Writing Implements

A comment on Sarah's post about Gender Genie reminds me of the English professor* (actually most likely a grad student) I had for World Lit. II (mid-19th to mid/late-20th century). World should perhaps be in scare quotes since almost everyone/everything we read was by an English speaking author and most of the more modern stuff was by Americans, but that's a whole other story. Much as Nick's mate's class found masculine and feminine imagery in everything, this professor found sexual imagery in everything.

One day when we broke up to discuss a short story (don't remember the name) in groups, the group I was in tried to find the most ridiculous things (usually because there was something better and more obvious) to make into sexual references. For example, the wife is using a candle snuffer to put out the chandelier in the dining room leaving the only light in the house the fireplace in the living room. She moves the candle snuffer, obviously a phallic symbol, away from her body. I don't remember what we said it meant. A shallower reading of the piece might have had one commenting that she's making the house dark to wait for her husband's body to be brought home, how silly. Probably the funniest thing she did was while discussing this story she started talking about a scene in a Steinbeck short story I'd read in American Lit. And read excessive, to me anyway, sexual imagery into it. Taking off gloves is not, without other indications, a proxy for getting undressed.

It's not that phallic symbols don't show up in stories or that there are never any subtle images, it's just that I tend to think the simplest explanation is more likely to be correct and what the author intended.


*I feel like I've written about this before. If so, I'm sorry. I hope I'm not repeating myself.

Chemicals are EVERYWHERE!!!

I watched a rerun of CSI the other day (when will the mid-season break end?) and at the end the D.A. was thanking Gil and --- for their work and explained that the company that had polluted the lake and groundwater (that ultimately lead to a suicide and a murder) wouldn't be prosecuted because their lawyers would argue that you can't prove that the chemicals in the water were at fault because there are chemicals in everything we touch, eat, drink, even in the air we breathe.

Then last night, I caught part of an interview on Market Place with the author of "Fugitive Denim", in which she said:

It's been said that there are three-quarters of a pound of chemicals used in the production and manufacture of our jeans. A lot of those chemicals are washed off by the time they get to our shelves, but they do have to go somewhere. I think the environmental consequences are far graver.

My first thought was "really? just 3/4 a pound?"; my second was "what is she considering 'chemicals'?" I won't argue the fact that many of the chemical compounds used in the production of clothing have serious environmental consequences*. I will argue the slightly derogatory use of the word 'chemicals' in both examples

Everything you can see, taste, smell and touch is a chemical, many chemicals can't be seen, tasted, or smelled and you might not realize you are touching them (like air molecules). Every thing is a chemical, some are natural, some are man-made, some are good, some bad, some indifferent, but they are all chemicals. Most things you come into daily contact with are not pure substances but a mixture of many chemicals**.

Chemicals should not be a scary word. It is often used to mean man-made, not found in nature, chemical substances. It is understandable that this has occurred and that usage doesn't always piss me off. But sometimes it does. Particularly when someone is trying to scare the public using the word. In the CSI episode the DA is assuming that the lawyers will be successful in arguing that common chemicals in our lives could have caused the problems. They would have used the juror's fear of *CHEMICALS* and feared pervasiveness in our lives to their advantage. Scummy and misleading use of the word but not usually going to set off my I-can-be-a-prick-about-science sensors. Same with the author - she's not misusing the word horribly.

What does set off my bells is when someone says that some cleaning product, food item, whatever doesn't contain chemicals or was produced without chemicals. Without harmful, synthetic, or man-made chemicals is OK. With only natural ingredients is OK. But it is full of chemicals.

Organic farmers can use chemicals - otherwise they couldn't even water their crops. They can also use natural fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides. There was a "Dirty Jobs" episode where Mike worked on an organic coffee plantation in Hawaii. They used goats to take care of a lot of the weeds and to produce the raw material for fertilizer.:D

There is no difference in caffeine whether it is from a tea leaf, coffee bean, cola nut, or test tube. This applies to everything. The reason artificial vanilla flavoring doesn't taste like real vanilla extract is not because there is a difference in the vanillin molecules (main constituent of the extract) produced in a factory but because the extract of the vanilla bean contains many trace chemicals that are not in the artificial flavoring. If (and probably when) the complete composition of vanilla extract was known then the artificial would taste the same. You can substitute the artificial flavor/scent of your choice here, the same reasoning applies to most of them. Smells and tastes are produced by complex mixtures of individual chemicals and are difficult to replicate in a lab. There are many things that are too complex to begin to be accurately produce in a lab (like spider silk) but don't worry scientists are working on it.

So in short: Please don't be afraid of all chemicals - water is one of my favorites. Please don't try and live without them - dying of dehydration has got to suck and very few people really want to see you naked. STOP trying to scare people by using the word 'chemical'.


*Just to produce and harvest the cotton for the pants I'm wearing, pesticides, herbicides, and defoliants were used, that doesn't even begin to touch the processing of the raw cotton boles, spinning, dyeing, weaving, sewing, any treatments to improve colorfastness, wrinkle resistance, or the production of man-made fibers and 'hardware' (buttons, zippers, rivets...) used in the jeans. Or all the energy sources used to allow for this production. Something to think about next time you buy clothes.

**For example, one of the reasons green tea's (dried tea leaves) health benefits has been studied so much is that it has a simpler chemical make-up than black tea (fermented dried tea leaves), making it easier to determine which chemicals are doing what. Black tea has many of the same chemicals it is just much harder to figure out how much of what is in there. Coffee, too, probably.

Give yourself a gold star in science today if you've read all the way through my ramblings.

I care.

So I got this email the other day (for at least the second time, from the same friend) where a woman goes on about why she doesn't care if we violate some one's human rights, violate some one's civil rights, offend them....because it was Arab, Muslim terrorists who attacked us.

When I hear that a prisoner, who was issued a Koran and a prayer mat, and fed "special" food that is paid for by my tax dollars, is complaining that his holy book is being "mishandled," you can absolutely believe in your heart of hearts: I don't care.

Well, I'll delete it and certainly without passing it on because I do care. I think we, as citizens of a country that holds itself up as the greatest in the world, should behave better than terrorists and thugs. If the US wants to put itself up on a pedestal and say we are better than you to countries that don't hold democracy and freedom dear, than we need to act the part.

I think the rule of law, while not perfect, is one of the most important things about the US. We have a Constitution, that everyone has to follow (even you Mr. President!). We have rights granted us as citizens that have to be respected by the police and the government. (I think those rights should be extended to everyone, as I believe they are part of the founding principles of our country.)

If we don't follow our own rules why should anyone even listen to us?
__________________________________________________
And so the day isn't a complete downer: Puppies! (I've added more pictures to the album.)

Puppies and more

Safe Drinking Water is a Human Right.

There are a number of important things that need to be said about about Project M's latest project. Sarah and Honu-Girl have written about two of them; I'm going to talk a little about safe drinking water.

Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

As you can see above, the United Nations realized in 1948 that clean water was a basic human right. It falls under "standard of living adequate for the health." It's right up there with being equal in dignity and under the law (OK, 24 and 17 articles later). Not only is everyone entitled to clean water but children are entitled to special care.

In 2005, some celebrities got together and had Live8 and amongst the concerts there were short speeches and PSAs. The ones I remember involved the statistic that every 8 seconds someone dies due to poverty. I went to a talk a few years ago about the mission Living Waters for the World and the speaker said every 22 minutes someone dies due to lack of clean water. Every 22 minutes - while on your lunch-hour, 3 preventable deaths will occur due to lack of safe drinking water. I've read about the UN and WHO pushing breast feeding because in areas without clean water or where aid is sparse babies die because of their formula is tainted or diluted. These are scary and depressing things. They should also be a rallying cry.

The average American has the one of the highest standard of living in the world and yet there are people without drinking water. Here, a few miles from where I sit now. There are programs to make sure a person's power (and, in some areas, gas) isn't cut off in mid-winter, but I've never heard of one for water. The manager of the water system I'm on has been known to go out and fix a leaky faucet after hours so a family will have a manageable water bill but he's one person at a small water rural water system. Does anyone do this for residents in the City? I don't know.

So many people pay through the nose for bottled water to avoid the "chemicals" in city water. They are avoiding primarily the chlorine-taste and fluoride for their teeth; there are a handful of other chemicals add in extremely small amounts, which are to the best of our knowledge safe. Many more have filters on their taps (a much more cost effective option). The lead, if it is there at all, that the filters remove is almost always from the pipes in the house. (Still a problem but not with the city's water.) Yes, some places have very funky tasting water (Houston), and I can understand wanting to filter it but it is safe to drink. Millions of Americans would love to have funky tasting water, as long as it was always there when they turned on the tap and wouldn't make them sick.

I live about 3 miles north of Hale County, Alabama. I have known children who live in abject poverty in Tuscaloosa, Hale, and Greene counties (Hale and Greene are among the poorest in the nation). I have seen communities like Mason's Bend and felt helpless to effect change and embarrassed by my wealth. I have done some to help raise children from these depths of poverty, but not enough. To be honest, I've never thought about ways to help people in Hale Co. get on city water.

It is easy to get caught up in keeping up with the Joneses. Easy to measure one's own wealth and standard of living against others like oneself. It is hard to remember we pass people everyday who would love to have much of what we take for granted.
I once heard an educated, generally well-meaning Tuscaloosan ask "Am I'm rich because I had steak this month?" and I didn't respond. Allow me to respond, now.

If you are reading this on your own computer, then you are rich. If you had steak this month and didn't have to butcher your own cow to get it, you are rich. If you didn't worry about the water you rinsed your mouth out with after brushing your teeth this morning, you are rich.

Public, Private, or Home?

Often I read a blog and I want to comment but my thoughts are too scattered and/or too many to put in a comment. This is one of those times.

Shadowhelm and his wife are considering homeschooling their child. I think this is a mistake. Not because I know better for their child; they know her best and are the only ones competent to decide. I just think homeschooling is a mistake, in general. I'm not a fan of private schools either. (I am also having trouble with the part of me that completely understands not wanting to put a child into a public school system in Alabama** arguing with the part of me that thinks public schools are the only way to go.)

My primary problem with homeschooling is, "is the parent staying home a certified teacher in the appropriate grade(s)?" If not, then why the hell do you think you can teach your child? Homeschoolers must now be enrolled in a recognized program, many of which are internet based, that procribes the cirriculum and provides tests. The actual teaching of the material falls to the parent. I have a Master's degree in a physical science and I'm pretty darn sure I don't know enough to teach anything but science above the 3rd grade. (For example knowing grammar and using it appropriately does mean I can explain it.)

A related question to the above is, "Is the parent (usually the mother, but not always) prepared to spend all day everyday at home with said child/children?" There is no shame is admitting that one was not cut out to be a stay-at-home mom. It doesn't mean one doesn't love one's children or loves work more; it just means that one is not cut out to be with one's children 24 hours a day. There is also a difference between being a mom and being a teacher (yes, parents are constantly teaching thier children but it isn't quite the same as being a teacher.); for some I'm sure the two roles are completely intertwined for others the roles won't be. Just because one works with kids all day, or is even a teacher, does not mean that one is the best teacher for one's own kids. I know several mothers who teach at a daycare but can not teach in their childrens' rooms, the dynamic is just not right.

Another big problem with homeschooling is the social isolation of the student. School offers social situations encountered in few other settings. Learning to interact with other people, whether one likes them or not, is an important skill. Homeschooling groups, who organize fieldtrips, sports teams, and other extra-curricular activities, can help with the socialzation skills but since many of the other homeschoolers are coming from similar backgrounds there is little diversity. An added problem is that if the homeschool groups are made up of primarialy one subset of homeschoolers (i.e. people who homeschool for religous reasons) then other homeschoolers may not feel welcome, further reducing the diversity. And diversity is important for its own sake. Children need to learn how to get along with anyone they meet; they don't have to be best freinds with everyone but they do have to get along.

Private schools are better. There is the social interaction, trained and (hopefully) qualified teachers, extra-curricular activities, and a break for Mom and Dad. Private schools, however, usually don't offer much in the way of diversity. Most private schools are filled with middle-middle class to upper-middle class. The really expensice ones have the upper-class kids. Private school kids never have a classmate who only has three outfits to wear to school or whose parents can never make the PTA meeting because they have to work. Most private schools have scholarships for very bright students and good atheletes. Some private schools offer a cirriculum only slightly more challenging than the public schools (this varies greatly with location) and have less qualified teachers. (Please note that I do not think lack of state certification automatically means unqualified.) If public school teachers teach because they love it, private school teachers are simply insane. In Alabama at least, private schools pay less and offer little if no benefits (other than great unpaid vacations!). This can make it difficult to retain top-notch teachers that often have the choice to go to the public schools.

A couple of comments directly to Shadowhelm: No one strives for adequecy; that is a term developed for a law that mandates all kinds of stupid measurements of schools and students and has little to do with actual learning. I'm sorry your 12th grade History teacher wasn't creative enough to have assignments to challenge all the students. No one who goes into education wants to hold students back; not everyone will have the ability to help every student but they all have (or possibly had, before burnout) the desire to help. Last but not least, I find it hard to take your interest in your daughter's education too seriously since you admit your wife does the investigating and you just say 'sounds good'.

Where to send one's child to school is a complicated decision for people who can afford options. One's local public schools may not be very good but they provide a level of diversity (SES and racially) not found in most private schools. Private schools MAY provide a better education but are expensive, often require parental volunteering, and usually don't provide transportation to and from school. By homeschooling one can insure that one's values are taught to one's child and no others but then the child is isolated from peers and other adults and is denied the presence of a qualified teacher (with rare exceptions).

I'd like to comment breifly on a topic Shadowhelm touched on in another post with a link to Neal Boortz - communal school supplies. To me, it sounds like Boortz is saying that public schools are a communist plot. BULLSHIT. Democracies require an informed electorate and therefore must have some level of public education. The issue of having indivual parents purchase supplies (this can run from a box of crayons for the class' art supplies to paper towels and surface cleaner) is an issue of funding. When I went to school (and this is probably still true there) students didn't have to buy the school's supplies. There was a supply room that contained supplys. Today in many underfunded school system there isn't a supply room. Not only is every student expected to have his own glue stick but to bring a large bottle of glue to share with the class because the school can't buy these things. This is not, as Boortz asserts, a war on the idea of private property but a consequence of the poor funding of schools. The light bill has to be paid so money for the teachers to buy construction paper doesn't exist. I also suspect that most of the time the list is clear as to what the student needs for herself and what is being bought for the class. If there isn't a distinction, there should be. Because who can forget the joy that was a brand new pencil, eraser, and your own box of 16 perfect crayons?



*Sorry, Sarah, education trumps smut. I may still get around to putting down my thoughts on that. Thanks for the tag.;)

**baby Sis started 4th grade last week at a Tuscaloosa Co. school. Mom says "YEA!"