Replacing literature in the classroom

You remember reading those classic books in school, such as Catcher in the Rye, To Kill a Mockingbird, and the like. Don't you?

Of course you do. We all had to read that stuff in our English classes. If it wasn't those, it was something else. Maybe Canterbury Tales? Or Shakespeare?

Your kids may not be getting that chance anymore.

According to the Daily Telegraph (and why isn't this stuff in any American newspaper?):

"A new school curriculum which will affect 46 out of 50 states will make it compulsory for at least 70 per cent of books studied to be non-fiction, in an effort to ready pupils for the workplace."

To do that, they're going to be removing books like Rye and Mockingbird, instead forcing them to include recommended "informational texts" like "Recommended Levels of Insulation by the the US Environmental Protection Agency, and the Invasive Plant Inventory, by California's Invasive Plant Council."

Seriously?

I've seen this on an Australian news web site and a couple of blog posts, but that's it. Where is the media in this? Caiti Doyle, over at Technapex, has a great post on this, saying:

"David Coleman, one of the leading authors of the new standards, said that educators are misinterpreting and overreacting to the new requirements. These works of nonfiction are meant to be assigned across all courses, he says — social studies, science, even math classes — saving plenty of time for literature in English classes."

But Doyle goes on to remind everybody that no Math, Social Studies, Science, or any other kind of teacher is going to remove some of their assignments so that they can include this kind of reading. It is going to fall squarely on the English teachers. Thus crowding out the literature that we all knew and loved (ok, well, maybe just "knew").

Boyle also quotes Coleman as saying in a Washington Post article last year:

"Forgive me for saying this so bluntly, the only problem with . . . [that] writing is as you grow up in this world you realize people really don’t give a [expletive] about what you feel or what you think. What they instead care about is, can you make an argument with evidence, is there something verifiable behind what you’re saying or what you think or feel that you can demonstrate to me? It is rare in a working environment that someone says, ‘Johnson, I need a market analysis by Friday, but before that I need a compelling account of your childhood.'"

This is missing the point so badly that he just killed another hunter a mile away instead of hitting the deer he was aiming at.

We don't read novels to improve ourselves as far as being able to better balance a budget or something like that. We read them to enrich our lives. Good English teachers instill a love of reading, but also an ability to look at a work critically, analyze it, and get something out of it. That skill can be adapted once you're out of school to a busload of other ways, including something actually productive.

Kids learn when they're engaged with the material. When they find it interesting. Do you really think learning about "insulation" or "invasive plants" is going to engage any kid to actually enjoy reading? Ok, maybe it was "Killer Plant From Outer Space" or something, but I don't think that's the definition of "invasive" that they're using there.

We're having enough trouble getting kids to read, and enjoy reading, as it is. Textbooks are already non-fictional anyway. Do you really want to make it harder to get kids reading? Because I guarantee you, the best way to do that is to read about insulation.

This is yet more asinine federal government interference in what should be a state issue. States should be running their own education system. When the federal government gets involved, you get bullshit like this.

A case can be made for which literature should be read in school.

But there's gotta be something in there.

Podcast Stuff - Episode 49 of Down the Hall

It's the holidays! Our last show of 2012, and we're almost at 50! We have a very special holiday episode this time around to tide you over.

This is definitely *not* Leanna's class, but it's the same idea

Lots of laughs, some good information on the various December holidays that are floating around out there, as well as even a little singing.

Also, I interviewed Leanna Johnson, who's a teacher in Missouri whose school is going paperless. They're using e-texts, networked dropboxes, laptop and tablet computers, and all of that. It's a really great interview and we had a few laughs too.

It's all packed into 40 minutes of goodness. We had a lot of fun recording it, and I hope it's just as enjoyable for you to listen to.

Episode 49 can be found here.

Take a listen and let us know what you think! What are your holiday traditions?

And while you're posting all of your pre-holiday, on-holiday, and post-holiday snapshots on Facebook, why not take a moment to "like" us over there? It's just a click a way, and it's really in the spirit of the season, isn't it? A season of giving?

Give your finger a little bit of a workout, why don't you? It doesn't get enough exercise.

It also has our cool new picture! Ok,"new," as in it's about a month old, but it's probably new to you!

Star Trek: DS9 - Ep 7 - Dax

One of the cornerstones of human morality is that one must accept the consequences of his or her actions. But what does this mean to a being that inhabits different hosts at various times in its life? Is the current host of this being responsible for the actions of previous hosts? Just how far does responsibility go? To the death of the current host? Or does it extend through the lifetime of the being itself?

These questions are addressed in the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine episode called “Dax.” They are addressed, but they are not answered. Instead, we learn a lot of interesting information about the Trill, the symbiotic race of slugs that inhabit various hosts throughout their long lifetimes. We learn about the joining process and how hosts are chosen. But do we really learn that much? Not really. While the information is interesting, it isn’t really enough, and we never do get the answers to the questions the episode actually asks, as these answers are conveniently avoided by a timely entrance. Thus, a possibly very interesting episode becomes mildly entertaining, and some questionable guest acting draws it down that little bit more.

We open with Dr. Julian Bashir (Siddig El Fadil) once again pursuing a romantic relationship with Dax (Terry Farrell). As she shoots him down once again, she heads off to her quarters, only to be assaulted by three strangers. Bashir tries to come to her rescue, but is knocked out. Once he wakes up, he reports the kidnapping to Ops and a security lockdown is implemented. Commander Sisko (Avery Brooks) and the rest of the crew show that they have watched previous Trek episodes and are resolved not to be as useless in these situations as Starfleet officers usually are, and they actually manage to capture the assailants.

Their leader, Ilon Tandro (Gregory Itzin), presents a warrant for Dax’s arrest and extradition to Klaestron IV for treason and murder from 30 years ago. Dax refuses to defend herself and Sisko must try everything he can to prevent it, buying time for Odo to figure out what really happened. Sisko tries to stall by claiming that Jadzia Dax cannot be held responsible for something that happened when Curzon Dax was alive. But will he be able to defend her when she won’t help him at all?

Surprisingly, I enjoyed this episode a lot more then I remembered. Oh, sure, it was still very iffy and I found myself rolling my eyes at times. However, there was something about the episode that held my attention. Maybe it was the acting of Richard Linebeck playing the Trill expert, Selin Peers. Or should I say, “lack of acting?” Was he even alive? I’m not sure, but my wife looked over from where she was working and said “Why does he remind me of an undertaker?” It looked like Linebeck was trying to go for calm and sedate, but he overshot. Instead, he was almost comatose.

Or maybe it was the always fun Anne Haney, who played the Bajoran judge Renora. She looked like she was having a hoot. Most of the time, so was I when she was on the screen, though she sometimes overplayed it. As she said, she’s 100 years old and doesn’t want to waste time with semantics. She was the perfect cranky but competent old lady, and it was a marked departure from her role in Next Generation's “The Survivors.” I really did enjoy her, and she pretty much made the episode for me as the only guest star that was any good. Sure, Fionnula Flanagan (another “old home week” guest star, as she played Data’s mother in Next Generation’s “Inheritance”) wasn’t too bad as the former wife of the murdered general with a secret to protect. She had her good moments and her bad moments, but was mostly just there.

The acting of the regulars was pretty decent, with only one real problem, and that’s Farrell. She has her good moments in this episode (the final scene between Dax and Sisko in her quarters as he tries desperately to understand what she’s protecting is very well done), she often came across as flat. She was going for serene, but she just didn’t quite pull it off. Thankfully, though, she has more good scenes then bad here, and it looks like she’s slowly growing into the role. She still doesn’t play “300 years old in a 28-year old body” that well, but she’s getting there. Her final scene with Flanagan is also incredibly touching, though part of that is Flanagan’s strength (it’s a good scene for her, too).

The place where the episode really fell down, however, was the story. There were a number of niggling little things that bothered me. First, the Klaestrons’ knowledge of the station is explained by them being allies with the Cardassians. That would help with the layout of the station, but the security protocols? Surely Starfleet would have insisted that Odo (Rene Auberjonois) have those replaced by this time, to prevent the Cardassians from doing something similar to what actually happens in this episode?

Then there’s the arbitrary jurisdictional issue that I brought up in ”Past Prologue." In that episode, I questioned why a Bajoran had to request asylum on a Bajoran station because the episode seemed to imply that it was a Starfleet station. This time around, Sisko uses the fact that it’s a Bajoran station to keep Dax there while Odo has time to do his magic. Hopefully, they’ll start being consistent on this issue, because this back and forth is really becoming annoying.

The episode’s biggest crime, however, is bringing up all these fascinating issues, and then dropping them with an audible thud on its toe. What was the point of all this philosophy? Is Jadzia responsible for any crimes committed by Curzon? How far back does a host’s responsibility go for something that the slug remembers? That question is never answered, as the episode shies away from it. Instead, we get some information on the Trill that could have been told in many different ways that didn’t involved bringing up questions they had no intention of answering. It doesn’t bother me when viewers are left to make up their own minds, but at least give us some clue to where you’re going, please?

All in all, this was a fairly middle of the road episode, with some good parts and some bad. It’s funny, but my memory of this episode told me it was going to be another 2-star episode. Watching it again, however, I was entertained enough to bring it up to three. What a waste, though. It should have been even greater.

Memorable Quote:

“You Klaestrons were allies with the Cardassians. Your knowledge of the station confirms that. They must have given you the layout. Which not only compromises Bajoran security, but also…annoys us.” Kira, in her wonderfully direct way.

3 Stars

Book Review - The Last Dragonslayer by Jasper Fforde

Jasper Fforde is a rather unique author. His tales are usually quite outlandishly funny and creative, be it his Thursday Next series of books (where characters can go in and out of novels, interacting with the characters in them and possibly messing up how they read) or his Nursery Crimes books with Detective Jack Spratt. I never fail to laugh at his books, even when some of the jokes fall flat (not many of them do).

His stories definitely fall into the "absurd" category, so you may have to check one out to see if it's to your taste. I, however, love them.

It's wonderful when authors try something new, though, and Fforde has done so with The Last Dragonslayer.

Don't get me wrong. It's still a hilariously funny story with a storyline that always walks the edge of making you roll your eyes but never quite ends up doing so. But it's actually a young adult book with a 15-year-old protagonist who's not precocious. She's had to do a lot of growing up in her 15 years, so she does feel older than she actually is, though she's sometimes reminded rather harshly that she is still quite young.

It's a fantastic book with a lot of hilarious commentary on modern society, such as the 24-hour news cycle and sensationalism, as well as the endorsement culture where companies try very hard to cash in on somebody's sudden celebrity.

My review of the book has now posted on Curled Up With a Good Book.

From the review:

"The Last Dragonslayer takes place in a world where magic is fairly commonplace—or at least it used to be. Modern technology seems to be worming its way into places where magic used to be the sole option. It's cheaper to use drain cleaner than a spell. Also, magic's power has been weakening over the years.

A young foundling named Jennifer Strange is running Kazam, an employment agency for magicians whose powers are growing weaker and weaker all the time. Then the visions start coming. The last dragon in the world will be dying shortly. Sunday at noon, actually.

Who will kill it? The vision isn't clear, but it will fulfill a prophecy that reaches back over four hundred years. That is, unless Jennifer can do something about it."

Do you like funny novels, or do you find the more serious ones more to your liking?

Let me know in the comments.

In the meantime, check out this book, or something else by Fforde. If you want some suggestions, I'd be happy to pass some along.

Programming Note - Star Trek episodes

I was scheduling a few more DS9 episode posts last night when sudden inspiration struck me. (Don't worry, I did hit it back. Nobody strikes me without retaliation)

See? Captain Picard agrees with me.

There are 144 episodes of DS9 to watch (something like that). Doing one episode a week kind of makes this an almost 3-year long project when it doesn't need to be. If I do two episodes a week, it will still take well over a year to finish. And then we have all of the other Star Trek DVDs to watch too.

So why not go and do that?

Yes, starting this week, there will be two episode reviews a week, on Monday and Friday. Nice bookends for the week.

Hope that doesn't tax you too much.

I also hope you're enjoying them (whoever's reading them, as I only know of one specific person). It's been a nice nostalgia treat for me too.

Now I'm off to re-schedule all the future ones that I've done.

Star Trek: DS9 - Ep 6 - Q-Less

One of Star Trek: The Next Generation’s most memorable characters was the omnipotent Q. He was a constant foil for Captain Picard, and the repartee between John DeLancie and Patrick Stewart was always wonderful, even when the story wasn’t the best. Whether it was DeLancie’s delivery or just the writers being inspired by his acting ability to write some good stuff, he was always a joy to see, even in the worst episodes (e.g. "Qpid"). So it was only natural that he would show up on Deep Space Nine to spar with Commander Sisko (Avery Brooks). Would the producers be able to catch lightning in a bottle twice? Unfortunately, no.

It all starts with Dr. Bashir (Siddig El Fadil) trying to woo a Bajoran woman at the bar while O’Brien (Colm Meaney) looks on in disgust. In the middle of Bashir’s attempt, they are called to a runabout pad, where Lt. Dax’s (Terry Farrell) runabout has lost all power and the air is disappearing from inside. They also have an unexpected passenger, Vash (Jennifer Hetrick). It seems that Vash has been alone in the Gamma Quadrant for two years. Sisko would like to know how a human managed to get to the Gamma Quadrant before the wormhole was discovered, but Vash says it’s personal.

She also has a bunch of artifacts that she would like to sell. Quark (Armin Shimmerman) offers to host an auction for a small percentage. Everything may be put in danger, though, when the unexplained power outages start affecting the station. Meanwhile, Q has come aboard to try and bring Vash back with him. It seems they did not have an amicable parting in the Gamma Quadrant. He crosses swords with Sisko and generally gets in the way of the crew trying to discover what’s going on. Just what is causing these outages, and will whatever it is end up destroying the station before the auction is over?

There is a reason that Q never reappeared on Deep Space Nine, and it’s because DeLancie and Brooks have no chemistry together. It’s amusing at first, as Q tries to bait Sisko the exact same way he used to bait Picard, but Sisko isn’t buying it. He’s a much more down to earth, straightforward man who doesn’t have the biting wit that Picard is capable of. I wouldn’t say Brooks is overmatched by DeLancie (Brooks actually pulls off some decent lines in this one). It’s just that their styles don’t match.

It’s like watching a debate between John Grisham and Oscar Wilde: both of them may be entertaining, but they’re not talking on the same level. Q gets in some wonderful one-liners, but they’re just not enough to save it. DeLancie’s face is priceless when Q challenges Sisko to a boxing match (“This is so wonderfully barbaric!”) and Sisko ends up punching him out. It showcases the two captain’s styles in a very clear way without having to have someone tell us. But then they get back to dialogue and Brooks just doesn’t match up.

There were some questionable moments in the story as well. O’Brien quite clearly knows of Vash from his time on the Enterprise, yet it takes Sisko forever to actually ask him about her. In fact, he starts having Dax research her before actually talking to him, and when he does it almost seems like a “by the way” moment (he might as well have said “by the way, what’s the story on her?”).

The other characters are barely in the episode, and you can tell as they pretty much phone in their roles. Bashir disappears after twice playing the charming rogue (once with the previously mentioned Bajoran and once with Vash). The scenes El Fadil does get are a bit over the top but at least they’re in character (he’s tried similar lines on Dax). Kira (Nana Visitor) gets to say a few lines and sound strident (prompting one of Q’s better lines, as he tells Sisko he should watch out for her, because she’s going to be gunning for his job).

The only character who gets much meat is Quark, and Shimmerman pulls it off fairly well. The character is fairly one-note in this episode (greedy and lecherous, letting his libido get in the way of commerce) but Shimmerman’s performance is top-notch despite this. He has a great scene with Odo (Rene Auberjonois, who spent a lot of time in the make-up chair for not much to do) where they discuss the acquisition of material things (“I have my work. What else do I need?”). He manages to hold his own despite the weak script.

And that’s the main failing in this episode. The script is very lackluster (the teleplay is by Robert Hewitt Wolfe, who wrote some of Deep Space Nine’s best episodes, but this was his first, I believe) and it’s not very interesting. Whenever Q is on the screen, DeLancie shines like a beacon, but it looks like pretty much everybody else read the script and decided they wanted to perform to its level.

Unfortunately, that level would be “bad” or “boring” or “uninterested.” This is yet another uninspired early episode that tries to depend on the actors to give it life, and this time it bit the producers in the ass. Nothing could resuscitate this one. It’s a waste of DeLancie and it’s a waste of Shimmerman. And don’t get me started on how vapid Vash is. I never really liked Hetrick’s smug performance and she turns it up a notch in this one. At least she didn’t look as much like a fish out of water without Stewart around.

One more complaint, and then I’m done. This is only episode six, and there have been three “sequels” or story elements taken from The Next Generation. It’s time for Deep Space Nine to stand on its own two feet. Use these wonderful characters that you have created, and do something interesting with them. The actors have carried this series so far, and it’s time that the writers caught up. Unfortunately, it would get worse before it gets better (he says in hindsight, giving a sneak preview for my next couple of reviews).

This one is worth watching once, for DeLancie. Otherwise, give it a miss.

Memorable Quote:

"You hit me! Picard never hit me!” “I’m not Picard.” Q & Sisko

2 STARS

Revisiting "Benevolent Sexism"

Some of you may remember my post last year about benevolent sexism (called "The Post in Which I Admit I'm a Sexist Pig") and how stupid the whole idea of it is.

For those of you who didn't catch it (and who are too lazy to go to the link, and what do I pay you for anyway if you don't go to my links? Oh, I don't pay you...never mind), "benevolent sexism" is basically gentlemanly behaviour. Doing nice things for a woman, like opening a door, helping her with a heavy bag, that sort of thing. You're doing it out of the goodness of your heart, but you're still a HEARTLESS SCUMBAG!

Ahem. Sorry. My inner-feminist-idiot reared its ugly head there for a moment. All better now.

Yes, even if you are doing nice things, you are still demeaning the woman by helping her.

Why am I revisiting this subject? Because there's an interesting new post on the topic that I'd like to highlight.

Charles Murray, of the American Enterprise Institute, has highlighted a new study that shows that "benevolent sexism" does tend to make both parties happy. Yes, both the man and the woman.

He quotes from the abstract, which I shall also do now (though his quote is more extensive):

"The results imply that although benevolent sexism perpetuates inequality at the structural level, it might offer some benefits at the personal level. Thus, our findings reinforce the dangerous nature of benevolent sexism and emphasize the need for interventions to reduce its prevalence."

So let me get this straight. It makes the man happy when he does something for the woman. It makes the woman happy when she has something done for her.

So it's dangerous? Something that is beneficial to both sides of the equation is dangerous and must be stamped out?

I don't know about you, but I think the world needs a few doses of injected happiness (no, not that kind of injected happiness) amid all the doom and gloom out there.

That shouldn't surprise us, though. If you see this kind of behaviour as threatening, then making it more agreeable is just going to make it even more threatening to your status quo.

Charles' conclusion is beautiful:

"When social scientists discover something that increases life satisfaction for both sexes, shouldn’t they at least consider the possibility that they have come across something that is positive? Healthy? Something that might even conceivably be grounded in the nature of Homo sapiens?"

Go read the post for the comments as well. Some very good ones in there.

It's "studies" like this that just boggle my mind.