What I read…
I read a lot of articles each day. I really should share what I have read. So here’s what I read today (with simple notes):
Seth Godin. Of course.
Liked it.
http://chrisguillebeau.com/3×5/1000-days-after-overnight-success/
Liked it.
http://chrisguillebeau.com/3×5/%E2%80%9Cive-just-been-so-busy-lately%E2%80%9D/
Didn’t like it (though it was good. For some reason (perhaps I envy his lifestyle and success?) I think of Chris as a TV evangelist: preaching empty messages to serve himself.)
http://www.daniellelaporte.com/business-wealth-articles/busy-nuff-whining/
Didn’t like it (though it was OK)
http://www.daniellelaporte.com/white-hot/the-manifesto-of-encouragement/
Loved it.
http://www.daniellelaporte.com/white-hot/on-bright-faith-and-why-falling-in-love-is-totally-uncool/
Loved it.
http://paulcrik.com/wp/archives/1731
Loved the writing. The idea terrified me.
http://paulcrik.com/wp/archives/1701
Loved it.
http://paulcrik.com/wp/archives/1696
Loved
http://www.buzzfeed.com/jpmoore/read-marc-marons-amazing-inspiring-just-for-lau
Boom. There’s honesty, and there’s real honesty. this is the second.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/abrams/25-awesome-quotes-from-comics-on-marc-marons
Loved it.
http://paulcrik.com/wp/archives/1518
Liked it.
http://www.boston.com/news/daily/26/ampad.pdf
Hmm. Romney looks heartless and unethical. On Jan 5th, I wrote this:
What would it take to pull off a major theft?
The vast majority of people never consider the question. At least not seriously. That is why the vast majority of people hold jobs: they do not steal (significantly) from where they work; they do not plan elaborate strategies to clean out they company they work for.
But some people do think about how to pull off a heist. And not just in action movies.
As we have seen in action films, the amount of planning and money it takes to pull of a major heist is beyond the majority of people. But for those who do consider it, you can pull off grand theft, free and clear, in two arenas: the financial industry and religion.
Looks like I was right.
A Teacher’s Reply
On Monday, a superintendent from the school district came and spoke with the teachers at West Salem.
Here is my full reply:
In any other industry, when an organization needs money, they can:
- cut staff
- liquidate assets
- sell properties
- negotiate with suppliers or find new suppliers
- cancel product lines
- enter new markets
- increase sales through advertising
- form partnerships that alleviate costs
And if it’s any other government agency, they can also raise taxes, ask for federal aid, trim fat, get in bed with gambling.
But in education, when they need more money, they:
- cut staff or staff pay
[District superintendent], you said “I hear you” when teachers spoke. But you don’t. If you did, we wouldn’t need to say it, you would have said it. But you said the opposite. Your repeated message was “The school board will not cut programs. We will maintain the current level of services.” There is not a person on the planet who believes you can magically maintain all programs and services and cut $25 million from the budget. Every person immediately understands the unspoken conclusion: there will be another bloodbath of teachers.
I have written before about the demands of teaching, which, in every way, are unlike the demands of any other job. The details are too long to include here, but a summary will suffice: I liken teaching to sprinting a marathon or single-handedly parenting 200 children. No teacher resents hard work. No teacher minds professional-level effort. No teacher wants to coast. But no one can do what teachers have been asked to do.
For years I have suspected that the district, the school board, everyone close enough to the situation knows full well that the engine has red-lined for too long. That the burden placed on teachers has been impossible for years. The generals know they have sent the soldiers on an impossible mission from which they cannot return… but since you’re already out there it doesn’t matter what more we ask you to do. Defeat is certain; it does not matter what else we pile on you.
I also suspect that Departments and Boards know that cookie-cutter education, every-one-will-master-the-same-skills mandates are absurd, but turning the Titanic now would be too disruptive, so they race at redline and blame teachers when it doesn’t work. Rather than fix what doesn’t work, they push harder. If we go faster, the ship will stay afloat a little longer.
No Child Left Behind can be seen as implied acknowledgement: “By 2014, every child must meet the standards. We understand what we have asked of you. We acknowledge it is impossible. We know how the battle ends.”
Just yesterday, a classified staff member said to me, “But you don’t see it from the other side, I would not vote to increase taxes for schools.”
As if the schools did anything. When people say “schools” or “education” they always mean “teachers”. The building does not instruct, assess, care, connect, correct, encourage, celebrate achievement, point out strengths. Neither do the desks or buses. (And yet, when the district gets Federal or private money, none of it ($0.00) goes to teachers or easing the teacher’s load.)
But my friend missed two points. The two points that matter.
First, have teachers ever asked for more pay? Teachers ask for Respect. Teachers ask that they be able to do what they are asked to do.
I think my teacher salary is fair. Until you compare it to the task. Then it is grossly out of balance.
I don’t mind giving up a raise. Obviously. Teachers have voted in favor of that many times. But it is literally insane (and degrading) to ask teachers to give up their raise, reduce the number of paid workdays, increase class size, reduce prep time, increase student achievement, manage more mandates and paperwork, and raise the quality of our work. It is no different than asking LeBron James to score more points per game while wearing weights, facing more defenders, and playing in shorter games (and don’t forget the pay cut). It is literally insane.
Second, teachers are on the other side. Teachers are the only ones on both sides: soldiers and tax-payers. Inexplicably, teachers are the only ones on their side. The district does not fight for teachers, the school board does not, the public does not, I do not know what the union does, but in its 150 year history it has yet to make things better for teachers. And, like the citizens in Orwell’s 1984, teachers are kept too busy to advocate for themselves.
I have often felt like the district and school board view teachers as sweat-shop laborers: a nameless, faceless human machine; easily expendable, easily replaceable.
To me school is not a game, directed by the district or federal government. They chase test scores. They engage in endless, pointless comparisons between schools, states, countries. As though students were a commodity or a widget to be manufactured. As though students all (or any two!) come in the same (even day by day) and can be expected to leave the same.
Ask us to do what is possible, or give us enough funding/help to do the impossible. Stop asking us to do more than can be done and giving us less. Stop requiring us to sprint the marathon, naked and alone.
If you could only read one book*, it should be…
The War of Art by Steven Pressfield.
It is that good and important.
I am not the first to say this, nor will I be the last.
(*And you have to read. For growth, reading is not optional.)
Watched “Glee” for the first time.
I just watched the TV show “Glee” for the first time. I have avoided it, and secretly scoffed at it, because one of my deepest beliefs is: if it is popular, it is probably wrong. I was born with this skepticism. And my observations tend to confirm it. My thinking goes like this: “Glee” is popular and has rabid fans, therefore there is likely something wrong about it.
So. I just finished Season 1, Episodes 4 and 5 (my wife started watching it yesterday). Glee is equal parts thrilling and horrifying. The music is so, so good. Goose bumps every song. Every character is engaging, and the orchestration of the characters is inspired. Some of the lines are so funny that I dare not eat or drink while watching. Especially while Jane is talking! Spit-take!
However… both plots were convoluted messes. Not even enjoyable. Distracting. Confusing. Annoying.
But, oh, the music.
OK. Two more episodes. A new appreciation for the writing. The plots still leave A LOT of questions.
- Why does Mr. Shue want Rachel to leave Glee?
- Why does Sue hate the glee club?
- Why does Finn start liking Rachel all of a sudden?
- Why did Mr. Shue pick a pathological liar for a wife. Especially since he seems attracted to every woman his age?
- Why does the drama teacher yell at Rachel so much?
- Why does dancing magically make the football team win?
- Why would Finn believe he impregnated Quinn?
- C’mon. Do they really expect us to believe a school would hire Mrs. Shue as the school nurse?
Those are just a few questions. From just two episodes. I know that “suspension of belief” is a key part of film/TV watching. But this is ridiculous. The plots are soap opera parodies. Mixed with better-than-reality-show music.
In spite of plot absurdities, though, “Glee” feels like art. Like artists making art from start to finish. Creating, writing, acting, singing. Excellence, especially repeated excellence, gets noticed. I bet that’s why “Glee” has so many fans.
Note: Hollywood doesn’t even TRY to portray teaching accurately. But that is probably true for all professions. I would say, however, that teaching is different than any other profession. There is no other job that is as much a part of our lives. In childhood and adolescence (and beyond, depending on the degree you pursue) we spent every day with a teacher, interacting with us. No other job could be as big a part of our lives, even it wanted to.
The Latest Book I’ve Read
Last night, at 8:45pm. I started reading The Snowman by Jo Nesbø (translated by Don Bartlett). At 1:45am I finished the book. Five hours. That is how long it takes me to finish most novels. I read around an hour each day—mainly articles, but I don’t read books that often (comparatively speaking).
Besides updating my “Have Read” list, I want to share my impression:
Obviously, it was engrossing. I couldn’t put it down, even when my eyes burned and my eyelids drooped. However… I could not keep the characters straight, from start to finish. I could not tell you who was married to who and who was sleeping with who. I don’t know who Oleg’s father was and how Harry was connected to Rakel and Oleg. I don’t know who Jonas’ mother and father were (or who his real father was). I have no idea what happened to Harry’s mom (or why that affects him so much). I cannot tell you who Harry’s former partner(?) was or what happened to him. I don’t know how Harry was connected to the other detective The Snowman killed. I also was confused by Harry’s bosses. Who was who, and was Harry really the boss of one of his bosses?
I was lost the entire book and annoyed that the relationships were so confusing. Perhaps it was the late hour, or the Norwegian names. Have other readers have the same problem?
Another observation is that the subtext of infidelity took an eery turn through the book. At the beginning (indeed, the very opening) and for most of the book, the affairs were heavy with desire and passion. As we approach the end of the book, however, the idea that 20% of all Norwegian children do not know their real father becomes the prominent theme and the affairs are no longer thrilling, but repulsive. Which is fine. Except in the book, affairs become so repulsive that they must be punished. All of them. By gruesome death.
If you look for themes, a clear theme by the end of the book, is: “There are too many affairs and illegitimate children in Norway.” I doubt that Nesbø intended that theme (or any specific theme?). But it becomes the primary message.
The story itself is riveting. The details and twists are masterful and the puzzle of the plot is masterfully unveiled. But I sure was confused about the relationships. Also, I was confused as to why the woman (how was she connected to every/anyone?) caught in the swan trap (was that what it was?), the one who is an expert hatchet-thrower, misses when she throws the hatchet. I thought she was braced, balanced, and aimed. Additionally, I am confused about why Harry was pretending to be drunk that one time in that small bar when one of his bosses(?) came to talk to him.
My criticisms and questions do not spoil the book for me, though. Nesbø has written a thrilling, superb novel. Whenever I read a modern novel, I am reminded of this quote:
“There is a good saying to the effect that when a new book appears, one should read an old one.” – Winston Churchill
Naturally, since I myself am a writer, I do not wish the ordinary reader to read no modern books. But if he must read only the new or only the old, I would advise him to read the old.
The oldest books are still only just out to those who have not read them. – Samuel Butler
Read the best books first, or you may not have a chance to read them at all. – Henry DavidThoreau
Why do you drink alcohol?
Here’s a theory: there are only two reasons a person drinks alcohol:
- they are an alcoholic
- to conform
We drink because we have a drinking problem, or we drink to fit in.
There might be another option, like “to relax”. Except there isn’t. I submit that any other explanation for drinking actually fits, if we are honest, in one of the above two reasons. If the theory is correct, we should be able to take any person and any situation, and, upon examination, it would prove the theory.
It is important to note that there is nothing wrong with drinking any more than there is anything wrong with other common ways in which we conform. “There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.” (Shakespeare, of course.) But we ought to know why we do what we do; we ought to know when we are succumbing to pressure to conform.
I theorize that we drink for only one of two reasons, and one of those is conformity. I submit that for every situation, there is a specific expectation for drinking alcohol. Think of any situation where people drink, or think of the situations wherein you drink, and you can find a common expectation for drinking alcohol.
For example:
- Tough guys drink beer, so the guy drinks beer when with other guys.
- Hot girls do beer bongs, so the girl who needs attention/affection does beer bongs at parties.
- “Party” = drunkenness, so people drink at gathering, and alcohol plays a huge part of all their gatherings.
- Grownups drink in the evening, so people who want to seem grownup or fit in with grownups drink in the evenings.
- Sophisticated people like red wine, so I better drink red wine.
- Of course, alcoholism could also explain any senario.
Man-made constructs, like the “rules” for drinking, are more often than not, complex and complete. Consider religion, myths, language, education. All are man-made, and all are complex and complete. So it is with our “rules” for what and when to drink. There is an expectation to drink unique to every situation.
Three things are at work here. The most important one, the all-important one, is that we humans are subject to constant, constant, constant pressure to conform. So much so and so often that we seldom are aware of it—like a fish unaware of water.
The second thing at work is alcohol itself. It is addictive, restricted and therefore desired, and universal.
The third thing at work is that we humans naturally seek structures and systems and create them everywhere (languages, religions, organizations, etc). Even without intending to. Combine the powerful pressure to conform with a behavior that is common and yet allows infinite variation, and you get exactly what we have: more-than-constant pressure (pressure that has become part of our environment) to drink in any situation, at any age.
I need a drink now. Just to relax, of course.
