Monday, December 30, 2013

Seize the Day
Read a great short piece in the Times this morning. 

“I’m constantly aware of lost opportunities. I used to think such lost opportunities were beautiful towns flashing by my train windows, but now I imagine they are lanterns from the past, casting light on what’s ahead. 

This line put me back on the countless trains I rode in my first two years in China, where I would stare out the window at the passing farm land, mountains, small villages or waterways with something like this sense of awe at the vast opportunities. 

Each farmer pausing in his field to watch the train could be me or I might marry his daughter and somehow end up living in that space, working on that barge, getting a bai jiu after work at that factory.

And like the essay, these images were filled with both possibilities and sadness.  I would never know that farmer or his daughter.  My hands would never look like his or the factory workers’ or the barge captains.  Was I simply a passive observer in my own life?  What was I going to do?  Where would I go? 

Thinking of these as also lanterns from the past, part of me that makes me who I am today, part of my internal compass, feels right and honest. 

I am reminded to be fully present in the moment, to not let go of these past images and experiences but to embrace them as scaffolding upon which I might become the best me I can be today, loving eating each meal with my wife and sons and dog. 

As a boy
I was angry and afraid

today hoping to protect my sons
from their fears

until they are old enough
to hold in the tears

Friday, December 27, 2013

Commodification of Education
A short article in TheAtlantic does a good job of identifying the challenge we face in higher education today.  The challenge is multi-layered.  Starting with the timeless difficulties surrounding intellectual inquiry, teaching and learning we add to that the rapid pace of change in knowledge production today and the intense pressure from outside academia to commodify education.

The Atlantic focuses on how these forces intersect to create policy initiatives that do not focus on learning, because they are driven by economic and political and cultural interests other than education. 
“There are a whole bunch of policies—like getting students through more quickly—most of which don’t pay attention to what they are learning,” Humphreys says. “It could be making a bad situation worse if we don’t look at the impact of not only how many students get through, but what they learn.”
We need to continue to improve what we do and be more attentive to costs, but what we do is educate so job one is to retain a focus on student learning.  And learning is labor intensive and interpersonal. 
The best ways to help students succeed include providing them with “a critical mass of interesting peers, interactions with professors and outside-the-classroom experiential learning,” says Boston College’s Arnold. Yet, “At the same time we know this, we are moving in the opposite direction.”

Take MOOCs. “Thousands are looking at this. But few are finishing the courses,” Arnold says. “In the end, education is an interpersonal endeavor.”

Mayra Besosa, a lecturer in Spanish at California State University-San Marcos, is more blunt. “Anything that creates distance in the teacher-student relationship will hurt the student,” Besosa says.

We need to meet our students where they are and guide them to better understandings of the world we share.  For those developing online courses, this is the challenge: to find ways to use new technologies to make that delivery mode as much, or more, interpersonal as possible.
To do this we need faculty-led universities, where faculty and student affairs professionals (like advisors) working with students face2face every day are driving our efforts to improve what we do and contain costs.
About 100 university faculty-members from all over the country plan to meet in January in New York under the umbrella of the Campaign for the Future of Higher Education, a national movement that aims to “include the voices of the faculty, staff, students and our communities—not just administrators, politicians, foundations and think tanks—in the process of making change.”

Thursday, December 26, 2013

A friend skilled at finding gems to read sent me this one today.  Worth reading. 

December 23, 2013 | Alternet/by CJ Werleman
Fox News Bill O’Reilly defended the Republican Party’s spending cuts for SNAP by effectively declaring Jesus would not support food stamps for the poor because most them are drug addicts. If his insensitive remark is inconsistent with Scripture, which it is, then the question becomes why do talking heads on the right get away with proclaiming what Jesus would or wouldn’t support?
The answer is simple: Conservatives have not read the Bible.
Here the author chooses to overlook the parallel error:  most of the poor are not drug addicts.  Not even close.  But the author chooses (smartly) to focus on the central theme of interpreting scripture.
The Right has successfully rebranded the brown-skinned liberal Jew, who gave away free healthcare and was pro-redistributing wealth, into a white-skinned, trickledown, union-busting conservative, for the very fact that an overwhelming number of Americans are astonishingly illiterate when it comes to understanding the Bible. On hot-button social issues, from same-sex marriage to abortion, biblical passages are invoked without any real understanding of the context or true meaning. It’s surprising how little Christians know of what is still the most popular book to ever grace the American continent.
Here the author annoys me a bit with phrasing like ‘A has successfully rebranded…for the very fact that an….’  As I read it (and I am no writing expert) this is either incorrect or inelegant or both.  It was rebranded for the fact that?  I suspect the author means they were able to rebrand successfully because an overwhelming number are illiterate.  But, like the poverty and drug abuse comment, this is off point.
More than 95 percent of U.S. households own at least one copy of the Bible. So how much do Americans know of the book that one-third of the country believes to be literally true? Apparently,very little, according to data from the Barna Research group. Surveys show that 60 percent can’t name more than five of the Ten Commandments; 12 percent of adults think Joan of Arc was Noah’s wife; and nearly 50 percent of high school seniors think Sodom and Gomorrah were a married couple. A Gallup poll shows 50 percent of Americans can’t name the first book of the Bible, while roughly 82 percent believe “God helps those who help themselves” is a biblical verse.
Here the author is accepting the assumption on the Right that to be a good Christian one must read, and know well, the Bible.  I do not share that assumption, but I understand that it is central to the argument here and it is an accurate description of what most on the Right assume on this question.
So, if Americans get an F in the basic fundamentals of the Bible, what hope do they have in knowing what Jesus would say about labor unions, taxes on the rich, universal healthcare, and food stamps? It becomes easy to spread a lie when no one knows what the truth is.
Here the author is correct about this conflict…and this is also true about most conflicts that become salient enough to be contested in and through the mass media, where public and private sector elites voices dominate and specialize in re-presenting their own private interests as if these were the public interest.
The truth, whether Republicans like it or not, is not only that Jesus was a meek and mild liberal Jew who spoke softly in parables and metaphors, but conservatives were the ones who had him killed. American conservatives, however, have morphed Jesus into a muscular masculine warrior, in much the same way the Nazis did, as a means of combating what they see as the modernization of society.
I am not aware of this Nazi connection; would like to know more.  Seems similar to what the KKK did with Jesus?
Author Thom Hartmann writes, “A significant impetus behind the assault on women and modernity was the feeling that women had encroached upon traditional male spheres like the workplace and colleges. Furthermore, women’s leadership in the churches had harmed Christianity by creating an effeminate clergy and a weak sense of self. All of this was associated with liberalism, feminism, women, and modernity.”
Here the author provides a provocative quote, but which assault?  When?  By whom?
It’s almost absurd to speculate what Jesus’ positions would be on any single issue, given we know so little about who Jesus was. Knowing the New Testament is not simply a matter of reading the Bible cover to cover, or memorizing a handful of verses. Knowing the Bible requires a scholarly contextual understanding of authorship, history and interpretation.
For instance, when Republicans were justifying their cuts to the food stamp program, they quoted 2 Thessalonians: “Anyone unwilling to work should not eat.” One poll showed that more than 90 percent of Christians believe this New Testament quote is attributed to Jesus. It’s not. This was taken from a letter written by Paul to his church in Thessalonica. Paul wrote to this specific congregation to remind them that if they didn't help build the church in Thessalonica, they wouldn’t be paid. The letter also happens to be a fraud. Surprise! Biblical scholars agree it’s a forgery written by someone pretending to be Paul.
What often comes as a surprise to your average Sunday wine-and-cracker Christian is the New Testament did not fall from the sky the day Jesus’ ghost is said to have ascended to Heaven. The New Testament is a collection of writings, 27 in total, of which 12 are credited to the authorship of Paul, five to the Gospels (whomever wrote Luke also wrote Acts), and the balance remain open for debate i.e. authorship unknown. Jesus himself wrote not a single word of the New Testament. Not a single poem, much less an op-ed article on why, upon reflection, killing your daughter for backchat is probably not sound parenting.
Backchat?  Talking back?
The best argument against an historical Jesus is the fact that none of his disciples left us with a single record or document regarding Jesus or his teachings. So, who were the gospel writers? The short answer is we don’t know. What we do know is that not only had none of them met Jesus, but also they never met the people who had allegedly met Jesus. All we have is a bunch of campfire stories from people who were born generations after Jesus’ supposed crucifixion. In other words, numerous unidentified authors, each with his own theological and ideological motives for writing what they wrote. Thus we have not a single independently verifiable eyewitness account of Jesus—but this doesn’t stop Republicans from speaking on his behalf.
I guess I assumed that John’s gospel was written by John the Apostle.  A bit surprised to learn that no writers even knew anyone who knew Jesus, and to learn how little I know (again).
What we do know about Jesus, at least according to the respective gospels, is that Jesus’ sentiments closely echoed the social and economic policies of the political left. The Beatitudes from the Sermon on the Mount read like the mission statement of the ACLU: “Blessed are the poor, for theirs is kingdom of heaven,” “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth,” and “Blessed are the peacemakers.” Jesus also said, “Judge not he who shall not be judged,” and “Sell what you have and give it to the poor.”
So, when Republicans accuse Obama of being a brown-skinned socialist who wants to redistribute the wealth, they’re thinking of Jesus. Stephen Colbert joked, “Jesus was always flapping his gums about the poor but never once did he call for a tax cut for the wealthiest 2 percent of Romans.”
Biblical illiteracy is what has allowed the Republican Party to get away with shaping Jesus into their image. That's why politicians on the right can get away with saying the Lord commands that our healthcare, prisons, schools, retirement, transport, and all the rest should be run by corporations for profit.
Ironically, the Republican Jesus was actually a devout atheist—Ayn Rand—who called the Christian religion “monstrous.” Rand advocated selfishness over charity, and she divided the world into makers versus takers. She also stated that followers of her philosophy had to chose between Jesus and her teachings. When the Christian Right believes it’s channeling Jesus when they say it’s immoral for government to tax billionaires to help pay for healthcare, education and the poor, they’re actually channeling Ayn Rand. When Bill O’Reilly claims the poor are immoral and lazy, that’s not Jesus, it’s Ayn Rand.
Here the author chooses to frame free market thinking through Rand.  Not inaccurate, but there are less extreme versions that would make this argument stronger.
The price this country has paid for biblical illiteracy is measured by how far we’ve moved toward Ayn Rand’s utopia. In the past three decades, we’ve slashed taxes on corporations and the wealthy, destroyed labor unions, deregulated financial markets, eroded public safety nets, and committed to one globalist corporate free-trade agreement after another. Rand would be smiling down from the heaven she didn’t believe in.
With the far-right, Republican-appointed majority on the Supreme Court ruling in favor of the Koch brothers' Citizens United, the flow of billions of dollars from anonymous donors to the most reliable voting bloc of the Republican Party—the Christian Right—will continue to perpetuate the biblically incompatible, anti-government, pro-deregulation-of-business, anti-healthcare-for-all, Tea Party American version of Christianity.
I had high hopes for this at the start, but in the end it operates more by suggestion than argumentation with evidence.  For a short piece, however, it is instructive and points us in directions worth further exploration.

Wednesday, December 25, 2013

The Duck Dynasty Controversy

I have not seen the show, Duck Dynasty, other than a few minutes a couple of times.  And I have not been following the controversy surrounding comments made by one of the show’s stars.  But one comment within a Facebook thread gives me pause at too quickly lumping this episode in with the selection of Sara Palin (etc) as evidence of the promotion of stupidity.  If there is any truth to the comment below, in this case, the stupidity explanation seems too easy.  In response to a very thoughtful critique of the media’s decision to see this controversy as a news story……

As a liberal guy, I'd love to totally agree with you, but I don't. I do agree his view on homosexuality is abhorrent, but things are rarely black and white, and he has the right to speak his mind. Also, this guy's life is quite interesting and he's not stupid. He went from the most extreme poverty to success through very hard work. His life was very screwed up and he owns up to his weaknesses, and his religion changed him. I couldn't disagree more with many of his views but he is voicing his deep felt beliefs. His family is quite charitable, foster parenting an Asian child and adopting a biracial child (hardly a 'red neck' characteristic).

He is extremely dedicated to his family, and they to him. Values I admire. He is also very popular at this point, and I think it makes sense that he was interviewed. You could actually do much worse than have him as a current public icon. He's certainly not what we in NY would call 'sophisticated' nor does he want to be. Living a simple life in Louisiana makes him an easy target. So does his deep faith in his church.

I read his and his son's book because they are so different from me and my life in many ways, yet aren't. This is not a typical dysfunctional family that we all love to gawk at and talk about. It's actually a very successful loving family with very conservative Christian values. I hate his view on homosexuality and I'm sure I'd hate his views on other things as well that have to do with conservative faith. I love his views on money (not super important to him anyway), family, and quality of life. They credit their success to being the only family on TV who isn't dysfunctional. I agree. And as we know, no one is perfect except you and me J

I like the tone of this post.  Even if it is not the best read, it strikes me as accurate enough to give pause to people like me ready to conclude this is another Fox News dumbing down of America incident. 
It is easy to hold opponents to high standards, but in doing so we should hold ourselves to the same standards (at least).

Friday, December 20, 2013

Why do we cry at “It’s A Wonderful Life?”

Good question. A black and white flick. Ten minutes in and I am fighting back tears as George is trying to tell his dad he’d rather see the world than take over the savings and loan. Then cheering as George tells Potter who actually works and sweats and lives and dies in this town…saving the S&L but dashing his college plans.



The first big cry is when Mary tells George he is facing the opportunity of a lifetime, with Sam Wainwright on the phone and her mother mortified on the extension. The next scene they are getting married and celebrating a round-the-world trip only to discover there is a line at the S&L, with its doors locked.

George Bailey is a good man, not without his flaws and blinders, but a decent and loving business man. He is the classic pillar of the community, protecting regular folks from having no option but to crawl to Potter, the business man without a heart. You can see on George’s face that he really cares and thinks. This makes the repeated trashing of his own dream of seeing the world and building things all the harder to stomach.

George stays calm when the rest of us are gripped by the fear Potter amplifies. “We can get through this thing alright. We’ve got to stick together.” Then we list our needs, doctor’s bills etc and Mary Bailey pulls out their personal $2000 savings to share. “Could I have $17.50?” This is the next big cry. She listened to George and trusted him when he said, just tell me what you need (rather than your balance to withdraw it all).

Over the years I have often tried to figure out why I cry so often and sometimes so hard during IAWL. I think the main reason is that this movie paints a moving picture of how I think like should be and seeing it overwhelms me with my own inadequacy. Of course, even in the film, life as it should be is beaten against the rocks of Potters. But since I know the ending, even the earlier scenes (like keeping the S&L open until 6pm with $2) cannot but scream to me: this is the way life could (and should) be.

Suddenly, George recognizes that his wife is calling to ask him to come to a home he did not know he had, with Bert the cop and Ernie the cabbie singing in harmony outside their bedroom window. The entire town rallies behind George, just as it should be. The good man is seen and recognized and supported and not alone.

Sure the film focuses on a good man, and it should be clear that life as it should be would recognize good woman, black and white, as well. And it is easy for me to say, that is how I always interpreted it anyway. I did and I understand that my own experience and vision is limited and partial and blind. But for me, I saw the good person doing the right thing, over and over, publicly and privately, and being seen by his family and friends and community as just that: worthy, if only for a brief moment.

Then, on top of that story line, we see George get tired of giving and sacrificing without reward. He gets angry and desperate and we then see him seeing his life if he had never been born. This allows us to feel the sadness of ‘life should be this way but it is not’ and then balance that disappointment with a dose of all we are missing when we only see the day-to-day.
“Even though they know Bailey’s never made a dime out of it.” But, as the story goes, his is the richest man in town.

George is in Potter’s office, in the chair two stories lower than Potter’s throne, as Potter offers him a job as a man at 27 making $45 a week, able to save $10/week… “who hates the building and loan almost as much as I do.” Starting at $20,000 a year, “providing he has enough brains to climb aboard.”

George asks for a day to ask his wife but then stops as he is shaking Potter’s hand and changes his mind. “You think the whole world revolves around you and your money!” George goes home exhausted, then the S&L books do not balance (because his Uncle Billy lost a deposit) and even the decent life he had built appears to be on the verge of falling apart.

But George overcomes all obstacles. Mostly just by being a good, level-headed, person who cares about his community. And we learn over time that his community has noticed; they care about him too. That does not seem to be asking too much—for community to matter, but seeing it on the big screen just reminds me how far short we fall. So, I cry tears of both sadness and joy at the same time every time I watch ‘It’s a Wonderful Life.’

Friday, December 6, 2013

The Daily Show does it again!

And again...
Detroit Workers Victimized Again
An important story barely getting any attention is the recent decision by a court in Detroit. The court ruled that, since Detroit is broke, the city can declare bankruptcy and by doing so avoid paying the pensions promised to retirees. Now that is accountability. And rule of law. And respect for a contract.


23,000 retirees negotiated to exchange some wages for a pension plan to pay them an average of $20,000 a year. One perspective would be that the funds in these pension plans are actually the property of the retirees…and therefore this should be seen as robbery. The judge said no. It is not stealing; it is bankruptcy.

By reframing this from theft to bankruptcy, the court is allowing the city to ‘erase’ billions of dollars of debt it agreed to pay to retirees. These retirees played by the rules, worked hard, retired with a pension. Then the city, with court support, decided it would seek bankruptcy protection to avoid accountability.

But this story gets nearly no coverage because once it is reframed as bankruptcy instead of robbery most readers just turn the page, failing to see the thousands of families like mine that are left holding the bag.