Well, there’s a new addition to our family: Bryn Ealasaid Mikeal, born Spetember 12, 2003 at St. Joeseph’s Hospital in Bryan, TX. Pictures can be found at my family website (adammikeal.org); I’ll try to get more photos online shortly.
Well, after almost a month-long hiatus, I am returning to my neglected blog, and hopefully some updates will be following soon. However, Since I’m still fairly busy (new job, new baby, other ventures…), the updates will still be few and far-between, I’m afraid. Still, something’s better than nothing, right? … Right?
This is an exerpt from a March 21, 2001 article in Salon.com, a leftist online magazine (that is currently experiencing severe financial difficulties, if I’m not mistaken). I think that the author shows some keen insight into some of the problems plaguing the American educational system. I like on paragraph particularly, enough so that I will highlight it here:
As I’ve argued in the past, there’s no way that the daughter of prosperous, successful, white upper-middle-class parents could decide to drop out of an Ivy League school in her sophomore year to get married and be a stay-at-home mom. She would be upbraided and shamed, accused of “wasting” her education and betraying her “real” talents — and embarrassing her status-conscious parents.
Well, read it in context. Here’s the rest of the monologue (the entire article was across various subjects, I’ve copied the entire section on education here):
The entire American school system needs to be stringently reexamined from primary grades through college. If high school has turned into a seething arena of boredom and competitive tension erupting in mayhem, it’s partly (as I told Interview magazine after the Columbine massacre two years ago) because modern schools have become dungeons for active young men at their most hormonally driven period of life.
Forcing restless teens of both sexes to sit like robots in regimented rows in crowded classrooms for the better part of each day is a pointless, sadistic exercise except for those with their sights on office jobs. This school system is not even 200 years old, yet most people treat it as if the burning bush floated it down from Mount Sinai. Too often, school has become a form of mental and physical oppression.
Exactly what is being taught? Certainly not wisdom or perspective on life. Can anyone honestly claim that current high school students know more about history, science, language and the arts than students 40 years ago? As for college students, the shallowness of their training in the humanities has become all too evident as graduates of the elite schools have entered the professions and the media over the past 20 years.
A gigantic, self-perpetuating school system is forcing students along a pre-professional track whether they want it or not. Perhaps as many as half the college students currently enrolled in the elite schools may not really want to be there but have just numbly followed along in the track of their parents’ and peers’ social expectations. They have no other options. If our pampered students have the best of all possible worlds, why are so many of them binge-drinking and anesthetizing themselves with brain-wrecking designer drugs?
As I’ve argued in the past, there’s no way that the daughter of prosperous, successful, white upper-middle-class parents could decide to drop out of an Ivy League school in her sophomore year to get married and be a stay-at-home mom. She would be upbraided and shamed, accused of “wasting” her education and betraying her “real” talents — and embarrassing her status-conscious parents.
Similarly, it’s scarcely imaginable that the son of such a family could opt for the career of auto mechanic or trucker instead of physician, lawyer or businessman. There was a time when most high schools offered shop classes and when technical institutions gave practical preparation in the trades to non-college bound students. As the service sector expanded in the U.S. economy after World War II, such choices became fewer.
The boys who are collecting guns and fantasizing about shooting up their schools need a more constructive outlet for their energy — which working with their hands would partly satisfy. As for the misfits who are being “bullied” into homicidal rampages, those who find school life unbearable or useless should be permitted to leave at age 14 (as was legal during the immigrant era) to try to live life on their own. Let them return to school when and if they so desire; the presence in the classroom of adult students would infinitely improve both primary and secondary education, since it’s grade segregation by age that perpetuates and aggravates the tyranny of social cliques.
You say the young are far too immature to survive at 14? Well, that’s proof positive that they’ve been infantilized by their parents in this unctuously caretaking yet flagrantly permissive culture that denies middle-class students adulthood until they are in their 20s and later — long after their bodies are ready to mate and reproduce. The Western career system is institutionalized neurosis, elevating professional training over spiritual development and forcing the young to put emotional and physical satisfaction on painful hold.
The trades need to be revalorized. Young men and women should be encouraged to consider careers outside the effete, word-obsessed, office-bound professions. Construction, plumbing, electrical wiring, forestry, landscaping, horticulture: Such pursuits allow free movement and require a training of the body as well as the mind.
I don’t have time to comment on this topic right now, but I’m posting this here so I don’t forget about it (in case I sleep before I do have time to write 
. I have a good article about this, too (also another article about societal attitudes toward college…).
I feel as if I can breathe again, if only for a few moments. Between my last semester at A&M, a big project deadline at work, and an outside research project with a poli-sci prof, to say that I’ve been busy is definately an understatement. At the moment i have a slight reprieve, as I just finished a test in my math class, and there’s no class tomorrow. It’s pretty sad when a relaxing day still consists of a full day’s work and a wedding rehearsal, and several hours of research work. Well, one more month! After graduation on the 15th, I’ll be free of school for at least a year (until grad school, anyway).
So, I the site goes for the next month with nary an update, you’ll at least know why. If I have any time, I might post some info about my research project, which is actually quite interesting (but a topic for another post). Back to the grind…
I just finished reading We, a classic science-fiction distopia by an early-twentieth century Russian author. This book is amazing; it’s 1984 before 1984 existed. An active participant in the 1917 Revolution, Zamyatin accurately predicts stalinism long before Stalin ever rose to power. Ironically, though, his writings were condemned in the Soviet union, and he was forced to leave his country.
I always thought that the ending of 1984 was dark, but this book definately has Orwell beat. And with the large amount of equivocation going on in this text, the thought does occur that perhaps Orwell’s “Newspeak” wasn’t so new after all. In We, the dictator is known as the “Benefactor” for his role in saving humans from freedom. Freedom is scary, the unknown, not desirable in this world. The propoganda/indoctrination has been so succesful that the subjects of this future earth don’t want to be placed in a situation where they must make choices. While Orwell’s Winston might end up in prison and resigned to his fate, at least the resignation implies discontentment. In We, the book ends with the protagonist (whose name is D-413, because no one has names, just numbers) being forced to undergo an “operation” to remove his imagination — his soul. He is informed that the “Soul” is really a disease preventing the state from achieving ultimate happiness. Like I said, dark. But hey, it’s only ~ 130 pages, so go read it for yourself.
I was finally given the opportunity to experience Guinness yesterday, and I found — much to my surprise — that I really liked it. To this point, I really hadn’t cared for any of the beers I had tried; Samuel Adams was about it, I think. The surprising thing about Guinness is that it looks so different from anything I’ve ever been exposed to (beer-wise, that is). It’s so dark and thick — the old joke that it’s a meal by itself has a lot of truth in it.
Now that the initial fear and trepidation has been conquered, and I’ve actually taken the first drink and discovered I like it, I am looking forward to trying more dark beers. My friend who introduced me to Guinness says that he’s going to get me to try his personal favorite, a Scottish beer, next. I’m really looking forward to it (those of you who know me realize that trying out tastes is a major accomplishment for me; I tend to get stuck in a rut sometimes. Well, OK. All the time. But I’m branching out!).
Well, it seems like the whole Dixie Chicks thing has finally blown over, and I say good riddance. I got so tired of hearing people berate the band and their music because of one off-hand comment made during a London concert. Granted, it was a really stupid thing to say, but the reaction was blown completely out of proportion.
Here’s why what Natalie Maines said really doesn’t matter: WHO CARES?!? Who really cares what Natalie Maines thinks about current events or world politics? What gave her opinion any credence? She’s a singer. Geez. You would probably hear a lot worse on any Washington, DC street corner.
Why is it that when someone makes a little money, and garners a bit of spotlight, suddenly America thinks that whatever their opinion is on anything, it’s worth listening to? Hollywood stars testifying before Congress? Pages and pages of news coverage over a singer’s off-hand comment? Everyone’s entitled to their opinion (I like mine; that’s why I have this blog , but are we as Americans incapable of showing any discrimination? Do we find it impossible to tell the difference between the opinions of, say, William Safire or George F. Will and Natalie Maines? That possibility scares me greatly.
The other side of this situation is that the Dixie Chicks thought their opinion mattered, too. They — like most popular singers, actors, etc today — view themselves as artists, with the whole misunderstood / tortured / apart from the world / not bound by normal rules image that goes along with that label. The fact is, they are not artists; they are a commodity. They may not like this fact, but that is the truth, and the sooner they accept it, the better off they’ll be (denying reality is never healthy).
By the way, I personally like the Dixie Chick’s music. Wide Open Spaces is one of my favorite country songs; I think it so aptly captures the feel of North and West Texas; both the lyrics and the music complement each other so well. Still, just because I like their music doesn’t mean I care about their politics.
I am continually frustrated by people who put down a book because it is classified as “Children’s Literature”. I love children’s literature. For my money, children’s lit will give you some of the best bang for the buck; as an adult, you can read it quickly, it is often free from the pretentiousness of “Adult” fiction, and unless you’ve completely lost your ability to view the world with wonder, the stories are great.
Now, I’m talking about good children’s literature, mind you, not the drivel that is often passed for children’s lit because it’s a dumbed-down version of adult fiction. Good children’s lit will challenge the young reader — CS Lewis’ Chronicles of Narnia, Tolkein’s The Hobbit, Lowry’s The Giver are all great examples — and frequently this fiction will have levels far beyond what is attainable for a child; good children’s literature can be enjoyed by adults as well as children.
I re-read the Chonicles about once a year or so. As many times as I have read them, I always find something new. My favorite is The Horse and His Boy, which contains a beautiful representation of God’s providence. Throughout the story, even when Shasta and Aravis don’t know that they’re being guided, Aslan is directing their journey. This realization doesn’t come until the end of the book, however: most of the time they are convinced they are on their own. It is though hindsight that they realize how reliant they had been on Aslan’s help.
When I get home, I’ll get out my copy and quote from a later chapter; there’s a brilliant allusion to the trinity in one of Aslan and Shasta’s dialogs.
Well, after a more thorough reading of the aforementioned article, I have decided that the author tries to prove too much. While I like the direction he was headed, and as much as I would like for his thesis to be true, I think some of his “proofs” were a bit of a strech; in the very least, his conclusions were not warranted by the texts he quotes. Read it for yourself and see. It’s quite thought-provoking, in any case.
One point on which I completely agree with the author: Rowling’s books do seem to have been passed over by any serious analysis from a literary perspective. While they are surely not Dickens or Faulker, there is more to them than meets the eye. I also found it interesting to hear that Rowling has double degrees in Classics and French.
I just finished the 870-page Order of the Phoenix last night, and I must say I enjoyed it. While I was a bit disappointed in Harry’s character development (at times he seemd that he was more mature as a 12-year-old), overall, it was a good story and provided a lot of answers (and more questions, of course!).