I just finished a paper. I was using spellcheck to go over some corrections. At the end, it has an absurd rating system (Flesch-Kincaid) with some stats. Curious, I decided to check on a few papers (new to old) to see how they measured up next to such silly numbers.
Paper:
Women and sexual discrimination in the military from World War II to the present.
2119 words
Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level: 13
Sentences per Paragraph: 6.4
Words per Sentence: 23.1
Characters per Word: 4.9
Paper:
Renaissance women writers and virtue and learning as justification for holding a pen
2431 words
Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level: 11.2
Sentences per Paragraph: 4.6
Words per Sentence: 22.8
Characters per Word: 4.7
Paper:
Rape of the Lock and Sarpedon's Speech from the Aeneas
3617 words
Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level: 11.1
Sentences per Paragraph: 6
Words per Sentence: 20.8
Characters per Word: 4.7
Paper:
Nina Baym in Feminist Jane Eyre Alluding Gender Theory
1268 words
Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level: 11.5
Sentences per Paragraph: 8.7
Words per Sentence: 20.1
Characters per Word: 4.8
Paper:
The Iliad and Greece
1545 words
Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level: 12
Sentences per Paragraph: 6.1
Words per Sentence: 23.1
Characters per Word: 4.7
Paper:
Paper on Poetry
1679 words
Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level: 8.4
Sentences per Paragraph: 7.5
Words per Sentence: 15.3
Characters per Word: 4.5
Poetry Portfolio for Class:
10 Poems
1585 words
Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level: 3.0
Sentences per Paragraph: 1.1
Words per Sentence: 8.6
Characters per Word: 4.3
Important Document:
US Declaration of Independence (excluding signatures)
1334 words
Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level: 15.1
Sentences per Paragraph: 5
Words per Sentence: 37.8
Characters per Word: 4.9
So what can we conclude?
1. Flesch-Kincaid apparently hates poetry. As the example on the bottom demonstrates, that is not a 3rd grade reading level.
2. If I were to put stock in such number, I've been fairly steadily improving. Of course, any numerical analysis of writing is going to be off, especially when automated by Microsoft Word.
3. If I were to statistically analyze available data, I suspect the only significant change in my numerically assessed writing from freshman year to now happened between freshmen and sophomore year. Otherwise, what's changed isn't so easily quantitative, but rather pertains mostly to simple quality and knowing a piddly bit more now than I did.
And yet... and yet the numbers are fascinating. They have a certain authority, like they can tell me more about myself than I know. An illusory authority.
(Here is a poem from the portfolio, if you're curious... we were supposed to write a nonsense poem)
Cacophony in Spenser
Klinkity klankity konky concocting,
Simply windling, saundering engendering
Flanking forsaking intaking nerve-wracking
Philandering vanity, why’re you defendering?
Dungeons and dragons 3D self-rendering
In a way almost gay in orbital seancing
Whiling away the legal tendering
The static consumes, this self-effasive dancing
Naked and disfigured, it needs a little pants-ing.
Nov 28, 2007
Nov 18, 2007
BEOWULF!
I have a fondness for CAPS tonight. If I break into them, I apologize.
Leslie and I went to see Beowulf last night. It was a ponderous decision for her (and for me, but I'd resolved late this summer that I could suffer whatever Neil Gaiman and the other writers made the story into), but finally she assented and we went to the movies...
... to discover it was showing in 5 screens. Wow! Four of them, however, were in 3-D. We decided to see it in 2-D. If I end up seeing it a second time, I will opt for the other version, but it was shiny enough without the extra D.
They did some odd digital editing. In large portions of the movie, it looked like it could've been really good CG, rather than digitally-modified actors. I think it worked, but only because Beowulf is a heroic epic, and so it's not so unbelievable to have things looking shinier than life. Many other action movies would've failed with the same look. Romantic comedies would've been too ethereal. It works.
The parts I was suspecting to be contentious... weren't. They did some major story changes to the poem (to have a handy plot summary, go here., though I recommend you read the translated poem at some point if you haven't). I may start spoiling some of the story at this point, though I'll of course leave out the resolution of it. ;)
The major changes basically amount to a greater centrality in the story, something that movies are fond of doing in their adaptions from books that have too broad of a focus. The poem has two localities: Daneland (Denmark) and back with the Geats. The first has Grendel and Grendel's mother. The second has the dragon. The first is when Beowulf is young. The second is when Beowulf is old. Beowulf as unproven warrior. Beowulf as king.
In the movie, they place every encounter in Denmark around the meadhall. Wiglaf is there the whole movie, instead of appearing in the second half of the story when he is integral in fighting the dragon. Grendel's mother is changed substantially, from a monstrous earthen woman-thing to a beautiful and yet fear-inspiring enchantress. Whealtheow, the Danish queen, is changed considerably. So the second half of the story plays out substantially different than before, which is sometime good in comparison with the poem, and sometimes disappointing, in the sense of, "I just wish it'd been this way." The writers did not abuse their creative license here.
Also, they necessarily didn't keep the sidestories in, the ones that described alternate events in other tribes and kingdoms at the time as a parallel of the events there. It wouldn't have worked well in the movie form, I suppose. They were able to convey that storytelling was important though, without saying "Storytelling is important." Thank God.
Oh! One sore point, however, is that there are some other places where they pretty much say that. Distracting are the lines that have to explain the context of encroaching Christianity on formerly pagan people. "Have you heard of Christ Jesus? Maybe he can save us." So on. So on. Brought up just so often that it becomes a tiring little thing. There was very little hint of this in the poem... it was there, yes, but it wasn't nearly so prominent as the movie made it out to be.
Also, there was the tendency to describe progress in anachronistically linear terms, so that when the kingdom improves, suddenly there are stone walls and everything, features not seen in European architecture for hundreds of years afterward. But then I realize that I'm forgetting that this is a heroic epic and so I have to desist. It's allowed that. ^_^;;;
So overall I'd recommend it, provided that you can do as I'm trying... set aside the fact that the movie is based on one of your favorite poems and just watch the movie as one would listen to the story told by another storyteller, allowing for the difference in presentation. It is not as rich for analysis, but I can live with that. And despite all the high-falutin' things I've said, it's got swords! And fighting! And Grendel... why, they got that monster just right.
Oh, and a warning: the first scene moves slowly enough and was horrifying for me, expecting the worst, but it turns out much better than a drunken guy walking around and yelling. Really.
And another warning: the second half of the movie might make you want to see A Lion in Winter.
Leslie and I went to see Beowulf last night. It was a ponderous decision for her (and for me, but I'd resolved late this summer that I could suffer whatever Neil Gaiman and the other writers made the story into), but finally she assented and we went to the movies...
... to discover it was showing in 5 screens. Wow! Four of them, however, were in 3-D. We decided to see it in 2-D. If I end up seeing it a second time, I will opt for the other version, but it was shiny enough without the extra D.
They did some odd digital editing. In large portions of the movie, it looked like it could've been really good CG, rather than digitally-modified actors. I think it worked, but only because Beowulf is a heroic epic, and so it's not so unbelievable to have things looking shinier than life. Many other action movies would've failed with the same look. Romantic comedies would've been too ethereal. It works.
The parts I was suspecting to be contentious... weren't. They did some major story changes to the poem (to have a handy plot summary, go here., though I recommend you read the translated poem at some point if you haven't). I may start spoiling some of the story at this point, though I'll of course leave out the resolution of it. ;)
The major changes basically amount to a greater centrality in the story, something that movies are fond of doing in their adaptions from books that have too broad of a focus. The poem has two localities: Daneland (Denmark) and back with the Geats. The first has Grendel and Grendel's mother. The second has the dragon. The first is when Beowulf is young. The second is when Beowulf is old. Beowulf as unproven warrior. Beowulf as king.
In the movie, they place every encounter in Denmark around the meadhall. Wiglaf is there the whole movie, instead of appearing in the second half of the story when he is integral in fighting the dragon. Grendel's mother is changed substantially, from a monstrous earthen woman-thing to a beautiful and yet fear-inspiring enchantress. Whealtheow, the Danish queen, is changed considerably. So the second half of the story plays out substantially different than before, which is sometime good in comparison with the poem, and sometimes disappointing, in the sense of, "I just wish it'd been this way." The writers did not abuse their creative license here.
Also, they necessarily didn't keep the sidestories in, the ones that described alternate events in other tribes and kingdoms at the time as a parallel of the events there. It wouldn't have worked well in the movie form, I suppose. They were able to convey that storytelling was important though, without saying "Storytelling is important." Thank God.
Oh! One sore point, however, is that there are some other places where they pretty much say that. Distracting are the lines that have to explain the context of encroaching Christianity on formerly pagan people. "Have you heard of Christ Jesus? Maybe he can save us." So on. So on. Brought up just so often that it becomes a tiring little thing. There was very little hint of this in the poem... it was there, yes, but it wasn't nearly so prominent as the movie made it out to be.
Also, there was the tendency to describe progress in anachronistically linear terms, so that when the kingdom improves, suddenly there are stone walls and everything, features not seen in European architecture for hundreds of years afterward. But then I realize that I'm forgetting that this is a heroic epic and so I have to desist. It's allowed that. ^_^;;;
So overall I'd recommend it, provided that you can do as I'm trying... set aside the fact that the movie is based on one of your favorite poems and just watch the movie as one would listen to the story told by another storyteller, allowing for the difference in presentation. It is not as rich for analysis, but I can live with that. And despite all the high-falutin' things I've said, it's got swords! And fighting! And Grendel... why, they got that monster just right.
Oh, and a warning: the first scene moves slowly enough and was horrifying for me, expecting the worst, but it turns out much better than a drunken guy walking around and yelling. Really.
And another warning: the second half of the movie might make you want to see A Lion in Winter.
Nov 12, 2007
The Blinker! And Aquarium!
Not in order of importance, but in order of what I think I can write in ten minutes, before I get back to graded writing.
Yesterday, I got on the interstate, heading for home. No unusual occurence there. I just gradually move to the lefthand two lanes (it's about a 10 mile drive) and try to stay in the furthermost right one if someone isn't going slow there. Anyway, there was a white SUV that comes into the left lane, properly signalling and everything.
They proceeded to signal for the next 6.5 miles.
During the first minute, I'm casually watching, expecting that soon the embarrassing realization will come and they will switch the flashing light off, quietly because I can only hear engine noises and The Splendid Table.
Then I start actively counting. I wonder if accidents ever have records, when a single flip of a switch can make it as if it never happened, except in memory by imprecise witnessing. There's some talk in the background noise of a very tasty-sounding cooked pork shoulder. I listen above the rising salivation, and watch above the listening.
I start pondering going on with them, maybe heading as far as East Town mall another six or seven miles ahead, when the light abruptly changes. It doesn't stop. The SUV merges into the righthand lane, again signalling correctly. They end up getting off an exit before me, and I peripherally catch a last glance of it, right signal not clearly visible (what I was looking for, if the same thing would happen in reverse) before I fly off the exit ramp and ram myself into a passing airplane, killing seven and injuring 35 in what can only be termed an unfortunate crash landing gone awry.
There's a lie in there somewhere. ;)
And Saturday Leslie and I went to the Chattanooga aquarium. I guess it's the Tennessee Aquarium... in Chattanooga. But I won't get picky over the name. We had loads of fun... there was a whole other building that we didn't get to see last time because it didn't exist. It had an amazon exhibit, penguins, and a couple of other things I'm blanking out on. There was one room with butterflies in it, all different colors, all fluttering about. People went back and forth with their cameras and rapt gazes, chasing the colorful ones, the ones with the false eye spots, the ones sleeping, the ones awake. At one point, this palm-sized butterfly with light blue wings lighted on Leslie's head. The contrast of the colors, this light blue with the deep reddish hue of Leslie's hair... it was nice. I tried to signal for the camera, but too late. It fluttered away.
And the penguins. We got to see them swimming around and everything. Oh! And they had, in one of the tanks, a giant sea turtle that would go soaring past through the water. And the sea horses and sea dragons... and the tree frogs and.. and...!
Yes. As far as comparing it to the North Carolina Aquarium... it's on par. I would say that the Tennessee Aquarium edges the other out on its extensive freshwater exhibits, while the North Carolina Aquarium rules the ocean ones... but it's tough to say.
Leslie and I also ate at Genghis Grill. Fully customizable you-pick-it-they-cook-it stir fry. Lots of customization. Delectable sauces. The way we differed was quite interesting. I can't remember the precise ones right now, but I think she said she tended more toward thai, while I went Korean.
Loads of fun. I like going places. :D
Yesterday, I got on the interstate, heading for home. No unusual occurence there. I just gradually move to the lefthand two lanes (it's about a 10 mile drive) and try to stay in the furthermost right one if someone isn't going slow there. Anyway, there was a white SUV that comes into the left lane, properly signalling and everything.
They proceeded to signal for the next 6.5 miles.
During the first minute, I'm casually watching, expecting that soon the embarrassing realization will come and they will switch the flashing light off, quietly because I can only hear engine noises and The Splendid Table.
Then I start actively counting. I wonder if accidents ever have records, when a single flip of a switch can make it as if it never happened, except in memory by imprecise witnessing. There's some talk in the background noise of a very tasty-sounding cooked pork shoulder. I listen above the rising salivation, and watch above the listening.
I start pondering going on with them, maybe heading as far as East Town mall another six or seven miles ahead, when the light abruptly changes. It doesn't stop. The SUV merges into the righthand lane, again signalling correctly. They end up getting off an exit before me, and I peripherally catch a last glance of it, right signal not clearly visible (what I was looking for, if the same thing would happen in reverse) before I fly off the exit ramp and ram myself into a passing airplane, killing seven and injuring 35 in what can only be termed an unfortunate crash landing gone awry.
There's a lie in there somewhere. ;)
And Saturday Leslie and I went to the Chattanooga aquarium. I guess it's the Tennessee Aquarium... in Chattanooga. But I won't get picky over the name. We had loads of fun... there was a whole other building that we didn't get to see last time because it didn't exist. It had an amazon exhibit, penguins, and a couple of other things I'm blanking out on. There was one room with butterflies in it, all different colors, all fluttering about. People went back and forth with their cameras and rapt gazes, chasing the colorful ones, the ones with the false eye spots, the ones sleeping, the ones awake. At one point, this palm-sized butterfly with light blue wings lighted on Leslie's head. The contrast of the colors, this light blue with the deep reddish hue of Leslie's hair... it was nice. I tried to signal for the camera, but too late. It fluttered away.
And the penguins. We got to see them swimming around and everything. Oh! And they had, in one of the tanks, a giant sea turtle that would go soaring past through the water. And the sea horses and sea dragons... and the tree frogs and.. and...!
Yes. As far as comparing it to the North Carolina Aquarium... it's on par. I would say that the Tennessee Aquarium edges the other out on its extensive freshwater exhibits, while the North Carolina Aquarium rules the ocean ones... but it's tough to say.
Leslie and I also ate at Genghis Grill. Fully customizable you-pick-it-they-cook-it stir fry. Lots of customization. Delectable sauces. The way we differed was quite interesting. I can't remember the precise ones right now, but I think she said she tended more toward thai, while I went Korean.
Loads of fun. I like going places. :D
Nov 10, 2007
What. The. Hell.
Today I planned going to the Chattanooga Aquarium with Leslie. It's a day trip, which I've been looking forward to taking for a while.
The fact that today's a day game (starts at 12:30) has been more an afterthought than anything, an excuse to get off campus early. The build-up to a game so early in the game is more incongruous and the malaise of drunken revelry and regurgitation sticks long after for the rest of the day and evening. I can imagine enjoying the build-up to an evening game. It's a more gradual transition.
So I got up an hour early, which meant I would get to the breakfast dining hall early. I got there about on time, right as about 15 to 20 guys walk in. Fraternity guys, by the look of it. Freshmen, by my estimation. Children by their behavior.
First, there had been a polite line going when I got there, a few people on the stairs, and this one female to the side a little. The line of frat guys in front of me plow through, ignoring any previous semblance of line, cutting her and a couple of others in the process.
There is one of them. Wearing his orange shirt. Unable to quick running up against me, or brushing up against me. I think I smell alcohol, but that may just be a feeble attempt to explain his actions. "Breakfast isn't open?!" he cries, and the others groupthink it up. There's some banging on the metal doors. Talk of rioting. Some moshing. More yelling. More banging. Threats. Laughter. Temper tantrums and cussing.
After a couple of minutes of thrashing about and utter impatience, they return to their apathetic state and mostly ooze outside. A few remain at the top of the stairs.
They start banging on the door again. One girl describes the situation as a conspiracy theory. "First they'll say they're opening at 8:30, then it'll be 9, 9:30... and finally they'll just close down due to the game!" Really now.
Oh, and I forgot to give the time at this point. It's now, oh, about 8:04. Yes, they're only about 4 minutes late.
Another guy, too late perhaps, comments, "Yeah, maybe they won't open the door now. Maybe they're spitting in our food." Yes, the only outlet of a disgruntled employee.
More yelling, more knocking, and then the door opens. The manager is swiping people in. I come up. "I apologize for their actions," I mumble, thoroughly disgruntled. "What?" he asks. I repeat it. "Oh, it's fine. Thank you." It was a gesture of sympathy.
The employees didn't seem to care or anything. They went on. And the frat boys did too. They sat down and ate. Still cussed a lot. But they were relatively calm.
I don't know where to start. Their behavior was childlike of course. Perhaps I should've said something, been the parent in the situation. Maybe I didn't because I assumed a competitive stance. I'll out-patience them. But, too... it would've felt good to chew them out. But I would've just given them a more concrete target. I could have reproached their behavior, but not in a way where they'd learn from it. It wouldn't have done much good.
And throughout, there was the sense of... entitlement, of "The customer is always right." "This is a business and they should be fired for opening late." A business posts hours, but ultimately it can open and close whenever it wants! Of course, it mostly doesn't because that would betray its own word, but sometimes, whether you're understaffed or don't have anything ready, sometimes opening a couple of minutes late is better than opening right then and not being able to serve anyone.
There is some validity to being inconvenienced, perhaps. But even then, that's no reason to act like you have a bad case of diaper rash. None at all! That doesn't make the employees work any harder to serve you (if anything, it makes them avoid you). There is a way to act like the customer is always right while being kind, considerate, and polite. The employee is required to be polite, but they are human too. Treat them as such. Otherwise, I'll come knocking on your dorm room door calling for french toast sticks.
No, I won't. Then I wouldn't out-patience them. But it's so hard.
The fact that today's a day game (starts at 12:30) has been more an afterthought than anything, an excuse to get off campus early. The build-up to a game so early in the game is more incongruous and the malaise of drunken revelry and regurgitation sticks long after for the rest of the day and evening. I can imagine enjoying the build-up to an evening game. It's a more gradual transition.
So I got up an hour early, which meant I would get to the breakfast dining hall early. I got there about on time, right as about 15 to 20 guys walk in. Fraternity guys, by the look of it. Freshmen, by my estimation. Children by their behavior.
First, there had been a polite line going when I got there, a few people on the stairs, and this one female to the side a little. The line of frat guys in front of me plow through, ignoring any previous semblance of line, cutting her and a couple of others in the process.
There is one of them. Wearing his orange shirt. Unable to quick running up against me, or brushing up against me. I think I smell alcohol, but that may just be a feeble attempt to explain his actions. "Breakfast isn't open?!" he cries, and the others groupthink it up. There's some banging on the metal doors. Talk of rioting. Some moshing. More yelling. More banging. Threats. Laughter. Temper tantrums and cussing.
After a couple of minutes of thrashing about and utter impatience, they return to their apathetic state and mostly ooze outside. A few remain at the top of the stairs.
They start banging on the door again. One girl describes the situation as a conspiracy theory. "First they'll say they're opening at 8:30, then it'll be 9, 9:30... and finally they'll just close down due to the game!" Really now.
Oh, and I forgot to give the time at this point. It's now, oh, about 8:04. Yes, they're only about 4 minutes late.
Another guy, too late perhaps, comments, "Yeah, maybe they won't open the door now. Maybe they're spitting in our food." Yes, the only outlet of a disgruntled employee.
More yelling, more knocking, and then the door opens. The manager is swiping people in. I come up. "I apologize for their actions," I mumble, thoroughly disgruntled. "What?" he asks. I repeat it. "Oh, it's fine. Thank you." It was a gesture of sympathy.
The employees didn't seem to care or anything. They went on. And the frat boys did too. They sat down and ate. Still cussed a lot. But they were relatively calm.
I don't know where to start. Their behavior was childlike of course. Perhaps I should've said something, been the parent in the situation. Maybe I didn't because I assumed a competitive stance. I'll out-patience them. But, too... it would've felt good to chew them out. But I would've just given them a more concrete target. I could have reproached their behavior, but not in a way where they'd learn from it. It wouldn't have done much good.
And throughout, there was the sense of... entitlement, of "The customer is always right." "This is a business and they should be fired for opening late." A business posts hours, but ultimately it can open and close whenever it wants! Of course, it mostly doesn't because that would betray its own word, but sometimes, whether you're understaffed or don't have anything ready, sometimes opening a couple of minutes late is better than opening right then and not being able to serve anyone.
There is some validity to being inconvenienced, perhaps. But even then, that's no reason to act like you have a bad case of diaper rash. None at all! That doesn't make the employees work any harder to serve you (if anything, it makes them avoid you). There is a way to act like the customer is always right while being kind, considerate, and polite. The employee is required to be polite, but they are human too. Treat them as such. Otherwise, I'll come knocking on your dorm room door calling for french toast sticks.
No, I won't. Then I wouldn't out-patience them. But it's so hard.
Nov 2, 2007
Applications
They are... daunting. Their requirements of information, the constant pages and pages of formed information, and then the unformed formal stuff, the statement of purpose, the writing sample... and then recommendations, reading into intonations of a professor's e-mail to see whether they're miffed about the attachment not opening correctly or simply matter-of-fact. Bracing myself to let them know that, oh, I'll be applying to another school, or saying that two are paper recommendations when I'd told them it would all be online...
It is scary. I know it will be worth it. But here's where my shyness, fear of rejection, and everything else converges. I know I can write. I know I can pick topics to research. I know I can research. I know I can teach. I can and will read, and discuss, and do a hundred different paper formats, change citation from MLA to Chicago. I can do all this and then walk to the blackboard and do mathematical proofs.
But does it matter? Is it enough?
Now, I know from reading journals in one of my classes, that what is written about may seem at first to be it all. It isn't. This is an excerpt in my life, and the trepidation it puts in me is only one thing I feel out of a jumble of other things, good and bad, every day. It's important. But I'm also happy in many ways, so the worry about grad schools is part of a working, not-all-good-or-bad psyche. I guess I'm trying to say don't worry too much.
Now for something completely different...
Legislated Smoking?
I've been thinking about smoking bans, ever since it was passed in Tennessee. Then the laws in California passed, which have even prohibited smoking in private apartments.
What did we do wrong to have laws about smoking? It seems like, if everything worked right, for the most part you would have smokers who would seek places to smoke courteously where others could walk sufficiently around the smokers, and nonsmokers, if offended, would politely enlighten the smokers so that further encroachment isn't made. But there are a few problems with this.
Smoke, like noise and odor, don't obey property lines or personal space. They are pervasive. So it is more difficult to find a place to smoke that doesn't affect nonsmokers.
Smoke, while certainly harmful over long periods of time and exposure, won't kill someone that has an unfortunate occasional encounter. It's difficult to connect health problems from infrequent second-hand smoke inhalation. So how could you tell someone, "Please don't smoke right here, it wafts into where I'm working?" if it doesn't affect you definitely?
There's always the jerk smoker that will insist on their right to smoke in a place, defying anyone that tells them it's harmful or otherwise. There's also the jerk nonsmoker, that makes it their specific mission to try to get them to stop smoking. Thus, everywhere is off limits. Abuse of courtesy on both sides.
So with all of these things going on, we turn to laws. In the case of restaurants and such, it's mainly up to them to enforce their own bounds. In the case of a private apartment or something like that, it's probably their neighboring tenants. This makes the laws about as strict as those on littering, which while it carries a rather hefty fine, many people still seem to get away with it from the collection of colorful bottles and wrappers on the side of the road. More aptly, it's a weak public disturbance law.
One issue I see here, that I'm not resolved about, is to what degree we allow people to do things that harm themselves? Is it only when it harms others? Well, okay, but define that. Is it when someone else can get cancer from your use? Or is it when their tax dollars have to foot your medical bills? Which, in that case, goes back to issues of universal medical care. If that goes into effect, then behaviors that affect health can be legislated against, and should be, to safeguard the costs of the system. I'm not comfortable with that, but I don't know what an answer would be. Could doctors withhold medical care if patients do not follow doctors' orders on diet and lifestyle? Could they do this for unsafe sex practices?
Too many implications. Sadly, the most interesting things I see on the political tickers seem to be, " ." I wish they would collectively commit to touch the third rails.
Subrant - Definition by Nonstatus
This is a minor rhetorical issue sometimes, and other times a serious implication, but think about what was up there? Specifically, categories.
Smoker Nonsmoker
The nonsmoker is defined, not on what they do, but on what they don't do. It's interesting. And necessary, to talk about the issue.
Now, let's think about descriptions in literature that call people (usually women), out of the blue, not married. What, where did this come in? There is this big gap between unmarried and married. It creates an expectation, as if ordinarily, or ideally, they would be married. It's old fashioned, yes. It's also a trap. There is no choice.
Incidentally, which sounds worse as a counter of an abortion position: Anti-choice, or anti-life? I actually think anti-choice sounds pretty apt for pro-life.
It is scary. I know it will be worth it. But here's where my shyness, fear of rejection, and everything else converges. I know I can write. I know I can pick topics to research. I know I can research. I know I can teach. I can and will read, and discuss, and do a hundred different paper formats, change citation from MLA to Chicago. I can do all this and then walk to the blackboard and do mathematical proofs.
But does it matter? Is it enough?
Now, I know from reading journals in one of my classes, that what is written about may seem at first to be it all. It isn't. This is an excerpt in my life, and the trepidation it puts in me is only one thing I feel out of a jumble of other things, good and bad, every day. It's important. But I'm also happy in many ways, so the worry about grad schools is part of a working, not-all-good-or-bad psyche. I guess I'm trying to say don't worry too much.
Now for something completely different...
Legislated Smoking?
I've been thinking about smoking bans, ever since it was passed in Tennessee. Then the laws in California passed, which have even prohibited smoking in private apartments.
What did we do wrong to have laws about smoking? It seems like, if everything worked right, for the most part you would have smokers who would seek places to smoke courteously where others could walk sufficiently around the smokers, and nonsmokers, if offended, would politely enlighten the smokers so that further encroachment isn't made. But there are a few problems with this.
Smoke, like noise and odor, don't obey property lines or personal space. They are pervasive. So it is more difficult to find a place to smoke that doesn't affect nonsmokers.
Smoke, while certainly harmful over long periods of time and exposure, won't kill someone that has an unfortunate occasional encounter. It's difficult to connect health problems from infrequent second-hand smoke inhalation. So how could you tell someone, "Please don't smoke right here, it wafts into where I'm working?" if it doesn't affect you definitely?
There's always the jerk smoker that will insist on their right to smoke in a place, defying anyone that tells them it's harmful or otherwise. There's also the jerk nonsmoker, that makes it their specific mission to try to get them to stop smoking. Thus, everywhere is off limits. Abuse of courtesy on both sides.
So with all of these things going on, we turn to laws. In the case of restaurants and such, it's mainly up to them to enforce their own bounds. In the case of a private apartment or something like that, it's probably their neighboring tenants. This makes the laws about as strict as those on littering, which while it carries a rather hefty fine, many people still seem to get away with it from the collection of colorful bottles and wrappers on the side of the road. More aptly, it's a weak public disturbance law.
One issue I see here, that I'm not resolved about, is to what degree we allow people to do things that harm themselves? Is it only when it harms others? Well, okay, but define that. Is it when someone else can get cancer from your use? Or is it when their tax dollars have to foot your medical bills? Which, in that case, goes back to issues of universal medical care. If that goes into effect, then behaviors that affect health can be legislated against, and should be, to safeguard the costs of the system. I'm not comfortable with that, but I don't know what an answer would be. Could doctors withhold medical care if patients do not follow doctors' orders on diet and lifestyle? Could they do this for unsafe sex practices?
Too many implications. Sadly, the most interesting things I see on the political tickers seem to be, "
Subrant - Definition by Nonstatus
This is a minor rhetorical issue sometimes, and other times a serious implication, but think about what was up there? Specifically, categories.
Smoker Nonsmoker
The nonsmoker is defined, not on what they do, but on what they don't do. It's interesting. And necessary, to talk about the issue.
Now, let's think about descriptions in literature that call people (usually women), out of the blue, not married. What, where did this come in? There is this big gap between unmarried and married. It creates an expectation, as if ordinarily, or ideally, they would be married. It's old fashioned, yes. It's also a trap. There is no choice.
Incidentally, which sounds worse as a counter of an abortion position: Anti-choice, or anti-life? I actually think anti-choice sounds pretty apt for pro-life.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)