The dictionary.com Word of the Day is punctilious (puhnk-TIL-ee-uhs), an adjective meaning “strictly attentive to the details of form in action or conduct; precise; exact in the smallest particulars”. After a tedious morning in-service on rubrics and assessment, I found myself with a couple of free hours. Since I’m starting a black and white film photography class on Wednesday, I tried to make good use of the time by preparing.
Several months ago at an auction I bought a Nikon FG 35 mm camera and two extra lenses. The FG is the camera I wanted in the 80’s but couldn’t afford. I had already gotten batteries for it and tested it to make sure it powered on. One thing I noticed was that it had a roll of Kodachrome film in it. Yeah, as in “I got a Nikon camera, I like to take a photograph, so Mama don’t take …. “ More importantly they don’t make it any longer. Even though that old roll left in that old camera for who knows how long might not be any good, I was optimistic and proceeded to use it up.
I referred to my manual. I carefully adjusted and readjusted the settings. I practiced using the complicated focusing screen. I framed each shot with the greatest of care. I worked at this for over an hour. I shot 32 frames and was feeling great. Again I referenced the manual for precise instructions on how to rewind and remove that precious roll of Kodachrome. Alas, when I opened the camera back, I discovered that the spool was empty.
Friday, September 16, 2011
Thursday, July 7, 2011
The Anthony Case and Ignorance of the Law
I wasn’t going to touch this one, but #YouNeedaHelmet when you read some of the appalling and misguided comments about the Casey Anthony verdict. As everyone on the planet who hasn’t been living under a rock knows Casey Anthony was found not guilty of murder, aggravated child abuse and manslaughter for the death of her daughter. Here’s a fairly good news report on Tuesday’s court proceeding - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/05/casey-anthony-trial-verdict_n_890173.html#s303265&title=Casey_Anthony_Verdict
Many things bother me about the public nature of this trial and the outrage following the acquittal. A subtitle to a news article read “jury finds Casey Anthony did not murder her toddler.” We all should know that is not what a jury “finds” in a criminal trial. The jury finds the facts and the judge applies the law. Understanding the system and how it works is key to reflecting on the outcome.
There’s no question that facts of this case are egregious. A two-year old child’s remains were found in a plastic bag five months after her grandmother reported her missing. Casey never reported a missing child to the police. She didn’t even admit her daughter was missing for a month. She lied repeatedly and both her stories and her actions were, quite frankly, bizarre. Then there’s the shovel thing and the odor in the trunk business. But are those facts sufficient to convict Caylee Marie Anthony’s mother of her murder? Was she guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? The jury said no.
So, what does that acquittal mean? It means this case is over. Period. End of story. I am amazed how many seemingly educated, thoughtful people have been clamoring for a retrial and/or an appeal by the state of Florida. Are these the same people who were shooting illegal fireworks off at all hours of the night this past weekend celebrating our independence and our American way of life? Have they ever read the Constitution? Do they understand what it says, and, more importantly, what it means? I’m saddened to discover that they do not.
There are many troubling aspects to this media circus of a criminal proceeding. The graceless Nancy Grace is and has been a distraction if not a disgrace. Pun intended. The legal taking heads on the cable news networks have soundly and severely criticized Casey’s defense team and Jose Baez, in particular. These may be topics for another post, but let me end with this. We may never know what “really” happened but the jury has spoken. Let’s respect that.
Many things bother me about the public nature of this trial and the outrage following the acquittal. A subtitle to a news article read “jury finds Casey Anthony did not murder her toddler.” We all should know that is not what a jury “finds” in a criminal trial. The jury finds the facts and the judge applies the law. Understanding the system and how it works is key to reflecting on the outcome.
There’s no question that facts of this case are egregious. A two-year old child’s remains were found in a plastic bag five months after her grandmother reported her missing. Casey never reported a missing child to the police. She didn’t even admit her daughter was missing for a month. She lied repeatedly and both her stories and her actions were, quite frankly, bizarre. Then there’s the shovel thing and the odor in the trunk business. But are those facts sufficient to convict Caylee Marie Anthony’s mother of her murder? Was she guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? The jury said no.
So, what does that acquittal mean? It means this case is over. Period. End of story. I am amazed how many seemingly educated, thoughtful people have been clamoring for a retrial and/or an appeal by the state of Florida. Are these the same people who were shooting illegal fireworks off at all hours of the night this past weekend celebrating our independence and our American way of life? Have they ever read the Constitution? Do they understand what it says, and, more importantly, what it means? I’m saddened to discover that they do not.
There are many troubling aspects to this media circus of a criminal proceeding. The graceless Nancy Grace is and has been a distraction if not a disgrace. Pun intended. The legal taking heads on the cable news networks have soundly and severely criticized Casey’s defense team and Jose Baez, in particular. These may be topics for another post, but let me end with this. We may never know what “really” happened but the jury has spoken. Let’s respect that.
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
YouNeedaHelmet When You Work Here Part 1
I’m a teacher and will state without any trace of false modesty that I’m damned good at what I do. I love to teach. I live to teach. More to the point, I used to love my job. Unfortunately, that job has changed so much over the past few years that I no longer recognize it. As a colleague said to me recently, “All this paperwork really interferes with my teaching.” I concur and hope to explore here and in future posts what has happened.
So there are a few things I need to know. Let’s start with what’s bothering me the most lately. When did I miss the memo stating that the purpose of post-secondary education is job training? Yes, I was bored and missed most of the ‘80’s but I’ve tried hard to keep up and pay attention since then. Call me old-fashioned, but I still believe the purpose of education is to open minds and that it is not, and never should be, to train and place workers.
Wasn’t it was Socrates who said, "I cannot teach anybody anything. I can only make them think"? I value exposing students to new ideas, helping them to think critically and, building their self-esteem. I get up out of bed each morning to do those very things. The rewards are great and can’t be expressed in formula, rubrics or spreadsheets.
A person who has the ability to read, write and think logically will be a better citizen, a better parent, and, of course, a better employee. But here’s the rub, we cannot measure the value of an individual’s education by a resume or a W-2. How I wish the paper pushers would stop trying!
Focus on this mission statement from Bates College:
Since 1855, Bates College has been dedicated to the emancipating potential of the liberal arts. Bates educates the whole person through creative and rigorous scholarship in a collaborative residential community. With ardor and devotion -- Amore ac Studio -- we engage the transformative power of our differences, cultivating intellectual discovery and informed civic action. Preparing leaders sustained by a love of learning and a commitment to responsible stewardship of the wider world, Bates is a college for coming times.
Read through the mission statement for USM:
The University of Southern Maine, northern New England's outstanding public, regional, comprehensive university, is dedicated to providing students with a high quality, accessible, affordable education. Through its undergraduate, graduate and professional programs, USM faculty members educate future leaders in the liberal arts and sciences, engineering and technology, health and social services, education, business, law and public service. Distinguished for their teaching, research, scholarly publication and creative activity, the faculty are committed to fostering a spirit of critical inquiry and civic participation. USM embraces academic freedom for students, faculty, and staff, and advocates diversity in all aspects of its campus life and academic work. It supports sustainable development, environmental stewardship, and community involvement. As a center for discovery, scholarship and creativity, USM provides resources for the state, the nation, and the world.
Here’s a like to the mission statement for Harvard College which is really too long to post here: http://www.harvard.edu/siteguide/faqs/faq110.php
Do we really want to stray too much further from these ideals? I’m advocating “Amore ac Studio”. How about you?
So there are a few things I need to know. Let’s start with what’s bothering me the most lately. When did I miss the memo stating that the purpose of post-secondary education is job training? Yes, I was bored and missed most of the ‘80’s but I’ve tried hard to keep up and pay attention since then. Call me old-fashioned, but I still believe the purpose of education is to open minds and that it is not, and never should be, to train and place workers.
Wasn’t it was Socrates who said, "I cannot teach anybody anything. I can only make them think"? I value exposing students to new ideas, helping them to think critically and, building their self-esteem. I get up out of bed each morning to do those very things. The rewards are great and can’t be expressed in formula, rubrics or spreadsheets.
A person who has the ability to read, write and think logically will be a better citizen, a better parent, and, of course, a better employee. But here’s the rub, we cannot measure the value of an individual’s education by a resume or a W-2. How I wish the paper pushers would stop trying!
Focus on this mission statement from Bates College:
Since 1855, Bates College has been dedicated to the emancipating potential of the liberal arts. Bates educates the whole person through creative and rigorous scholarship in a collaborative residential community. With ardor and devotion -- Amore ac Studio -- we engage the transformative power of our differences, cultivating intellectual discovery and informed civic action. Preparing leaders sustained by a love of learning and a commitment to responsible stewardship of the wider world, Bates is a college for coming times.
Read through the mission statement for USM:
The University of Southern Maine, northern New England's outstanding public, regional, comprehensive university, is dedicated to providing students with a high quality, accessible, affordable education. Through its undergraduate, graduate and professional programs, USM faculty members educate future leaders in the liberal arts and sciences, engineering and technology, health and social services, education, business, law and public service. Distinguished for their teaching, research, scholarly publication and creative activity, the faculty are committed to fostering a spirit of critical inquiry and civic participation. USM embraces academic freedom for students, faculty, and staff, and advocates diversity in all aspects of its campus life and academic work. It supports sustainable development, environmental stewardship, and community involvement. As a center for discovery, scholarship and creativity, USM provides resources for the state, the nation, and the world.
Here’s a like to the mission statement for Harvard College which is really too long to post here: http://www.harvard.edu/siteguide/faqs/faq110.php
Do we really want to stray too much further from these ideals? I’m advocating “Amore ac Studio”. How about you?
Friday, February 11, 2011
You Need a Helmet in Acronym Hell
I hate acronyms. Or should I say IHA? Perhaps my brain is wired poorly, but I find most acronyms confusing. Especially without a specific context, I often scratch my head and mutter WTH when I see one in a tweet or facebook status. Am I alone in this?
A Google query for “acronym search” today yielded 437,000 results, but the top hit was Acronym Search at http://www.acronymsearch.com/. Maybe I should bookmark this site because it lets you type in any acronym and then tells you what it stands for. That will help me, right?
Ah, no, not really. I typed in WTF and got fourteen possible meanings, including World Tennis Federation and World Taekwondo Federation. Please note that the URL for the World Taekwondo Federation is http://www.wtf.org/ Somehow I don’t think either of those reflect what the twenty-somethings intend to express in their facebook statuses. By the way, did you know that OMG stands for Object Management Group?
My department chair assigned me a task a few weeks back. He told me to work on the CLA’s. If you’re a lawyer or a paralegal, you know CLA stands for Certified Legal Assistant. My acronym search tells me it can also mean the Children’s Liver Alliance. Apparently where I work, it’s short for Collegiate Learning Assessment. Hmm, or is that Course Level Assessment?
Since I’m such a great team player (according to my recent ASA), I slaved away and sent the boss the fruits of my labor only to find that he meant LA’s, not CLA’s. LOL. Our next project may involve GEL’s. FML!
Well, TTFN. I just received an urgent email regarding an RTP. Apparently if I don’t take care of this my EOT’s could suffer.
A Google query for “acronym search” today yielded 437,000 results, but the top hit was Acronym Search at http://www.acronymsearch.com/. Maybe I should bookmark this site because it lets you type in any acronym and then tells you what it stands for. That will help me, right?
Ah, no, not really. I typed in WTF and got fourteen possible meanings, including World Tennis Federation and World Taekwondo Federation. Please note that the URL for the World Taekwondo Federation is http://www.wtf.org/ Somehow I don’t think either of those reflect what the twenty-somethings intend to express in their facebook statuses. By the way, did you know that OMG stands for Object Management Group?
My department chair assigned me a task a few weeks back. He told me to work on the CLA’s. If you’re a lawyer or a paralegal, you know CLA stands for Certified Legal Assistant. My acronym search tells me it can also mean the Children’s Liver Alliance. Apparently where I work, it’s short for Collegiate Learning Assessment. Hmm, or is that Course Level Assessment?
Since I’m such a great team player (according to my recent ASA), I slaved away and sent the boss the fruits of my labor only to find that he meant LA’s, not CLA’s. LOL. Our next project may involve GEL’s. FML!
Well, TTFN. I just received an urgent email regarding an RTP. Apparently if I don’t take care of this my EOT’s could suffer.
Monday, August 30, 2010
You Need a Helmet if You’re Target
That’s right. Target needs a helmet and I need one every time someone asks me if I’ve joined the boycott of a business that has been nothing but supportive of equal rights in the past. My father was a union man and I learned at an early age never to cross a picket line, but there’s a big difference between a line of striking workers and a line of people who are merely playing nasty politics. Targets is caught in the cross-hairs of a very big gun aimed, and please pardon me for this, at the wrong target.
The day after the U.S. Supreme Court handed down the 5/4 Citizen’s United decision, I was surprised at the large number of tweeters and bloggers ranting about the result. How could all of those individuals have had the time to read an extremely long judicial opinion replete with concurrences and a 90 page dissent, study it, analyze it, and write confidently about it so quickly? Unfortunately, most of them had not read it. However, this isn’t the place to expound upon complex legal issues, the scope of the First Amendment, the significance of 5/4 decisions, and the intricate, inner workings of the third branch of government. The bottom line is that case made it legal for any organization, whether a non-profit, a union or a corporation, to spend its money on political advertising and campaigns. Justice Kennedy wrote "If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech."
So what did Target do? The corporation made a perfectly legal $150,000 contribution to MN Forward, a Minnesota organization promoting economic development and job growth. Why would they do that? I’m going to go out on a limb here and say it’s because Target, headquartered in Minnesota, is a business and economic growth is good for business. MN Forward gave money to several candidates from both major parties, including one Tom Emmers, who is pro-business but opposed to marriage equality. Good for Emmers; bad for Target.
Target Corp. has long had a reputation for being gay friendly. It provides benefits for domestic partners of its employees. It sponsors the annual Twin Cities Gay Pride Festival in Minnesota. It scored 100% on the Human Rights Campaign Foundation's Corporate Equality Index in 2010. MSNBC, the so-called liberal news channel, refused to air MoveOn.org’s big Boycott Target ad. Target apologized. (Note to self- possible blog topic - You Need a Helmet when reading about people apologizing for things they did even if they weren’t wrong)
The boycott was a bust. Why? The entire thing was unfair and the organizers simply picked the wrong target. I’m off to Target now. Don’t yell at me as I go in and, please, don’t throw anything at my head in case I’m not wearing my helmet.
The day after the U.S. Supreme Court handed down the 5/4 Citizen’s United decision, I was surprised at the large number of tweeters and bloggers ranting about the result. How could all of those individuals have had the time to read an extremely long judicial opinion replete with concurrences and a 90 page dissent, study it, analyze it, and write confidently about it so quickly? Unfortunately, most of them had not read it. However, this isn’t the place to expound upon complex legal issues, the scope of the First Amendment, the significance of 5/4 decisions, and the intricate, inner workings of the third branch of government. The bottom line is that case made it legal for any organization, whether a non-profit, a union or a corporation, to spend its money on political advertising and campaigns. Justice Kennedy wrote "If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech."
So what did Target do? The corporation made a perfectly legal $150,000 contribution to MN Forward, a Minnesota organization promoting economic development and job growth. Why would they do that? I’m going to go out on a limb here and say it’s because Target, headquartered in Minnesota, is a business and economic growth is good for business. MN Forward gave money to several candidates from both major parties, including one Tom Emmers, who is pro-business but opposed to marriage equality. Good for Emmers; bad for Target.
Target Corp. has long had a reputation for being gay friendly. It provides benefits for domestic partners of its employees. It sponsors the annual Twin Cities Gay Pride Festival in Minnesota. It scored 100% on the Human Rights Campaign Foundation's Corporate Equality Index in 2010. MSNBC, the so-called liberal news channel, refused to air MoveOn.org’s big Boycott Target ad. Target apologized. (Note to self- possible blog topic - You Need a Helmet when reading about people apologizing for things they did even if they weren’t wrong)
The boycott was a bust. Why? The entire thing was unfair and the organizers simply picked the wrong target. I’m off to Target now. Don’t yell at me as I go in and, please, don’t throw anything at my head in case I’m not wearing my helmet.
Monday, August 23, 2010
John Olerud and His Helmet
The blog title “You Need a Helmet” ties to the axiom that life is tough and the fact that we all need protection from time to time. I’ve wondered recently why it seems that folks aren’t as hardy as they used to be. This is probably not the time to harangue about prima donna MLB pitchers who make millions yet go on the DL at the hint of a hangnail, but that’s the type of thing I notice. I was shocked backalong by the sight of a rodeo cowboy wearing a helmet. It seemed so very wrong somehow. If a bronco buster can’t be tough, who can be? I may have grumbled to the TV screen, “Man up, Dude. Get your cowboy hat!” forgetting momentarily that those, too, are often disguised helmets.
So where are we going with this? First baseman John Olerud wore his batting helmet while playing the infield. I had never seen anyone else do that and it made me curious. If you don’t know much about Olerud, you can read all about his MLB career at http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/o/olerujo01.shtml but you do need to consider he played 17 seasons in the majors, winning three Gold Glove Awards as well as two back to back World Series with the Toronto Blue Jays. Suffice it to say, he was an outstanding ball player.
If you’re a Red Sox fan like me you should remember Johnny O. because he played for the Jays for many years, for the Yankees for one year and for us in 2005, his final year. We saw him bat many times and watched him play first base without removing his batting helmet. Why didn’t the guy take off that helmet? According to Wikipedia it was done as a precaution since he’d suffered a brain aneurysm while playing college ball. That entry is not supported by a footnote but there’s no reason to suspect it isn’t true. (Note to self - possible blog topic - You Need a Helmet when relying on Wikipedia as your main reference)
At any rate, I’m still curious and my questions abound. Did the other players tease him? If they razzed him, how much did that bother him? How hard did they hit him on his head when he headed to the dugout after scoring a run or two? We can only speculate.
As I head off for what promises to be a long and difficult day at work, I find myself wishing I had a batting helmet. But if I had one, would I wear it? Would you?
So where are we going with this? First baseman John Olerud wore his batting helmet while playing the infield. I had never seen anyone else do that and it made me curious. If you don’t know much about Olerud, you can read all about his MLB career at http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/o/olerujo01.shtml but you do need to consider he played 17 seasons in the majors, winning three Gold Glove Awards as well as two back to back World Series with the Toronto Blue Jays. Suffice it to say, he was an outstanding ball player.
If you’re a Red Sox fan like me you should remember Johnny O. because he played for the Jays for many years, for the Yankees for one year and for us in 2005, his final year. We saw him bat many times and watched him play first base without removing his batting helmet. Why didn’t the guy take off that helmet? According to Wikipedia it was done as a precaution since he’d suffered a brain aneurysm while playing college ball. That entry is not supported by a footnote but there’s no reason to suspect it isn’t true. (Note to self - possible blog topic - You Need a Helmet when relying on Wikipedia as your main reference)
At any rate, I’m still curious and my questions abound. Did the other players tease him? If they razzed him, how much did that bother him? How hard did they hit him on his head when he headed to the dugout after scoring a run or two? We can only speculate.
As I head off for what promises to be a long and difficult day at work, I find myself wishing I had a batting helmet. But if I had one, would I wear it? Would you?
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Life’s Tough. Get a Helmet!
One of my favorite curmudgeonly expressions is “Life’s Tough. Get a Helmet.” When I first thought about this blog I wanted that for my title. Alas, it was taken (because life is tough), so I went with “You Need a Helmet.”
But do you really need a helmet? In Maine you don’t need a helmet to operate a motorcycle if you are over 17. Unless the park or facility in which you’re riding requires one, you don’t need a helmet to skateboard. However, since 1999 Maine has had this law on the books in Title 29 -
§2323. Bicycle helmet use; passenger seat use
1. Use of helmet. A person under 16 years of age who is an operator or a passenger on a bicycle on a public roadway or a public bikeway shall wear a helmet of good fit, positioned properly and fastened securely upon the head by helmet straps.
2. Passenger seat. A bicycle passenger must be seated properly in a bicycle passenger seat.
I can’t help but think back to an earlier time before seat belts and air bags when we kids got to ride in the open back of a pick-up truck so long as we didn’t stand up or make too much noise. My Dad taught me how to ride a bike without training wheels on a rutted, dirt road. There were no helmets. All I had for protection was his hand on the back of that seat. By the time I’d finished yelling, “Don’t let go, Daddy”, I was pedaling solo down the road with the wind in my hair, the sun on my face, and an exhilarating feeling of accomplishment. It was a great day!
Here’s a picture showing what would be three bike law violations today.
Didn’t we have fun? Well, my baby sister looks a bit nervous, but I’d do it again in a heartbeat. Wouldn’t you, Sis?
But do you really need a helmet? In Maine you don’t need a helmet to operate a motorcycle if you are over 17. Unless the park or facility in which you’re riding requires one, you don’t need a helmet to skateboard. However, since 1999 Maine has had this law on the books in Title 29 -
§2323. Bicycle helmet use; passenger seat use
1. Use of helmet. A person under 16 years of age who is an operator or a passenger on a bicycle on a public roadway or a public bikeway shall wear a helmet of good fit, positioned properly and fastened securely upon the head by helmet straps.
2. Passenger seat. A bicycle passenger must be seated properly in a bicycle passenger seat.
I can’t help but think back to an earlier time before seat belts and air bags when we kids got to ride in the open back of a pick-up truck so long as we didn’t stand up or make too much noise. My Dad taught me how to ride a bike without training wheels on a rutted, dirt road. There were no helmets. All I had for protection was his hand on the back of that seat. By the time I’d finished yelling, “Don’t let go, Daddy”, I was pedaling solo down the road with the wind in my hair, the sun on my face, and an exhilarating feeling of accomplishment. It was a great day!
Here’s a picture showing what would be three bike law violations today.
- No helmet for operator
- No helmet for passenger
- No passenger seat
Didn’t we have fun? Well, my baby sister looks a bit nervous, but I’d do it again in a heartbeat. Wouldn’t you, Sis?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)