Sunday, July 11, 2010
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
WHAT?!
Kagan declines to take side in 'Twilight' debate over Team Edward vs Team Jacob
By ANN SANNER and NATASHA T. METZLER , Associated Press
WASHINGTON - Team Edward or Team Jacob? That's one debate Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan steered clear of.
At her Senate confirmation hearing Wednesday, Kagan was asked by Sen. Amy Klobuchar about "The Twilight Saga: Eclipse" movie, which opened this week. The franchise has a huge following among teenage girls and has sparked debate over whether the tormented heroine Bella should choose Edward the vampire or Jacob the werewolf.
The senator jokingly asked Kagan's thoughts on "the vampire versus the werewolf."
Kagan, who has declined to say how she might rule on issues that could come before the court, dodged this one — presumably on other grounds. She said she hadn't seen the film, and wished the senator wouldn't pose the question.
Klobuchar, a Minnesota Democrat, said she realized Kagan "can't comment on future cases. So I'll leave that alone."
No really, I don't get it. Why? This makes me hate the legislature a little more.
By ANN SANNER and NATASHA T. METZLER , Associated Press
WASHINGTON - Team Edward or Team Jacob? That's one debate Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan steered clear of.
At her Senate confirmation hearing Wednesday, Kagan was asked by Sen. Amy Klobuchar about "The Twilight Saga: Eclipse" movie, which opened this week. The franchise has a huge following among teenage girls and has sparked debate over whether the tormented heroine Bella should choose Edward the vampire or Jacob the werewolf.
The senator jokingly asked Kagan's thoughts on "the vampire versus the werewolf."
Kagan, who has declined to say how she might rule on issues that could come before the court, dodged this one — presumably on other grounds. She said she hadn't seen the film, and wished the senator wouldn't pose the question.
Klobuchar, a Minnesota Democrat, said she realized Kagan "can't comment on future cases. So I'll leave that alone."
No really, I don't get it. Why? This makes me hate the legislature a little more.
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Peer Review?
So I'm going to copy and paste a potential opinion piece below. It's about the right length - I can't take it off on any further tangents for space reasons so any suggested expansions would have be minimal, but are there any suggestions before I give this one to the (more general) public?
=============================================================
I climbed into my car last week, turned the ignition and strapped myself in. It was several blocks before I realized who Gary Eichten was interviewing that day on Minnesota Public Radio’s Midday program.
Editorial Writer and Columnist Lori Sturdevant was answering questions about the difference between editorial and hard news writing after just having received the prestigious David Graven award for journalism.
“Perfect,” I thought, as I was on my way to Wilshire Elementary in St. Anthony to talk to two classes of third grade students about being a reporter.
“Perhaps I’ll be able to glean some pearls of wisdom from this seasoned veteran.”
But as the discussion began to veer toward political leanings, how many people confuse editorial stories with hard news stories, and whether a journalist should reveal their own biases to the public or the editor should make sure no such biases exist - I began to realize this would never translate to a group of eight and nine year olds.
How could I impress upon them the importance of individual vigilance and getting their information from more than one source instead of just one television show or just one newspaper?
How could I relate to them the cutbacks newspapers are facing with declining staffs and resources, or the fact that not since before the twentieth century has there been a time where there were fewer professional international correspondents than we have today?
And then I was struck with another realization: despite the impossibility of conveying this information to these students, these students are the ones who need it.
It’s probably too late to tell high school students to pick up a second or third newspaper everyday. Too late to lecture adults about the role of an editor, or the difference between an opinion and a news article.
And so I explained the importance of listening, but they were more focused on the ‘what’ portion of the article they were tasked with writing.
They had been given sheets to draft their own news story. At the top was a line for their headline. Below that, there were lines each for their byline, who, what, when, where and why.
“What do I put here?” I was asked by a student pointing to the “what” line.
“What is your story about?” I asked them, trying not to just give away the answer but to encourage them to think about it.
“I put that at the top.”
“Okay, you wrote the subject at the top, the headline should sum up what they are going to read about.”
“That’s what I wrote, what I do I put for what?”
So much for listening.
So when one boy approached me, asking the same question, I felt really defeated.
“What do I put for this,” he asked, again, pointing to “what.”
“Well, what is your article going to tell people about?” I asked him, continuing with the same method as only a crazy person might.
But then his eyes widened and in them I saw understanding - not just grasping the concept but taking it further to the implications of the question.
“Ohhh.” And he lowered his head and began to furiously scribble as his deadline approached. (Later this boy would tell me he was going to go home, take out his notebook and interview people; and I smiled for the Harriet the Spy I had helped encourage.)
And I felt giddy. Giddy! He understood. He listened. And he listened not to exactly what I was telling him, but he listened beyond those words, to their meaning.
And I knew there was hope. You can’t reach every child the same way, but that doesn’t mean you should give up. Kids can pick up detail, infer importance and grasp a deeper meaning, but it takes a community to get them there.
We must encourage inquisitiveness, share the joy in reading, teach the importance of personal responsibility.
It takes a village, it’s not a child's parents. On that day, I was part of St. Anthony’s village.
=============================================================
I climbed into my car last week, turned the ignition and strapped myself in. It was several blocks before I realized who Gary Eichten was interviewing that day on Minnesota Public Radio’s Midday program.
Editorial Writer and Columnist Lori Sturdevant was answering questions about the difference between editorial and hard news writing after just having received the prestigious David Graven award for journalism.
“Perfect,” I thought, as I was on my way to Wilshire Elementary in St. Anthony to talk to two classes of third grade students about being a reporter.
“Perhaps I’ll be able to glean some pearls of wisdom from this seasoned veteran.”
But as the discussion began to veer toward political leanings, how many people confuse editorial stories with hard news stories, and whether a journalist should reveal their own biases to the public or the editor should make sure no such biases exist - I began to realize this would never translate to a group of eight and nine year olds.
How could I impress upon them the importance of individual vigilance and getting their information from more than one source instead of just one television show or just one newspaper?
How could I relate to them the cutbacks newspapers are facing with declining staffs and resources, or the fact that not since before the twentieth century has there been a time where there were fewer professional international correspondents than we have today?
And then I was struck with another realization: despite the impossibility of conveying this information to these students, these students are the ones who need it.
It’s probably too late to tell high school students to pick up a second or third newspaper everyday. Too late to lecture adults about the role of an editor, or the difference between an opinion and a news article.
And so I explained the importance of listening, but they were more focused on the ‘what’ portion of the article they were tasked with writing.
They had been given sheets to draft their own news story. At the top was a line for their headline. Below that, there were lines each for their byline, who, what, when, where and why.
“What do I put here?” I was asked by a student pointing to the “what” line.
“What is your story about?” I asked them, trying not to just give away the answer but to encourage them to think about it.
“I put that at the top.”
“Okay, you wrote the subject at the top, the headline should sum up what they are going to read about.”
“That’s what I wrote, what I do I put for what?”
So much for listening.
So when one boy approached me, asking the same question, I felt really defeated.
“What do I put for this,” he asked, again, pointing to “what.”
“Well, what is your article going to tell people about?” I asked him, continuing with the same method as only a crazy person might.
But then his eyes widened and in them I saw understanding - not just grasping the concept but taking it further to the implications of the question.
“Ohhh.” And he lowered his head and began to furiously scribble as his deadline approached. (Later this boy would tell me he was going to go home, take out his notebook and interview people; and I smiled for the Harriet the Spy I had helped encourage.)
And I felt giddy. Giddy! He understood. He listened. And he listened not to exactly what I was telling him, but he listened beyond those words, to their meaning.
And I knew there was hope. You can’t reach every child the same way, but that doesn’t mean you should give up. Kids can pick up detail, infer importance and grasp a deeper meaning, but it takes a community to get them there.
We must encourage inquisitiveness, share the joy in reading, teach the importance of personal responsibility.
It takes a village, it’s not a child's parents. On that day, I was part of St. Anthony’s village.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
This seems average to me - that must say something.
Individuals who usually want to fit in and have interaction with others; they simply don't know how to do it. They may be socially awkward, not understanding of conventional social rules, or show a lack of empathy. They may have limited eye contact, seem to be unengaged in a conversation, and not understand the use of gestures. Interests in a particular subject may border on the obsessive. Children who frequently like to collect categories of things, such as rocks or bottle caps. They may be proficient in knowing categories of information, such as baseball statistics or Latin names of flowers. While they may have good rote memory skills, they have difficulty with abstract concepts.
Children may frequently have good language skills; they simply use language in different ways. Speech patterns may be unusual, lack inflection or have a rhythmic nature, or it may be formal, but too loud or high pitched. Children may not understand the subtleties of language, such as irony and humor, or they may not understand the give-and- take nature of a conversation.
These children may frequently have motor skill delays and may appear clumsy or awkward.
Reading The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time, I began to worry myself. I identified with this character. It wasn't just because the author did such a fantastic job of illustrating the character, I had been there. At one point, the character counts his footsteps - left right left right - to calm himself down. I narrate what I'm doing; getting out of the car for instance: push (seatbelt), off (seatbelt), out (keys of ignition), open (door), out (foot), out (other foot), close (door) etc.
There were other random things too, but not everything fit.
I've never connected to people well, I knew that autism was primarily about making those interpersonal connections. This book inspired me to do some further reading and I came across the above summary of a person with Aspergers.
It's not exactly autism because the person wants to fit in but doesn't know how.
And the avoiding eye contact thing. And the appearing like you're uninterested or not paying attention - people often think of that of me and I've never been able to figure out why. I've worked on looking more like I'm paying attention, but I usually focus on how I look more than what they're saying. With journalism I can focus on writing what they say and looking like I'm listening - then I have to review my notes to see what questions I should ask.
I understand social interactions. I'm just really bad at them and prefer to avoid anything social. I don't care to be around most people, in general.
And I am really bad with empathy. I'm always amazed when someone is like me (empathy, right - understanding from personal experience), like it's brand new every time.
Obviously I function alright, I just wonder how my childhood would have been different if I had been diagnosed with this. I don't think it was as prevalent an issue when I was a child, but had it been, I bet things would have turned out differently for me. I definitely showed the characteristics as a child and my behaviors should have set off alarms for at least some teachers.
Interesting to think about.
More interesting, I think, is the fact that it is so easy to relate to various "disorders" once the label is taken off. "She has Asperger's" feels so different from "She has a tough time in social situations."
One is more specific I guess.
Also interesting is the need to give things a label, a category, and file it away. She has Asperger's, that problem has been solved. Treat her this way because of it.
I'm not saying it's a bad thing - I'm all for better understanding, but I'm afraid the label limits that understanding. I know what it is because I know the name for it, is not enough, I think. This is the first time I've ever really read about autism, because I read a book with an autistic character I identified with. Before now I was content with my remedial understanding of autism and knowing that it didn't apply to me.
I'm still forming my own opinions on this one, I just wanted to point out things I found interesting.
Children may frequently have good language skills; they simply use language in different ways. Speech patterns may be unusual, lack inflection or have a rhythmic nature, or it may be formal, but too loud or high pitched. Children may not understand the subtleties of language, such as irony and humor, or they may not understand the give-and- take nature of a conversation.
These children may frequently have motor skill delays and may appear clumsy or awkward.
Reading The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time, I began to worry myself. I identified with this character. It wasn't just because the author did such a fantastic job of illustrating the character, I had been there. At one point, the character counts his footsteps - left right left right - to calm himself down. I narrate what I'm doing; getting out of the car for instance: push (seatbelt), off (seatbelt), out (keys of ignition), open (door), out (foot), out (other foot), close (door) etc.
There were other random things too, but not everything fit.
I've never connected to people well, I knew that autism was primarily about making those interpersonal connections. This book inspired me to do some further reading and I came across the above summary of a person with Aspergers.
It's not exactly autism because the person wants to fit in but doesn't know how.
And the avoiding eye contact thing. And the appearing like you're uninterested or not paying attention - people often think of that of me and I've never been able to figure out why. I've worked on looking more like I'm paying attention, but I usually focus on how I look more than what they're saying. With journalism I can focus on writing what they say and looking like I'm listening - then I have to review my notes to see what questions I should ask.
I understand social interactions. I'm just really bad at them and prefer to avoid anything social. I don't care to be around most people, in general.
And I am really bad with empathy. I'm always amazed when someone is like me (empathy, right - understanding from personal experience), like it's brand new every time.
Obviously I function alright, I just wonder how my childhood would have been different if I had been diagnosed with this. I don't think it was as prevalent an issue when I was a child, but had it been, I bet things would have turned out differently for me. I definitely showed the characteristics as a child and my behaviors should have set off alarms for at least some teachers.
Interesting to think about.
More interesting, I think, is the fact that it is so easy to relate to various "disorders" once the label is taken off. "She has Asperger's" feels so different from "She has a tough time in social situations."
One is more specific I guess.
Also interesting is the need to give things a label, a category, and file it away. She has Asperger's, that problem has been solved. Treat her this way because of it.
I'm not saying it's a bad thing - I'm all for better understanding, but I'm afraid the label limits that understanding. I know what it is because I know the name for it, is not enough, I think. This is the first time I've ever really read about autism, because I read a book with an autistic character I identified with. Before now I was content with my remedial understanding of autism and knowing that it didn't apply to me.
I'm still forming my own opinions on this one, I just wanted to point out things I found interesting.
Monday, April 26, 2010
Atlas Shrugged. *Spoilers*
Well, I did it. I think I started this book in October or November with the intent to finish it by the end of the year. Now, at the end of April, I can finally put it behind me.
I gave this book four stars. Because it made me think and feel so many passionate things, but it wasn't written well and the editing was done even more poorly. Galt's speech at the end - made me like him a little less and I didn't understand Dagny's attraction to Galt beyond the fact that she was supposed to like him.
Also, I think this book would have benefited from being a series; with her flushing out some of the ideas better and removing some of the textbook style speeches. In my head it's broken up into several books - Dagny's history being probably my favorite and her vacation with Rearden another. I mean, it was good enough for Tolkein so Rand could've just gotten over herself and spread it out a little. I don't think Peter Jackson will be tackling these any time soon, and I'm not saying it's because it's one book and not three, but think of the merchandising possibilities she lost out on.
I've talked with Lindsey about this, too, but it's amazing how many parallels I can draw between the way the government is run now and the way things work in her dystopia. The fact that fifty years after being published, her book is still relevant, is amazing. She gets major kudos for that one. Reading this book also reminded me of Ishmael - a book about rejecting traditions. While these ideas may be the unpopular ones, that doesn't mean they are without merit. While it is harsh, ultimately I agree with Rand - everyone should pursue their own interests. I've never believed in altruism, because I do believe in reason and logic. It doesn't make sense for an individual to do something that doesn't benefit them. Giving to charity -- makes you feel a certain way about yourself, theoretically pleasant, and that's why you do it. And if everyone was looking out for their own best interest, everyone's best interests would be looked out for. As for those who are unable - my response is hopefully they have someone who chooses to take care of them. Parents choose to take care of their offspring for whatever selfish (not a bad word) reason they choose because they find some personal gain in it. Thank goodness for families I guess.
I do disagree with one major point. She kept preaching about not forcing the mind. However the PURPOSE of Galt is to FORCE everyone to think like him - or kill them. The breakout scene frustrated me.
But the fact that I thought so deeply about what she was writing and applied the ideas to the world around me, for me, means this is a significant piece of literature that helped shape the person I am. I took it out of the context of her America and held it up to mine to better form my definition of the world.
And isn't it awesome when books do that?
I gave this book four stars. Because it made me think and feel so many passionate things, but it wasn't written well and the editing was done even more poorly. Galt's speech at the end - made me like him a little less and I didn't understand Dagny's attraction to Galt beyond the fact that she was supposed to like him.
Also, I think this book would have benefited from being a series; with her flushing out some of the ideas better and removing some of the textbook style speeches. In my head it's broken up into several books - Dagny's history being probably my favorite and her vacation with Rearden another. I mean, it was good enough for Tolkein so Rand could've just gotten over herself and spread it out a little. I don't think Peter Jackson will be tackling these any time soon, and I'm not saying it's because it's one book and not three, but think of the merchandising possibilities she lost out on.
I've talked with Lindsey about this, too, but it's amazing how many parallels I can draw between the way the government is run now and the way things work in her dystopia. The fact that fifty years after being published, her book is still relevant, is amazing. She gets major kudos for that one. Reading this book also reminded me of Ishmael - a book about rejecting traditions. While these ideas may be the unpopular ones, that doesn't mean they are without merit. While it is harsh, ultimately I agree with Rand - everyone should pursue their own interests. I've never believed in altruism, because I do believe in reason and logic. It doesn't make sense for an individual to do something that doesn't benefit them. Giving to charity -- makes you feel a certain way about yourself, theoretically pleasant, and that's why you do it. And if everyone was looking out for their own best interest, everyone's best interests would be looked out for. As for those who are unable - my response is hopefully they have someone who chooses to take care of them. Parents choose to take care of their offspring for whatever selfish (not a bad word) reason they choose because they find some personal gain in it. Thank goodness for families I guess.
I do disagree with one major point. She kept preaching about not forcing the mind. However the PURPOSE of Galt is to FORCE everyone to think like him - or kill them. The breakout scene frustrated me.
But the fact that I thought so deeply about what she was writing and applied the ideas to the world around me, for me, means this is a significant piece of literature that helped shape the person I am. I took it out of the context of her America and held it up to mine to better form my definition of the world.
And isn't it awesome when books do that?
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Nerd dream
So I realized this dream was a good one after I told my sister and she made a face like she was ready to commit me.
I don't remember all of it, but I do remember there were Nazis. And that I was reminiscent of Anne Frank, but still me, so not actually Jewish (that's what all of those jokes about me being a Catholic Jew get me). Nevertheless, the Nazis were still out to get me and I had to travel incognito.
And at the end of the dream, we were at some kind of (literally)underground sci fi convention. Nerds everywhere. And the Nazis had me cornered. Somehow I got the nerds to lift me up and pass me over their heads, as I shouted back to the Nazis, "I'm going to go kill Darth Vader." At this point all the nerds cheered but I stopped them and said, "No, no, I'm not Luke Skywalker." They kept passing me along and I was contemplating the "having to kill your father to become your own man" idea in Star Wars when I woke up.
This may have been the nerdiest dream I have ever had. Analyze THAT one, psych people. I think for this one I'd have to go with Freud - sometimes a nerd is just a nerd.
I don't remember all of it, but I do remember there were Nazis. And that I was reminiscent of Anne Frank, but still me, so not actually Jewish (that's what all of those jokes about me being a Catholic Jew get me). Nevertheless, the Nazis were still out to get me and I had to travel incognito.
And at the end of the dream, we were at some kind of (literally)underground sci fi convention. Nerds everywhere. And the Nazis had me cornered. Somehow I got the nerds to lift me up and pass me over their heads, as I shouted back to the Nazis, "I'm going to go kill Darth Vader." At this point all the nerds cheered but I stopped them and said, "No, no, I'm not Luke Skywalker." They kept passing me along and I was contemplating the "having to kill your father to become your own man" idea in Star Wars when I woke up.
This may have been the nerdiest dream I have ever had. Analyze THAT one, psych people. I think for this one I'd have to go with Freud - sometimes a nerd is just a nerd.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
