources. The first memories come from the years that Lakeside Players called Kemper its home and we performed in the auditorium. The second set of memories and those most dear to me are from my wedding. My wife, Colleen, and I were married here nine years ago today. Both of those experiences, memorable in themselves, spin off into countless smaller memories of friends, some still here, some no longer with us.
A Nobel laureate was walking across the campus where he taught, deep in thought. A fellow faculty member stopped him for a chat and they had a brief, animated discussion. When they were ready to be on their separate ways, the laureate asked, “Which way was I headed, east or west?” “West,” his colleague replied. “Oh, good,” the laureate responded. “That means I’ve already eaten lunch.” Memory is a tricky thing. People my age like to joke about periods of forgetfulness, so-called “senior moments.” On the other hand, in my work as a Celebrant, I’ve spoken with families whose departed loved ones suffered from Alzheimer’s, and they have described to me the slow, inexorable descent into that lonely state.
Yet, even those who suffer most from Alzheimer’s cling to certain memories. Often they go back to a time, often childhood, in which they feel safe, loved and secure. Their minds miraculously preserve these times for them.
Many people newly-stricken by grief resist their memories. Remembering times when loved ones were still alive churns up powerful emotions and some of us are afraid to deal with such strong feelings. But as we now know, buried memories fester like hidden wounds. Our emotions must find a way to heal.
And so, we create places which spur and encourage memories, and, if we’re lucky, we do so in a place as beautiful as this one is.
An old monk was once asked why he cared for ancient graves, and why he cleaned the stones to preserve the writings carved there. His reply was simple: “They still have their names. They will always have their names.” A life infused with love has consequences that reach beyond time- ensuring that names, and places, and memories of what was still are, and always will be. They are not dead, can never die.
We have a need, as humans, to create monuments and memorials. I know there are selfish reasons to do so, but I think that, for the most part, we have a desire to connect with our past and we need to make that connection in a special place. For most people that place is a cemetery, the earthly resting places of their loved ones, places which take on a sacredness. This deep need to preserve the memory and honor of our loved ones can be found in burials thousands of years old.
But there are other places which were dear to those who have departed, and we often choose these places to honor our dead. Three years ago on a trip to London, Colleen and I spent an afternoon in Kew Gardens, a magnificent place. Scattered throughout the grounds were benches, many with a person’s name followed by birth and death dates. The most poignant bench memorial, however, had two plaques. The first one read: “To the memory of Kathleen Stella Hughes, who loved these gardens, 1913-1982.” The second one read, “George Richard Hughes, 1912-1999, who always sat beside Kathleen.” Three things were immediately apparent to us. The most obvious was that George and Kathleen were very much in love. Bickering couples don’t spend a lot of time together in floral gardens. The second was that for seventeen years George had to content himself with memories of his Kathleen, memories which were tied inextricably to that place, memories which, perhaps, helped him to visualize her sitting beside him once more. The third was that George Richard Hughes wanted the memory of that love to perpetuate. So, now, thousands of people walk by that bench or sit on it and wonder about George and Kathleen and, perhaps, hope that they will or have found a love as enduring.
All that we can know about those who we
have loved and lost is that they would wish
us to remember them with a more intensified
realization of their reality. The highest tribute to the dead is not to grief but gratitude.
Thorton Wilder
Perhaps you have noticed as I have that the holidays become special times for preserving the memories of our loved ones. I know that the first Christmas without Dad or Thanksgiving without Grandma can be painful. We all have shed tears of remembrance more than once. But as we continue to talk about them, the dead almost seem to be with us, just around the corner in the next room or out in the yard taking some air. Our memories take us to the moments that were special in our past. They help us to relive events which have become seminal in our consciousness and those events are all the more vivid in our memories because we have resurrected our loved ones in the only way we know how. There is a portion of us which houses all who came before us. We have only to open our hearts and allow them to once again be with us, not externally, but inside us where they always will remain.
But soon we shall die and memory of us
will have left the earth, and we ourselves
shall be loved for a while and forgotten.
But the love will have been enough; all those
impulses of love return to the love that made
them.
Even memory is not necessary for love.
There is a land of living and a land of the
dead and the bridge is love, the only survival,
the only meaning.
-Thorton Wilder
The Bridge of Sans Luis Rey
Wilder is right in many respects. The memories of all of us will flicker and die eventually, even the memories of the most famous and infamous. And there is a land of the living and a land of the dead with a gulf between them that we get to cross but once. Love, as Wilder writes, is the only bridge between those two worlds which can allow us to metaphorically cross that gulf whenever we choose. Love is the motivation behind the perpetuation of memories. I choose to believe that love is a powerful force in our universe, an energy which, once released, never ceases to exist. So, even after we are gone, after the sun has turned into a flickering cinder and the universe, itself, is grinding to a halt, that love will still exist. We all will move on; the love will always remain as a bond.
To the living I am gone,
To the sorrowful, I will never return,
To the angry, I was cheated.
But to the happy, I am at peace.
And to the faithful, I have never left.
I cannot speak, but I can listen.
I cannot be seen, but I can be heard.
So as you stand upon a shore,
Gazing at a beautiful sea,
Remember Me...
Remember me in your heart, in your
thoughts,
and the memories of the times we love,
the memories of the time we shared.
For if you always think of me,
I will have never gone.
Look at some of the names on the bricks around us. Who were these people? What were their lives like? What and whom did they love? Did they die at peace and fulfilled? As we read and honor their names, these questions are not important. What is important is that someone cared enough for them to memorialize them here. Someone cared enough to say, “This is my mom” or wife or husband or child. These bricks teach us that it is important to preserve the memories of our loved ones. It is important because those memories give us a context for our lives; they reinforce the foundation of society which we call family. And, as we gaze at these names, we are reminded of those we have lost and so we feel a kinship with those who have helped build this memorial. We are not fundamentally different; we are inextricably alike. The ways in which we choose to honor and remember our dead do not differ significantly from culture to culture or religion to religion. We all suffer loss and we all must go on. Let us pray that some day we can go on in peace.
Please join me in a short responsive prayer.
We Remember Them
In the rising of the sun and in its going down,
We remember them
In the blowing of the wind and in the chill of winter,
We remember them
In the opening of the buds and in the warmth of summer,
We remember them
In the beginning of the year and when it ends
We remember them
When we are weary and in need of strength
We remember them
When we are lost and sick at heart
We remember them
When we have joys we yearn to share
We remember them
So long as we live, they too shall live, for they are now a part of us as
We remember them.
-From Gates of Prayer Reform
Judaism Prayer Book
Amen
I leave you today with the words of Helen Keller:
What we have once enjoyed, we can never
lose. All that we love deeply becomes a part
of us.
A Nobel laureate was walking across the campus where he taught, deep in thought. A fellow faculty member stopped him for a chat and they had a brief, animated discussion. When they were ready to be on their separate ways, the laureate asked, “Which way was I headed, east or west?” “West,” his colleague replied. “Oh, good,” the laureate responded. “That means I’ve already eaten lunch.” Memory is a tricky thing. People my age like to joke about periods of forgetfulness, so-called “senior moments.” On the other hand, in my work as a Celebrant, I’ve spoken with families whose departed loved ones suffered from Alzheimer’s, and they have described to me the slow, inexorable descent into that lonely state.
Yet, even those who suffer most from Alzheimer’s cling to certain memories. Often they go back to a time, often childhood, in which they feel safe, loved and secure. Their minds miraculously preserve these times for them.
Many people newly-stricken by grief resist their memories. Remembering times when loved ones were still alive churns up powerful emotions and some of us are afraid to deal with such strong feelings. But as we now know, buried memories fester like hidden wounds. Our emotions must find a way to heal.
And so, we create places which spur and encourage memories, and, if we’re lucky, we do so in a place as beautiful as this one is.
An old monk was once asked why he cared for ancient graves, and why he cleaned the stones to preserve the writings carved there. His reply was simple: “They still have their names. They will always have their names.” A life infused with love has consequences that reach beyond time- ensuring that names, and places, and memories of what was still are, and always will be. They are not dead, can never die.
We have a need, as humans, to create monuments and memorials. I know there are selfish reasons to do so, but I think that, for the most part, we have a desire to connect with our past and we need to make that connection in a special place. For most people that place is a cemetery, the earthly resting places of their loved ones, places which take on a sacredness. This deep need to preserve the memory and honor of our loved ones can be found in burials thousands of years old.
But there are other places which were dear to those who have departed, and we often choose these places to honor our dead. Three years ago on a trip to London, Colleen and I spent an afternoon in Kew Gardens, a magnificent place. Scattered throughout the grounds were benches, many with a person’s name followed by birth and death dates. The most poignant bench memorial, however, had two plaques. The first one read: “To the memory of Kathleen Stella Hughes, who loved these gardens, 1913-1982.” The second one read, “George Richard Hughes, 1912-1999, who always sat beside Kathleen.” Three things were immediately apparent to us. The most obvious was that George and Kathleen were very much in love. Bickering couples don’t spend a lot of time together in floral gardens. The second was that for seventeen years George had to content himself with memories of his Kathleen, memories which were tied inextricably to that place, memories which, perhaps, helped him to visualize her sitting beside him once more. The third was that George Richard Hughes wanted the memory of that love to perpetuate. So, now, thousands of people walk by that bench or sit on it and wonder about George and Kathleen and, perhaps, hope that they will or have found a love as enduring.
All that we can know about those who we
have loved and lost is that they would wish
us to remember them with a more intensified
realization of their reality. The highest tribute to the dead is not to grief but gratitude.
Thorton Wilder
Perhaps you have noticed as I have that the holidays become special times for preserving the memories of our loved ones. I know that the first Christmas without Dad or Thanksgiving without Grandma can be painful. We all have shed tears of remembrance more than once. But as we continue to talk about them, the dead almost seem to be with us, just around the corner in the next room or out in the yard taking some air. Our memories take us to the moments that were special in our past. They help us to relive events which have become seminal in our consciousness and those events are all the more vivid in our memories because we have resurrected our loved ones in the only way we know how. There is a portion of us which houses all who came before us. We have only to open our hearts and allow them to once again be with us, not externally, but inside us where they always will remain.
But soon we shall die and memory of us
will have left the earth, and we ourselves
shall be loved for a while and forgotten.
But the love will have been enough; all those
impulses of love return to the love that made
them.
Even memory is not necessary for love.
There is a land of living and a land of the
dead and the bridge is love, the only survival,
the only meaning.
-Thorton Wilder
The Bridge of Sans Luis Rey
Wilder is right in many respects. The memories of all of us will flicker and die eventually, even the memories of the most famous and infamous. And there is a land of the living and a land of the dead with a gulf between them that we get to cross but once. Love, as Wilder writes, is the only bridge between those two worlds which can allow us to metaphorically cross that gulf whenever we choose. Love is the motivation behind the perpetuation of memories. I choose to believe that love is a powerful force in our universe, an energy which, once released, never ceases to exist. So, even after we are gone, after the sun has turned into a flickering cinder and the universe, itself, is grinding to a halt, that love will still exist. We all will move on; the love will always remain as a bond.
To the living I am gone,
To the sorrowful, I will never return,
To the angry, I was cheated.
But to the happy, I am at peace.
And to the faithful, I have never left.
I cannot speak, but I can listen.
I cannot be seen, but I can be heard.
So as you stand upon a shore,
Gazing at a beautiful sea,
Remember Me...
Remember me in your heart, in your
thoughts,
and the memories of the times we love,
the memories of the time we shared.
For if you always think of me,
I will have never gone.
Look at some of the names on the bricks around us. Who were these people? What were their lives like? What and whom did they love? Did they die at peace and fulfilled? As we read and honor their names, these questions are not important. What is important is that someone cared enough for them to memorialize them here. Someone cared enough to say, “This is my mom” or wife or husband or child. These bricks teach us that it is important to preserve the memories of our loved ones. It is important because those memories give us a context for our lives; they reinforce the foundation of society which we call family. And, as we gaze at these names, we are reminded of those we have lost and so we feel a kinship with those who have helped build this memorial. We are not fundamentally different; we are inextricably alike. The ways in which we choose to honor and remember our dead do not differ significantly from culture to culture or religion to religion. We all suffer loss and we all must go on. Let us pray that some day we can go on in peace.
Please join me in a short responsive prayer.
We Remember Them
In the rising of the sun and in its going down,
We remember them
In the blowing of the wind and in the chill of winter,
We remember them
In the opening of the buds and in the warmth of summer,
We remember them
In the beginning of the year and when it ends
We remember them
When we are weary and in need of strength
We remember them
When we are lost and sick at heart
We remember them
When we have joys we yearn to share
We remember them
So long as we live, they too shall live, for they are now a part of us as
We remember them.
-From Gates of Prayer Reform
Judaism Prayer Book
Amen
I leave you today with the words of Helen Keller:
What we have once enjoyed, we can never
lose. All that we love deeply becomes a part
of us.
Discipline Is Not a Four-Letter Word
Let’s take a look at a common ten letter word which has become greatly maligned in many of our local public schools: discipline. Its main definition as a noun is training expected to produce a specific character or pattern of behavior, especially training that produces moral or mental improvement. As a verb it means to train by instruction and practice, especially to teach self-control. There now, those don’t sound so bad, do they? Additionally, the word has its roots in the Latin word “discipulus,” meaning a pupil. This seems to imply that from the very first students in history, young people were expected to learn discipline if they did not already possess it. How do they learn it? That’s simple: by being instructed as to correct and incorrect behavior. If students practice discipline in their studies and their social interactions, they should be praised. If they violate common-sense rules and responsibilities, they should be corrected. If they continue to violate these rules and responsibilities, they should face consequences for that behavior. And that’s the rub. Imposing consequences for negative behavior appears to be on its way out, at least in upper grades, particularly high school. The policy of the school district is “student-friendly” which I as a former teacher and many current teachers translate as “enabling.”
I found it interesting that the school board got all fired up over imposing a dress code on its employees but in many instances won’t enforce its current set of rules for students. For example, regarding electronic devices, the district’s own web pages explain, “Beepers and cellular picture phones are not allowed in school by Wisconsin State Law.” Yet, teachers tell me that students carry these things with them in school, even receiving calls while in the classroom; but, very little, if anything, I’m told, is done to curb this situation. Why? “We’re student-friendly.” Some parents insist that they have the right to call their kids at any time of the school day. Doesn’t this fit the district’s explanation that electronic devices are “disruptive in the educational experience”?
Supposedly iPods are forbidden also, but I’m told that they’re not only worn in the hallways during passing time, but students have to be told to remove them in the classroom. Isn’t this also “disruptive”? One teacher who told a passing student to remove his earpieces described to me this student taking them off, only to put them back on again, and he made his way down the hall taking them off and putting them back on as he passed by the teachers standing outside their rooms. Why was this student not disciplined? I guess it’s not student-friendly.
Using proper language is also something that students should have the discipline to do, but many do not. One high school instructor I spoke with wishes that parents would take the time to sign in at a senior high and listen to the language being spoken in the cafeteria and commons during lunch. “They would be shocked at what they hear and confused as to why nothing is being done about it.” We can’t do anything about it; we’re student-friendly.
The problem, as I see it, is that administrators are afraid of parents, teachers are afraid of administrators (one teacher was reprimanded for reminding his students that he was the “boss” in the classroom), and the students aren’t afraid of anybody.
So, now we are raising a generation of students who believe that the rules don’t apply to them: that there are no rules. What a shock they’re in for once they leave KUSD’s “friendly” environment.
I have other horror stories: multiple fist fights per day in one building and students verbally and physically assaulting staff members and being allowed to return to the classroom. Teachers are hired to deliver the curriculum, not tolerate misbehavior and disrespect at the expense of crucial class time. It’s time for responsible parents to demand that responsible behavior be rewarded and that bad behavior be punished (subjected to a penalty for a fault). Otherwise, the quality of instruction will decline in our schools as teachers must surrender valuable instruction time to deal with increasingly bad behavior, all in the name of being “student-friendly.”
I found it interesting that the school board got all fired up over imposing a dress code on its employees but in many instances won’t enforce its current set of rules for students. For example, regarding electronic devices, the district’s own web pages explain, “Beepers and cellular picture phones are not allowed in school by Wisconsin State Law.” Yet, teachers tell me that students carry these things with them in school, even receiving calls while in the classroom; but, very little, if anything, I’m told, is done to curb this situation. Why? “We’re student-friendly.” Some parents insist that they have the right to call their kids at any time of the school day. Doesn’t this fit the district’s explanation that electronic devices are “disruptive in the educational experience”?
Supposedly iPods are forbidden also, but I’m told that they’re not only worn in the hallways during passing time, but students have to be told to remove them in the classroom. Isn’t this also “disruptive”? One teacher who told a passing student to remove his earpieces described to me this student taking them off, only to put them back on again, and he made his way down the hall taking them off and putting them back on as he passed by the teachers standing outside their rooms. Why was this student not disciplined? I guess it’s not student-friendly.
Using proper language is also something that students should have the discipline to do, but many do not. One high school instructor I spoke with wishes that parents would take the time to sign in at a senior high and listen to the language being spoken in the cafeteria and commons during lunch. “They would be shocked at what they hear and confused as to why nothing is being done about it.” We can’t do anything about it; we’re student-friendly.
The problem, as I see it, is that administrators are afraid of parents, teachers are afraid of administrators (one teacher was reprimanded for reminding his students that he was the “boss” in the classroom), and the students aren’t afraid of anybody.
So, now we are raising a generation of students who believe that the rules don’t apply to them: that there are no rules. What a shock they’re in for once they leave KUSD’s “friendly” environment.
I have other horror stories: multiple fist fights per day in one building and students verbally and physically assaulting staff members and being allowed to return to the classroom. Teachers are hired to deliver the curriculum, not tolerate misbehavior and disrespect at the expense of crucial class time. It’s time for responsible parents to demand that responsible behavior be rewarded and that bad behavior be punished (subjected to a penalty for a fault). Otherwise, the quality of instruction will decline in our schools as teachers must surrender valuable instruction time to deal with increasingly bad behavior, all in the name of being “student-friendly.”
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Another Profession
Below is a photo of my Celebrant class of April, 2006. A Celebrant is a lay person who plans and conducts funerals for families who have no religious affiliation or who wish a non-traditional service. I am fortunate to have a sponsoring funeral home, Piasecki-Althaus of Kenosha, Wisconsin.
Diversity Training Isn't Working
The other day I Googled the word “diversity.” As I expected, I was regaled with pages of Internet sites, many touting diversity programs and strategies designed to improve interaction between students . The way to make this improvement, say the experts, is to educate one segment of the student population as to the ways in which another segment differs from them. Diversity means “difference,” and a synonym, “heterogeneous,” identifies the quality of “not being comparable in kind.” Diversity training is also employed in the workplace. However, companies are starting to discover that diversity training is accomplishing exactly the opposite of what it is intended to do. I believe the same result is evident in our schools.
Columnist Kathleen Parker recently described the plight of a teacher in a Charleston middle school. The teacher was subjected daily to racist and sexist insults too graphic to print. The administration of the school refused to address the teacher's complaints, telling her that “racially charged profanity” is part of the students' culture and that if she couldn't accept that, she could take a hike. I am curious as to what workplaces, neighborhoods and families this school believes it is preparing its students to enter. I am amazed that we have come to such a state in our schools that any and all student behavior and language must be tolerated in the name of cultural diversity.
As with many trends in education, the concepts of cultural awareness and political correctness have been interpreted in an inflexible and uncompromising way. Classroom teachers have long known what educational theorists never seem to grasp: educational theories are like a smörgåsbord. Take what works from each one and leave the rest behind. Unfortunately, in their zeal to find educational panaceas, too many administrations insist that “old” techniques be discarded, even if they work. It's ironic that diversity training and cultural awareness often lead to fragmentation and resentment.
At least that's what's happening in business. In an article in the Harvard Gazette, Ryan Cortazar writes, “A new study shows that diversity training programs have roundly failed to eliminate bias and increase the number of minorities in management.” Cortazar goes on to note that “diversity training aimed at reducing managerial bias may actually increase it.”
What is it that you appreciate about your friends? Their uniqueness? Their special talents? What is it you love about your friends? Deep down, don't you love the ways in which you are alike, your shared values, shared morals, and shared sense of responsibility for each other and the world in general?
Why are we spending so much time, money and energy constantly pointing out to our students the ways in which they differ? Why are we not teaching them first that they are remarkably similar?
I was fascinated by Terry Flores' experiences with the Human Race Machine last April at UW-Parkside. After seeing how she would look if she were of a half-dozen ethnicities, Flores concluded: “I was also struck by the fact there are so many representations of human within these invisible boundaries we call race, yet they are so visible they affect the way we think and treat each other and ourselves.” Flores goes on, “While we may be different, we are all shades of human.”
We are all shades of human. That's what we should be teaching our children. Yes, it is good to honor those customs and beliefs that make any ethnic group unique. And while this can be done in the schools to a certain extent, I believe the primary arena for these celebrations lies in our communities. Festivals, museum exhibits, and other community events are positive ways to educate everyone , not just young people, about cultural uniqueness.
Right after the tragic death of Officer Frank Fabiano, Jr., Ben Ortega, the Spanish Center executive director, felt it necessary to explain that all Hispanics are not like murder suspect Ezequiel Lopez. “People like to lump us all together as one man,” explained Ortega. I find it tragic that we find ourselves in such a fragmented society that Mr. Ortega felt compelled to tell us what our common sense should tell us—that there are good and evil people in all ethnic groups, another way, unfortunately, in which we are all alike.
Perhaps one day we will have an education system which turns its considerable resources and talent to teaching our students to see the ways in which they mirror each other and highlights the reasons they should treat each other as brothers and sisters. Once you care for someone, his or her uniqueness becomes a place of sharing, not a barrier to understanding.
Columnist Kathleen Parker recently described the plight of a teacher in a Charleston middle school. The teacher was subjected daily to racist and sexist insults too graphic to print. The administration of the school refused to address the teacher's complaints, telling her that “racially charged profanity” is part of the students' culture and that if she couldn't accept that, she could take a hike. I am curious as to what workplaces, neighborhoods and families this school believes it is preparing its students to enter. I am amazed that we have come to such a state in our schools that any and all student behavior and language must be tolerated in the name of cultural diversity.
As with many trends in education, the concepts of cultural awareness and political correctness have been interpreted in an inflexible and uncompromising way. Classroom teachers have long known what educational theorists never seem to grasp: educational theories are like a smörgåsbord. Take what works from each one and leave the rest behind. Unfortunately, in their zeal to find educational panaceas, too many administrations insist that “old” techniques be discarded, even if they work. It's ironic that diversity training and cultural awareness often lead to fragmentation and resentment.
At least that's what's happening in business. In an article in the Harvard Gazette, Ryan Cortazar writes, “A new study shows that diversity training programs have roundly failed to eliminate bias and increase the number of minorities in management.” Cortazar goes on to note that “diversity training aimed at reducing managerial bias may actually increase it.”
What is it that you appreciate about your friends? Their uniqueness? Their special talents? What is it you love about your friends? Deep down, don't you love the ways in which you are alike, your shared values, shared morals, and shared sense of responsibility for each other and the world in general?
Why are we spending so much time, money and energy constantly pointing out to our students the ways in which they differ? Why are we not teaching them first that they are remarkably similar?
I was fascinated by Terry Flores' experiences with the Human Race Machine last April at UW-Parkside. After seeing how she would look if she were of a half-dozen ethnicities, Flores concluded: “I was also struck by the fact there are so many representations of human within these invisible boundaries we call race, yet they are so visible they affect the way we think and treat each other and ourselves.” Flores goes on, “While we may be different, we are all shades of human.”
We are all shades of human. That's what we should be teaching our children. Yes, it is good to honor those customs and beliefs that make any ethnic group unique. And while this can be done in the schools to a certain extent, I believe the primary arena for these celebrations lies in our communities. Festivals, museum exhibits, and other community events are positive ways to educate everyone , not just young people, about cultural uniqueness.
Right after the tragic death of Officer Frank Fabiano, Jr., Ben Ortega, the Spanish Center executive director, felt it necessary to explain that all Hispanics are not like murder suspect Ezequiel Lopez. “People like to lump us all together as one man,” explained Ortega. I find it tragic that we find ourselves in such a fragmented society that Mr. Ortega felt compelled to tell us what our common sense should tell us—that there are good and evil people in all ethnic groups, another way, unfortunately, in which we are all alike.
Perhaps one day we will have an education system which turns its considerable resources and talent to teaching our students to see the ways in which they mirror each other and highlights the reasons they should treat each other as brothers and sisters. Once you care for someone, his or her uniqueness becomes a place of sharing, not a barrier to understanding.
Language Police
“The Last of the Language Police”
It’s been hard these past several years to see my life’s work crumbling around me. Let me explain. I’ve always been an “English geek.” In sixth grade, I got a note from my mother to give to the bookmobile lady giving me permission to check out books from the “adult section.” I assure you, those words in the 1950’s held none of the connotations they hold now. English was my best subject in high school. I became an English teacher. It was tough enough to fight what I perceived as a general societal prejudice against my chosen profession, but then you, well, many of you, made English teachers’ lives more difficult by giving all of our students misinformation.
How many times have I walked into a restaurant only to see that the daily specials included “hot dog’s” or “strawberry’s” or “brownie’s”? It is maddening, I assure you, that so many people can’t remember that, in general, an apostrophe shows a possessive noun, not a plural noun. There are a few exceptions, but don’t worry about those.
And, as long as I’m harping about apostrophes, would the people responsible for the title “America Your Beautiful” on the local access channel wake up and smell the contraction? One day I’d like to be channel surfing and see “America, You’re Beautiful.” I could die reasonably happy.
Our language, the language that some would make the official and only language of the USA, is riddled with the blights of ignorance and indolence. In other words, most Americans don’t know the rules of their native language and are too lazy to do anything about it. Consequently, someone writing copy for the plot of the movie Brick on cable TV thought “as he searches for answers he is lead to the town’s crime world” is correct. A billboard gives directions to a subdivision by advising “go two miles and than turn right.”
The designer for a lobby poster for Mel Gibson’s new film, Apocalypto, put these words on it: “No one can escape their destiny.” On the National Geographic Channel, a narrator utters, “If a singer hits the right resonance, they can shatter a glass.”
There is a rule of grammar which states that certain things in a sentence must be in agreement, like pronouns. The poster quote should be: “No one can escape his destiny.” The narrator should have said, “If a singer hits the right resonance, he can shatter a glass.” Why does every person on television, every broadcaster on the radio, and nearly every written publication not exercise agreement between pronouns? The answer is simple: politics.
Back in the 70’s, as the Women’s Movement was feeling its muscle and starting to make positive changes for women in our society, they also got a little too bent out of shape over the grammatical rule of agreement. “The language is gender-specific,” they cried. “It therefore is repressive to women.” Since no one was able to find or invent another word that was satisfactory to all interested parties, society caved in and abandoned pronoun agreement. Imagine trying to teach a rule to people who see and hear that rule being violated everywhere they look every single day.
Oh, at this point I’d like to assure all my Feminist friends and colleagues that I have no more quarrel with their agenda than I have with any other agendas, except mine, of course.
Recently, a school district on the West Coast wanted to let students write in “Ebonics.” And doing that will help them get a job? Go to college? Function in the real world? Another school system proposes that their students be allowed to write their essays in the language of text messaging. R U COOL W/THAT? :-)
The signs of the Apocalypse are all around us. The end is nigh. The Old Testament tells us that God set us back on our heels by inventing different languages at the Tower of Babel. This time He’s being equally creative. He’s fragmenting one language into many. The result will be the same.
It’s been hard these past several years to see my life’s work crumbling around me. Let me explain. I’ve always been an “English geek.” In sixth grade, I got a note from my mother to give to the bookmobile lady giving me permission to check out books from the “adult section.” I assure you, those words in the 1950’s held none of the connotations they hold now. English was my best subject in high school. I became an English teacher. It was tough enough to fight what I perceived as a general societal prejudice against my chosen profession, but then you, well, many of you, made English teachers’ lives more difficult by giving all of our students misinformation.
How many times have I walked into a restaurant only to see that the daily specials included “hot dog’s” or “strawberry’s” or “brownie’s”? It is maddening, I assure you, that so many people can’t remember that, in general, an apostrophe shows a possessive noun, not a plural noun. There are a few exceptions, but don’t worry about those.
And, as long as I’m harping about apostrophes, would the people responsible for the title “America Your Beautiful” on the local access channel wake up and smell the contraction? One day I’d like to be channel surfing and see “America, You’re Beautiful.” I could die reasonably happy.
Our language, the language that some would make the official and only language of the USA, is riddled with the blights of ignorance and indolence. In other words, most Americans don’t know the rules of their native language and are too lazy to do anything about it. Consequently, someone writing copy for the plot of the movie Brick on cable TV thought “as he searches for answers he is lead to the town’s crime world” is correct. A billboard gives directions to a subdivision by advising “go two miles and than turn right.”
The designer for a lobby poster for Mel Gibson’s new film, Apocalypto, put these words on it: “No one can escape their destiny.” On the National Geographic Channel, a narrator utters, “If a singer hits the right resonance, they can shatter a glass.”
There is a rule of grammar which states that certain things in a sentence must be in agreement, like pronouns. The poster quote should be: “No one can escape his destiny.” The narrator should have said, “If a singer hits the right resonance, he can shatter a glass.” Why does every person on television, every broadcaster on the radio, and nearly every written publication not exercise agreement between pronouns? The answer is simple: politics.
Back in the 70’s, as the Women’s Movement was feeling its muscle and starting to make positive changes for women in our society, they also got a little too bent out of shape over the grammatical rule of agreement. “The language is gender-specific,” they cried. “It therefore is repressive to women.” Since no one was able to find or invent another word that was satisfactory to all interested parties, society caved in and abandoned pronoun agreement. Imagine trying to teach a rule to people who see and hear that rule being violated everywhere they look every single day.
Oh, at this point I’d like to assure all my Feminist friends and colleagues that I have no more quarrel with their agenda than I have with any other agendas, except mine, of course.
Recently, a school district on the West Coast wanted to let students write in “Ebonics.” And doing that will help them get a job? Go to college? Function in the real world? Another school system proposes that their students be allowed to write their essays in the language of text messaging. R U COOL W/THAT? :-)
The signs of the Apocalypse are all around us. The end is nigh. The Old Testament tells us that God set us back on our heels by inventing different languages at the Tower of Babel. This time He’s being equally creative. He’s fragmenting one language into many. The result will be the same.
They're Public Schools
Recently, I was asked to moderate one of the public forums regarding the use of TeenScreen in KUSD. About two dozen people showed up that night, most of them against the use of that instrument. Personally, I thought all the fuss raised by TeenScreen was overblown. After all, if the parents refused or the student refused, the student would be excused from participating. Consequently, I was surprised to learn that TeenScreen would be dropped from KUSD's suicide prevention plan.
I think it's a fairly safe assumption that most parents were willing to let their children take the survey. Otherwise, those public forums would have been packed with angry, concerned citizens. Why, then, did the District decide to abandon part of its plan? I believe that we have entered an era in which the minority insists it has a right to impose its agenda on the majority.
Before I take that point further, let me say that, in part, I agree with the people who oppose Teen- Screen. When a social problem such as the “cluster” suicides occurs, why does it automatically become the responsibility of the public schools to find a remedy? Over the years society decided that teaching kids how to drive would become the responsibility of the schools. Then, the schools were given the task of teaching students about health and sexuality. Now the schools find themselves strapped with so many societal agendas that they have become deficient in doing what they're supposed to do.
Last fall I addressed a class of secondary education English majors at UW-Parkside. Before answering their questions, I posed one to them: As a teacher, what is your primary responsibility? They offered answers like “to ensure the safety and well-being of my students” and “to provide a stimulating learning environment,” all part of a teacher's responsibility to be sure. None of them came up with the correct answer. A teacher's primary responsibility is to teach the curriculum. Our education students have been so inundated with “methods,” “techniques,” and “philosophies,” that they have put subject matter on the back burner.
But, back to my main point. There's a reason why they're called “public” schools. They're open to everyone. Now, some parents may not agree with everything in the curriculum, but the schools have bent over backwards to accommodate the wishes of those parents. If you don't want your child to study Dante's Inferno, fine, but you don't have the right to dictate that none of the other students should read it. You don't want your daughter to read The Catcher in the Rye? That's all right, but don't march into the library and demand the book be removed from the shelves. It's a public school, remember? Public schools tend to the learning needs of the public, in general, and should not be overly swayed by the wishes of any individual.
Many parents believe that their tax bill gives them the right to impose their wishes on the schools. To those people I say your taxes cover the education of your children. Let the other parents who pay taxes worry about their own kids.
Many of my friends in the education community believe that the schools are the logical place to address social issues. The students are easily accessed through the schools, and my friends assert that if the schools don't solve society's problems, no one else will. To an extent, I agree. If public health or safety issues are at stake, then the schools should be involved to a degree. There is a danger, however, of abusing that accessibility. Just because something is convenient does not make it expedient. As for society's problems, society is comprised of many more elements than schools. Unfortunately, every child does not come from a stable home. Every child does not have parents who will take responsibility for the social, moral, and ethical education of their children. These are the children whom we label “at risk.” We can best lessen their risk by sending them out into the world with as much academic knowledge as they can absorb. Some people think the schools' primary mission is to make kids “feel good about themselves.” I agree. Make as many as you can smart and industrious and I guarantee they'll feel good about themselves.
I think it's a fairly safe assumption that most parents were willing to let their children take the survey. Otherwise, those public forums would have been packed with angry, concerned citizens. Why, then, did the District decide to abandon part of its plan? I believe that we have entered an era in which the minority insists it has a right to impose its agenda on the majority.
Before I take that point further, let me say that, in part, I agree with the people who oppose Teen- Screen. When a social problem such as the “cluster” suicides occurs, why does it automatically become the responsibility of the public schools to find a remedy? Over the years society decided that teaching kids how to drive would become the responsibility of the schools. Then, the schools were given the task of teaching students about health and sexuality. Now the schools find themselves strapped with so many societal agendas that they have become deficient in doing what they're supposed to do.
Last fall I addressed a class of secondary education English majors at UW-Parkside. Before answering their questions, I posed one to them: As a teacher, what is your primary responsibility? They offered answers like “to ensure the safety and well-being of my students” and “to provide a stimulating learning environment,” all part of a teacher's responsibility to be sure. None of them came up with the correct answer. A teacher's primary responsibility is to teach the curriculum. Our education students have been so inundated with “methods,” “techniques,” and “philosophies,” that they have put subject matter on the back burner.
But, back to my main point. There's a reason why they're called “public” schools. They're open to everyone. Now, some parents may not agree with everything in the curriculum, but the schools have bent over backwards to accommodate the wishes of those parents. If you don't want your child to study Dante's Inferno, fine, but you don't have the right to dictate that none of the other students should read it. You don't want your daughter to read The Catcher in the Rye? That's all right, but don't march into the library and demand the book be removed from the shelves. It's a public school, remember? Public schools tend to the learning needs of the public, in general, and should not be overly swayed by the wishes of any individual.
Many parents believe that their tax bill gives them the right to impose their wishes on the schools. To those people I say your taxes cover the education of your children. Let the other parents who pay taxes worry about their own kids.
Many of my friends in the education community believe that the schools are the logical place to address social issues. The students are easily accessed through the schools, and my friends assert that if the schools don't solve society's problems, no one else will. To an extent, I agree. If public health or safety issues are at stake, then the schools should be involved to a degree. There is a danger, however, of abusing that accessibility. Just because something is convenient does not make it expedient. As for society's problems, society is comprised of many more elements than schools. Unfortunately, every child does not come from a stable home. Every child does not have parents who will take responsibility for the social, moral, and ethical education of their children. These are the children whom we label “at risk.” We can best lessen their risk by sending them out into the world with as much academic knowledge as they can absorb. Some people think the schools' primary mission is to make kids “feel good about themselves.” I agree. Make as many as you can smart and industrious and I guarantee they'll feel good about themselves.
Common Sense Back in Education
For years I have been trying to convince people to return to some of the more practical and workable methods of teaching that have been abandoned in favor of trends and buzzwords. I will post some of my essays as they are published. I invite any reasoned response.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)