LIfe's Creul Sense of Humor

There are bigger problems in the world, I'll admit that. I'll leave that up to cable news for now.

But sometimes life takes a cruel twist.

Roller blades. No, I didn't break my arm (or coccyx).

I don't remember exactly how old I was when I first saw them. But they were cool. I think I tried them once when I went to a roller rink the time I introduced my fiance to my mother--it's all kind of a blur. That was a while ago.

A few years ago when visiting my in-laws I discovered a pair in their garage. Had a great time rolling around the neighborhood and the nearby school grounds. Of, if only some day I could get my own pair.


A few months ago while looking for a belt at the local Good Will, I found a pair of shoes for $3.50--the same price as all those shoes. Except these shoes were roller blades...and they fit.

It only took me 20 years or so to get some...and at a price any scrooge could celebrate.

(I didn't break my leg)

Having seen the joys of breaking a wrist while ice-skating (mother-in-law...hey, I'm sensing a theme here), I decided I wouldn't use them until I found some wristguards. I figured I could protect most of myself by falling to my hands, and wristguards would do the rest. All the planets aligned as I found a good set on Amazon--which I purchased with a gift card I just received from a publisher for submitting a teaching strategy for publication. Destiny was on my side.

(I didn't break my side)

I few days later I was good to go. I went to the paved trail in town with my daughter and I was off. What a rush--the wind blowing through my...ear lobes, the trees rushing past me like extras is a Godzilla movie. My life would never be the same.

I tried them a day or two later around our neighborhood. It was worth taking my life into my own hands on the pothole obstacle course. They haven't left my closet since.

Around the same time, we were gifted a treadmill from some people who moved away. My old treadmill had recently died, and this one was like a Mercedes compared to my 1940 Citrone. In the world of exercise, I was set with my two new toys. Somebody didn't tell my knees.

Ever since then, I have had cronic knee paid--it's been over 2 months. Nothing specific happened that I know of, but they ache and burn constantly. I may have developed arthritis or something, and it is very discouraging. My roller blades and treadmill just sit there gathering dust, while I gather...well, I'm trying not to think about that.

Ah, shucks!

I guess it's time to fulfill a different fantasy I've had since I got married 15 years ago. Where can I find a good bean bag chair for our family room?

Then again, I'd better watch out for my coccyx.

Too Old-School?

Our school district is changing how it handles "gifted" children. Instead of a whole class dedicated just to the top 20 students (give or take a few who choose not to enroll in the class), they will institute a pull-out program, something akin to taking a child out of the normal class for a couple hours a week to receive some extra attention to foster his or her accelerate abilities. Color me skeptical.

Admittedly, I don't know all the ins and outs of the pull-out program, but as I see it, it will be a poor substitute. In the first model, the whole curriculum can be designed to engage certain children in a way that cannot be mimicked in two hours a week. The entire paradigm of teaching can be different. Children who under-perform in a typical classroom sometimes thrive in a more challenging, less conventional environment, and other children are pushed to reach their exceptional potential.

An impetus for the change is likely budgetary, but one also hears that a main benefit of the change is that more children will be served. Sure, I suppose more than 20 (40 in total, given there is a class for 4th graders and one for 5th graders) can be pulled-out through the course of a week. Spread the wealth around a bit. I generally think that is a nice idea--more opportunities for more people. Yet...

I believe the outcome of the change will be that some children who would thrive in the first model will gain very little or nothing from the second model--most of their time is still in a conventional classroom. Some will still gain something significant but not as much as they would from the first model. Others who may not have been invited for the first model might gain a bit by being pulled-out. Overall, I fear that a few people might be helped a little more but many more people will not be helped as much as they would have been otherwise. I also don't know how many more will be involved in the pull-out program--the numbers may not even be that different.

Philosophically, I struggle a bit with this issue. Help more people a little or fewer people a lot? Which model serves the objectives of education the best? If the objective is to give the best education to as many as possible, you could make a pretty good case for either model, depending on whether one emphasizes "best" or "many" over the other. I also think a case could be made that the second model for dealing with accelerated children is so watered-down that it is merely a symbolic move to appease certain parents or administrators.

What is the greater good? An excellent few can arguably pull everyone higher by what they contribute to the whole. Why should everyone have to be mediocre, or slightly above? On the other hand, the elite sometimes leave the rest behind, and a large gap can occur between the haves and the have-nots, the haves sometimes with astounding excess while the have-nots sometimes with utter scarcity.

Can both really be served equally well at the same time? With infinite resources and will, perhaps. Otherwise...not sure. It seems that serving one segment of a society always has some cost for the other, as does neglecting a segment.

Do elements of this scenario remind anyone of the health care debate at all (or just about any social issue with which the government is involved)? Will helping more (in theory) actually serve the country better, or bring us all down? With the infinite ways that things could be changed, I don't even know how to begin to really know the answer to this question, but I do believe that it is unsafe to assume that regardless of the specific ways to achieve it that either basic model is inherently superior to the other.

What Did She Say?!?

1. If you are more offended when a woman uses profanity than you are when a man uses profanity, you are

A. a sexist--get over it.
B. just not used to hearing women use profanity--you are more desensitized to hearing men use profanity.
C. in denial--women use profanity just as much as men but your lofty ideals blind you from seeing it.
D. completely normal and justified in your offense.
E. None of the above.


I get more offended when I hear women use profanity than when I hear men use it. Offended may not be the best word--I at least experience a stronger internal jolt--especially for the hard core profanity. To be perfectly honest, I wouldn't put profanity at the top of my list of moral or secular concerns--but it's not something I find particularly praiseworthy either.

Perhaps I react differently when the volatile words escape from female lips because I grew up without sisters--and my neighborhood was dominated by males. When I got to college, I frankly didn't hear much swearing, but I was caught off guard when I first heard females belch. (I don't remember if I actually believed if that was physically possible or not--when I was real young, I actually believed that women peed green and didn't poop. Yes, I'm saving up for psychoanalysis.) It could be basic ignorance on my part then, though I have read that research shows that in actuality women actually do use less profanity than men.

Do I hold women to a higher standard? Perhaps. Maybe I have given up a bit on men. In some ways, my faith in males may not be as high as it is in females. That certainly was true maybe 15 or 20 years ago. I have often had greater appreciation for the stereotypical gentler natures of women--communicative, sensitive, empathic, self-sacrificing. I've realized over the years that perhaps such a package is a bit exaggerated--yet I think there is some truth to it (and I believe research in general bears that out, in terms of overall group differences). I've never related too well to the archetypal masculine male--heck I have a blog! In short, maybe I've come to expect less from males than females--not to excuse males, but an acquiescence to reality.

There are of course, the exceptions. There are and have always been exceptionally compassionate, responsible, noble men. I could name a long list. Yet, I suppose I may think of them as being toward the extreme end of the bell-curve instead of in the middle.

Moreover, in more recent years, I've become somewhat of a male apologist. In my field particularly there has been such an attack (though often subtle) on males and masculinity that I find myself being a bit defensive about it and wanting to highlight the virtues of malehood--though not at the expense of valuing femalehood. I've tried to better value what both bring to the table, in the case that their entrees differ. But I admit I still tend to hold women to a higher standard (as a group--I personally don't use that as an excuse to justify my own pitfalls--more as an observation of how I perceive things to be). But that's not my ideal.

Maybe I take solace in the notion that at least only half of us is doing it, and when I see the other half picking up on the trend it seems like a greater shame. Come to think of it, I roll my eyes with more fervor when I see men smiling while clothes shopping or when they look forward to watching The Bachelor.

Bishops

I've had the opportunity to observe and think about Bishops (LDS Church) lately. I've gotten to the age at which I have several friends and acquaintances who are Bishops--it's a strange feeling.

While on vacation, we have stayed in the home of a Bishop (who has been home a combined total of about 17 minutes in three days--not counting "sleep"). Another Bishop and his family was going to visit but had to stay home to conduct a funeral. Last week a Bishop whom I don't know spent 3 hours--with little notice--late into the evening counseling a loved one. These men and their families make tremendous sacrifices--much if not most of which goes unnoticed.

Sure, they get some status--whoopee! I assume they feel blessed spiritually. But I'v wondered lately if perhaps their spiritual blessings come because of the effort they put into being in touch with spiritual things because they need all the help they can get. Thus, it's not automatic, its the natural consequence of their dedication.

Bishops also make mistakes and will never please everyone. They are human--often very flawed, and there are a handful that may even do some pretty horrible things--but I feel confident in saying that most do their best and deserve whatever support they can get. It is truly amazing that people accept such responsibility--with relatively little training, with no aspirations for the calling (except by a select few who are either very ignorant or are caught up in some quirky power trip), and who typically have plenty of their own family and work responsibilities.

The more I think about it, the more I feel the need to show more grattitude for my Bishop--even if we have relatively little contact, I know he is doing a tremendous, selfless service, and he and his family deserve my respect.

If he happens to be reading this--how dare you take a break!

True love is...

never having to be apart!

Pure Feminism

Which is better serving the cause of feminism--appointing a woman to the Supreme Court because (as an essential qualification--not the only qualification) she is a woman, or giving female and male judges equal consideration for the vacant post?

One might argue that women are being best served by having greater representation on the court. Feminism is working.

One might argue that disqualifying other judges just because they are male is somewhat patronizing to women--suggesting that a woman would not have qualified for the post without special treatment. Feminism isn't working.

Which is the greater good?

The same points could pretty much be said about appointing a Hispanic to the court because of being that race.

Are the feminist purists seeing this scenario (and I realize this scenario may not be actually happening now--though reports are that it is) as perhaps less-than-ideal but still an important symbolic step toward gender Utopia, or are some actually upset by it? Are there those among them that see this as quintessential feminism and find no contradiction?

Just wondering.

You might be wondering as well (I'll pretend people still read this blog)...maybe.