Worth the Work

Share

I received an email this morning from a student that is representative of why I love my job and why I feel it's worth the work:

Hi Professor XXXXXX,

I just wanted to say thank you for everything you have done for me this semester. I have really enjoyed taking your class and having the opportunity to get to know you. I have honestly learned so much not only about Chemistry but how to succeed in future classes. I am glad that I stuck through it because we both know at times it was a little rough for me J (I now know to always be fully prepared in came (case) [sic] a pop quiz is really given to the class ha.)

Again, I would just like to say thank you! I really hope I get the opportunity to take your class for Chemistry YYY. Take care!

Best regards, ZZZZZZZ

Now, I don't do what I do to ingratiate myself with them. I don't do it to validate them. I do it because I know it can help them. Sometimes I'm not sure if I spoil them too much or push them too hard, but I am excited to see what they become. This particular individual struggled, and like others who were struggling, I spoke with her and attempted to convince her to stay. She did. Some of the rest dropped the course. After the final for Microbiology yesterday morning, one of the students told me on her way out that she really enjoyed the class "even though you are not like the other professors" because, among other things, "I learned how to think and got credit for what I really knew". She asked me if I taught any other courses; I do not teach anything she hasn't already taken.

In the end, this class had 28 students see it through to the end. Of that 13 received a Grade of 'A'. All of them learned. What they do with it is up to them. Meanwhile, I'm preparing to deal with the young lady to whom I gave a 'D' and the three who failed. That's always fun. Even they sometimes learn.

I rather suspect that I will have the pleasure of teaching as many introductory classes as I can possibly stand for as long as I remain here. The advantage of that is that I can give them a strong and well-built foundation on which to complete the rest of their degree program. We know that the better the foundation is, the better the superstructure, and so I consider it worth the work and toil to take on introductory chemistry and biology. Some of the students benefit from someone who knows that they CAN do this, particularly in the weak moments when they are not sure. Like I told them at the beginning of the first exam, "Your bodies are already really good at chemistry; they just haven't managed to convince your brain of it yet." Now I don't want lousy chemists becoming nurses, but there are things beyond regurgitative chemistry that they take from my classes. This last week, I have heard from many students to this effect, and it makes it worth the work and the time and the toil for me.

Plus, in a year, we're changing textbooks. Bettelheim is a great chemist; I hope they find someone who can communicate better with introductory chemistry students.

Canned Phrases

Share

I sit in church, listen to the radio, and listen to conversations in real life and realize that people don't really communicate. Most people throw out words, which mean something to them, that are received and interpreted with a completely different meaning by those who hear them. Many of the things are said to evoke an emotional response. Most of it is not received consistent with how it was communicated.

The most annoying thing about it is how often I hear canned phrases. They're akin to the instant meals or self-contained supply kits we buy because we're too lazy or too uneducated to do a good job doing more work. You just pop the tab on a canned phrase, and let it spill out. I hear it in prayers, in speeches, from the pulpit, in the classroom, between lovers (don't get me started on the infernal codicil or the notion that "i love you"), etc. Most of these are throw away lines.

Most canned phrases sound good, but like the foods that come packaged the same way they are either not very filling or not very nourishing to the soul. They are quick and easy, and sometimes they satisfy an emotional need, but there is very little substance to them. Moreover, most of them are calculated to evoke emotions rather than honest affirmations, possibly because if people were really honest they fear they would be rejected. Yes there is that risk, but if you're going to be damned, you might as well be damned for who you really are.

Introducing the new line of products from Running Slug Productions (my company):

Canned Phrases pictures coming soon

Abusive Behavior

Share

Dr. Phil once said on his program that "the strongest tool of an abuser is to isolate the victim". I am sad to report that I know very few women well who are not in some way in an abusive relationship. Sometimes, and the most frequently in my experience, it is familial. Sometimes, it is 'romantic'. Sometimes, it is something else, but so many people are victims of abuse that I am surprised anyone is able to forge a healthy relationship today. Our behavior does not match our true nature or recognize the value of a soul, and so I am quite frankly surprised that people claim they can fix the world by focusing on behavior. That's sort of like trying to remove a noxious weed by pulling only at its leaves.

For the sake of attention and affection, many today sell themselves to abusers. Unable to recognize that their worth comes from their nature rather than their behavior or circumstance, too many of them esteem themselves as dross. I know women so desperate for love and attention that they will perform lewd acts just to have someone pay attention to them. I know people who are so lonely that they will submit themselves to all sorts of demeaning verbiage just to get married and have someone at home. I know loneliness. I know the desire for affection, for love, for companionship, and consequently I understand why one might elect to take something because it seems better than nothing. I suspect that much of the promiscuity in the world occurs because parents are distant or do not care or do not show that they love, and so young folks turn to intercourse and like unto it for compensation. That makes me sad.

Family can be a sticky situation. One young friend of mine regards me as his ersatz-father, despite the fact that I am only nine years older, because of how his parents treat him. One night, in a drunk stupor, his dad told him that he was a mistake, that they never meant to have any children. I knew before his parents that he loved his current wife, that he intended to propose, and that they had a ring. He asked me for advice on how to court her. Another woman I know was abused by her mother and consequently does not know how to raise her daughter. In addition, her husband was little more than a sperm donor, and he was constantly critical, so she went looking for love elsewhere which caused further heartache. I have attempted to date several young ladies whose parents or other family members were so controlling that they drove a wedge between us. They felt threatened by me, because they could not control me, and they did everything in their power to destroy any foundation for felicitation so that they could maintain their grip on their somnambulent sisters. I have never dated a woman whose family approved of me, probably because they were abusive.

Abuse is about control. Abusive attitudes ignore the substance of a soul for its semblance, looking only at the candy shell without regards for what's on the inside at all. Not that the outside does not matter at all, but we are less a function of what happens to us than we are of what we make happen. The question goes far beyond what we are doing and enters the realm that asks what have we become; to say that doing is the same as being is similar to saying that my dad is a car because he spends so much time in his garage. In the end, we control what we do about what cards we are dealt and what we make of things. Said the poet, "To each is given a set of tools, the will to build and a book of rules, and each must make ere life is flown a stumbling block or a stepping stone". I have reached a point in my life where I have abandoned my illusions of control. I tell people frequently when they ask how I am that "the things I control are under control", and the wiser among them have figured out that most things are not under my control. Considering that truth, I'm doing rather well. However, I am not interested in any kind of abusive relationship. It is a form of competition, of pride, of comparison, that discourages partnerships, the 'help meet' concept, and the like. It stratifies people and makes them proud. Comparison makes us proud and competition is its close cousin.

I will confess that I have hurt other people. I will tell you that I do not intend to. Sometimes when I am lonely or tired or bored, I am less charitable than I would like or than others deserve, and if I have hurt you, I ask your forgiveness. Let me know, and inasmuch as lies within my power I will make it right. On this subject, one young lady told me this: "if your kind of hurt is all I'd have to suffer for the rest of my life, I'd never cry." The degree of offense is irrelevant if offense has been given.

Owing to the fact that we are all human, we will all treat people from time to time with less decorum, love, and patience than they deserve. Of course, we all hope and expect the maximum of those things from others, but we are reticent to give them when we are troubled or weighed down, particularly to people who have hurt us. In this particular realm, I am inspired by and an aspirant of the example of Brigham Young. According to Truman Madsen, on one occasion, Joseph Smith vigorously chastized Brigham Young - accusing the latter of something he had never done in what was clearly a harsh, cruel, unfair manner. As Brigham said, 'Joseph, what would you have me do?' Of course, after it is resolved, it is equally important to forgive and show love to yourself.

When I find fault with someone or someone finds fault with me, that is what I seek. When the fault is elsewhere, I ask them what they intend to do to make it right. When the fault is mine, I ask how I can make it right. You see, the proper response when you err is to get back on track. I seek a better course, a more perfect way, and whatsoever you ask that is right and of which I am capable, I will do. I will not be abused. I will not be codependent. I will not validate you if I think you are doing wrong. By the same token, I will not tolerate the same from myself. I aspire to be better, in my own quixotic quest, to bring a greater measure of grace to the world. Only when we treat people as they deserve, because of their nature rather than their behavior, and correct our behavior to be consistent with our true nature as children of God, then we will see the changes in the world that lead to peace, prosperity, and happiness that last.

Ground of Your Choosing

Share

One of the things about which I am passionate is history. I am fascinated with Patton's attack on Sicily. I am fascinated with Vincent Strong's defense of Little Roundtop. I am fascinated by Sam Houston's victory over Santa Anna. There is a consistent theme to these battles, which is that if you can choose the ground on which you fight, you can negate the enemy's advantages and control the battle.

On the table next to my bed is also the book by Sun Tzu, "The Art of War". It teaches you how to go about dealing with forces that are arrayed against you, whether on purpose or by consequence of circumstance, and much of it deals with the notion that good people are usually those who come under attack from others. People are going to talk about you and judge you no matter what you say or do or how you live. People are always going to find it uncomfortable to live like you because they are not you. Some of those people will engage in an active, albeit covert, attempt to bring you down as a means to elevate themselves.

History has taught us that the defender is usually in a tough position. The attacker has the element of surprise and the advantage that they decide how the attack will proceed. By contrast the defender has to anticipate what MIGHT happen and prepare with limited resources against what option(s)they suspect the attack might select. History is rife with examples of defenders who are overrun whose preparations for defense then serve the attacker. If he is able to take our strongholds, the capital parts of the land, he chooses what must be done in order to ultimately dislodge him and drive him back out.

War has demonstrated that with rare exception the defender cannot defeat the attacker in the strongholds the attacker has built. We must draw them out in order to even the playing field. A winning defense strategy for a passive defender requires that you govern at least where the battle is fought. You choose the field of battle, and you can control the outcome better than if you let him dictate. This is how Patton cleared most of Sicily while Montgomery was bogged down on the east coast and how Strong held the high ground with a single brigade against two divisions under Hood at Gettysburg and how Houston finished off Santa Anna's numerically superior force in about an hour. Every aggressor has his Waterloo, and if we can bring him to it, we can control the fight.

Too many people let their denigrators choose the field of battle. They begin with a premise, to which we respond. They claim they have the high ground and try to deprive us of it. They start the fight and then invite us to dash ourselves against the beaches of Normandy in wave after wave of fruitless effort attacking them where they are strong. For example, Romney keeps letting Obama choose the ground on which to fight. His political statements always parrot where the President chooses to steer the conversation. However, we can choose where we would like to fight and force them to come against you. You do that best by going after things we know they desire to defend or by setting a direction and forcing them to follow you.

It has been said that the best defense is a good offense. The leading army (the one that is out in front, not the one with the best scores) is the one who determines where the battles are fought. He sets the terms, the location, and the subject of the conflict. It is possible, on ground of good choosing, for a small force to eliminate a far larger one, even sometimes without any bloodshed. You do that by being proactive and setting the stage that forces them to come to you. People will always talk about and be critical of you. Let them. They just want a reaction. You can set the terms and fight on ground of your own choosing.

Courage, Choice, and Church

Share

I’m beginning to think that most politics, particularly from the left, represents emotion over reason. A famous opinion statement from Ann Hathaway currently circulates the internet that amounts to the following:

“There are people who have said that i’m being brave for being openly supportive of gay marriage, gay adoption, basically of gay rights but with all due respect I humbly dissent, i’m not being brave, i’m being a decent human being. And I don’t think I should receive an award for that or for merely stating what I believe to be true, that love is a human experience not a political statement, however, I acknowledge that sadly we live in a world where not everybody feels the same. My family and I will help the good fight continue until that long awaited moment arrives, when our rights are equal and when the political limits on love have been smashed.”

Even in her own statement, she speaks of "political limits on love", which counters her argument that love isn't something political, but I digress. I have to wonder to which of my beliefs she might happen to take exception all the while talking about love and rights and freedom. The truth however contains much more data than that, and with all due respect to Miss Hathaway, whom I liked as a younger actress, this is far from humble. Expressing your opinions publicly requires a bit of arrogance, particularly when it’s controversial, and jumping into a political issue, particularly if you run for office, means you must at least be a little arrogant. Humble people don’t like to volunteer their opinions, and that's all that Miss Hathaway has done- render an opinion.

From the data available, I am not convinced that Hathaway is anything more than just another person who isn’t interested in the truth. Rather, she strikes me with this quote as someone who secretly hopes the truth will happen to corroborate what she already believes. The only reason I can find for her advocacy of homosexuality is the fact that her older brother is a homosexual . She seems to demand that people support what she would like them to support rather than what they ought. After all, that’s very typical of teenagers (Anne was 15 when she learned this of her brother), which led her to leave her Faith and abandon organized religion altogether. This is not a mark of a serious believer in a divine being. It is no mark of maturity to say “give me what I want or I will be a miscreant”. In fact, she rationalizes this behavior, saying, "I realised my older brother was gay, and I couldn't support a religion that didn't support my brother. Now I call myself a nondenominational Christian (NDC), because I haven't found the religion for me" (Lipworth, Elaine (December 19, 2010). "The Rise of Queen Anne". Sunday Telegraph Magazine 'Stella'). In my experience, many NDCs are people who want to impose their will on God rather than being submissive to His. They want God to tell them they are right rather than what is right. Her final statement in that last quote shows her immature attitude when she talks about “the religion for me”. What about the true Faith? I am not convinced she can handle the truth. Either the Faith is true or it isn’t, and if it is, then the choices made my members of that Faith are mistakes made by men and not by the Author. After all, we are human. The moral man looks at Tenants of the Faith and says, "Oh, I should not kill, therefore I will change my Beliefs to conform." One reason why many people may dislike organized religion is because evil men, looking at the same Tenants say instead, "I don't like that, so I will build a Faith around my Beliefs" when he should align his Beliefs with the Tenants of Faith as given by its Author.

Contrary to her assertion, this isn’t brave of Miss Hathaway. This is personal, emotional, and political. I am willing to cede the notion that she truly loves her brother as she understands love, but there are four loves, and the highest form of love desires what is best for the other person, not what that person thinks is best. Perhaps that’s why so few of us exhibit that love, because so few of us know what’s best for anyone, particularly ourselves. The only way I would buy this is if Miss Hathaway had come out of the box swinging as an advocate for homosexuality before it was known that her brother was one. You don't really care about injustice unless you cry out against it when it involves strangers and people you don't like. Name someone Miss Hathaway has defended who is a stranger or an enemy to her, and I will buy her premise, but the data is as yet insufficient to reject my null hypothesis that her advocacy of homosexuality is political.

When I was a teenager, a friend of mine whose name I will not share introduced me to some literature and notions that tugged at the core of my beliefs. I had questions I could not answer. My parents had nothing to offer, the books I read had nothing to offer, and my prayers did not generate what I hoped to clarify the issue. Rather than responding as Miss Hathaway did, I went to my bishop, and I confessed my sins- all of them. I had written all of them down on a legal-size notepad, which I read to him line by line, sin upon sin. He chuckled, he frankly forgave me on behalf of the Lord, and then he told me this, which I say with the same amount of humility as Miss Hathaway: “If you do not make it into the Kingdom of God, I do not know anyone who stands a chance…You are like a finely-tuned radio, and I promise that if you listen, God will help you distinguish error from truth.” I went home, studied and prayed more, and the answers came, and I have never left the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, for it is true. Since then, when my beliefs have countered church teachings, I have taken them to my Maker, and when He corrects and directs me, I submit to His will. Behold, I am a Disciple of Jesus Christ, the son of God, and the fullness of my intent is that I may persuade men to come to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and be saved. Consider it a standing invitation.

Overuse of 'Nazi'

Share

I'm a stickler for many things. I believe in the law. I believe that rules exist for a reason. In fact, I have written about rules and gamesmanship before. I am a man of faith, a man of reason, and a man of deeply-seated beliefs who lives as nearly as anyone he has ever known to the creed he professes. So, imagine my surprise to be referred to today as a 'nazi', a word that is far overused and absolutely misapplied.

Back during my undergraduate days, I first noticed this trend. Everyone complained about the 'parking nazis' who ticket cars. Nobody seemed to acknowledge the fact that jobs were hard to obtain at the university, and these people were making sure that people didn't park places without permits. Over the past week, I have seen a veritable smorgasbord of posts on the internet about 'grammar nazis'. Excuse me, but has anyone been gassed for a grammar mistake? I don't think so. You see, the Nazis make convenient scapegoats for things with which we happen to vehemently disagree.

Reason leads me to question how these people justify the use of that term. I have actually met some Nazis. Not all Germans, and not all members of the Wehrmacht are Nazis. Nazis are an ideological movement that persisted at least a decade ago in Austria. Twice, I was invited in by overeager older men; twice, I was offered books on white-supremism. I turned both books down and vacated the premises as soon as I could manage it. The men I met were former SS Sturmfuhrer or "stormtroopers", once tasked with and responsible for the systemic eradication of a race. Nothing these men did comes close to the things to which the term Nazi has become associated.

Use of the word Nazi seems to be nothing more than a bit of wordcrafting. People select words in order to evoke an emotional response. We are supposed to pull back in reversion whenever the word is used and associate the guilt with anyone who pracitices the associated words. A "_____ Nazi" is supposed to be morally repugnant to us, to create a political situation, and to get us to abandon reason for the feelings it evokes. Similarly other words are selected to make a man a villain for a word whilst those who coin the term and levy the accusation "clothe themselves in odd old ends stolen forth from holy writ and seem saints while most they play the devil".

People use the word Nazi because it makes people afraid. Two of the things most feared in our world are the totalitarianism of Hitler and the economic collapse of the Weimar Republic. The Nazi regime evokes for anyone who knows anything at all about that time period an irrational fear of red herrings. Such contumelies call us to question any disparity between a man's behavior and his personal creed, which once used to simply make man 'human'.

Rules matter. Laws matter. When we ignore them, sometimes we cause others to err. So, I will stick to the rules and tilt at that kind of windmills, because I think Cervantes was right and that the world will be better for it that rather than excuse human weakness someone strove for excellence instead.

Skyrocketing College Costs

Share

Government is actively engaged in creating a bubble of college costs and acquisition. We have heard recently that half of the graduates in 2012 are unemployed or underemployed. As Obama talks about lower student loan rates, students do not emerge able to pay off those debts. I am disappointed that Mitt Romney, who is proud of his alleged but so far undemonstrated business saavy, has bought into the same inaccurate notions. College isn't a guarantee of anything except great expense. 

Even when I was in school, I saw prices rise. Before I attended, rates rose at a more or less steady and low rate of around 5% annually. While away on my mission, those costs jumped inexplicably a whopping 25% for room and board. I got less board for my money, and I was crammed into a room not much larger than a prison cell for which I paid the equivalent of $400/month (it actually looked a lot like Tom Riddle's room in the asylum; this is the size of a double, but I had a single). My students pay more now than I paid in graduate school. Every year, their tuition goes up, and the Board of Regents adds fees. However, my pay not only remains static but has also been capped and then cut. I have no idea where the money is going, because it's not going into the classroom. 

No matter how good the cause sounds, we are never going to have enough money to pay for everything that we might like all the time. We have to make decisions. The trouble is that the kids who graduate cannot find jobs. We need to grow the economy so that after they graduate there is not only something commensurate with their education to do but also something that will help them extricate themselves from the shackles of student loan debt. Obama's student loan program is not a favor for students; it's a new form of financial bondage. Yet, he will pat himself on the back and gain accolades. Even the undergraduate that works in my department thinks Obama is awesome because of the student loan program. Will he think that way when he's asking people if they'd like fries with that?

When it comes to other expenses, the leftists insist on capping it, but when it comes to students, they want to force as many people through as they possibly can. Many of the students are ill-prepared or ill-disposed to success. Part of that is attitudinal and a matter of maturation, but some of it is endemic to the system because the selection relies too much on grades (which show an ability to regurgitate information) rather than knowledge. Programs such as Advanced Placement and the International Bacculaureat increasingly turn to anti-American, anti-capitalist, anti-value literature and curriculum and do not prepare people for jobs as much as they prepare students at a faster pace than ever before to hate America, her values, her traditions, and the way by which it has become a force for power. I can hardly go a day without hearing something on the internet about how young people, particularly abroad, but also here, hate America, think her people suck and wish she would just go away. I get to tell students far more often than I like things like, "When you retake this class, make sure this experience helps you do better" because their minds are not in the game. It's something they believe they ought to do, must do, and are entitled to do.

Then there are those who game the system. Back when I was in college, I worked hard all summer to save as much money as I could only to hand it all over to the university. Now, to get financial aid, some students declare themselves independent of their parents, and become technically destitute, getting scholarships, loans, and food stamps. Where are their parents? My parents were, according to the FAFSA, expected to be able to contribute money to my college experience, whether they could afford to or not, because I was their dependent. Whoever thinks these kids are seriously independent, particularly when they are on the dole as it were for everything, needs to have their head examined. Some of them do not intend to achieve; those who do graduate often move back in with their parents, assuming they ever graduate, because they do not intend to become productive. Why should they? They may intend to rack up debt, live at our expense, and then die never having paid back the money they borrow just like so many people who 'bought' homes have done.

Enough is enough. Yes, it would be nice if we could afford to let everyone do whatever they like and if money was no object. We do not live in that world. We live in a world where things have a cost, and because the students don't have to pay money, they also seem unwilling to pay the other costs associated with EARNING a degree. I do not give grades; students earn them. We have Harry Reid out procuring land for CSN but for which we have no money to build buildings; we have buildings and remodeling in buildings that were adequate; we have some people earning paychecks that their ratings as professors do not justify; and when someone like me does something that saves money, they just spend it somewhere else, usually on something wasteful.

The joke is on us. They promise free education for everyone, but they never promise that it will be useful or that there will be anything for them to do when they graduate. The irony is that some of the greatest entrepreneurs (in terms of total wealth not in terms of actual worth to civilization) are college dropouts who started their own businesses. I am not convinced that those who endorse college intend for you to be successful as much as they intend for you to be conditioned by the educational process.

There are good professors. I consider myself one of that number. As a whole, however, I think college costs our culture more than just the money and far more than we realize. It prepares people to be somnambulent rather than independent. It encourages equality at the expense of freedom. It encourages sameness under the guise of diversity. We are all of mixed culture unless you come from some isolated and backward tribe on the outer reach of civilization. It is time to act serious and be concerned about what they are doing and why. It is time to stop buying the premise hook, line and sinker as if what they promise will happen even if it can. College costs are skyrocketing, and I am not convinced that they will bring the promised return. For graduates of 2012, you will find that out soon if you have not already.

23 April 2012

Conversing or Contending?

Share

I frequently get involved in conversations that feel more like contention than conversation. I ask questions, people take it personally, get emotional, and then attack me. I have questioned the argument; they question my virtue, my values, and my very being. I look for truth; they look to find fault.

Back while serving as a missionary, I learned to recognize this. We were meeting with a man and discussing the Book of Mormon with him, and he came prepared to our meeting that night with a long laundry list of questions. After I answered a few, I suddenly stopped and asked him if he had read the Book of Mormon intending to prove that it was not true. When he admitted that was his intent, I packed up my stuff and left the room, and I never went back. My companion was upset that we had 'lost an investigator', but this man wasn't really investigating. As I have been saying for some time now, most people are not interested in the truth as much as they secretly hope the truth will happen to corroborate what they already happen to believe. When you challenge their preconceived notions, often they will lash out at you.

That's exactly what happened to me over the weekend. I pointed out an incongruity in the logic of their analysis, and they looked at my questions only with the intent to find fault. I was not questioning them. I asked them to question their methods. I guess I identified a sacred cow, a pillar of her belief system, and so she lashed out at me. In the mind of this type of person, they believe themselves, their reasoning, and their logic, to be absolutely perfect. Contrast that to one of my atheist friends with whom I have had lively debates. He told me once that he tries to keep in mind four words at all times: "I might be wrong". In his case, there is point to having a discussion, but when people are absolutely convinced they are correct, they will reject whatever you say, or at least they always have. My friend Thom has said that he only worries about the people who are absolutely convinced that they are correct.

Technology has helped to create these misguided impressions. It reminds me of the words of TS Eliot: "Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge? Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?" As we turn to the internet for instant answers, without regard to the accuracy of those things, we show ourselves to be easily misguided. We are given over to the notion that the internet is infallible, and that since we have access to it we are by extension unable to make mistakes. Every tiny thing is magnified and 'goes viral' on the internet, and people swallow the premise without looking into it themselves at all. Too few people draw attention to the errors.

I think I can understand why. When you point out errors others have made, unless they are mature enough to seek correction and direction and humble enough to admit they are human, they frequently lash out at you as the villain. Even if you do so with the best of human intentions, the person takes it personally and behaves as if you have criticized them. They have not learned to separate the behavior from the being because growing up that bad pattern was started by other people who called them good or bad, smart or stupid, cute or ugly. We are far too complicated for that. We manufacture labels to avoid having to be more specific, more accurate, and more personal. As such, our attempts at courageous conversations frequently devolve into contention when that was furthest from our minds.

20 April 2012

Training Up a Child

Share

After playing racquetball last night, like I often do, I spoke with the woman who mans the front desk. She asked me for my opinion for a sociology paper she's writing on when the best time is to train up a child. I had never really thought about this before, but my answer surprised both of us.

Children learn amazing things. I remember this three-year-old I met in Innsbruck who spoke German, English, and Italian albeit not yet fluently. Her parents spoke to her in their native tongues (German and Italian respectively) and to each other in English, which she had picked up. I told the woman who asked that I believe young children can learn at an amazing rate, one far greater than we realize.

She countered my suppositions. I told her that I thought children needed to be trained before they turned eight. She thought that was too young. Yes, there are things they cannot conceptualize at that young age, but by the time you are eight, you can do and desire to do a great deal on your own. We discussed bullying, which typically arises around the age of ten, at least in the case of everyone we asked as to whether they were bullied or the bully and at what age they recall it. By that time, the behavior that is expressed comes from things learned in the preceding years. While it is possible and demonstrated that these behaviors can be corrected, they are often ingrained by that time.

Much of what we learn occurs before we realize it. I know that when I was five years old and living in England that my mother read to me. In fact, over the last few years, I have spent considerable amounts of money buying brand new copies of the books she read to me to read to my own (hopefully) children when they are young. Reading to me transformed my life. It made me the nerd that I am and kept me out of trouble and into other kinds of activities that cause me trouble now (because I am opinionated, educated, and articulated). The woman admitted that because she was not taught to read as a child it wasn't until now (she is in her 40s) that she values reading.

Before children can talk and act, they observe. If you can't communicate well but your eyes work, you can pick up on lots of nonverbal cues. They hear, they see, and they model what they observe. Children are I believe trained up far sooner than we realize. By the time they are eight, they are actively engaged in choosing their own adventure, and there are few limits on the opportunities besides naivete and the law. By the time they reach middle school, they are their own people; by high school, it might be too late to change their behavior without a concerted and individual effort to instill correct scripts.

Scripture means literally "true scripts". They teach us how we ought to be. For this reason, I think there is wisdom in the old Proverb of Solomon. Train up a child when he is young, and when he is grown he will not depart from it. The more we do to teach our children good scripts when they are willing, able, and inclined to pay attention, the better kinds of citizens, spouses, employees, students, friends, etc., they will be able to be as adults. If we train them up to be poor people, or their models for training are not the models we would like, then we cannot expect them to snap to attention and exhibit correct behavior at command. We must be good examples, because our children watch us for years before they can communicate at all, and even more years before they can effectively communicate. By then, the damage is done and the ruts are relatively deep.

By the same token, if the ruts we cut are good ruts, it will be difficult to derail them to dark paths. I attribute in many ways my ability to chart and hold a straight course to good models of behavior shown to me when I was a youth. My parents worked very hard when I was young to be the kind of parents who actually raised up their children. They taught me how to learn and were good examples, and so much of my original discipline and behavior was planted in me by parents who availed themselves of opportunities when I was malleable to build a good foundation. I thank them for the faithful execution of their role as parents. I stick the course because they helped me set a good one whose ruts run deep, and so I go on, straight on, headed to that distant horizon and a far, green country.

19 April 2012

Lexington Day

Share

Early in the morning in 1775, about 70 armed men gathered together on Lexington Green in Lexington, MA. They knew from Revere the night before that at least 700 Redcoats were marching from Boston to Concord to seize weapons and powder stores allegedly held there. Now as then the government thinks it wise to compel by force the surrender of weapons and munitions. Now as then, I know that some men will go to the green.

Before I left for work this morning, I posted the colors. Back in September 2009, I traveled to Lexington to pay my respects to the dead, whose names I know, and recognize the others who were wounded or enrolled. I cannot imagine what it must have been like for farmers and frontiersmen to stand across a field from the Irish conscripts that marched against them. Even if the Irish were green troops, when they marshalled it must have been a terrifying sight, particularly as the column of 700 men split to round the building on both sides that stood at the crossroads at that time.

There was no need for any of those men to die. The Redcoats were headed to Concord. The Minutemen stood on the green as an indication only that their town was not to be harassed. In total, seven men died of gunshot wounds, at least one of which was in the back on his own front porch, and one man was run through with a bayonet. The only Redcoat injured to my knowledge was the company commander who rode in front of his men to stop their volley of fire and was hit in the hand (by whom it is not known).

Oddly enough, lines from Cyrano de Bergerac come to mind.

I offer one universal challenge to you all. Will all those who wish to die please raise your hands. Approach young heroes and I will take your names. To the first I will build a monument.

The men of Lexington were dispersing, or at least they were ordered to. However, those eight men who died spurred to action one of the most famous American armed exchanges. By the time the day was over, the Redcoats who returned home wished they'd never heard of America.

Former Senator Paul Laxalt has said that "Every day Congress is in session, you lose a little more of your liberty". They are always passing new laws, partially because some of you talk about how "there ought to be a law..." all the time. We do not need more laws; we need more people who respect the law. This was supposed to be a nation of laws and not of men, and yet we have become obsessed with the cult of personality that allows the Obamas to talk of themselves not only as paragons but also messianically. Even as they talk one way they live another. That was what Lexington was all about. Let us live according to the dictates of conscience, not of whim, but of virtued conscience. Later in his famous speech Patrick Henry would talk of how "Two millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave."

Lexington day asks us to consider for what we are willing to stand on the Green of Freedom. It asks us what price we are willing to pay. Is life so sweet or peace so dear so as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? I cannot speak for you, but I do know that Patriots go to the green.