We knew this was coming - check out the last paragraph of the "Time for a Rant" post back in April about Ronnie Earle vs. Tom Delay. I wrote that after reading an Esquire feature about Earle who, on the verge of retirement, stumbled onto the Delay/TRMPAC case and was so enraged by the "above the law" audacity of it he just couldn't let it go. His wife told him not to take the case... to go ahead and retire. Said he had nothing left to prove since he was respected by Dems and Repubs alike in Texas and even nationally. His colleagues described him as the last of a dying breed... seeking only justice, irreplaceable in that respect. Over the course of his career, where party affiliation was an issue, he prosecuted more Dems than Repubs. Now, he's "a partisan wacko only trumping up charges against Delay because Delay's a Republican." Please.
By the way, anyone catch Delay's overzealous proclamation of innocence on TV? Did it look and sound a little too much like, "I never had sexual relations with that woman..."
But, of course, the comparison stops there. After all, Delay is only being accused of manipulating a federal election by violating federal law pouring millions of illegally raised funds into it. C'mon... this is a fishing expedition... nowhere near as critical to national security as Clinton's sexual exploits. If only Kenneth Starr had spent a few million more of our dollars, maybe he could have convicted Clinton and solved all of our country's problems.
Smell ya later,
Luth
Friday, September 30, 2005
Achieving Grace through Self Help
I only ever had a vague memory of how beautifully Paul Simon and Art Garfunkel's voices blended from back when my parents still listened to them in our house. I remember the original S & G's Greatest hits; Peter, Paul and Mary; Johnny Cash, Live from Folsom Prison; Herb Alpert and the Tijuana Brass, and a few others that I'd probably have to see again to remember. These were the last sounds to fill our house before I developed my own taste in music and before my dad switched permanently to talk radio.
A few years later, I remember seeing Simon and Garfunkel on Saturday Night Live together. They'd broken up, but got back together for the show for some reason. That caused me to be aware that Garfunkel had released some solo albums, but they never quite turned into much and so from that point on, and especially after a number of Paul Simon solo hits as I was growing up, I always wondered why Simon ever kept this guy around. Once my parents quit listening to them, I'd only ever hear their songs on the radio at work or while other things were going on so I never really paid attention and it was only rarely that the sound quality could do the vocals justice anyway. I always assumed I only liked their songs together because they reminded me of that wonderful time when my parents were still cool enough to play real music.
Last year I got a digitally remastered copy of a two disc "greatest hits" and actually listened to it on a decent system with no distractions. Here's the point: Art Garfunkel's voice is one of the purest, clearest, most brilliantly beautiful sounds I've ever heard. It is Grace (with a capital G) unleashed upon us earthly creatures. Like Ben Franklin said of beer: "it's proof God loves us and wants us to have fun."
Don't really know where all that came from, but if you haven't listened to Bridge Over Troubled Water in a while, do yourself a favor. It'll remind you why Simon kept him around as long as he did. Oh yeah, I told you that story to tell you this one...
Those were some of the last sounds to emanate from my dad's stereo speakers before talk radio took over. Much like its effect on the rest of the world, commercial talk radio represented the demise of rational thought in our household. From that point on, good music was no longer acceptable. I tried hard. I bought dad the cassette deck to go along with the Willie Nelson album I got him for Christmas one year. We played it a couple of times, but after that, no more music. Just that talk radio crap. Even worse, it was AM talk radio.
By now you must know where I'm going with this, but here's where the idea came from: I'm reading SHAM by Steve Salerno. It's about how the self-help industry is leaving us helpless. He titled it based on his self-coined acronym - Self-Help And Motivation (industry.)
Anyway, Salerno's real point is that while most of us just pass self-help off as, at worst, an annoying but amusing fad, its effect on all of us is worse than we imagine. It costs even those of us who would never buy it more than we think.
Salerno splits his description of the industry into two camps: the victimization camp and the empowerment camp. The victimization folks believe that nothing is their fault, rapidly destroying all sense of personal responsibility... like say joining the national guard to avoid the draft, but then never fulfilling your obligations, and then, when questioned about it during a presidential campaign, never producing the DD214 that would clear up all the questions, thus not living up to one's personal obligations and being perfectly fine with it. Republicans usually call these people Democrats.
The empowerment folk believe that simply setting one's mind to something and trying it is good enough, regardless of whether you accomplish anything or are even remotely qualified to even try it... like, say, being the president of a horse club, but really wanting to run a federal agency. So empowerment means you can do whatever you want regardless of your ability, desire, means, or qualifications... kind of like being above the rules. Democrats call these people Republicans.
How, you ask, does this apply at all to talk radio? Well, it seems to me that both Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'reilly are graduates of both camps. Rush was a victim when he accepted public assistance during leaner times, but an expert on fairness when he suggests cutting such "entitlement" programs now that he's rich. He was a victim of his housecleaner's unrelenting supply of Vicodin, but now he's empowered to talk about the illegality of abortion clinic funding. O'reilly is blameless when caught masturbating with tele-porn, but empowered to write a teen advice book.
Those instances, by themselves, are no more than humorous anecdotes. Pure entertainment, but Rush and Bill, like their predecessor, Paul Harvey, often blur the lines between entertaining political commentary and paid advertising. Unlike John Stewart, who cries foul whenever he hears people say they "get their news" from The Daily Show, Rush and Bill never make those pleas. They never distinguish among entertainment (what they do,) political expertise (what they and their fans claim,) and paid endorsements for products they talk about. Again, for those of us who are familiar with valid, logical arguments, the relevance of facts, and the common fallacies invoked by those with little truth on their side, this is innocent entertainment. I admire the fortune Bill and Rush have amassed with their mastery of oversimplification and false logic. And since it's only entertainment, what harm could it do?
But in the last 10 years, their oversimplification and false logic seems to sum up the way we choose political leaders. Fit it into a sound bite, take it as gospel, ignore all the contrary, obvious evidence, and go about your business. It's the empowerment argument. Then when something goes wrong, blame everyone and everything else (like partisan politics) and become a victim.
This trend really has made its way into public policy. Personal religious beliefs are being turned into laws for the greater good and protection of all mankind even though not all of mankind shares those personal religious beliefs and they offer no real protection from anything. The empowerment camp struck a victory when faith-based programs like Alcoholics Anonymous received government funding even though little or no documented evidence exists supporting those programs' success. In fact, according to Salerno, a 1995 study by Harvard Med says those NOT in AA stood a better chance of quitting drinking.
What really amazes me about this now $8.5 billion is how it defies the very trends that it replaces. Granted, business consultants preach a different brand of help, but the Continuous Improvement, Baldridge Total Quality, TQM, Value Added, whatever the hell you want to call it movement is all about measuring and tracking results and yet there is NO documented evidence that we've received anything in return for the $8.5 billion this industry has sucked out of us all. And don't think just cuz you haven't bought anything to contribute to Tony Robbins's $80 million a year income you haven't paid for some of it. Corporations shell out big bucks to hire these guys to "train" employees. Guess who ends up paying for that? Not only is there no evidence that it helps, but the growth of sales suggests we're worse off for all the crap we've already bought... we must need even MORE help as a result of it. This market is supposed to increase even more dramatically. Actually, that's about the only logical thing I see in these trends. The SHAM folks have us all convinced we're empowered enough to move up to the next level of training, or that we're victims who need their help to deal with what we deserve. Man are we idiots.
So anyway, listen to Art Garfunkel again. I hope that guy's still getting some royalty checks, cuz that's therapy that works! And like George Carlin says, "if you're readin' it in a book, it ain't SELF help, it's HELP."
Chow,
Luth
A few years later, I remember seeing Simon and Garfunkel on Saturday Night Live together. They'd broken up, but got back together for the show for some reason. That caused me to be aware that Garfunkel had released some solo albums, but they never quite turned into much and so from that point on, and especially after a number of Paul Simon solo hits as I was growing up, I always wondered why Simon ever kept this guy around. Once my parents quit listening to them, I'd only ever hear their songs on the radio at work or while other things were going on so I never really paid attention and it was only rarely that the sound quality could do the vocals justice anyway. I always assumed I only liked their songs together because they reminded me of that wonderful time when my parents were still cool enough to play real music.
Last year I got a digitally remastered copy of a two disc "greatest hits" and actually listened to it on a decent system with no distractions. Here's the point: Art Garfunkel's voice is one of the purest, clearest, most brilliantly beautiful sounds I've ever heard. It is Grace (with a capital G) unleashed upon us earthly creatures. Like Ben Franklin said of beer: "it's proof God loves us and wants us to have fun."
Don't really know where all that came from, but if you haven't listened to Bridge Over Troubled Water in a while, do yourself a favor. It'll remind you why Simon kept him around as long as he did. Oh yeah, I told you that story to tell you this one...
Those were some of the last sounds to emanate from my dad's stereo speakers before talk radio took over. Much like its effect on the rest of the world, commercial talk radio represented the demise of rational thought in our household. From that point on, good music was no longer acceptable. I tried hard. I bought dad the cassette deck to go along with the Willie Nelson album I got him for Christmas one year. We played it a couple of times, but after that, no more music. Just that talk radio crap. Even worse, it was AM talk radio.
By now you must know where I'm going with this, but here's where the idea came from: I'm reading SHAM by Steve Salerno. It's about how the self-help industry is leaving us helpless. He titled it based on his self-coined acronym - Self-Help And Motivation (industry.)
Anyway, Salerno's real point is that while most of us just pass self-help off as, at worst, an annoying but amusing fad, its effect on all of us is worse than we imagine. It costs even those of us who would never buy it more than we think.
Salerno splits his description of the industry into two camps: the victimization camp and the empowerment camp. The victimization folks believe that nothing is their fault, rapidly destroying all sense of personal responsibility... like say joining the national guard to avoid the draft, but then never fulfilling your obligations, and then, when questioned about it during a presidential campaign, never producing the DD214 that would clear up all the questions, thus not living up to one's personal obligations and being perfectly fine with it. Republicans usually call these people Democrats.
The empowerment folk believe that simply setting one's mind to something and trying it is good enough, regardless of whether you accomplish anything or are even remotely qualified to even try it... like, say, being the president of a horse club, but really wanting to run a federal agency. So empowerment means you can do whatever you want regardless of your ability, desire, means, or qualifications... kind of like being above the rules. Democrats call these people Republicans.
How, you ask, does this apply at all to talk radio? Well, it seems to me that both Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'reilly are graduates of both camps. Rush was a victim when he accepted public assistance during leaner times, but an expert on fairness when he suggests cutting such "entitlement" programs now that he's rich. He was a victim of his housecleaner's unrelenting supply of Vicodin, but now he's empowered to talk about the illegality of abortion clinic funding. O'reilly is blameless when caught masturbating with tele-porn, but empowered to write a teen advice book.
Those instances, by themselves, are no more than humorous anecdotes. Pure entertainment, but Rush and Bill, like their predecessor, Paul Harvey, often blur the lines between entertaining political commentary and paid advertising. Unlike John Stewart, who cries foul whenever he hears people say they "get their news" from The Daily Show, Rush and Bill never make those pleas. They never distinguish among entertainment (what they do,) political expertise (what they and their fans claim,) and paid endorsements for products they talk about. Again, for those of us who are familiar with valid, logical arguments, the relevance of facts, and the common fallacies invoked by those with little truth on their side, this is innocent entertainment. I admire the fortune Bill and Rush have amassed with their mastery of oversimplification and false logic. And since it's only entertainment, what harm could it do?
But in the last 10 years, their oversimplification and false logic seems to sum up the way we choose political leaders. Fit it into a sound bite, take it as gospel, ignore all the contrary, obvious evidence, and go about your business. It's the empowerment argument. Then when something goes wrong, blame everyone and everything else (like partisan politics) and become a victim.
This trend really has made its way into public policy. Personal religious beliefs are being turned into laws for the greater good and protection of all mankind even though not all of mankind shares those personal religious beliefs and they offer no real protection from anything. The empowerment camp struck a victory when faith-based programs like Alcoholics Anonymous received government funding even though little or no documented evidence exists supporting those programs' success. In fact, according to Salerno, a 1995 study by Harvard Med says those NOT in AA stood a better chance of quitting drinking.
What really amazes me about this now $8.5 billion is how it defies the very trends that it replaces. Granted, business consultants preach a different brand of help, but the Continuous Improvement, Baldridge Total Quality, TQM, Value Added, whatever the hell you want to call it movement is all about measuring and tracking results and yet there is NO documented evidence that we've received anything in return for the $8.5 billion this industry has sucked out of us all. And don't think just cuz you haven't bought anything to contribute to Tony Robbins's $80 million a year income you haven't paid for some of it. Corporations shell out big bucks to hire these guys to "train" employees. Guess who ends up paying for that? Not only is there no evidence that it helps, but the growth of sales suggests we're worse off for all the crap we've already bought... we must need even MORE help as a result of it. This market is supposed to increase even more dramatically. Actually, that's about the only logical thing I see in these trends. The SHAM folks have us all convinced we're empowered enough to move up to the next level of training, or that we're victims who need their help to deal with what we deserve. Man are we idiots.
So anyway, listen to Art Garfunkel again. I hope that guy's still getting some royalty checks, cuz that's therapy that works! And like George Carlin says, "if you're readin' it in a book, it ain't SELF help, it's HELP."
Chow,
Luth
Thursday, September 15, 2005
Bush Boys Fishin' on the Gulf Coast
Yeah, it's baseless, unsupported, clearly bogus. And let's face it, these days, it doesn't take much more talent than the typical bored 8 year-old has to put together a picture like this. But darn it, it's funny! I watched the speech tonight and was mildly impressed though it did strike me as a little disingenuous that we've now pledged so much to fix what may have been prevented had the Corps of Engineers' budget not been pillaged to pay for that big 'ol tax cut.
To be fair though, Katrina was huge and we all thought we'd dodged the worst of it when it spun past New Orleans. I can't fault the president for his response. What could he have done? (I'm being serious although I know most of my friends won't believe it)
At least he still opposes abortion and we still got our guns! That'll shelter the homeless, bail the floodwaters, rebuild the cities, balance the budget, sew things up in Iraq and make us great again.
Luth,
Out.
Wednesday, September 14, 2005
Daily Show Sorts Wheat from Chaff (again)
The Pledge of Allegiance
"Congress added 'under God' during the cold war when our enemies were Godless commies. These days our enemies are religious fanatics. Maybe Congress should change it to, 'under our more reasonable God." (The Daily Show's John Stewart)
It's funny cuz it's true. Stewart's lead for this fake news story was critical of the latest suit against a school district for making an atheist's son say the pledge with those words in it. It's not that Stewart didn't sympathize with the atheist, it's just that he, like most of us, knew that the suit would bring even more attention and support for those words than anything since... well, since the last time this guy brought his suit against his kid's school.
The Supreme Court dodged the bullet the first time around when it was discovered that the atheist dad didn't even have custody of the child and therefore couldn't legally bring suit on the child's behalf. But now he's got custody and now the California court has ruled. And now Stewart, once again, is dead on with his prediction. This suit is the rallying cry for zealots (only a derogatory word if you take as such) who will force their brand of faith on everyone.
The harsh reality of Stewart's joke is that what we're arguing about here is whether or not to allow schools to do what we ousted Saddam for doing - telling subjects how to worship. Granted, the generic words in question don't specify a particular faith, but they assume faith in general thereby coercing anyone without it into pretending or going along. It's clearly not as extreme as Saddam, but it is, undeniably, the same the concept. (note I said "same concept..." I am not comparing public schools who say the pledge to evil dictators)
What makes Stewart's joke and the public outcry in support of "those words" even funnier is our lack of knowledge regarding the pledge's evolution (see new link: Pledge FYI). As it turns out, the Christian, that's right, I said Christian, who wrote the pledge in 1892, never included those words. Stewart was dead on again when referring to the 1954 revision of the pledge to include those words. He should have mentioned congress's revision of the "offical stance" one assumed while reciting the pledge while he was at it as well. Turns out congress changed that in 1942 because it was "too reminiscent of the Nazi salute." We've really come a long way.
Let's face it, one great reason to say that pledge, and mean it, is the freedom to choose not only how, but whether or not to worship at all. I know... I know, I can hear the keyboards buzzing already. "But Luth, we were founded on Christian principles, our money has Christian symbols and says we trust God." Yeah, yeah I hear ya. But our money also has pagan symbols, we were founded on pagan principles too, and even atheists know that you can't trust humans. The REASON this country was founded was specifically to avoid having this fight. I have some doubts over the complete accuracy and validity of that reason too, and I suspect that speculative dreams about easy money and free land might have lured some folks to this country as well, but I guess we'll never really know.
The point is this: at work, you don't want your boss telling you how, or even if you should pray (or not pray). For school kids, school is their "work" and the prinicipal is their "boss." Only the principal is a lot scarier to most schoolkids than your boss is to you. If everyone is saying the pledge with those words in it and it's being played over the principal's PA system, then the kids ARE being coerced to say it.
No it's not necesarily harmful. No it's not necesarily too much to ask to just put up with it. Yes I believe that a public school in the U.S. should be allowed to require its students to pledge their allegiance to the nation that makes the whole situation possible. I even believe in God. But those words weren't part of the original pledge congress adopted. Those words have nothing to do with the root meaning of the pledge. And in this nation, created and populated by folks seeking refuge from a government who told them how to worship, those words are contrary to what that flag stands for. I personally don't care if we take those words out of the pledge, but unless we do, we shouldn't make people say it.
-----------------------
More praise for Stewart and his role in modern politics:
I know... I've heard him say it... "it's fake news." Stewart is the first one to say people should NOT take him seriously or even hint at the idea that The Daily Show is their source of news. (Note the vast difference between his take on his role as an ENTERTAINER and say, Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly's stance. Some of those guys think they're pretty damned important. One does not, but I digress...)
Stewart's going to have to work a lot harder at discrediting himself if he doesn't want to influence the way people see the world, especially in light of the actual events that many would never hear of were it not for the rather skewed and entertaining treatment of those events on The Daily Show. The guy had Kurt Vonnegut on last night! He's had past presidents, liberals and conservatives, wackos and respected authorities on all range of topics. Unlike mainstream press, which has bent so far backward to shed the "liberal" label that they now must find their heads in conservative asses, Stewart treats all guests the same - alternating between making them, and then him, the butt of his jokes while at the same time engaging in actual, civil discussion regardless of the topic. He makes no bones about his own liberal leanings, but unlike his conservative counterparts who claim to be fair and balanced, he treats all of his guests with the respect a fellow human deserves. (in all but the most extreme cases-hacks get skewered regardless of party affiliation too) And just when you start taking him seriously, he cuts to one of his "field correspondents." If you don't get it by then, you're a lost cause.
If you haven't seen it, you're a lost soul.
"Congress added 'under God' during the cold war when our enemies were Godless commies. These days our enemies are religious fanatics. Maybe Congress should change it to, 'under our more reasonable God." (The Daily Show's John Stewart)
It's funny cuz it's true. Stewart's lead for this fake news story was critical of the latest suit against a school district for making an atheist's son say the pledge with those words in it. It's not that Stewart didn't sympathize with the atheist, it's just that he, like most of us, knew that the suit would bring even more attention and support for those words than anything since... well, since the last time this guy brought his suit against his kid's school.
The Supreme Court dodged the bullet the first time around when it was discovered that the atheist dad didn't even have custody of the child and therefore couldn't legally bring suit on the child's behalf. But now he's got custody and now the California court has ruled. And now Stewart, once again, is dead on with his prediction. This suit is the rallying cry for zealots (only a derogatory word if you take as such) who will force their brand of faith on everyone.
The harsh reality of Stewart's joke is that what we're arguing about here is whether or not to allow schools to do what we ousted Saddam for doing - telling subjects how to worship. Granted, the generic words in question don't specify a particular faith, but they assume faith in general thereby coercing anyone without it into pretending or going along. It's clearly not as extreme as Saddam, but it is, undeniably, the same the concept. (note I said "same concept..." I am not comparing public schools who say the pledge to evil dictators)
What makes Stewart's joke and the public outcry in support of "those words" even funnier is our lack of knowledge regarding the pledge's evolution (see new link: Pledge FYI). As it turns out, the Christian, that's right, I said Christian, who wrote the pledge in 1892, never included those words. Stewart was dead on again when referring to the 1954 revision of the pledge to include those words. He should have mentioned congress's revision of the "offical stance" one assumed while reciting the pledge while he was at it as well. Turns out congress changed that in 1942 because it was "too reminiscent of the Nazi salute." We've really come a long way.
Let's face it, one great reason to say that pledge, and mean it, is the freedom to choose not only how, but whether or not to worship at all. I know... I know, I can hear the keyboards buzzing already. "But Luth, we were founded on Christian principles, our money has Christian symbols and says we trust God." Yeah, yeah I hear ya. But our money also has pagan symbols, we were founded on pagan principles too, and even atheists know that you can't trust humans. The REASON this country was founded was specifically to avoid having this fight. I have some doubts over the complete accuracy and validity of that reason too, and I suspect that speculative dreams about easy money and free land might have lured some folks to this country as well, but I guess we'll never really know.
The point is this: at work, you don't want your boss telling you how, or even if you should pray (or not pray). For school kids, school is their "work" and the prinicipal is their "boss." Only the principal is a lot scarier to most schoolkids than your boss is to you. If everyone is saying the pledge with those words in it and it's being played over the principal's PA system, then the kids ARE being coerced to say it.
No it's not necesarily harmful. No it's not necesarily too much to ask to just put up with it. Yes I believe that a public school in the U.S. should be allowed to require its students to pledge their allegiance to the nation that makes the whole situation possible. I even believe in God. But those words weren't part of the original pledge congress adopted. Those words have nothing to do with the root meaning of the pledge. And in this nation, created and populated by folks seeking refuge from a government who told them how to worship, those words are contrary to what that flag stands for. I personally don't care if we take those words out of the pledge, but unless we do, we shouldn't make people say it.
-----------------------
More praise for Stewart and his role in modern politics:
I know... I've heard him say it... "it's fake news." Stewart is the first one to say people should NOT take him seriously or even hint at the idea that The Daily Show is their source of news. (Note the vast difference between his take on his role as an ENTERTAINER and say, Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly's stance. Some of those guys think they're pretty damned important. One does not, but I digress...)
Stewart's going to have to work a lot harder at discrediting himself if he doesn't want to influence the way people see the world, especially in light of the actual events that many would never hear of were it not for the rather skewed and entertaining treatment of those events on The Daily Show. The guy had Kurt Vonnegut on last night! He's had past presidents, liberals and conservatives, wackos and respected authorities on all range of topics. Unlike mainstream press, which has bent so far backward to shed the "liberal" label that they now must find their heads in conservative asses, Stewart treats all guests the same - alternating between making them, and then him, the butt of his jokes while at the same time engaging in actual, civil discussion regardless of the topic. He makes no bones about his own liberal leanings, but unlike his conservative counterparts who claim to be fair and balanced, he treats all of his guests with the respect a fellow human deserves. (in all but the most extreme cases-hacks get skewered regardless of party affiliation too) And just when you start taking him seriously, he cuts to one of his "field correspondents." If you don't get it by then, you're a lost cause.
If you haven't seen it, you're a lost soul.
Monday, September 12, 2005
Grammar Rules!
Anyone hear anything about this book, EATS, SHOOTS AND LEAVES by Lynne Truss? (I guess it's pretty obvious somone has!) Our school librarian left a copy in my mailbox at school. Only later did I discover she'd actually signed it out in my name. I guess that's something the Patriot Act allows her to do without my consent! Anyhoo, according to the jacket, it actually made the best seller list and has enjoyed successful sales beyond anyone's dreams. The author's own mother, when first told about the book, suggested adding "For the Select Few" to the cover. The author, who knew her audience would be limited, says she was hurt by this, but still claims to be surprised by the book's success.
I'm not surprised. I've only read the Publisher's note, the jacket notes, the Foreword by Frank McCourt and the Preface by the author, but I've already achieved my monthly dose of dry wit as well as beefed up my rapidly waning knowledge of punctuation rules. Yep, I said punctuation rules and I'm an English teacher. Let me say that in another way - yep, it's a book about punctuation and it was on the best seller list!
Again, I'm not surprised. There are people out there who still have standards. Contrary to the downward spiral of personal responsibility inspired by our current leadership, there are people who appreciate achievement. We're not perfectionists, we just appreciate the attempt. Now, back to the English teacher thing... I teach English, which encompasses all manner of communication skills including, nay, featuring, reading and writing. At the high school level, this includes, nay, is based primarily on, having kids think critically, evaluate and formulate their own conclusions about what they read, develop those thoughts, and commit them to writing in a semi-intelligent manner. It doesn't matter to me, and shouldn't matter to anyone else that many of these kids can do this much better than most adults. What does matter is that they, some day, see this exercise in the basic human functions as important enough to remember and valuable enough to continue practicing.
The success of Truss's book gives me hope that some people, maybe even more than would actually go out and fork over cash (or be seen doing it) for a book about punctuation, do find these basic, core skills valuable.
These days, grammar is rarely even mentioned in the core curriculum/state standards/course of study/whatever you want to call it anymore. Even when it was an integral part of language instruction, most scoffed at it as something only English teachers ever knew or used. But with the decline of test scores, the failures in communication on a global scale, and what many feel is the general and rapidly accelerating decline of the human race, these "courtesies" suddenly seem to have a purpose again. Clear, professional communication suddenly has value again... did it ever really not? Grammar rules are and always were the basics, like spelling and even forming letters. It's not something one teacher is ever responsible for. It's just a given. YOU are just supposed to know like you know how to write your name and social security number. Whenever you ask the English major in the next cubicle how to spell something, remember that you too had the opportunity to learn how to spell and use a dictionary long before you had to declare a major. Likewise with the grammar book. You were introduced to the material at some point in your life. You either decided it was worth learning or you didn't. For many, who, as they get older, suddenly realize how much smarter their teachers were, this book is a chance at redemption wrapped up in an entertaining package. Granted, knowledge shouldn't have to be entertaining, but it sure doesn't hurt.
For me though, it's just plain entertaining. The fact that reading it makes me better at my job is just a bonus. I didn't really NEED any further grammar instruction! (yes that was an invitation for corrections)
Speaking of the need for further instruction and the Patriot Act, Sept 16 is officially "Constitution and Citizenship Day." So we'll burn another day of instruction to do Constitution and Citizenship related activities. Since I'm an English teacher, I intend to tie literary technique into the equation by debating the irony of mandatory Constitution day being imposed upon us by the same people who watered down our protection from illegal search and seizure via the Patriot Act. Should be a fun day! I still think, with all this emphasis on citizenship (which I really am all for) that we should be able to do away with the Miranda warning. Everyone in this country is provided a free education that includes government, history, and the Constitution. If you chose to ignore what your rights are, that's on you, not the cop who busts you! Same rules apply to grammar!
u herd
I'm not surprised. I've only read the Publisher's note, the jacket notes, the Foreword by Frank McCourt and the Preface by the author, but I've already achieved my monthly dose of dry wit as well as beefed up my rapidly waning knowledge of punctuation rules. Yep, I said punctuation rules and I'm an English teacher. Let me say that in another way - yep, it's a book about punctuation and it was on the best seller list!
Again, I'm not surprised. There are people out there who still have standards. Contrary to the downward spiral of personal responsibility inspired by our current leadership, there are people who appreciate achievement. We're not perfectionists, we just appreciate the attempt. Now, back to the English teacher thing... I teach English, which encompasses all manner of communication skills including, nay, featuring, reading and writing. At the high school level, this includes, nay, is based primarily on, having kids think critically, evaluate and formulate their own conclusions about what they read, develop those thoughts, and commit them to writing in a semi-intelligent manner. It doesn't matter to me, and shouldn't matter to anyone else that many of these kids can do this much better than most adults. What does matter is that they, some day, see this exercise in the basic human functions as important enough to remember and valuable enough to continue practicing.
The success of Truss's book gives me hope that some people, maybe even more than would actually go out and fork over cash (or be seen doing it) for a book about punctuation, do find these basic, core skills valuable.
These days, grammar is rarely even mentioned in the core curriculum/state standards/course of study/whatever you want to call it anymore. Even when it was an integral part of language instruction, most scoffed at it as something only English teachers ever knew or used. But with the decline of test scores, the failures in communication on a global scale, and what many feel is the general and rapidly accelerating decline of the human race, these "courtesies" suddenly seem to have a purpose again. Clear, professional communication suddenly has value again... did it ever really not? Grammar rules are and always were the basics, like spelling and even forming letters. It's not something one teacher is ever responsible for. It's just a given. YOU are just supposed to know like you know how to write your name and social security number. Whenever you ask the English major in the next cubicle how to spell something, remember that you too had the opportunity to learn how to spell and use a dictionary long before you had to declare a major. Likewise with the grammar book. You were introduced to the material at some point in your life. You either decided it was worth learning or you didn't. For many, who, as they get older, suddenly realize how much smarter their teachers were, this book is a chance at redemption wrapped up in an entertaining package. Granted, knowledge shouldn't have to be entertaining, but it sure doesn't hurt.
For me though, it's just plain entertaining. The fact that reading it makes me better at my job is just a bonus. I didn't really NEED any further grammar instruction! (yes that was an invitation for corrections)
Speaking of the need for further instruction and the Patriot Act, Sept 16 is officially "Constitution and Citizenship Day." So we'll burn another day of instruction to do Constitution and Citizenship related activities. Since I'm an English teacher, I intend to tie literary technique into the equation by debating the irony of mandatory Constitution day being imposed upon us by the same people who watered down our protection from illegal search and seizure via the Patriot Act. Should be a fun day! I still think, with all this emphasis on citizenship (which I really am all for) that we should be able to do away with the Miranda warning. Everyone in this country is provided a free education that includes government, history, and the Constitution. If you chose to ignore what your rights are, that's on you, not the cop who busts you! Same rules apply to grammar!
u herd
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)