Don't call it discipline when you know it is abuse

Teaching is hard, and despite the plethora of quaint mugs and bumper sticker out there that might indicate a contrary sentiment, it is truly a thankless job. Even when teachers make mistakes, I have a difficult time criticizing. Many have to spend their own money to make sure their students have needed supplies at the same time politicians and school boards, who have no understanding of how learning works, continually thwart the best practices of even our most dedicated educators. Add to this a society and culture which gives lip service respect for teachers by saying how important they are, but doing all they can to discourage people from entering the profession and encouraging an adversarial relationship between them and those in their charge. And in the world of ratemyprofessor.com and standardized testing, the word of a felon is often taken over that of a lowly civil servant whenever conflict arises.

But recently I read this article about a teacher who forced a young child to sit on the floor for four weeks as punishment for writing on her desk, and was livid. The crime -- and make no mistake, this is a crime -- is bad enough. The teacher compounded the problem by lying to the parents about what really happened, and put so much fear and humiliation into the child that the child would not tell her parents. Then the school district merely "reprimanded" the teacher.

That's right. They just told her "Now. Now. That's not right. Don't do that again."

The teacher has lost nothing and does not suffer for her abusive actions. She was not suspended. She was not removed or even moved to another school (though now the family has to navigate the problem of having children at two different schools). She did not lose pay. The article, circulating on a number of websites, does not even name the teacher. So this person has not had to suffer a day of shame for what she did to small person. We don't even see an apology from the teacher or school district.

I have no proof, but I believe a teacher who does this has anger and control issues which should be dealt with before she is allowed to enter a classroom again. She may be an otherwise wonderful instructor. But a school district that merely reprimands an barbarous person, not only enables the abuse, but sends the message that some children are not human enough to warrant reasonable discipline.

If a parent did the same thing to his or her seven year old, most teachers of that seven year old would call child protective services and the family would be investigated. The parent would likely go to jail. This teacher gets a finger wag. For mentally abusing a child. It was not a momentary lapse of judgement where someone lost her temper, but an injurious act, one that the school district is complicit in, not only because of the soft consequences, but for allowing it to happen in the first place. Remember that this went on for four weeks. It is highly unlikely that only the teacher and the class were privy to the site of a deskless student.

Other than the crazy injustice revealed in this story, we need to consider that teachers and school districts like this who give fodder to those no-nothing politicians and school boards (as well as entertainment media) to cut funding, create ludicrous requirements and regulations, and demonize the mostly good people in education. Such incidents are held up as examples, and not seen as the anomalies they are.

People love to bandy the phrase "children are our future" about without really thinking about what that means. So I'm asking what the future is for a first grader treated with such indignity. What is the future for her classmates? What is the future for education when the people in charge don't call such behavior what it really is?

Reading Response -- Of Voting and Damnation

After considerable thought, and the help of family, friends, and well meaning ministers, I have decided against voting in the upcoming  election. In fact, I will not vote in any election of any kind. It isn't just that my vote really does not matter, or that voting perpetuates the illusion that I have a hand in democracy, but that I value my salvation.

You see, Mr. Dennis Marcellino stated recently, "The Bible does say that if a person votes for a democrat (the promoters and supporters of sin) and were to die without repenting of that, he or she is going to hell.". He quotes Paul's second letter to the Thessalonians: "Then everyone who did not believe the truth, but was delighted with what God disapproves of, will be condemned" (verse 12). This is from, by the way, the GOD'S WORD Translation. I prefer the English Standard, and hope the "reverend" Marcellino will permit me: "in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness." Gee, I hope the "minister" won't condemn me for reading a different translation. I do hope we can agree that the two versions say essentially the same thing, that one who approves of the sin of someone else, even in his or her thoughts, will go to eternal perdition for doing so.

For now, I do not want to quibble over the loving minister's theology or his stance (after all, he states that he does not want to be "inflammatory" or "emotional"). I am going to take him at his simple word. He has a simple argument.

• Certain actions are sin. These actions include abortion and homosexuality. 
• Approval of what God disapproves of (such as sin) brings about condemnation from God. 
• Voting for a person who approves of what God disapproves of is the same thing as approving those sins and thus will bring about condemnation.

Let us assume all three points are, as Mr. Marcellino says, fact. If so, voting for any Democrat will cause me to go to hell. I cannot even vote for a Democrat who is pro-life and against gay marriage because by being in the group with other Democrats, he essentially approves of what he does not approve of and thus voting for him will also send me to lasting flames.

Now, the kind "minister" does not explicitly say that if I vote for a Republican, I will avoid this fate. I think he kind of implies it. But he does say, "one way that a person expresses that delight is: how they vote … especially if it’s for a candidate who supports gay marriage or any other sin" (emphasis mine). 

Uh oh.

While Republicans do not, in general, support gay marriage or abortion, they do seem to support other things that displease God, at least if the Bible is to be believed. For example, Jesus famously said, “No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money" (Matthew 6:24). Lots of Conservatives say they are for moral values, but their actions demonstrate that money is much more important to them. In fact, in Proverbs we find "Open your mouth, judge righteously, defend the rights of the poor and needy" (31:9). Now one can easily be a good businessman (businesswomen are not allowed by many conservatives unless they are the governor of Alaska), and still defend the causes of the poor. But most of what I hear from Republicans seems to make all the poor and needy out to be vile criminals.

So supporting someone who reviles and ignores the poor would be "delighting" in that person and "approving" of their sin. So I can't vote for that person either.

(Don't get me started on "Third Party" candidates. I've been convinced by my family and friends that voting for any of them is a waste of time even if I am voting for the person I think it best suited for the job. So we don't even get to make that a spiritual matter.)

Come to think of it, I cannot vote for anyone without risking the wrath of God because as the writer of Romans (quoting Psalm 53:3 ) states, "All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one" (3:12). Since everyone has sinned or supports some sin or has otherwise displeased God, I cannot delight in voting because that would mean to approve of someone, even if I don't approve of what it is that that person does or says or thinks that displeases God.

Gee, I hope my friends and family, don't find out about this. Because it seems to me anyone who talks to me or does something nice for me or says something supportive of me, a person who has certainly displeased God on occasion, will be in danger. And I don't want anyone go to Hell for loving me.

Reading Response – Of Obesity

I am overweight myself, but wasn't as a kid. I have mixed feelings about ads such as those being produced in Georgia and written about in the NPR story “Controversy Swirls Around Harsh Anti-Obesity Ads.” I agree that we have to get people's attention, especially the overweight parents of these kids. On the other hand, I wonder how kids will use these ads as fodder for their abuse.

I also know that PSAs that sugar-coat things don't tend to work, especially on kids. Consider the Truth ads. These have been very successful, in large part because they are honest. (Of course, they are not funded by big tobacco. And you will notice you see fewer of these because the organization lacks the money power of huge corporations.)

However, I wonder why there are not more PSAs aimed at people to encourage them to be more encouraging. Not “positive.” Encouraging.

I have been helped a great deal by the little bits of encouragement throughout the week. Lots of people will tell me very specific, but thoughtful things, and those help me to keep in mind that my diet and exercise are working. What doesn’t help? Advice. Most of it is something I already know. Some of it comes from the perpetually skinny and is over simplistic. What also hurts are those who think they are encouraging by telling me I’m still fat. One relative will hear another talk about my weight loss and say "Really? It looks like you have gained weight" or "I can't tell" or "Well, it's about time you did something."

I have a long way to go, and I know it. I'm fat, and I know it. I didn't get the  weight on quick, and if I want to live a healthy remainder of my life, I can't get it off fast. I just also know that there is, at least for me, an emotional attachment to food as well as to sitting still. And having people honest and thoughtful has made a huge difference in how I handle the really difficult parts of the weight loss journey.

And while we are at it, why not some PSAs aimed not just at the parents who raise fat kids, but at the executives of fast food industries and the government autocrats who protect them. These are people who on one hand block every attempt at health care reform and on the other block attempts to make food healthier and safer. These are people who seem all about the money, but ignore the economic realities of the products, policies, and practices. But such efforts would not likely work. Most PSAs appeal to the heart, and these people don't have any.

Reading Response – Of Change

Normally, I reserve my "Reading Responses" for articles I've come across and my "Bookmarks" for books I want to review/comment on. But as 2011 comes to a close (good riddance, I say), I will reverse that for the moment.
Last night I finished re-reading Franz Kafka 's novella The Metamorphosis. This has been one of my favorite stories for some time, largely because I find something new about it each time. The first couple times I read it, I took the transformation of Gregor Samsa into a bug quite literally. By the way, depending on the translation, Gregor becomes a "bug," a "cockroach," or "vermin."  I have no idea which word is most accurate. I prefer, at this writing, the latter, because of the reading I am now discussing and it's broad application. Anyway, as a story of fantasy or science-fiction (pardon my ignorance of such genres), the idea of one turning into a vermin works and makes for a fascinating study on how the world reacts to those who are different.
But as I read the story yesterday, informed by Jason Baker's introduction, I could not help but look at the story differently. Well, a little differently. The literal reading makes me angry at the family, lazy and inept, who turn on their son and brother after all the work he has done for them, and all the sacrifices he had made for them. Now, it is difficult for me to not also see the transformation from hard working human to burdensome vermin as a metaphor for a the nervous breakdown. At the risk of committing the biographical fallacy, I did notice that Kafka's own life, particularly his relationship with his father, bears this reading out somewhat.
What many think of a nervous  breakdown is when someone is so overwhelmed by life or stressed by unusual emotional circumstances that one acts in an irrational manner. But often that "act" is really to stop acting altogether. We have seen those who just, for no clear reason, stop moving, appearing to stare straight ahead, no longer reacting to those who are around them. The person many seem to be in a catatonic state, appearing to be awake, but not responding to anything or anyone around them. Without going into details, and noting I am no expert on psychology, I know more of this condition than I care to. The person may well be aware of what is happening around him, but feels paralyzed, unable to move. The person may sometimes think she is moving, is reacting or speaking, but that no one around her understands what she is saying or doing.
Gregor Samsa has worked tirelessly, sometimes cheerfully, on behalf of his family for years, and one can say his body colluded with his mind while he was asleep, during the only rest and happiness he ever had, to just say no to the world upon waking. No to demanding bosses. No to ungrateful parents and sister. No to conventions that require one person to labor without reward as others grow more and more rooted to the couch.
At this time of year, people make many resolutions, but do they really want change? I don't think so. They want to be changed. Sure, many of work to change ourselves (lose weight, quit smoking, etc.), and many of those changes fail for a variety of reasons. But given the opportunity, we would rather have the change come upon us, as if we could wake up one day and be different in ways we desire, with none of the attendant complications.
We also forget, and The Metamorphosis reminds us, that change does not affect only us, but also those around us. Ironically, when Gregor suddenly cannot work, we not only see the selfish sides of his family and the heartlessness of the rest of the world, we see his family forced to get out of the house, to work, to be something. Previously, they were just, for lack of a better way to say it, slugs. The tragedy is that Gregor does not get to choose his life and when his body/mind changes for him he does not reap any of the benefits.
A pastor once told me that in difficult times, the body and mind may conspire not against us, but for us to momentarily bring us a needed mental vacation. Perhaps the difficulty lie in recognizing this need and learning how to care for (not about) ourselves before we are paralyzed or transformed into something we have less control over than the people in our own lives.

Reading Response -- Of Wilful Ignorance

Some people, for a variety of reasons, struggle to get a good education. Some people choose stupidity as a way of life. Such is the case of Professor Paul Derengowski.

Derengowski resigned, he says, under pressure when two of his students filed complaints about his teaching practices. Most specifically, the World Religions instructor told his class that Islam is a cult.

Now before you go screaming about the First Amendment and all that, note that the problem was not Derengowski's opinion (or his goofy understanding of what a cult is), but that he had done much more. He handpicked the most inflammatory statements from the Qur'an, deliberately offended the Muslim students in his class, and claimed ex post facto to be opening a dialogue. He calls the complaints against him "jihadist actions."

First of all, whatever you think of Islam as a religion, one must note that Derengowski's definition of cult comes from little reliable theology. It is an actually cobbled together to fit pretty much anyone who isn't his brand of Christian. Second, he avowed states he is "against Islam." He has no interest in communicating the rich and varied expression of Muslim belief systems (yes, I meant that plural). In fact, his only goal is to incite anger and violence.

I find it ironic that he is worried about two students who went through the proper channels to complain about an instructor who devalued them and did not allow anyone to fairly challenge his misinformation. He published the two names on his website in an attempt of his own to harm those who dare to question him.

Paul Derengowski claims that what he teaches in his class is in defense of Christianity and that he has a Christian perspective. "Christians," he stated in a Chanel 11 interview, "are not supposed to stand by and let that go." Let what go? Well, Mr. Derengowski, this Christian is not going to stand by and let you pretend to represent my faith with your bile and baiting bullshit.

This alleged teacher claims that he set up his blog to defend his faith. But there are a couple of problems with this. First, he is defending himself (not Christianity) against attacks, that by and large do not exist. Second, he has a right to spew his misguided message on his blog. He does not need to defend Christianity in his classroom. He is to teach. Clearly he does not know what teaching is. Being a Christian does not at all mean his perspective or point of view is Christian. And what he has done is not Christian in any sense of the word.

Mr. Derengowski has a right to his opinion, and even his twisted interpretation of the facts. He has a right to proclaim what he believes, even if he is wrong. But he has willfully chosen ignorance, and that is something that must be stood up to. Teachers and Christians need to cry out against his kind, especially in a climate where education and true religion (see James 1:27) has been demeaned and demonized.

The truth is there are Muslims who are so radical in their beliefs, so intolerant of anyone who isn't like them, that they believe they have a god-given duty to kill Christians, Americans, and other Muslims for that matter. But this is not the majority. They are the ones on television (and I keep hearing of some "liberal" bias in the media), and the ones Faux News points out. Derengowski says that a picture of a Muslim kid with a gun is "history." Not really. It is the sort of vile manipulation of images that turns on the fence Muslims against us. It does nothing to education or represent the majority of Muslims in this country.

I am honestly shocked Derengowski has not been sued for posting the names of the two students who complained against him on his website. Hasn't this joker ever heard of FERPA? This doesn't take into account the slander of said students who did not (by all reports so far) threaten him, but whom he called "terrorists." He has put them in danger, not the other way around.

And what the hell is going on with a school that allows such a person to teach in its classroom? He's been there over three years and hasn't been shown for what he is, a fraud? Tarrant County Community College should be ashamed that they either 1)did not do their due diligence in researching this man's credentials and teaching or 2) knew about him and were too weak to get rid of him until a student complained. This is a man who was put in a position of power and has attempted to use that power to push his agenda.

I have little patience with students who choose ignorance over education. These are the ones who will do no critical thinking, will read almost nothing (even about the ideas they themselves have) and will call a professor a bad teacher when they hear something they don't like (such as, "You plagiarizing your essay means you have earned a zero for the assignment." or "You have not done the assignment correctly." or "Please do some research about this topic before you make bold pronouncements of your authority on such matters.") These are the students who say things like "I don't need to do research, because I already know what I think" and "My professor is getting big kickbacks from the publisher of his textbook" and "I got a bad grade because he doesn't agree with my views." I have endure such students with difficulty because instead of coming to school with an open heart and a desire for learning, they wish to be rewarded for their candid stupidity.

And "Professor" Derengowski is just such a teacher. What he tries to do is a blight on the profession of teaching. It is no wonder that so many politicians and pundits decry advanced education and try to strip it of any power to build a stronger nation.

People like Paul Derengowski do more harm to Christianity than a hundred Madelyn Murray O'Hares and a thousand Christopher Hitchenses. To the profession of teaching, people like him do harm that too often cannot be repaired because his most ardent students eventually become twice the children of Hell he is (Matthew 23:15).

Reading Response: Of Fox and the Drug War

In a recent WFAA story, Vincente Fox, former president of Mexico, was quoted as saying that the drug problem in the United States is all the fault of the United States. He said, "If you don't consume drugs, our problem is solved. We're doing our part. We're paying with 50,000 dead."

What Fox means by you is the entire United States. What he means by we is the entire country of Mexico.

So of course, he's wrong. Well, mostly wrong.

First of all, not all of us are using drugs. Get that shit straight, Mr. Fox. Second, bad policies, exploitation of the poor, and corruption in Mexico dating back decades, are as much to blame as demand from the United States for below the border supply. Third, don't throw around a number like 50,000 as if Americans have not lost many lives on this front.

One might as well state that the United States has a problem with illegal immigrants because our country is more desirable and safer to live in than almost any other country in the world.

Now it is true that many Americans want the illegal drugs that come from and through Mexico. Even in a rough economy, many find the resources to pay for the poison that brings death not only to addicts, but to their families, friends and to hundreds of law enforcement officials on both sides of the border. Adding to the problem is the fact that the medical profession, in general, has fostered a culture ever more dependent on medication, substances that most really do not need. So many problems seem to be "fixed" by taking drugs.

And if we keep up the demand, we are likely to continue to have a supply, and all the headaches that comes with it.

However, for Fox to make such blanket generalizations and assumptions at the same time he ignores the causes that come from his own country is unconscionable and counterproductive. But what do we expect from...a politician?

Reading Response (of sorts) – Of hating an idol

I don’t know why I let myself get sucked into these things. They never end well. But once again, I got caught up in a lengthy debate on Facebook over the worth of person . And once again, I wasted my time.
It started with Sportsnation posting a question on Facebook about Cam Newton’s stellar first game. Anyone who knows me knows I do not like Mr. Newton. I believe he has cheated his way to the top and cut corners at most every turn. He is a very good, talented athlete, and in his first game he was amazing (by all accounts; I didn’t watch it).
But I fell into the trap when I posted “negative” comments about Mr. Newton to Sportsnation’s question: “Do you LIKE what you saw from the #1 pick in week 1?” Silly me.
You see, people don’t like it when you don’t write about how wonderful their favorite athletes are. They say things like “He’s doing really well for himself, unlike you” and “Id like to see u try to do what cam did. Jus sayin” and “Go eat a cheeseburger.” (Yes, these are direct quotes. I didn’t want them to come back and accuse me of misquoting them.)
A couple people, initially, tried to defend Mr. Newton, tried to tell me that he doesn’t have a history of cheating, despite the facts to the contrary. Some were somewhat reasonable, though they did not share my belief that the NCAA allowed Mr. Newton’s to play in the Sugar Bowl, not because of his innocence, but that they couldn’t bear to lose the revenue a Newton-less game would bring.
But then it had to get personal.
Clearly several of these “defenders” had to accuse me of being at “hater.” By their definition, I guess I am. But a hater really is anyone who isn’t gaga over someone you think is wonderful. And if Newton is rolling up the yards and touchdowns, well, I guess any mention of his lack of character is, well, moronic. At least I got called a moron for not praising the almighty Newton.
Some said I was just “jealous” that Auburn “won” the national championship. (One accused me of being an Alabama fan.) Not really. I think pretty much all of NCAA Division I is corrupt. Auburn is just the one that got the big football cookie. This season another so called “school” will get it.
Then several of these “fans” decided that instead of attacking my argument, they should attack me. A few stalked my Facebook page and saw that I was a teacher. So they made brilliant comments about that. I suppose that not “doing well for myself” means that I make less than Mr. Newton or that I do not have the media attention he has. And I’m a loser for being a teacher.
One guy said, “U must be one perfect man whose never made a mistake in your life. Very typical of people like u.” No sir, not perfect at all. But my mistakes are my own and I try to own up to them. Mr. Newton doesn’t admit to making a mistake. He actually continues to defend his actions and the actions of his family. And lots of people actually think that since he is a good athlete, he must not have done anything wrong. When I disagreed with that notion, I was told my logic was off.
Some of the really bright ones decided to attack my weight. Yes, kids, I am fat. Not a little overweight. Really, really fat. And what these geniuses helped me to see is that since I am obese, I obviously don’t know what I’m talking about. I sure am glad nobody told my the college I attended (WHERE I WENT TO MY FUCKING CLASSES AND DIDN’T CHEAT ON MY FUCKING TESTS) about my weight problem. I would never have gotten that Master’s degree.
The thing is I never attacked Newton as an athlete. He is a good football player. He had a great career at Auburn and Florida and Blinn College. What Cam Newton showed us in his college career is that 1) he is a very good quarterback and 2) he has NO respect for education.
I do have respect for education. I cannot praise a man who used his ability to pursue his athletic goals while mocking the ideals of education. I will continue to question the character of a person who has become the poster child for what is wrong with the NCAA, an emblem of their hypocrisy. If that makes me a loser, then so be it.
But I guess I should stop arguing with these “winners” on Facebook. When will I learn about pearls before swine?

Reading Response: Of Insanity and Religion

Mr. Hitchens, in his Slate article “Rick Perry’s God,” is correct in saying that it is believers who should question Rick Perry’s religious statements, and I am surprised that they do not. I also understand and agree that Perry is only doing the prudent thing in getting himself elected by appealing to religion. It sickens me, but it is what he must do to appeal to those on his side of the political stripper pole.
Of course this appropriation of religion -- MY  RELIGION --, is one of the main reasons why I do not support Perry or any other candidate of his ilk. They use the language of religion to manipulate  an easier and easier to dupe mass of constituents. I do not know if Rick Perry actually believes what he is saying. Concerning the salvation of his soul, it might matter. Concerning the running of the country, it does not. Perry’s track record is the antithesis of practical, practicing Christianity. It seems that many American Christians honestly think that proving one is a Christian consists in the public use of certain words or membership in a particular party. Those believers are deceived, not only by the rhetoric machine, but by Satan. (I’ll leave it to theologians to decipher the difference, if one exists.)
What I take issue with is Hitchens’ typical bombastic name calling which is supposed to be argument. For example, in noting that Perry believes that “those who did not accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior would be going to hell,” Hitchens called the assertion “sheer wickedness and stupidity.” Many atheists have dismissed all claims from religious people (even those having nothing to do with religion) based on the idea that if one is religious, then one is “stupid;” therefore, no other ideas should be considered seriously from that person. But Hitchens goes so far as to say that the religious person is “wicked.”
Many people remind me of how smart Mr. Hitchens is. I don’t doubt it. But his logic in this case is worthy of, well, a politician.
While addressing what would have been one logical fallacy – the post hoc connection between Perry’s public prayers and precipitation in Texas (or a lack thereof) -- Hitchens resorts to another: ad hominem. He then doesn’t have work very hard to convince his audience that any religious person running for office is crazy and should be ignored. That reasoning works only for those who share his puny view of humanity.
Sadly, Mr. Hitchens argues well, in the same article, that Perry is sanest of the religious candidates on the right. That he might be right about this should scare the hell out of us.
But he is wrong about faith, and real people of faith.

Reading Response – Of Kings, Villains, and Haters

I must take issue with Robert Weintraub and his article “Heat Sensitive: Why I’m rooting for LeBron James – and you should too,” published today at Slate. Mr. Weintraub seems to think he is going against most in America in trying to build a case for liking the Heat and the man most demonized during their run of success. But he’s not. He’s echoing what almost every broadcaster on the ESPN/Disney/ABC network (outside of those in Dallas and possibly Cleveland) says and his argument misses some very key facts.
Weintraub states that he “winced” at James’ The Decision program. Most of us didn’t wince. Real sports fans shuddered that sports had sunk to such a low level as to market and endorse (even after the fact, Mr. Wilbon!) a television show where a single player lifts himself above the sport (with the support of ESPN), and holds the basketball world hostage, all the while trying to portray himself as not merely a great basketball player, but the essence of the game itself. Repeat: we did not wince; we shuddered.
Michael Wilbon and others claim that people either have or will forget The Decision. Some will. I won’t. For me, though, it has been about how Mr. James (a player I very much supported in the past) has handled himself since that point. He calls people who criticized him “haters,” and refuses to admit that the show was childish and self-serving. So LeBron, what is it when you criticize someone’s actions? Loving? Grow up.
But what really gets me riled is when people like Weintraub assume that the criticism LeBron James has received is because of his actual decision to leave the Cavaliers and play in Miami. Weintraub writes, “LeBron put in his time in Cleveland, played out his contract, and chose to go elsewhere, just like millions of other careerists out there. End of story.”
But it isn’t the end of the story. I didn’t hear a lot of noise when Chris Bosh left Toronto. Sure, he’s not the caliber of player of James, but he did it for the same reason: the opportunity to play on a high caliber team and win a championship. The issue, Weintraub and so many miss, is not just in the way James left, but what he has done with himself since then. Had he made the move to Miami, most likely the only people on James’ little “list” would be the people of Cleveland.
Had all this happened when James was still 18 or 19, I think many people would give the guy a pass. Maybe we’d all think, “Hey, he’s just a kid.” But LeBron James isn’t a child star anymore. He’s a grown man, an adult punk.
In a recent column, Rick Reilly gives several reasons fans should root for the Mavericks in these Finals. One of my favorites is this: “Pull for Dallas because Nowitzki stayed with his team, never took his talents anywhere but to the damn gym every day.” Amen to that and Go MAVS!

Reading Response – Of Facebook, Advertising, and Lies

Almost every day, I read the following: “Thanks for your feedback. Over time, this information helps us deliver more relevant ads to you.” If you have been on Facebook any length of time, you have read it too. But I have come to the conclusion this statement is a lie.
I do not make this accusation lightly or in jest. I think Facebook is lying, telling an untruth, being deceitful, speaking falsely. I have become convinced that like the political groups who are paying to promote their ideas there, Facebook has no intention to fulfill their promise to “deliver more relevant ads” to me or anyone.
Okay, here’s what happens. Near any Facebook the ads, you will see a little X. You can click on the X to get rid of the ad. But before the ad goes away, you are given a little menu of choices for why you don’t want to see this again, now or ever. The choices are: Uninteresting, Misleading, Offensive, Repetitive, and Other. If you choose “Other,” then you get a small box to type in a specific reason for disliking the ad. After you are done, you are given the message above.
Now what am I to think when I tell Facebook that I find a certain ad offensive? I think most, given the statement above, would assume Facebook, in the interest of not pissing off potential customers, would keep that ad from ever showing up on that person’s page. What would you expect to happen if many similar items, perhaps generated by the same group of people, are “reported” to Facebook? Would you not expect Facebook, who can learn about the preferences of his members, to figure out, “Hey this guy isn’t going to pay attention to stuff from this group. Let’s give him something else”?
But they don’t. I see the same ads over and over though Facebook keeps telling me that “over time” they will bring “relevant” promotions to my page. THE SAME ADVERTISEMENTS SHOW UP NEARLY EVERY DAY. Does “over time” mean to these guys, “some day in the future you will be so darn old you will have forgotten what you do and do not like”?
I understand why there are advertisements, and I don’t have a problem with them doing it. Facebook is the biggest social networking site in the world, and I believe they have a right to earn revenue selling promotion space. I believe the people who purchase that space, even those I don’t like or agree with (even those who I know are using that space to mislead) have a right to try to sell their ideas in this forum.
However, I know the technology exists for them to “learn” from my preferences, and I know that Facebook is using that technology. Otherwise, why would I be getting little messages for jazz groups and books on spiritual matters? I didn’t fill out a survey that said, “Please tell me more about this such and such topics.” Facebook figured it out based on what I post, the groups I join, and other activities I participate in.
I am not well versed in the subtleties of technology. But I do know Facebook can learn what I don’t like as easily as it can learn what I enjoy. They can figure out what bothers me, and yet they choose to cram the same political advertisements onto nearly every page I access, despite the fact that I almost never write about politics (except the occasional comment to someone’s post). How can they, after MONTHS AND MONTHS, not see that I mean it when I say that certain ads are offensive to me?
How can they? Because like most politicians, they have no interest in the truth. They know most people will ignore what they dislike or finally get so curious they find themselves clicking on the ad no matter what they think. It is a law of advertising, if you cannot find target consumers, make them by sheer weight of repetition. After all, anyone who doesn’t like it, can just “change the channel,” right?

Reading Response – Of Bullies and School Administrators

Have been following the story of several teenagers who have been charged in connection with the suicide of Phoebe Prince since running across this New York Times article. I find it troubling that any children in a country that presumes to value tolerance would be able to destroy their consciences enough to allow themselves to do the sort of things that were clearly done to this young girl. I am almost as appalled that there are parents who justify the cruelty of their children and school teachers and administrators who pick and choose who they are going to protect.
Laws and programs about bullying can give schools the opportunity to be democratic when they have never really been. In the past, teachers and principals turned a blind eye when a kid was being picked on if that young person was not popular, seemed “weird,” or didn’t fit in. They didn’t do much about verbal harassment, unless the one talking used profanity. With an emphasis now on paying attention to different forms of harassment and better training of teachers, the opportunity is there to stop abuse and give just punishments to offenders.
But what really happens is often the same old thing, only now it is clothed with programs and posters and sweet sounding reassurances that every child is safe, and any perpetrator will be severely dealt with, no matter how well connected. What really happens is that if your child is the sort of person that seems an easy target  for bullies, “no tolerance” means the bullied kid will get punished if they do anything wrong, even if defending him or herself.
I have seen it with my own kids. One of my children spent much of a year being tortured with pushing, hitting, name calling and threats by a little boy while their teacher only seemed to notice my daughter complaining. I had to threaten the school with the unwanted publicity of a lawsuit and the child’s family with an assault charge to get the teacher and principal to even separate the two. They continued to maintain the boy was an innocent victim. Strange that a couple years later, at her middle school, the same boy tried to bully my daughter  one time and the teacher then was able to take action right away that has thus far halted the problem.
My son was once picked on every single day by several people, and yet when I went to pick him up from school, I had to go through a gauntlet of teachers who had to tell me about how he wouldn’t do any work and how he wouldn’t try to get along with his classmates. HELLO? Did you get the idea that a kid who withdraws like that and blows up at people calling him names isn’t just “sensitive”? It got so bad, we had to remove him from school. He’s back now, but was sent home from a class trip when he was picked on by one of his former tormentors (oddly, no chaperones were available) and lashed out with “bad language.” No punishment for the kid who used foul language to hurt my kid. No reprimand for the chaperones who couldn’t be bothered to stay in the cabin with the boys. No investigation into the incident. Just me having to listen to a teacher tell me that my son was ruining the trip for everyone else.
Now I look at the case of Phoebe Prince and I am again flabbergasted that school administrators claim they knew nothing about what was happening to her. I just don’t buy it. I know that it is difficult for teachers to see everything. But how can dozens of students witness incidents in a hallway or assembly and not one teacher or one administrator see it? This is part of what they are supposed to be looking for. I have a hard time believing that one student couldn’t say something in confidence to an adult. Doing so might well have saved this girl’s life. Someone knew something and could have done something. Most of the members of this community should be hanging their heads in shame.
A parent of another girl who had been a target by at least one of those charged stated that his daughter endured bullying for THREE YEARS and could get nothing done. Eventually an apology came after the fact. What kind of school are they running here? It seems to be one like so many in America, one that sends the message “Our job is not to protect your child. Our job is to make sure they come often enough to be drilled through standardized testing so we can get our funding. Those who are mean and cruel are rewarded. The unique and the different deserve the pain they get.”
I fear that after all the media frenzy about this case dies down, many will forget that there are still bullies and abusers in every school and that they come in many different packages with many different weapons. I am afraid schools will start new “anti-bullying” programs that will do no more to educate and empower students, teachers, and administrators than before, but only dress the same ignored messages in nice, comfortable language. I worry that we will continue to take the playground bully and the classroom abuser and raise him or her up to be the next Bernie Madoff or Ted Bundy.
But, you bullies out there, I am not afraid of you. I have some hope. My kids have some good people in their lives: family, friends, teachers, principals, coaches, scout leaders, ministers and others whose love can help to overcome the evil of willful ignorance.

Reading Response – Of Parents in Books

This evening read an interesting article from the New York Times by Julie Just called, “The Parent Problem in Young Adult Lit.” Reminded me of something I wrote years ago about the dearth of positive parent figures, particularly fathers, in television and movies. Just’s article seems to focus mostly on mothers, and I found her look interesting. She doesn’t appear to have as big a problem as I do with so many books having parents who are crazy, absent, abusive, or self-absorbed. But she doesn’t applaud this either. I do wish she’d mentioned the excellent novels by Madeleine L’Engle, where the parents are flawed but still in authority (without having to be overbearing or dictatorial) and still worthy of respect.
There are a great many aspects of life that we, as a society, seem impelled to take an either/or approach to, and how to draw parental figures is one of them. Why we cannot, in all forms of art, have more mothers and fathers who are real, and who do the best they can despite the whining and selfishness of so many television fed teens, is beyond the scope of my understanding.
Don’t tell me it isn’t possible, that it won’t sell if the parents are too real and if they are right most of the time. I’ve seen it work over and over.

Reading Response – Of Team Building

I honestly could not, at first, believe what I was reading. I’d been following a story about football players at Texas A&M Commerce getting busted for possession of marijuana (and other things), when the story took an odd twist. Many of the members of the football team were implicated in stealing copies of school paper, The East Texan, in which the arrest was reported. Then head football coach Guy Morriss (thank Jesus, no relation!) called the thefts “The best team building exercise we have ever done.”
I shook my head. I read again. It was still there. I should have known. This mindset has always been there. I guess I just didn’t expect anyone to openly defend it.
College sports, and football in particular, is filled with people who have decided they live by a different set of rules, rules that make them lords of the universe and anyone who gets in their way or questions them be damned.
Team building? I know that Coach Morriss has since apologized for his statement. But I cannot help be think that he still thinks he and his players are above the law. Essentially a bunch of spoiled athletes did not like that teammates were not only caught in the act of a couple of felonies, but that a newspaper had the audacity to report it. So to “build” the team, they commit another crime (one for which the university has yet to take appropriate action). Sounds like the reasoning of a Mafioso.
Coach Morriss, if that is what you think is good for your team and the school you represent, then you can fucking have it!
I love sports, absolutely love it. But crap like this has all but ruined the joy once took I take in watching and reading about my favorite teams. This once included A&M Commerce.
This is one more example that in our culture athletes are a privileged class of people. We barely speak about the supposed “student athlete” who has no interest in education and who openly flaunts his disrespect of anyone in authority (except their coaches, of course), particularly their instructors. Most in our culture, in fact, regard teachers more often as obstacles to success, and many college athletes ramp up that attitude as if the idea itself is on steroids.
A member of the school’s Student Government Association even called the matter “over” after Morriss apologized in a statement. (For those of you not familiar with some of these fancy terms, “statement” refers to a weak-assed apology, probably not written by the coach himself, that is supposed to be a public witness of the contrite feelings he doesn’t really have about the actions that have embarrassed his employer, who has no intention of taking the kind of action against his employee that would be taken against the rest of us if we found ourselves in the same position.) So now even elected voices of the student body have helped us rest easy by sweeping more bullshit under the rug.
The president of the university has called the Morriss’ statement about “team building” “a misguided attempt at humor.” Really? That’s what you call it? The president seems to have forgotten that the coach told police he knew nothing about the thefts, and said about The East Texan “I don’t read that crap.”
I just want to get a few things straight: Lying to the police is okay. Theft is “team building.” People who write things you don’t like to hear are publishers of “crap.”  And President Dan Jones is okay with this. Morriss’ has pretended to be sorry, and he and his players have been “disciplined.” I’ll believe that when I see it.
In the meantime, I am not going to be surprised when another spoiled prince of an athlete has his way with us, or when some jerk of a coach or athletic director defends his actions.

Reading Response: Of Online Classes and discrimination

Normally, I try to remember that student journalists are students, in college to learn the art and craft of journalism. I try to leave their opinions alone and keep from responding, especially as a teacher might. However, there are times when I just can't stop myself from providing one of these guys either a strong pat on the back for a job well done or a little extra education.

The following is in response to an article entitled "Online classes discriminate against less-connected" by Brad Powers. It was published in the online version of The East Texan. I had tried to leave a comment, but got an "error" message that said my email address (which I have used for 12 years) is "invalid." Thus, I share it with you.

I am an alum of your school and I also have been teaching online, hybrid, and "face to face" classes for a number of years. These questions seem fine on the surface, but the attacks on professors in this editorial are out of line and show that you have not really looked at all sides of the issue.

A few years ago, the term "digital divide" was used to identify the problem you are writing about: that the poor and others could not have access to technology (or did not have access others more fortunate did). That has not completely gone away despite computer labs and other resources more and more colleges have. But it is getting better.

Calling professors lazy shows you have not taken the time to talk to one. You need to find out just how much work it takes to put together online elements for a course and to maintain those courses. You obviously are not sitting in the same damn seminars teachers all over the country have to where we-- after working late not only putting together syllabi or tests, had to deal with putting the material online in a way that fits some other person's idea of a user-friendly format-- have to listen to some blowhard tell us that our students are "digital natives" and that we (backwards professors) are "digital immigrants."

In most schools, students do have choices and can enroll in classes with no online components. There are still many professors who are willing to teach the "old fashioned" way. Note also that those who are not "technologically inclined" are often people making excuses to avoid gaining the computer literacy they will need to be employed once they leave school.

Why didn't you, before spouting off, ask even one teacher the questions you pose in this article? Why didn't you consider that NO change in the way classes are taught is going to make every student happy? Why didn't you look at the whole story before trying to give the impression that professors had some sort of agenda? Why didn't you do your homework?