Things I Don't Want

1. An expensive car. Can it make traffic go away? Can it allow me to safely buck the speed limit without getting a ticket? No? My used Corolla will do just fine.

2. A designer purse. I don't care how chic it is, which celebrites have one, who designed it, how many underpaid Indonesian children hand-stitched it, or how intricate the leather-dying process is. IT IS NOT WORTH THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS! It will not make me look thinner or more attractive--it is attached to the arm--and it will only make me that much more likely to be mugged.

3. Botox and/or breast augmentation. I can go from worrying about wrinkles and attracting the opposite sex to worrying about if my face looks artifically wrinkle-free and if the opposite sex is attracted only to my artifical assets. Cost?Outrageous prices and post-surgical pain.

Now that I have congratulated myself on my list of what I do not want, I should admit that I love to travel and I wouldn't mind having a chef and/or personal trainer. I have never had a massage, but I am fairly certain I could get used to having them regularly, if given the opportunity. Oh, and it would be nice to one day have enough saved to buy a place to live that isn't a garage studio apartment in South Dakota.

Civil Disagreement

"The worst offense that can be committed by a polemic is to stigmatize those who hold a contrary opinion as bad and immoral men." -John Stuart Mill

I enjoy a good argument. I find it exhilarating to see how well I can defend a given position and how I can counter my opponent's attacks. This only works, however, if both sides acknowledge that the other person is well-meaning, intelligent, and informed enough for a fair fight.

It is too easy and too lazy to either demonize or marginalize one's opponent. Dividing the world into neat little boxes: "us" and "them" makes it unnecessary to base one's convictions on logic, evidence and reason. Near election time, I nearly stopped using facebook because I felt assaulted from both sides. Here are two terms I dislike, largely because they are used exclusively by one side to attack another based solely on difference of opinion or ideology: "religious right" and "liberal activitist." I have never heard a person whose faith guides a particular world-view refer to himself or herself as part of the "religious right," nor have I heard anyone claim to be a "liberal activist," although I have heard people explain how faith guides their view of the world, and one might claim to be a "gay-rights activist", an "environmental activist" or an activist on any number of specific causes that have traditionally been considered liberal. Beware of terms that attempt to define someone in a limiting and demeaning way. Here's a test: when you say the term defining your opponent, does your voice drip with condescension or contempt? Listen to how Bill Maher discusses the faithful or how Rush Limbaugh speaks of Obama if you need an example.

I find myself falling into this trap too often; when speaking with like-minded people, it is so easy to dismiss the other side, particulary on a strongly-felt issue, with such terms as "ridiculous", or "out-of-touch." The only valid term among these is perhaps "ignorant"--well-meaning is not always well-informed--but even then I cannot imagine a more likely way of alienating someone than by accusing them of ignorance and then proceeding to lecture them to bring them up to speed.

All of this reminds me of when people get annoyed with a co-worker or a roommate and then go complaining to someone else: I suspect that they do not actually want to solve the problem and eliminate the conflict, but that they prefer having something to complain about. If our convictions are more than just a convenient status symbol, if we want to convince others of the need to change their beliefs or voting patterns, why are we going about it in this way?

Which leaves me wondering: has all the voyeuristic drama of reality T.V. (where displaying artificially-created conflict renders something worth-watching) created a need for us to invent discord and find reasons to complain? Do we fear that civility equates to dullness?

I Want It Now! (think the Varuca Salt song from Willy Wonka)

If every piece of junkfood I ate immediately made it's way to my waistline, I would be a waif; if every lap run on the track translated into instant improvement in stamina, I'd be running all the time. I would love to be one of those super-fit gym people I envy while I munch on my candy bar. The truth is that I eat LOTS of sugar and sweets and I exercise rarely these days--and since I haven't seen instant results, I don't worry about it too much.

I realize the dangers inherent in instant gratification--real results, real satisfaction, come from gradual, steady work. I look at all human endeavor I admire, and whether it's Michael Phelps or Marie Curie, greatness comes from extraordinary and prolonged effort. So here's my self-criticism du jour: I live for instant-gratification! It's no accident that I was not an endurance runner in track, and one of the real concerns I have about one day doing a PhD is that I would have difficulty focusing on something so minute for so long.

For me, instant gratification is manifested in two main ways: the junkfood mentioned above, and in easy knowledge. I cannot imagine a world where I could not immediately find out an answer to my question. Here are a few of my favorite websites: wikipedia, imdb, weather.com, dictionary.com and wordreference.com. I love knowing that I can instantly find the answer to almost any question that pops into my head. Here's the problem: the level of knowledge (and accuracy, too, if you want to get picky) gained from such sites is not very impressive. I can tell you what films are Hitchcock's or when it will most likely rain, or find the French translation for "oil slick", but I know little about the use of light in cinema or the weather phenomena that produce freezing rain as opposed to snow or sleet.

It sometimes frightens me to look back on my life and see how much time I have wasted on my instant gratification projects. What would I know, what could I do, what would I have accomplished and who would I be today if I had had the foresight to look to the future results and patiently endure a bit of boredom or discomfort?

Belated Gratitude

Thanksgiving has passed, but I feel, given the subject and tone of my last entry, that family and friends reading this might be relieved to know that I am largely a happy person with a good life! This morning, I watched the sunrise at the Lincoln Memorial with some friends and then had breakfast. It was a clear, pristine winter morning, a glorious sunrise, a delicious breakfast, and the company was great. It was many of the good parts of my life compressed into a few hours: a beautiful setting, good friends, simple pleasures, and a realization that there is joy to be had just in being alive.

I was at a track meet last night, and I remember why I started coaching in the first place: I love the sheer joy athletes faces' convey as their bodies accomplish amazing feats of speed and height; I love the exhilaration of a victory from behind or a hard-won relay. I love how teenagers haven't learned to mask their disappointment or temper their triumph--it's all out there in honest vulnerability. I love the sense of camaraderie among teammates and the life lessons of defeat.

I love discovering the complexities that lie behind what seems to be simple. I enjoy seeing my misconceptions fall to new discoveries and understanding. I love books, languages, and the visceral experience of listening to good music. This is a short list--but I am grateful!

Guilt

Guilt plays too large a role in my life. Is it ever really a good thing? Is it guilt that makes me repentant? I have realized lately that my biggest shortcoming is what I say: I'm too critical, too apt to complain, and altogether too negative. Realizing that makes me feel dissatisfied and dejected and resolved to be better--is that a positive by-product of guilt? Does guilt motivate in a less powerful way than love or passion or desire for greatness? Or is guilt even the appropriate term when it's a positive force? Should it be "penitence" or "godly sorrow"? Or have we skewed the original meaning of guilt after generations of misapplied guilt? Hm. I'll have to check the OED sometime.

Anyway, you can see I've raised a bunch of thorny issues, and being under-qualified in philosophy, I won't attempt to answer them. What I do know is that the negative kind of guilt--the counterproductive, wake me up in the middle of the night, bang my head against the wall so I can't focus on what comes next kind of guilt--is ruling my life right now. How? I coach track because I felt guilty saying no. Coaching track means I have less time for working out and reading and spending time with friends, which makes me feel guilty. Trying to squeeze those things into an increasingly small space means my job suffers--which makes me feel guilty. And feeling guilty is supposed to be an unhealthy thing according to women's magazines and pop psych, which makes me feel guilty.

Solution? I am cutting down to coaching only Mondays and Wednesdays for one hour each next season. I am passing on the measly stipend, which will mean I can help as much or as little as I want without . . . wait for it. . . . feeling guilty. I hereby declare my coaching resolution for next season so I don't cave when they ask me to stay on:

1. I will coach only Mondays and Wednesdays and only the long and triple jumpers (okay, maybe the hurdlers on Tuesdays, but only for one hour on each of those days!).
2. I will not accept a stipend.
3. I will not process any paperwork.
4. I will not ride the bus with the team, although I may attend district level meets on my own time, coming and going when I choose.
5. I will not travel with the team on weekends to crazy places like Virginia Beach and Richmond after spending the entire week sleep-deprived due to practices, meetings, and paperwork issues.

Aah! Writing that makes me feel . . . not guilty! Good start!

On Being a Snob

Isn't it great to know that there are all kinds of snobs? Fashionistas, gourmets, any kind of connoisseur (particularly wine or cheese), video-game junkies, film buffs, even those who decry snobbery--all terms that describe a particular genre of snob. My preferred snobbery? A secret inkling of superiority to those who misuse English--although I will generally find amusement at others' expense for any kind of unusually acute ignorance.

My pet peeve du jour is the overuse (would it be too strong to say "misuse" or "abuse" here?) of 'myself' as in "please make sure you return this form to Mr. Smith or myself." Besides being WRONG (you cannot use the reflexive unless it is, ahem, reflexive, as in "I amuse myself" or "I admire myself"), it gives the impression of elevated self-importance. Why not just say "me"? Perhaps it is the sinking realization that one doesn't know how to choose between "I" and "me." I have never tested this, but I have a suspicion that people who misuse "myself" in the way mentioned above also say things like "just between you and I."

As you can imagine, I enjoy books like Eats, Shoots, and Leaves, where the author writes to a specific, identifiably snobby audience about such travesties as the incorrect omission of an apostrophe in the film "Two Weeks Notice" (should be "Two Weeks' Notice", in case you were wondering). The first section of the book is really the funniest, with the succeeding sections much weaker, as the author proceeds to explain all the rules of punctuation to readers who enjoyed the first pages so much because they identified with feeling unreasonably frustrated by those who need the rules explained to them.

I am currently reading another such title, called Alphabet Juice. The book is arranged, naturally, alphabetically, the author having chosen certain words that he calls "sonicky", or having a sound that conveys the essence of its meaning, in order to argue that linguists aren't quite correct when they say words besides onomatopoeia are arbitrary. At least that's the author's professed goal; the book really is more about the author's love, or even obsession, for words. I relish the passages where he takes on the misuse of "myself" and laments words that lose their bite when used too freely (as in "awesome" or "terrific"). This is my particular brand of snobbery. But what I love even more is the way Blount (that's the author) mocks himself and purposefully misuses words and grammar exactly in the way that he criticizes. It's brilliant really; someone who reads a snob like Blount is bound to look for and notice any unintended slip up, so why not beat them to the punch and claim it's all very self-referential and post-modern? If I were smarter (and it weren't already an hour and a half past my bedtime), I would have done the same, as I am sure this post contains some unintended errors. If nothing else, I have some suspicously long sentences and I arguably overuse parenthetical comments. But I digress (see--I DID it there, a bit!).

What is the antidote to such snobbery? Strangely enough, as a teacher, I feel zero superiority when my students are ignorant or misuse English (a good thing, considering they are all non-native speakers of English). By definition, first of all, I am supposed to know more than they do, so it would be a bit of a cheap shot--like a 250 pound linebacker taking on a 14 year old cross country runner--to bask in my superiority. More than this, with students it is my responsibility to bridge the gap from ignorance to understanding. And when I really try to study how to do this, I suddenly see students as human beings rather than a source of cynical amusement: their ignorance stems from lack of exposure, not from any basic inferiority. Sigh. And it can be so satisfying to feel that myself is so much more refined!

Fun With High School Students

So one of my favorite parts of my job teaching high school ESOL is the hilarious stuff kids say and do. Here are a couple of highlights from this week:

(boy explaining why he doesn't want to work on the project we're doing in class): "I hate glue. It's sticky."

(another boy, as students are expected to 'link-up' in groups of four to demonstrate how ATP loses a phosphate and releases energy, explaining why he doesn't want to hold another boy's hand): "But I like girls!"

CPR

I got CPR certified this week. I was actually really whiny about going, but it turned out to be empowering. I left the class feeling I had gained a skill that actually had a real-world application, unlike most of the hobbies I like to pursue (like learning a rudimentary level of Chinese--I can say my birthday and how many brothers and sisters I have. Useful for survival, right?).

When I got home I decided to find out how effective CPR actually is. According to a reliable source (ahem--wikipedia), CPR is effective between 5-10% of the time, and VERY rarely restarts the heart without subsequent defibrilation (which I also learned how to do. Interesting factoid: the pads used for defibrilation need to be attached to bare skin, so most kits contain a razor blade in case you need to shave a hairy guy!). I was surprised to see that the survival rate was so low, as I definitely had the impression that CPR, when performed promptly and correctly, would give the victim a pretty good shot. It turns out (per the same wikipedia article) that T.V. portrays CPR as successful approximately 75% of the time. Interesting, no? So I have upgraded my level of knowledge of CPR from T.V. sources to wikipedia. I have to say that my false impression was also reinforced by the scenarios taught in the class. I guess it would be kind of a downer to teach you a skill and then have the example guy die.