Give a Man a Quarter and He Can Play One Game, Teach Him to Write in Basic and He Can Feed a Village (Really), They Don’t Make Video Games the Way They Used To (and Get Off My Lawn!), Russ Can’t Help Falling In Love…Again…, Is This the Text That Launched a Thousand Ships?, How Rabbits From Certain Places Can Help You Recover Your Voice, How Many Meppers Does It Take to Get One Mepper a Date, Angry Pictures are Angry, and Chemistry = Not Fat.

Download Mep Report #126

Beyond expressing my sorrow for the lost and injured and all those affected by this tragedy, I have little to say about the horrific events in Arizona yesterday except one thing.  Regular Mep readers / listeners will know all of us here put a high value on communication and the power of rhetoric; the two greatest speakers of the twentieth century (arguably) were Martin Luther King and Adolf Hitler, and I don’t think anyone needs a cheat sheet to determine which person pursued the good and which the evil.  What yesterday conclusively, definitively proves is that rhetoric is not an unalloyed good.  It is a neutral tool, and it has consequences. 

When a group of people, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, spew the same kind of language–”target,” “reload,” “crosshairs,” “bullets of justice,” and on and on–it is only a matter of time until the consequences are felt.  And calling for civility “on both sides,” when the simple truth is that one side calls for violent, bloody revolution and the other calls for immediate legal remedy, is a colossal and shameful cop-out.  Yesterday’s events are the absolutely predictable result of the dog whistles the Glenn Becks, Rush Limbaughs, and Sarah Palins of the world blow at every opportunity only to raise their hands in mock horror when something (vandalizing property, death threats, shooting 18 people including a federal judge and a congresswoman–execution style, in the head) happens as a result.

Don’t be fooled.  Don’t allow political leadership to make the false equivalency between the rhetoric “on both sides.”  No such equivalency exists.  Don’t allow pundits to claim “it’s a stretch” that publishing a map with crosshairs over specific people and waving around automatic rifles to get the approval of a gun-obsessed culture leads directly to violence.  It isn’t a stretch.  This is more than shouting fire in a crowded theater.  It’s taking a can of gasoline and a box of matches, setting them down next to the theater and giving the people outside a meaningful look before turning your back and walking away.

It’s criminal.  It’s evil.  But most of all it is absolutely, completely, utterly predictable, and the purveyors of such shameless rhetoric know it.  It is up to us and the rest of our supposedly civil society to call them out on it before they bring that society crashing down upon us.  Speech has consequences.  It’s time we acknowledge not only the effects of violence–but the cause.

This is not really meant to counterpoint with Greg’s post from late last month so much as to underline it. Teachers are not the ones over-medicating kids or insisting that we don’t adapt the curriculum or focus instead on standardized testing. Indeed, this video’s highlights of problematic changes have gone hand-in-hand with a continual flogging of teachers for not making an outdated model of education magically work.

The problem, ultimately, is of course with capitalism. Until people can educate for the sake of it instead of for some utility value that ends in a dollar-sign, we’re not going to make much progress. Public education may have been the gift of a small window in the history of capitalism, but that window has been swiftly slammed shut now and we’re looking at broken glass all over the floor.

Teachers are used to working with less.  Primary school teachers are used to buying basic classroom supplies out of their own salaries; secondary school teachers are used to teaching with classrooms at double or more capacity; post secondary teachers at all levels are used to ever increasing demands from multiple masters (publish now, do committee work now, teach now, advise now…everything now, or preferably yesterday).  I’ve taught at all these levels, and most of the teachers I know accept their respective situations with a shrug and a sense of humor (there’s a reason the teachers’ lounge is the most important room in any school building for the people to whom it caters).

Very few of these circumstances have changed over the years.  When my father began his teaching career in the 1950s he was confronted with the same lack of resources as teachers half a century later, faced the same questions from people outside the profession who couldn’t understand why someone with intelligence and ability would want to use it in fighting a seemingly relentless tide of ignorance and misunderstanding.  His answer was always the same: if not me, who?  That reply, and the attitude it demonstrates, has sustained the entire educational system for literally centuries.

What has changed over the past twenty years, the last eighteen of which I’ve spent teaching in some capacity or another, is the increasing hostility to those within the profession who are responsible for sustaining it…not “educators,” which is often a code for people who took business and administration courses in college and didn’t set foot in a classroom until they were somehow expected to be responsible for assessing how it was run, but teachers, the ones on the front lines.  Teachers, we have been told, are an increasingly outdated class, a group of lazy ne’er do wells who get holidays and summers off and—if given that favorite whipping boy of the anti-education right, tenure—can teach their radical political positions (what those positions are is never explained, except it’s always part of the vast left wing conspiracy) with impunity.  That these criticisms come largely from people in business, who know as little about teaching as I do about profit and loss statements, or people whose own educational experiences wouldn’t exactly prepare them to make informed comments (like half term Alaska governors whose knowledge of geography begins and ends with Google Maps, for instance), is immaterial.  The fading educational system is the fault of those damned shiftless teachers, the ones indoctrinating our youth into further lazy habits.

Blame the teachers, goes the logic, and you’ll create accountability.  Demand higher test scores—which, against all evidence to the contrary, are apparently perfect indicators of the quality of a student’s education—and berate, harass and fire the teachers whose classes don’t perform, and you’ll see a change.  Stop coddling the unionized elite, who sip tea and sneer at the unwashed masses desiring only a chance at a better life, and you’ll have a leaner, more responsive work force, grateful for employment and willing to work any amount of hours to get the job done right.  It’s a compelling narrative, made more effective by the anti-intellectual sentiment which has always circulated in America.  It’s aggressive, and forceful, and satisfying.

It’s unfortunate that it’s utterly wrong.

First of all, solutions like the ones described above—test more and if the scores don’t get better, throw the bums out—oversimplify things to an incredible degree, a common tactic of right wing critics who don’t do nuance.  You’re either with us or against us, right?  Either students are good or bad.  There’s no in-between, no gray area, no difficult territory to navigate.  They need to test better.

But there are literally hundreds of problems with this argument—here are two:

1.  Students aren’t “good or bad,” if we even know what that means.  Students are good at different things, to begin with, and many of those things aren’t measurable in a strict academic sense.  How do you assess a student who can’t solve algebraic equations to save his life but is a natural leader, who is drawn to protecting those weaker than himself and whose presence entirely eliminates the problem of bullying in a classroom?  How about an exceptionally gifted writer whose physical skills—like not being hit in the face with a volleyball in gym class—seriously leave something to be desired?  Or an extraordinary musician who loves math and science, but left interest in English and history behind with her sixth grade graduation?

2.  Tests teach NOTHING.  They are useless for everything but a very specific form of assessment, determining how well a student performs on that particular kind of exam.  Of all the tools in a teacher’s arsenal, they are the least valuable in any real educational sense.  They serve a very, very limited pedagogical purpose.  Yet they have now become the mantra from business executives used to performance reviews and evaluations who need more data, more information points, more reasons to yell at, demean and threaten the teachers on whose shoulders rests the survival of education at all.  This creates an environment in which teaching to the test becomes the order of the day, and other far more important educational outcomes—like fostering creativity, intellectual curiosity and a desire to learn and grow—are cast aside as too “vague” and “untestable.”  Perhaps the greatest irony of this statement is that it never questions the sanctity of the assessment itself; the fault must be with the things being assessed.  This is wagging the dog with a vengeance.

But beyond the issues of oversimplification and the utter inability of tests to magically solve the problems of education, what is so galling about the new attack against the teaching profession is how it takes those most important to (simultaneously most ignored by) the system and demonizes them as a class…with literally no evidence to support the position beyond unproven and easily refuted anecdotes about the teacher who never comes to work and doesn’t treat Billy like he’s special.  This for a group of people whose qualifications put them on a par with educated people in any profession, but whose salaries put them on a lower middle class / high poverty track at best.  It would hardly be surprising if this relentless attack did drive away the most able into other jobs where respect is the rule, not the exception; it’s a testament to the passion and drive of most teachers that this hasn’t yet happened, but it’s foolish to believe things can continue this way without consequences.

What, then, can be done?  A few suggestions:

1.  Stop the attack on the front lines of education.  Develop a system of teacher evaluation based on scientific study and pedagogically sound practice—and incorporate teachers, who have been willing for decades to do this, into the process.  Get rid of the few bad apples, which certainly exist, but focus the effort on teacher development and support rather than enhancing mutual suspicion between teachers and the surrounding community.  (And stop the attack on unions, which is neither accurate nor related to the larger problems facing education.)  Think outside the box, and while you’re at it abandon the principles which may be applicable to profit-driven business but have nothing to do with a system which is about shaping human beings, not number crunching for the sake of a bottom line.  There’s plenty of that latter kind of thinking in every other walk of modern American life.

2.  Start thinking about how to make education more effective for students, not parents, teachers, administrators, or the rest of the peanut gallery.  Start by rejecting the “test everything” mentality and relegate it to where it belongs—a very limited, specific purpose in educational pedagogy.  Think about assessment in much broader terms—terms which consider students as the individuals they are rather than the categories modern education is all too eager to name them.  Bring teachers and parents together in the common service of the child, rather than the adversarial purposes of a political class which feeds on division and discord for its own ambitious purposes.

3.  Decrease class sizes.

4.  Have administrators come from the ranks of teachers again, rather than pursuing a separate track in which classroom experience is minimized and theoretical devotion lionized.

5.  Increase teacher salaries, from the embarrassing level at which they currently sit to the professional level which is appropriate.

6.  Most of all, tone down the rhetoric.  Tough talk is cheap, and in easy supply these days.  But when the microphone is shut off and the cameras stop rolling, the fundamental issues facing the modern student and teacher remain, and no amount of red-faced yelling and fist pounding will correct them.  If we all strive for the humility to know how and what we can do, and think of education as a collaborative effort rather than a large scale game of passing the buck, we might be able to start addressing the problems we face at their core.

Those core problems have never been the teachers, in the 1550s, the 1950s, or now.  It’s high time we stopped treating them that way.

(Cross posted from www.gregoryawilson.com)

For 63 years, Goshen College has refrained from playing the national anthem before sporting events because the song prioritizes war and allegiance to country over peaceful devotion to God. Sixty-three years ending this year.

The reason? A conservative talk-show host raised the specter of un-Americanism in implication of the College’s actions, fueling a nasty campaign to change the school’s policy.

There seems to be something painfully ironic about people calling anyone who doesn’t fall in line with the regimented ways of paying allegiance an enemy of freedom.

Unlike in the ’50′s, though, no one really sees the irony. People just wonder how the College got away with not playing the anthem for so long. At least some people didn’t stand during the song.

We shouldn’t stand for it either.

I’ve always been a fan of anagrams and palindromes. So has University of Portland Prof Aziz Inan (pictured above).

Inan cites 01/02/2010 as the second of twelve palindromic dates this century, the first of which was 10/02/2001.

This is nearly as exciting as the moment I discovered ‘Gooberman’ was an anagram of ‘Boomerang.’ In the words of my delighted relatives, “It added an Australian flavor,” to an otherwise ridiculous name.

Some super die-hard Mep fans may remember the podcast episode where we revealed that The Mep Report was an anagram of ‘Prophet Meter‘

As it happens (according to this anagram generator) it also can be re-arranged to form:

Thee Prompter – (Greg’s role?)
Preempt Other – (Mep argument tactic)
There Perm Top – (Fancy-haired emu?)
Tether Me Prop – (Houdini’s request)
Temper The Pro – (Tiger Woods agent’s strategy)
Peep Her, Mr. Tot – (advice to voyeuristic child)
Peter? He Mr. Pot – (description of Pete)
Pert Mop There – (nice hair)
The Moppet, Err… – (Senavene did what?)
Rope, Tempt Her – (a fishing mantra, perhaps?)
Preterm Pet Ho – (premature delivery of your baby hooker)

In a recent episode of Handy Manny titled “Home Sweet Home,” a neighborhood child plays a dangerous game of duck, duck, goose called “nut, nut, bolt” with the tools (click on the episode title, watch or skip intro, and then click the scroll bar to -03:22 to see the abhorrent scene).

Hey, Hey, The Gang’s All Here, Krull and Kelp Kollide, Russ Goes Back to School, Immortality Is/Is Not Overrated, Baby Sea Cucumbers, Rack-O is Whack-O, Cash for Coal, and NAFTA Bartenders.

Download Mep Report #116

Russ Gets his Graduate Degree (Mep Report 116 Highlight) from Laserfalcon on Vimeo.

Come on, it beats a dissertation!

100 German Professors Suspected of Ph.D. Bribes.

Honestly, if I knew it was this easy I would have bailed out halfway through my doctoral program and headed to Cologne.  And I would have had to get my doctorate there at that point, cause I have a sneaking suspicion Brandeis wouldn’t have welcomed me with open arms on my return.

Last week, I earned a Doctorate of Immortality from the Universal Life Church. Already an ordained minister of the church at the fertile age of 21 (one of the few tens of millions), I decided to take the plunge and focus my studies on the infinite. Though happy to have returned to the corporeal world with my degree, I assure you that the trials of an Immortalist are not to be taken lightly.

The student of immortality must not simply be of a robust constitution. The prospective Immortalist must be of sound mind, and fearless countenance. The perils of this study are not to be overlooked. According to research conducted by the Council of Continuous Being, one out of every four immortality students is lost forever to the Oblivion Chant, a course pre-requisite. Others can become trapped in the Inner Circle of Thought, while still others are doomed to course repetition in the Chamber of Reflection.

Here is a some exclusive footage from one of the first Immortalist course offerings, undertaken by a young, Kansas-bred, journalism student…

Remember, the life of an Immortalist isn’t all flying around firing eye lasers and joyously decapitating classmates. A true Immortalist devotes himself to the practice of living forever. And that cannot be done in a day, or even over a three-day weekend.

Reihan Salam, in last week’s Foreign Policy, argued that this recession represents “The Death of Macho.” She cites an unemployment rate that is hitting male workers much more severely than female, and criticizes a culture of high risk, high leverage tactics which she associates with the macho business culture.

She does have a few salient points. On the one hand, the end of the housing bubble has brought the booming construction (male dominated) business to a halt, while federal stimulus packages have promised a new focus on healthcare and education, more historically gender balanced fields.

While the gender-relevant numbers do pose some interesting questions, I’m less convinced that high risk business strategies are characteristically male. Salam seems to be making the “women as hobbits” argument, that women are somehow intrinsically less corruptible by the workplace than their male counterparts. This, I just don’t buy. I have a hard time believing that a female CEO will resist the whims of her stockholders any more than a male CEO.

As a Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher was most beloved for her violent defense of the British Empire. Her victory against the Argentine army, in the Falklands, solidified her status as a great world leader. Of course, not all female heads of state take on conservative, war-mongering positions, but I don’t think whether they do or not is a gender issue.

Certainly there will be more women legislators, CEOs, and presidents over time, as we adopt more egalitarian, proportional cultural norms. But that seems to me more of a function of increased eduction for all, than some sort of surrendering of a macho ethic. Stupidity doesn’t come via chromosomes — well, at least not those chromosomes.

Here’s your first lesson: