Archive for March, 2010

Some Thoughts on the Efficacy of DARE-Type Programs and a Funny Teacher Story

March 14, 2010

Some Thoughts on the Efficacy of DARE-Type Programs

My existential perspective would suggest that it is heroic to try to enlist support across our institutions to attempt to reduce violence and drug abuse whether or not school-based programs to mitigate the ills that effect our society are actually effective (a hotly debated topic). But all good-doers who attempt to discover the perfect pedagogy to fix whatever ails us would do well to remember that the instructional day is finite and teachers already have a lot on their plate (particularly in an age when knuckleheaded politicians would have us fire teachers and administrators based upon student test scores.) This all brings me to a discussion about DARE (Drug Awareness and Resistance Education) and it also gives me an opportunity to relate one of my favorite teacher stories.

Many people have argued about the efficacy and appropriateness of programs like DARE because there is little evidence that it changes student behavior. But seeking quantifiable changes in societal behavior is asking a lot of any curriculum. And even if DARE did cause, say, one out of a hundred kids to say no to drugs, or if it were to decrease in any way the harmful effects of substance abuse in our society, how could we possibly measure such success in light of so many other confounding variables?

Like all human behavior, substance abuse involves a multiplicity of causal relationships which are difficult to gauge, and some things are easier to measure than others. Let’s look at efforts to reduce traffic fatalities, for example. It is obvious that enacting mandatory seatbelt laws and reducing speed limits will result in demonstrably fewer traffic fatalities. But how do we measure the effects of educational programs which operate on the margins of these statistics, such as traffic school and public service announcements? Just because it would be difficult for a statistician to isolate the slender portion of a decline in traffic fatalities attributable to such efforts, we would be foolish to abandon such efforts. That’s how I feel about DARE. What harm could it do? (There are those who argue that DARE actually teaches kids how to be more effective drugs users, but I find this claim dubious. There was, however, one time when Officer S____ did a lesson on the dangers of Whiteout, which was certainly news to me. I immediately put all my Whiteout away.)

Funny Teacher Story

Say what you want about DARE, it supplied me with one of my best teacher stories. One of the first things that Officer S____ always tells the kids is that it’s okay to relate stories about people they know, but they should not use real names.

So if officer S____ is talking about, say, methamphetamines, it is not appropriate for a student to say, “My uncle has a meth lab out in San Bernardino.”

Instead, the student should say, “Someone I know has a crank factory in his garage.”

So one day when Officer S____ was describing the perils of drunk driving, a student (we’ll call him David) rose his hand.

“My dad drives when he’s drunk all the time.” said David.

Officer S____ quickly cut him off. “You mean, someone you know drinks and drives on occasion”

David responded in a very condescending tone, “Well yeah, I know him. He’s my dad!”

by Richard W. Bray

Chester and Pork with Sauerkraut (by Don)

March 14, 2010

Chester

Pork with Sauerkraut

Ingredients:
Two jars of Sauerkraut
Three Pounds Pork Shoulder

Directions:

1) Boil the pork for 40 minutes in enough water to cover the meat
2) Drain, cut up pork and remove bones
3) Add sauerkraut and simmer for 20 minutes

Optional Ingredients: Bacon, Apples and Onions

Serving Suggestions:
Serve over baked or mashed potatoes

Ten Things I Learned from Reading Lucky Jim which aren’t Actually True

March 12, 2010

bbbbking

(Editor’s Note: The novel Lucky Jim by Kingsley Amis is often compared to the works of Evelyn Waugh for its alleged hilarity. Sadly, I found the book to be mean-spirited and stupid and not that funny at all. Maybe I just like people too much.)

Ten Things I Learned from Reading
Lucky Jim which aren’t Actually True

1. Drinking solves more problems than it causes.
2. Most academics are pathetic dweebs.
3. Post-WWII colleges in England admitted way too many of the wrong type of people.
4. Most academic writing is worthless drivel.
5. Women tend to become less sexually attractive as you get to know them.
6. History shouldn’t be wasted on the unwashed masses.
7. Most people are ridiculous clowns.
8. Classical music is for losers.
9. Life is a sick, sad joke without a punch line.
10. You will be rescued by a rich benefactor so long as you don’t give too much of a damn about anything.

by Richard W. Bray

You’re Not Coming to my Birthday Party

March 10, 2010

 

Lucy Sparkles

You’re Not Coming to my Birthday Party

You wouldn’t let me pet your kangaroo
You didn’t take the time to tell me what’s new
You think you’re the world’s biggest smarty
You’re not coming to my birthday party

You hid my shorts. You ate my snack
You said awful things behind my back
You pushed me down and made me tardy
You’re not coming to my birthday party

You said my clothes were tattered and torn
You said you wished I’d never been born
You said it to George and you said it to Artie
You’re not coming to my birthday party

You don’t take baths, you smelly old lout
You scatter your grime all about
You’re filthy and stinky and stupid and farty
You’re not coming to my birthday party

by Richard W. Bray

What’s a War Junkie? Che v Zapata

March 9, 2010

bbbche shirt

bbbzap

What’s a War Junkie? Che v Zapata

I’ve taken some flak over my inclusion of Che Guevara in the poem War-Junkie Worshipers. My purpose here is not to verify whether or not Guevara fantasized about blowing up New York City, or if he wanted to ban the saxophone because it was too bourgeoisie. And I really don’t care if he actually had a medical degree. Separating this particular man from his myth is nearly impossible because he has become such a totemic figure for both his followers and his detractors.

But by the mere facts of his existence upon which we all can agree, Guevara was clearly a War Junkie. Instead of working to make his homeland a more just society, he went to three different countries in search of military glory. Even when he had the opportunity to build a New Society in Cuba, Guevara chose instead to go gallivanting across the globe looking for more people to shoot.

By way of contrast, let’s compare Che to that great Mexican Cincinnatus figure, Emiliano Zapata. Zapata was an highly respected and extremely gifted horseman who certainly would have achieved a comfortable existence had his life not been interrupted by the Mexican Revolution. Zapata, a natural leader of men, reluctantly came to fight for his own people only after it became clear that war was inevitable. Sadly, Zapata’s visage is simply no match for Guevara’s in the minds of so many silkscreen warriors.

Most soldiers are not War Junkies, and some War Junkies aren’t even soldiers. Generals George Washington, George Marshall, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Colin Powell, and Colonel Andrew Bacevich are just a few obvious examples of men whose exploits included both the Sword and the Ploughshare, so to speak. And millions of American soldiers returned home after serving admirably in our many wars without the slightest desire to ever return to the battlefield. Many (probably most) of them never even wanted to study war no more in any way.

btw, Please keep the emails coming, whether you agree with me or not.

laughterhopesockeye@yahoo.com

by Richard W. Bray

Max & Mia and Chile Verde (by Monica)

March 6, 2010

Max & Mia

Max Solo

Chile Verde

Ingredients

2 pounds of meat cut into 1-inch chunks(chicken or pork)
1 large Bell Pepper (Roasted)
Tomatillos (boiled whole with a little water)
3 Jalapenos (Roasted)
Cilantro
Garlic
Salt and Pepper to taste
Vegetable Oil

1) Roast chiles and place in bag to sweat; remove stems, seeds, and skin
2) Season meat with salt and pepper and brown in a heavy-bottom skillet
3) Remove excess fat and set aside
4)Pulse together in a blender chopped bell pepper, tomatillos, jalapenos, cilantro, garlic, salt, adding a little water from the boiled tomatillos or stock
5) If your skillet is large enough, add everything or remove to a larger skillet combining all ingredients
6) Bring to a boil and simmer all ingredients for about an hour to an hour and a half.

Cheese-Eating Surrender Monkeys–Some Thoughts on Courage and Freedom

March 3, 2010

Cheese-Eating Surrender Monkeys–Some Thoughts on Courage and Freedom

Our pathetic tendency to depict France as a nation of, in the words of Bart Simpson, “cheese-eating surrender monkeys” is tolerated across the political spectrum despite its absurd lack of historical legitimacy. Such silliness overlooks two salient facts: the French army was the scourge of Europe for centuries, and only one nation has lost more soldiers fighting in wars alongside America than France. Furthermore, the French mindlessly continued to sacrifice their soldiers for lost causes in Algeria and Indochina. (Of course, attributing such actions to a particular nation’s overall level of courage is a dubious assumption which may indeed conflate courage with stupidity. How much courage does it take to send other people off to die in the name of imperialism?) But the point remains that many people who really should have known better justified the foolhardy invasion of Iraq by constructing a straw man of French cowardice:

“If those perfidious Frenchies are against this war, then it must be a good idea. Now, let’s all have some Freedom Fries.”

But questioning the courage of other peoples does not enhance our national stature; in fact, it diminishes us. The hundred thousand or so Frenchman who died defending their country from the invading Nazis before their leaders surrendered were just as brave as the soldiers who defeated them, but courage alone does not win wars. Armies have gotten routed throughout history for many reasons that were not the responsibility of individual soldiers—inferior technology, smaller numbers, strategic blunders, etc. It’s odd that anyone would attribute the French surrender in WWII to cowardice, particularly in light of the ghastly casualties that nation endured during WWI. Curiously, I’ve never heard anyone accuse, say, General Cornwallis of being a poltroon.

Risking death and dismemberment in order to defend kith and kin is the supreme act of selflessness, and you don’t have to take my word for it: “Greater love has none than this, that one lays down his life for his friends.” (John 15:13) But it is unwise (and perhaps even ultimately depraved) to suggest that Americans are essentially more willing to make such sacrifices. Thus, to argue that America is free because we have the bravest soldiers in the world contains the seeds of fascism because it denigrates the humanity of people living in all other nations.

Americans have been able to maintain our democracy for over two hundred years because of the strength of our institutions, including, notably, the professionalism of our armed forces. Unlike the armies in so many other countries, our military has remained deferential to civilian authority through thick and thin. Even when we elected stupid and incompetent leaders like Lyndon Johnson and George W. Bush who misused and abused our soldiers by sending them on untenable, immoral and foolish errands, our soldiers have saluted and said, “Yes, sir” to their civilian masters. (Theirs is not to wonder why.) Occasionally, some decorated popinjay with a gargantuan ego, a McClellan or a MacArthur, has attempted to buck his president. Thankfully, however, our armed forces have never mutinied nor revolted en masse, and they have never attempted to directly interfere with the electoral process. This is one of our nation’s greatest contributions to civilization, right up there with The Bill of Rights, Louis Armstrong and Emily Dickinson.

So yes, America does owe its freedoms to the courage and professionalism of our foreparents, both in and out of uniform. But we need to find a way to acknowledge this debt without fetishizing our soldiers, and laughing at the alleged cowardice of others makes us all a bit smaller.

by Richard W. Bray

We Think by Feeling

March 2, 2010

Theodore Roethke

David Hume

We think by feeling. What is there to know?

–Theodore Roethke

Morals and criticism are not so properly objects of understanding as of taste and sentiment. Beauty, whether moral or natural, is felt, more properly than perceived.

–David Hume

Emotions ignite moral judgments. Reason follows in the wake of this dynamic….Conscious moral reasoning often plays no role in our moral judgments, and in many cases reflects a post-hoc justification or rationalization of previously held biases or beliefs.

–Marc D. Hauser, Moral Minds (24-25)

We Think by Feeling

In my last post I objected to clever and stylistic cinematic portrayals of violence because violence is the ugliest and stupidest thing that people do. I selected four movies for disapprobation, Snatch, Mr. and Mrs. Smith, Pulp Fiction, and Kill Bill. (It is no accident that two of these movies were created by Quentin Terantino, but more on that later.) But it dawned on me after I made the post that the primary rationale that I could come up with for why Mr. and Mrs. Smith is such a morally execrable movie (it makes light of those wretched people who kill others instead of exploring the contours of their depravity) is also true of Prizzi’s Honor, one of my favorite movies. Of course, I could try to convince myself that Prizzi’s Honor deserves an exemption from my rule about glamorizing violence because it is a highly ironic work of art.

Unfortunately, I’m pretty sure that whoever came up with Mr and Mrs. Smith was trying to be ironic, and every movie is a work of art (but not necessarily a well-achieved work of art.) It has also occurred to me that every reason I can come up with for why I never enjoyed Married with Children (it’s about a bunch of pathetic losers who are constantly abusing each other) is true about Two and a Half Men, one of my favorite shows.

Because emotions ignite moral judgments, it is my feeling that violence in film should be just as ugly and stupid as it is in real life. That’s why I like Reservoir Dogs so much more than Pulp Fiction (Michael Madsen’s happy dancing torturer scene notwithstanding). Terantino is, of course, a lightening rod for people who object to violent movies, particularly when he says asinine things like this:

“Violence in the movies can be cool,” he says. “It’s just another color to work with. When Fred Astaire dances, it doesn’t mean anything. Violence is the same. It doesn’t mean anything. It’s a color.”

The maddening thing about Terantino is that he such an idiotic savant. He writes brilliant dialogue, gets unexpectedly marvelous performances out of his actors and he’s even capable of creating rather touching scenes. I was very moved, for example, by the way Robert Forster revealed his vulnerable side to Pam Grier in Jackie Brown by talking about how degrading it was to sit alone for hours in a dark room that reeked of cat piss in order to do the only job he was qualified for.

So is every work of criticism simply an attempt to rationalize feelings? I’m afraid so.

by Richard W. Bray