And another poem!

March 20, 2004:

Untitled

should absence be malevolent?

Joe tells us it is, but should not be.

Problems with color, sex, religion,

        life

not knowing his own place

predicts chaos and violence

but knows no boundaries

he feels pulled neither way

instead of the proper way.

to be undefined

***

I think this poem is unfinished in my journal, but maybe it works ending this way...I may have to reread Light in August by Faulkner to decide! I like this poem, if I may admit that, because I'm imagining and alternate interpretation of that novel, apparently other than that which my professor at the time presented. And of course being untitled and ending with undefined fits the theme...

Another poem I like

I wrote this poem on Oct. 3, 2003:

Night is falling

back when men seemed noble

and loftier purposes pulled them,

I wonder if that loft was reached

by ladders or by flying rope.

were there words, whisperings,

rails that jutted out into the fine night

and pierced it through its top?

or were there shouts, clashings,

arm against arm to make sure

the night had an identity?

back when land smelled fresh

with renewing earth and earth

was a place in itself, was

there such a thing as

man and beast?

minds reflect--I see no evidence

of the men who seemed noble

and the land that smelled fresh.

But I have heard of it,

strictly from imagination,

where Dawn was rosy,

the sea grabbed speckles of sunlight,

and the earth was never robbed

of its innocence.

Yes, I have heard of that.

But the earth cracks and trembles

under tremendous pressures.

the sea can't reach the sun,

and Dawn is late and rushed.

I do not imagine this.

It seems easier to fight for the lofty sky.

***

I have to admit I like this poem. I think The Iliad may have had some influence here, but I think at the time I was taking a medieval lit class...nevertheless, I enjoy the literal vs. fantastical imagery at work here, and I seemed to be contemplating the different motives that move men. I also appreciate the irony I tried to state: something fantastical may seem easier to grasp or to fight for versus literal or earthly.







Poetry from my teenage years

I recently found a journal that I kept during my junior and senior years of high school as well as my freshman year of college. I think I'm going to spend some time posting some of the poems that I wrote during these transformative years of my life. Some poetry is much too embarrassing to share with anyone; yes, it's that self-involved and hyperbolic! But here is one that I think is particularly deep:

(untitled)

I will not fight
your arm on shoulder
your assurring smile,
gentle rising faith
how can I turn that away?
but I will fight
your persecuting air,
dogmatic lips
and vocal repressions.
you can't mold me
   or shape me
so don't waste time
I will fight for myself
but I will not fight you.

I do not remember writing it, so I can only vaguely guess what may have inspired it. I wrote it in the fall of my senior year, 1998.

Church and Gaga

Yeah, they go together. Just stay with me on this one...
Last week, one of our new pastors came to visit us at our home. I feel like we were honest and straightforward with him when we discussed what we were looking for in a church: a place where we wouldn't have to "try" to be anything. We could just be who we are, which is a bit shy at first until we feel comfortable. We don't do anything to impress, and we just want to be with people who want to be friends, let our children be friends, and enjoy life. And being the people we are with the luck that we've had, we find that desire to be epically difficult to fulfill. I'm sure it is our own fault in some way, but still...some desires are as old as time. And some of us are better at fitting in than others. And that has never been one of my talents. But I do believe in those times when the universe steps in, perhaps by the hand of God, perhaps by strange coincidence (or is there a difference?), and you can suddenly see something clearly (hence the name of my blog). During today's sermon, when we officially became members of St. John's Lutheran Church, the pastor's sermon addressed issues of fitting in and being ourselves and how that relates to being part of Christ's work in the world. He made a connection between being ourselves and being genuine, and I have thought about that a lot today. Being genuine, having no false pretenses...those phrases describe where most of the conflict in my life has come from and continues to come from. I have always majorly failed at playing the world's games. And in today's age of electronic communication, I am even worse at it. Sometimes when I would have been better off bluffing or hiding or being disingenuous, I voted instead to just lay all of my cards out on the table and quickly became burned. It rarely has happened the other way around. Being genuine means that we have to step away from what the world wants of us, which is extremely tough. It means we put everything on the line. Everything. And the pastor even pointed out that being ourselves often leads to rejection. The rejection that I fear the most is hidden rejection, the kind that, if you even ever find out about it, is embarrassing and impossible to erase or to mend. However, if we invest in being genuine, it could lead us to how God uses us to help others embrace God's love. Christ loves us in spite of ourselves. That is huge. And I believe these are also points that Lady Gaga makes quite frequently and in different ways. I find it interesting that people find her new Judas song to be offensive mostly because Judas is such a universal literary symbol. The song, to me, is all about being pulled toward that which will betray us every time, and we still do it. Such a human theme, and I think it's actually so fitting that people misinterpret it. I believe that is exactly why she created the song. Of course, that's a guess seeing as how I don't actually know her in any way. :)  But her entire new album is entitled "Born This Way." Let's stop apologizing and get on with this world.

Lenten thoughts...

This past Sunday, the lesson from the Gospel came from Matthew 4:1-11: the story of Jesus being tested in the desert. I think this passage is particularly difficult to understand because, as my pastor pointed out, if Jesus had agreed to put God to the test, think of how many followers would have seen and believed! However, we can also see through this story that not giving in to Satan's tests enabled Jesus to understand what God wanted him to do. Following Christ becomes a focus on His missions, not our own. Yes, these tests may have garnered more followers because of the physcial proof they would have provided; however, God's will is never that simply uncovered. I had also never considered the parallels between Adam and Jesus. They are perfect foils, and of course that occurs for a reason: if man brought sin into the world, a man would have to save us from it. Both die to sin, but of course the second man defeats it. Unlike Adam's fall, however, Jesus passes the test which is a necessity for Christian faith. It really is a stronger story because Jesus withstands the tests: if He had given in, He would have been no different from Adam. Rather than focusing on not proving God's strengths, which again would have gained more for the kingdom of God, Jesus shows us the ability to withstand temptations that, at first sight, appear to be beneficial.

What really stuck out from the sermon, though, is an idea posed by the pastor: we assume we know where we've been--what if we don't? I think that is a fascinating question. Most things that I do today are based on what I do or do not want to repeat again. I know certain routines do or do not work for me in the morning. I know how to effectively assign homework for my students based on what has not worked so well in the past. In terms of personal mistakes, however, I sometimes make the same errors. Does that mean I truly have no sense of direction? Am I going forward or backward? Oftentimes it takes an irreversible occurrence to reveal that I've been going in the wrong direction after all.  Most people might say their faith serves as a compass. However, I've never been that pompous as to assume that I'm always going the right way. Not knowing where I've been is most unhelpful; however, I admit that there is some romantic notion of thinking that I've always been a rambler. I haven't always been wrong, and I haven't always been right. I mean, even Jesus struggled with accepting His fate. Some famous quotes tell us that despite moral (and often horrific) setbacks, history always bends toward the arc of justice. Most of us figure it out on the way there. And sometimes I'd like to go back by the way I came because I have some truly uplifting and redeeming memories of people and events. I'd rather think of time as a circle instead of as a line.

E-readers: potential problems with “free” information

(I wrote the following reaction in my current library and information science graduate course.)

 

Adam Gopnik recently mused in his article “How the Internet gets inside us” about the phenomenon of Hermione Granger “stuck in the nineties” by spending “hours and hours working her way through the [library] stacks, finding out what a basilisk is or how to make a love potion” (124). It is indeed very telling that a series founded upon magic could be outpaced by “the reality of machines” (124). Perhaps Hermione’s love of tangible books adds to the mood and mystery of Hogwarts, however, because it would be much harder to connect with her character if she were always touching away at an iPad—for that means she could be sitting four hundred yards away in an Internet cafe. However, Gopnik’s catchy lead brings up many questions about the future of e-readers and digital information that are also addressed in Evans’s Introduction to Technical Services.

Both Gopnik and Evans point out that technological revolutions which change the way people communicate are no new concept. Gopnik quotes Harvard historian Ann Blair as writing that, even before Gutenburg’s printing press, “’during the later Middle Ages a staggering growth in the production of manuscripts, facilitated by the use of paper, accompanied a great expansion of readers outside the monastic and scholastic contexts’” (128). However, Evans points out that “unlike the printing press in Western Europe, the digital revolution is a worldwide phenomenon” (135). And an instant one, at that. Many people praise digital technologies for this very reason, due to the widespread democratization of information (although we are also contending with nations like China that censor Internet access, which is another problem). Indeed, one only has to pay attention to recent developments in the Middle East to see the role that online information can play in changing history (although the size of that role is up for debate).

Despite all of the positive gains, digital technologies still have some sizable hurdles to overcome. Evans writes that “there are still questions regarding which platforms to support, how much money to commit to the service, whether users should pay some or all of the costs, and perhaps most importantly how to handle the increased workload that e-readers would create for the staff” (136). Furthermore, librarians may have to choose between digitized books and titles that can be downloaded. One related issue that I have seen in the media center at the high school where I teach is that students may not have the required technology with which to use e-books. Therefore, librarians must be sure not to use technology simply for the sake of having it. On the other hand, e-books could be accessed by more than one patron, thus providing greater access, although Evans points out that the staff would be “required to create numerous separate logins, passwords, and alias e-mail accounts” (137).

Overall, it will take more time to see how quickly this process becomes more mainstream. Just as libraries experienced growing pains with new technologies emerging during the 1970s and 1980s, so this too shall pass. What is important to remember is that technology should not be used just for the sake of having it. Keeping our patrons’ needs and resources as the first priority is key since we are ultimately here to serve them. And we also remember that we are held to the standard of providing everyone with equal access to information, and if that requires libraries to keep up the pace with emerging technologies, then we should do what it takes to ensure that we are preserving and encouraging the democratic process.

References

Gopnik, Adam. (2011, Feb 14 and 21). How the Internet gets inside us. The New Yorker, 124-130.

The Art of Defense

(I turned in the following reaction in my current library and information science course)

At first glance, some might wonder what connection might exist between the American Library Association (ALA) and the USA PATRIOT Act. Defending our country against evil terrorists who aim to murder innocent civilians and disrupt our democracy: who wouldn’t want to stop that? And what does that have to do with libraries? Of course, upon closer inspection, efforts to deter terrorists are hardly always as transparent as stopping a clearly evil force. FBI agents or other federal officials may be interested in obtaining patron records in order to monitor an individual’s reading or research habits. According to Jones’s article, the USA PATRIOT Act did not require that search warrants be obtained by first showing probable cause “that ‘library information was ‘relevant’ to the crime committed that was related to a terrorism investigation” (221). The FBI might even have been allowed to take Internet records without a warrant, and, perhaps most chillingly, “the PATRIOT Act prohibits the library from notifying the press, the patron under suspicion, or most other people that an investigation is under way” (although now some provisions have changed allowing librarians to notify supervisors and legal counsels if a letter has been served) (221). As currently as February 2011, three major provisions of the PATRIOT Act will be voted upon for reauthorization.

How do officials decide whose records necessitate an investigation? What if you merely have an Arabic name? Does that warrant suspicion? Or is there a direct causal link between terrorists and the material they view on the Internet that necessitates an immediate investigation? Obviously, this practice potentially infringes on patron privacy, which is a branch of free speech rights. Are these two practices mutually exclusive, or can a happy medium be found?

According to the ALA’s web site, the USA PATRIOT Act matters to libraries because “reading has always been one of our greatest freedoms. The written word is the natural medium for the new idea and the untried voice from which come the original contributions to social growth.” Many factors are at stake here. How does the government define offensive material? What types of patron records could arouse suspicions? Such seminal works of literature like 1984 warn us of the potential harm that government control can impose on free societies. While the idea of the PATRIOT Act is noble, the potential harm is frightening. What if the government decides that any resources related to communism should be closely monitored, much like this country witnessed during McCarthyism? Or more broadly, if, as Orwell and others have imagined, the government decides to invisibly monitor everyone? According to Eric Lichtblau’s article published in The New York Times in 2005, “Law enforcement officials have made at least 200 formal and informal inquiries to libraries for information on reading material and other internal matters since October 2001 [and] in some cases, agents used subpoenas or other formal demands to obtain information like lists of users checking out a book on Osama bin Laden.” While I doubt that these law enforcement officials investigated, say, elementary children writing a report, the possible danger of this practice is clear. These investigations foster a false sense of fear in the public, leading to untrue and potentially harmful stereotypes. And one has to wonder, how does knowing what suspects are reading lead us to a safer country? If checking out a book on Osama bin Laden makes one suspect, then we have already begun to lose our sense of freedom due to insensible paranoia.

We can argue instead that making materials available to all without fear of monitoring or punishment does make us safer. Fostering intellectual curiosity, exposing oneself to different ideas, and trying out new ideas: all of these are fundamental to the growth of democracy. Jones provides seven key ideas to help librarians retain ethics, even in the face of strict national security efforts. Perhaps the most effective is number five: “Librarians need to examine their hearts and consciences and demand of themselves that they separate their personal emotional responses from their professional responsibilities” (223). I think it would do all Americans good to remember this advice, as there can sometimes be a thin line between maintaining the security of our freedoms versus the seeming paradox of giving up freedoms in order to maintain the illusion of defending them.

Jones, B. (2009). “Librarians shushed no more:” the USA Patriot Act, the “Connecticut Four,” and professional ethics. Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom, 58(6), 195, 221-3. Retrieved from Library Lit & Inf Full Text database

Lichtblau, Eric. (2005, June 20). Libraries Say Yes, Officials Do Quiz Them About Users. The New York Times. Retrieved from www.nytimes.com

why do we teach?

Last night I took my three year-old son, Owen, to the bookstore. He mostly just plays with the trains and then likes to walk around holding the Elmo, Big Bird, and Cookie Monster stuffed animals that they have for sale. But last night, one of the employees was hosting story time, and I could tell she was reading a book about bullying to some 4-5 year-olds. One of the children must have asked a question because I could hear the employee explaining that "we don't treat people like that because we wouldn't want to be treated in that way." Now, I've thought about this before...why do we bother teaching children about the Golden Rule if we really don't believe in it? Parents, teachers, religious leaders: all of these people sometimes devote their entire lives to reaching out to children, trying to impart to them the importance of manners, civility, fairness. However, when children become teenagers and young adults, they embark on the most difficult transition, I believe, of life: losing innocence. We learn that people are often quick to betray if a reward is in store. We learn that people often have a price. We learn that people are extremely judgmental. It's fine if it's human nature to be this way; heck, I know I am. But I feel like a complete fraud when my children ask me, "Why do people do that?" and I have to explain that some people are just plain mean. And they are truly confused about that. To be honest, so am I. When I was taught morality, manners, and civility, I took it seriously because I thought that the fact that I was being taught those meant that everyone else took them seriously as well. What I should have discovered earlier is that it's all one big smiley lie. We're nice to people (if we agree with them, or often only if they look and act like us). I discovered in middle school that I was forbidden from dating anyone who wasn't white. I literally had no idea that that would matter, but it made me see my family in a different light from that day forward. How could we have one set of morals at church and another in every other aspect of life? I don't think I will ever resolve this paradox in my mind. But there are so many examples in today's society where our children are going to start seeing this paradox, and I think it's a serious problem. Treat others fairly, except if they are not Christian themselves. Well, really just if they're Muslim. Poor people just take advantage of others and are lazy, spoken by stay-at-home middle-class mothers who either never had jobs in their lives or only worked until becoming pregnant. Oh, and poor people who are black are the ultimate outcasts. Well, maybe poor Mexican people have it worse. True compassion is not being a Christian who practices one set of thoughts in church and another in the world. Most people I'm sure would argue that they do not contribute to this paradox, but if we're being really honest with each other, they are. And this disparity does such a grave disservice to our children. It really started me down the cyncial path when I started to notice these things, and I can't bear the thought of my own children being cynical. Because imagine how great our world could be if people set aside judgments and lived as we teach our children.

are we all blind?

I listened to President Obama's speech tonight from Arizona. And I cried when he spoke of Christina. Because I can remember myself at that age, and I have a nine year-old son. And I understand how kids view our world. They have no idea that people can be so hurtful to each other on purpose. They have no idea how controlling money and power are over most people. They have no idea that most people don't really care about one another because they're too busy looking out for number 1. After all, that might be the easiest way to live, and it's also the most rewarding way to live in our society. Even most Christians I know live like that. Now, I'm sure that makes me sound like I'm such a holier-than-thou saint; I'm really not and I have no delusions about that. But at least I'm aware of it all, and I really think that most people aren't. No, most nine year-olds are so hopeful and trusting, and really it's a breath of fresh air. I feel safe around my children because I know they aren't judging me like everyone else is. I know they are new and unspoiled. And god, I wish they could stay like that forever. Christina won't. But for those of us who still have our family members, how do we live? Do we keep on fighting the same fights that have been fought for centuries? Is it possible to inspire leaders who will take a part of our national conversation and scream, "ENOUGH! For God's sake, ENOUGH!" The generations who have come before us gave up more than we could ever hope to understand because they believed in the future. Just like a nine year-old would believe in it. And in the past two years, I have lost so much hope. We have let so many opportunities slip through our fingers because we're worried about paying taxes or illegal immigrants taking our jobs or the government trying to steal our freedoms. But those are just illusions. They are illusions put up by those who, ironically, gain even more power as they convince people to vote for them. The President wants to help people get more affordable health care so that we can actually afford treatments and preventative measures. He wants everyone to be able to have the chance to attend college, not just those who can afford it. He wants our food to be safer and healthier. How in the world is any of this evil, reminiscent of Hitler? When I think of our country, I don't see it like a nine year-old anymore. But I have a huge stake in this country; I have two sons. I do not want fear and sadness to be the script of their lives. But since the "good ole days" don't exist, is there a precedent? Is there something good for us to get back to, or are we creating a wholly new future? If so, if that's what it's going to take, we need those who know how to act like a nine year-old in order to get there.

putting a dollar on life

Unless you are truly mentally deranged, we all value life. What I mean is that most of us would never try to seriously injure or kill someone. Except sometimes I have to admit that I'm really not so sure about that observation. From conversations with people in my family to my students to people on the discussion boards in my distance education graduate class, people get mad. They have certain ideas and beliefs, and if those are threatened, it inspires anger. Which is so dangerous. It took awhile for me to form certain beliefs that now really define who I am. But I cherish that process that formed me. It's called journalism. Around the 2004 presidential election, I really started to pay attention because I realized I didn't know much about politics, and what kind of citizen did that make me? And not to toot my own horn, but I really wish more people felt the same way. But if I encounter an article or opinion that threatens what I believe, I still consider it. Which is SO much more than almost anyone else can say today. The problem is that it's so easy to inspire anger and hatred, which is what society has seen over the centuries. But we're supposed to be more enlightened now, not more medieval. Sure, it's much easier on everyone if the world can be boiled down to black and white, but it's just not accurate. We all value life. People of all walks and beliefs and backgrounds and ethnicities and religions. Not just Christians who are white and middle to upper-class. I belong to that group, but I couldn't really be farther from it. Anyhow, what I really wanted to say tonight was about the shooting in Arizona. I think it's going to be easy to forget that people died, including a 9 year-old girl. My son is 9 years old. Why is it such a bad thing that people are calling for our national discourse to get rid of phrases from Sarah Palin like, "don't retreat, reload!" That isn't intellectual. Sure, it's a metaphor, but I'm guessing that with our current state of education, we can't be assuming that people have the skills to interpret metaphors. Especially when Sarah Palin is usually shown literally hunting something. Again, I like to think that most of us would never intentionally hurt someone else. But when I've seen hatred shown toward gay people, young girls who get pregnant on accident, and people who support government taxes, my faith falters in the goodness of people.

the gray

After having laid out all of the negatives about myself in my last post, I think I'm actually just a little bit wrong. I do have a lot of goodness in me. I spend a lot of my personal money on my classroom, buying prizes for students with the highest averages and most improved averages. I buy each student a reporter's notebook during our observational writing unit to encourage them to become journalists and observers. I constantly buy more books to keep on my bookshelves for them to check out and to read. I give extra credit opportunities. I try to make lessons fun and funny. I consider all of this, which is more than most teachers can say; I do not copy worksheets and do work out of a textbook. I love to surprise people by perhaps buying something for them if I'm out and see something that reminds me of them. When in a situation, my first response is not to be mean back to someone. If a person has made a rude comment to me, my first instinct is not to make one back. I am someone who usually thinks of the good stuff after the fact. :) But it's this stuff that gets me into trouble. There aren't many people out there who aren't just mean. And it doesn't help that I teach teenagers. If I could suppress these things about myself, then my life would be easier, probably happier, and less disappointing because most of the people I run into just aren't nice. But is it better to be a good person than to have an easy time of it? I may never answer this question fully.

black and white

Oh, Cyndi Lauper:
You with the sad eyes
Don't be discouraged
Oh I realize
It's hard to take courage
In a world full of people
You can lose sight of it all
And the darkness inside you
Can make you feel so small
Do we really want people to be who they are? As a teacher, I mostly hear my colleagues claim that, yes, be who you are! I'm not so sure. I know that sounds cynical or even tyrannical, but "hear" me out.

I have no idea what most people think of me. I can't worry about how my students feel about me because a) they're teenagers and b) I'm not there to be their friend. I don't know how my colleagues feel about me, but I'll bet it's mostly positive, if they spend any time thinking about me at all. Deep down, though, I would say that I'm really selfish, self-centered, and prone to being jealous. I can also be materialistic and mean-spirited. If these are my "true colors", then I will have to disagree with Cyndi Lauper (which kills me! :) I guess these qualities further define who I am, make me unique, blah blah blah. Actually, these qualities probably describe almost everyone else alive right now, so maybe they don't really make me unique. So, to be told to be who I am, I really don't want to do that.

If I'm not going to be who I really am, deep down, then who am I going to be? A contrived version of my best self? Whatever I decide I want to be on any particular day? I think these questions further beg the question: who are any of us? I think most people might have a small group of really close friends who know the truth about them, and that's the closest we get to being who we really are. But then there are some people who are quite comfortable with being their true selves at all times (and those can be some really good people and some really misguided people as well).

I think that if we could be our "fake" selves, we might get a little further in this world. At least, if others, like me, are only presenting a contrived version of their best self.