 |
|
|
 |
|
The Feminine Touch--Were you as agreeably surprised as I was to learn that Baylor's Brittney Griner, a 6'1" dunker, had punched a Texas Tech basketball player and broken her nose? And that Navy Captain Holly Graf has been demoted because she verbally and physically assaulted some of her crew? And that Lt. Tanya Mayhew, a member of the Sheriff's Dept. in Nashville, TN, upon a prisoner's statement that the gold grill in his mouth was cemented to his teeth and could not be removed, put on a rubber glove, stuck her hand in his mouth, and yanked out the gold jewelry along with several bloody teeth? It's not that I approve of any of those behaviors, it's just that I like to see gender stereotypes called into question. We're far from reaching the point where women are no longer automatically assumed by both genders to be warmer, more empathetic, intuitive, nurturing, and collegial than men, but with the help of Griner, Graf, and Mayhew, we are definitely making progress in that regard.
Two other recent developments are heartening as well. Kathryn Bigelow won an Oscar for directing The Hurt Locker, a "guy's" movie, and Natalie Randolph is the newly appointed head football coach at Calvin Coolidge High in Washington, D.C. Will she be able to cope with high testosterone jocks? Her fiance, Thomas Byrd, thinks so. "She packs a mean punch," he says.
Back to Basics--The nation's governors have proposed new standards for what students should learn in English and math from kindergarten through high school. Sounds good. And it has sounded good ever since the days of one-room schoolhouses and McGuffey's Reader. And it sounded good in the school district where I used to teach. Seemingly every other year we would examine and revise the curriculum. In the intervening year, we would examine and revise our teaching methods. One year we'd emphasize getting students to prove through objective tests their rote-learning mastery of the "basics." The next, we'd emphasize creativity in our methods and push students to be creative in their responses. We'd bounce back and forth between deductive and inductive approaches.
I suppose it would be good if every student fully knew all that we would like him to know. For example, the governors now say that 4th graders should be able to explain major differences between poetry and prose and to refer to such elements as stanza, verse, rhythm, and meter when writing or speaking about a poem. Having taught English, I think I could do that, but it sounds like a mechanical and not very helpful way for 4th graders to read and write poetry.
The governors also say that 8th graders should be able to use linear equations to solve for an unknown and to explain a proof of the Pythagorean Theorem on properties of a right triangle. If I'm right that 2x + 3 = 7 is a linear equation in which x = 2, then I guess I could do simple linear equations. But I really cannot recall the Pythagorean Theorem (something about the sum of the hypotenuses?) Sadly, we are never satisfied either with what children are learning in school or with how we measure their learning. Happily, on the other hand, we never stop believing that every child can master every part of the curriculum. "No Child Left Behind" is our rapturous slogan for the educationally apocalyptical times that we always seem to fear are upon us.
Who'll Stop the Rain?--After a third consecutive rainy weekend in the Phoenix valley left locals whining about the cosmic injustice of Saturdays and Sundays spoiled, whereas the work weeks were dry and clear, ASU researchers found a connection between air pollution from vehicles and winter rain patterns. As pollution builds up during the week, the tiny particles spewed in the air suppress the rain. With less traffic and less pollution on weekends, it rains more. To those who, like me, abhor rain, the solution is simple: let's all drive more and pollute more on Saturdays and Sundays. Seems like a small price to pay for a nice weekend.
This Is Only A (Expensive) Test--In the past year I've had an MRI, a CT scan, an EKG, an angiogram, and an ultrasound. I've worn a Holter monitor and had a colonoscopy. My PSA blood test and a digital rectal exam were the only relatively cheap look-sees that I got. None of the tests, I'm happy to say, discovered a problem, but most of them were quite expensive and--so some medical studies now suggest--possibly unnecessary. But, if you have insurance, what doctor can resist ordering a test for certain possibilities or symptoms? The doctor wants to cover all the bases for his patient and ward off malpractice suits as well. And, if you have insurance, what patient can resist saying no to the test? When it comes to our health, few of us are that rational. As medical costs continue to rise, I see only one solution: do not allow insurance companies to cover the costs of any medical tests. Make patients pay the full freight themselves. They'll soon decide to forego most tests, which will virtually eliminate the problem of false positives and probably have the added virtue of eliminating old age for many, thereby saving the nation's Medicare system.
I Am Not A Luddite--A robot is now dispensing pills in a Casa Grande, AZ, pharmacy. The robot is more accurate than a person in dispensing pills, can print in several languages, never gets tired or sick, never causes conflicts, and never gets bored with its work. Doubtless we are going to see more and more of our work done by robots, which will mean fewer jobs for people. I'm thinking this is a good thing. Robots will be a cheaper source of labor than, say, the International Federation of Pill-Dispensers. Cheaper labor means lower prices; automated devices mean fewer mistakes. Already we swipe our own credit cards, pump our own gas, carry out our own groceries. With customers and robots doing most of the work, businesses will pare overhead drastically. The day is coming when our economy will provide very few menial jobs, which will be a positive development provided that Congress taxes corporate profits enough to institute a guaranteed national income. The GNI should be available to all and should be enough to keep one just above the poverty level. The ambitious, not satisfied with a basic income and seeking fulfillment through work, could pursue more rewarding jobs requiring skill and creativity, while the indolent could lie around drinking beer and smoking dope. A veritable utopia.
|
|
|