In which I take myself to task and high-five Fred

I have begun several blog entries that remain in the embryonic stage, and I may leave them in the incubator lest they turn into mindless rants. Indeed, I should perhaps just delete them, because in my blog here, I sign everything I write, and I make some effort not to embarrass myself.

But I sometimes go slumming in the world of anonymous discussion, and while I aim to exercise self control even there, I do not always resist the urge to punch someone right in their anonymous nose. I remember some jerk smirking, when California's Proposition 8 was declared unconstitutional, "if I want to marry my right hand, is that okay?" I fired back, "Absolutely. I'll send the Superglue." Or to some guy who says President Obama is pandering to Muslims: "How the hell is a mosque a shrine to mass murderers? I don't know whose backside you're kissing, but whoever it is is blocking your view of reality." I'm not always crude, though. Sometimes I am self-righteous instead, presenting myself as a better American than someone who hates immigrants or as a more enlightened Christian than someone who anonymously consigns other anonymi to the flames of hell.

Now see, one reason I started blogging was to encourage myself to make sense instead of adding to nonsense. It's early weeks yet, too soon to give up.

I also have another mode of anonymous personality: klkt


Instead of being an angry smart ass, klkt + a picture of books sometimes tries to engage people in actual conversations, and it is cool when it works. One common gripe about President Obama's conduct of war is that he "shackles" the military with nonsensical rules, making it impossible for them to go ahead and win a war. I think the "nonsensical rules" have to do with silly things like human rights and limiting civilian casualties, but I could be wrong. So I pushed this very question to "Fred," who said he missed Bush because Obama shackles the military. What exactly has Obama done differently? klkt wanted to know. Well, Fred clarified, maybe not Obama so much as Congress. But again, klkt pushed, what has Congress done exactly? I don't understand the specifics. Fred, to his great credit, replied that "I'll be honest with you, I'll have to reseach that further to give an accurate answer. But I would like to disuss this then. Thx for the intelligent and unemotional conversation." Now that, my dear blog readers, was a real triumph of online discussion and I am proud of myself and of Fred for managing a civil interchange in the midst of the usual mud wrestling.

I might have responded to Fred's initial "i miss bush" by saying, "then throw the other shoe," but that would have been too easy. I wonder if Fred will find any credible information on the subject of the shackled US military? But I should go look it up myself so that if we bump into each other again I will be able to explain my view.

Hell's Handbasket: The decline of the English language, young person's digital division

This post is the first in the "Hell's Handbasket" series. Hell's Handbasket entries will weigh the merits, according to my own apocalyptic vision and no one else's, of alarmist reports as to the Decline of Civilization As We Know It. Right now I have several alerts on the Hell's Handbasket short list: The Constitution is Burning and ______ Set it on Fire; Social Justice Christians are Ruining the Country for Antisocial Unjust Christians; Harry Potter is Funneling Readers Away from the Important Stuff (A Sequel to the 1851 "Hell's Handbasket by Hawthorne" entry titled Damned Mobs of Scribbling Women Steal Readers from The Scarlet Letter); and, Today's College Students are Even Worse than Yesterday's College Students.

For now, I let these subjects hang fire a bit longer, and turn my attention to the English language itself, which is, according to many self-authorized sources close to that language, in fast decline. If we don't save the language, after all, then how will I write the next charmingly literate entry in my Hell's Handbasket Series? So, first things first. The language is burning. And it is being roasted by such suspect youthful practices as emailing, texting, and twittering. [Don't make me pause to reassure you that yes, I am well aware that people of all ages email, text, and twitter. But the fact is that digi-text is essentially a young person's language, like Rock and Roll was originally a young person's music. Right Mick? Right Keith?] For an excellent model of anti-young-people's-language tirade, amuse yourself with my favorite Crabby Old Dude's rant.

I will spare you a litany of Historical Hysteria, of times when the English language was spotted going straight to the devil but somehow re-emerged, or never got there in the first place, or was heading to a different destination altogether. But now as in earlier generations, what alarmists and other crabby dudes call illiteracy among young people is probably just different literacy. In my view, the rapidly evolving world of digital communication is not ruining English. On the contrary, it demonstrates the utter awesomeness of our language.You know that an unwritten law for the progress of civilization is that Young People develop slang or other offenses to grown-ups' language to show their defiance of authority, to develop more private ways of expression, to establish personal and group identities, and so on and so forth. It's just that before technology, the slang and other linguistic creativity demonstrated by Young People was primarily an oral tradition. Passing notes in class is horribly primitive by comparison.

Now, you see, most American Young People have constant access to technology whereby they create and distribute a written language. Who needs a press? who needs paper? who needs ink? Many a printer these days gathers dust. This new language delights me even though I am an outsider of the dialect. I'm fascinated by just how visual it is. You cannot translate most digi-speak to conventional writing, let alone speaking, without losing most of the message. Here are some examples that I harvested from my teenage daughter's Facebook page. At first glance they are easy to read, but look more closely at the details and uncertainty emerges.

Sleepover with brittany andd mariamm.((:

Emoticons have become standard practice in digi-speak, but what does the double smile mean here? Is Devin extra happy about this sleepover? Also, I thought the smiley faces usually pointed the other way (as in the next example). Here, Devin did not use an exclamation point, but maybe the double smile serves the same purpose. Then again, maybe something is meant that I know nothing of. Teens are like that, you know. My daughter, be it noted, writes excellent standard English as well as clever digi-speak.

Happyyyy birthdayyy Devin!! :):)

Now, I have a Facebook page, and lots of people wished ME happy birthday, too, but almost all of my messages were written in standard English, perhaps with a simple abbreviation here and there. Here we see a different version of the double smiley face, with eyes as well as smile duplicated. And we have multiple "y"s, four on Happy and three on Birthday.

I have asked Devin how she knows when to tack on extra letters and, true to her native speaker status, she could not tell me. You just do it, Mom, you know, whatever. [Accompanied by quizzical "Why ARE you bothering with this?" look and obligatory eye roll.] Extra letters may simply be a form of emphasis, and sometimes the extra letters are internal to a word, though typically they are repeated final letters. On the other hand, it may be extra letters are stylistic flourishes comparable to the curly-cues I used to add to my in-class notes.

These extra letters appear on texts as well as on Facebook, where they require several different key punches and even, on more primitive phones, pauses between punches. So they must be important to the impact of the communication. Further than that, I am not confident in speculating.

Devin:) ima call yu in a bit, so yu betta answer! I dont care if yu have to repeat yurself a million times because of my mentally challenged phone, we will talkk.;)

I happen to know that this correspondent of Devin's writes with standard English clarity when she so desires, and holds a perfect, or nearly perfect, grade point average.

[initial comment] babe, yur haircut is hotttttt.(;;; iloveyouu♥

[answer] awhh thankyouu boo(: i think its a little short but its okayy(;
&& i love you too♥ (:

Notice how much more is going on here than a simple exchange consisting of "I like your new haircut" and "Thank you." They would not add all those other symbols if they did not mean something.

Here's the obligatory disclaimer: Students must learn Standard English so that they can grow up to change it. They must learn to switch their language from the digi-world of texting or twittering to conventional writing and speech. Over time, whatever innovations may have lasting value to the language will be incorporated into standard practices, and whatever is of ephemeral usefulness--think "groovy"--will be sifted out or dissolved. Much slang does not even survive one four-year high school generation which is why older people (here meaning, anyone over 22) use it at their risk. So be at peace.

And as for Literature! Fear not for literature. Every generation has its incredibly talented authors and they will not be confused, let alone defeated, by alternative uses of language. And what do incredibly talented authors do anyway but create with the language? Excellent literature is a more advanced and complex form of the playfulness of teen-speak.

at least thatt is myy viewww!!!!!! :) ;)

An Appeal to Grammar Snipers

Call me English Teacher.* Some years ago - never mind how long precisely - having little or no money in my purse, and nothing particular to interest me after graduation, I thought I would teach first year composition a little and see the educational world from the other side of the desk. Since making that first voyage, I have never ceased to teach writing in addition to whatever else I am doing. Year upon year I have devoted myself to improving other people's writing skills, to helping them express themselves better or achieve greater success in the classroom and in the workforce. From the front of the room, I declare that people will judge others by the quality of their writing. Oft have I repeated that to reluctant ears. It is a way I have of driving off the spleen and regulating the circulation.

Whenever I find myself growing grim about the mouth; whenever it is a damp, drizzly November in my soul; whenever I find myself involuntarily pausing before a grammar handbook, and ringing up the errors on every paper I read or write; and especially whenever my compulsive editing gets such an upper hand of me, that it requires a strong moral principle to prevent me from deliberately stepping into the hallway, and methodically knocking people's hats off - then, I account it high time to re-think my priorities.

People do judge you, as a person, by the quality of your writing, but should they? Whenever I catch someone putting random vowels or double letters in the middle of "sep_rate" or writing "being that" instead of "because," or misusing homonyms such that "peace of mind" becomes "piece of mine," am I justified in discounting that person's intelligence, work ethic, and vital principles of being? Well, sure I am. But does it follow that I am not obliged to consider what (if anything) that person is trying to say? May I ignore ideas when they appear in clashing plaid, or when they wear socks with sandals or baggy jeans sliding down their backside? I pause in the act of knocking off yet another hat and say to myself, you may not! If you, KKT, are to live up to your lofty ideal of respecting persons because they are people and not because they are people educated to write and think and dress like you, you must pay attention to what they say as well as how they say it. That is my view.

Dear reader-of-my-blog, you need not remind me that quality of expression is closely tied to quality of thought, or that unclear writing usually muffles foggy thinking. I know this as well as any English teacher of uncertain years does. But when we read we strive to understand. That's what reading is. If we are committed to open and honest dialogue, we should pay attention to badly written ideas as well as to fluently expressed ones. Bad writers may have voices we should listen to. Go ahead and score off writers on account of their grammar, usage, and mechanics--I know I will not be able to resist--but when you're done with that, note what it was they were trying to say before you decide how and whether to respond.

Sail only a little ways into the restless Internet sea of blogs, discussions, comments, and viewpoints and you will discover that behind every wave floats a grim grammar patrol, taking aim at hapless souls who dare to offer their ideas, rants, dreams, or despair in leaky boats. This sniping often substitutes for the pistol and ball of honest argument. Attacking someone through the gaps in their writing defenses becomes a gleeful game. Almost anyone, regardless of their own level of skill with language, can sometimes identify the errors of others, and whack away at the knuckles of the unwary. Indeed, there is an error in this blog entry, which I leave in place to see who will pick it out and harpoon it.

With a philosophical flourish Ahab throws himself after his spear; I quietly take to blogging. There is nothing surprising in this. If they but knew it, almost all men and women in their degree, some time or other, cherish very nearly the same feelings towards the unexplored ocean of their own minds.


*This post is written in honor of Herman Melville, a writer of stunning talent and originality who, through his fiction writing, gave voice to many less literate than he.

On Religion and Same Sex Marriage

Disclaimer: This entry talks about the Bible, including Jesus, and about faith-based support for same-sex marriage. However, it does not preach on behalf of Christianity but instead presents an argument based on close reading of Biblical texts. The life and teachings of Jesus provide strong reasons for supporting same-sex marriage. If you're interested in hearing this argument, read on. If religion-talk makes you jumpy, give this one a pass.

All Christian-based Biblical interpretation should begin and end with Jesus' unambiguous answer to the question "which commandment in the law is the greatest?": "'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.' And a second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." (emphasis added, from Matthew 22). It follows that any interpretation of scripture that conflicts with these two commandments, to love God and to love one's neighbors, is suspect. Certainly, any interpretation of any part of the Bible that justifies hatred of others is flat-out wrong. You cannot deny that without rejecting the keystone of Jesus' teachings. That is the first point.

The next step is to examine Jesus' own words and actions for a model of how to interpret "the law and the prophets" in light of the keystone teaching. The paradigm is clear: when Jesus broke laws, it was always in deference to the high commandments. Jesus was a radical and rebel and he defied authority again and again, though it is easy to forget this when so many noisy Christians have wrapped him in an American flag and sent him off to the polls to vote the straight GOP ticket. But that's a topic for another day. For now, note that Jesus was a rebel with a cause, and that rebellion was justified by appeal to the higher authority of the first two commandments. For example, he was busted for working on the Sabbath, both because his disciples plucked some grain to eat and because he was healing the disabled. His response: wouldn't you save your only sheep if it had fallen into a pit on the Sabbath? A human is of much higher value than a sheep. Therefore, "It is lawful to do good on the Sabbath" (from Matthew 12).

"How much more valuable is a human being than a sheep?" And not just valuable in the abstract, but valuable in an everyday way. Quality of life mattered, health mattered, comfort mattered, or why would you heal someone or feed someone? Why not tell them to endure, because suffering is good for you? Or that suffering is how God shows us he loves us? Or why not tell them it is un-spiritual to worry about health and well-being when our minds should always be turned toward heaven? Why not? Well, for a Christian the answer would be, because that's not how Jesus lived. And that is point two. Quality of human life matters.

You may now see where this argument is going. Humans are domestic and social creatures. Most of us seek our deepest fulfillment through the closest human relationships. And there is no closer bond than marriage. Speaking from the experience of a 25-year old marriage, I cannot imagine having been forced to go through life alone because society refused to sanction my marriage, or support our home and the raising of our children. If I were not straight, I would be expected by most churches to bypass the rich experiences, both painful and joyful, that come from nowhere except the most intimate bond with another human being. Many Christians would tell me that being born gay meant God wanted me to be celibate. (Never mind that Protestant churches have never hailed the celibate life as anything special.) Other Christians would tell me I was diseased and Jesus would cure me, and still others that I had chosen my own perversion in utter defiance of the most sacred laws of God and Nature and would deserve the punishment that was surely waiting for me (accompanied by gleeful wriggling in anticipation of my eternal misery).

Living without marriage, without a committed relationship around which to build a home, to raise children, to grow in every possible way -- personally, spiritually, professionally -- my life would be so very much less than it is now, I myself would be so much less. [I do not mean to say I think every person should get married and have a family. I am speaking on behalf of people who DO want that, with no disrespect to single people, or people who freely choose celibacy.] The churches have always taught and reinforced the essential role of marriage, family, and home. Why should that stop now? The church can be the most valuable support network for couples and families navigating the tricky waters of life. Many churches are already welcoming congregations and that progress is sure to continue. The church has never been wrong when it came down on the side of human rights.

That would be because that's where Jesus always stood. Let me reinforce the sheep metaphor and I shall be done on this topic for now. Why should I be forced to choose between my husband and my church? Without my family, I would be like unto the lost sheep in the ravine desperate for a hand to reach out to me. And see, my quality of life matters. Jesus said so, and acted accordingly. "It is lawful to do good" -- on the Sabbath, and every other day as well.

That is my view.

It's not a question of black or white

OK. So I'm reading in this evening's news about how the NAACP passed a resolution condemning Tea Party racism, and then how the Tea Party takes umbrage at this smear. Tea Party leaders are mostly smart enough not to publicly embrace their racist followers. But the racists do think the Tea Party is on their side, and I'm sure the Tea Party accepts their donations.

If you are unsure that outright racists support the Tea Party, look at the junk on the back side of the news stories -- all those public comment pages. You'll find plenty of evidence that ignorance and bigotry are alive, though diseased rather than "well." [Do I really have to throw in here that I know not all Tea Partiers are racist and I know not all racists are Tea Partiers? Fine. Please note the disclaimer.] Many of these fine thinkers trot out "reverse racism" to justify their own prejudice. Is there any way to explain to them the fatal flaw in their reasoning? That in spite of the appearance here of a clear contrast between "black" and "white," the terms, as developed in American history and as used to the present day, are not parallel. "White" is not the opposite of "Black." Instead, "White," when it comes to race in America, means "not Black." And that is a distinction that makes a vast deal of difference. For hundreds of years, it meant the difference between slavery and freedom. The point was not your skin color, but your heritage.

Check your gut-level reaction to these terms: Black Student Union, White Student Union. When I was in college, there was an active BSU group (now called AAU), and some dimwit demanded a "White Student Union." If you are a clear-thinking person with the least bit of sensitivity to language and culture, the idea of "White Student Union" gives you the creeps, and rightly so. Just go ahead and call it the "Not-Black Student Union" or, more simply, the "KKK."

Although I knew it would be futile, I wrote up a shorter form of this argument and posted it in the midst of a news feeding frenzy. I was in the company of comments such as "The NAACP is a much larger racist organization than the Klan ever was," and "America would think better of blacks if they didn't rally behind those whose actions would shame a white family." You know? Wow. But I'll depressed for a whole week instead of just tomorrow if I read any more of that junk.

I was not surprised at the fate of my post. Immediately I collected 5 comments and 10 thumbs down to 1 thumb up, almost enough to have my comment hidden along with the really nasty ones. You may be amused to know I am an "idiot" with "logic like mud," and perhaps you even agree. But I think the point stands, that a few people, by showing prejudice against the majority, cannot upend the power differential. Racism in the USA is still too embedded in social, political, and commercial structures. No one can "reverse" this racism simply by being angry at those in power. That is my view.

At heart I am an optimist, and I know we are progressing. It is just so damned slow. From Emancipation to Civil Rights -- that took 150 years. Perhaps in another 100 years we will reach another such milestone. Century-stone. Whatever. Progress on human rights takes a constant sense of urgency and a deep patience for a long, long road. Walk on.

Inaugural Blog

So, KKT, what kinds of things matter to you so much you'll take time to write blogs about them without even knowing who, if anyone, will read the words you put down?

I want to write about stuff that makes me clench my fist, like people who rant about what is wrong with someone else (young people today, or folks from a different neighborhood, or writers, or conservatives, or English professors). Or arguments that illogically blame technology or other inanimate things for human problems. Stupidity that thinks of itself as smart. Pigheadedness masquerading as principle. Get it? I'm shaking my fist in my own face right this second.

Or, if I'm brave enough, I might write about things that make me cry, like beautiful people. Or mean people. Or people who have given up. That would be more difficult by far than writing about the things that make me angry so I doubt I will do that very soon.

And then there are political and personal issues that matter so much to me I will leave my relatively safe world of reading and writing and thinking to stand up in front of people and share my views out loud. About the human right to choice in marriage. About the abuse of religion for political trafficking. About the use of fear and emotional blackmail to control children.

I will write about books, too, because books really, really matter. Awesome books like Moby-Dick and The Hidden Hand, but also humbler books such as Lord Edgeware Dies. I will also write about writing and writers, because I write and I teach writers and I hang out with writers and we all find ourselves most interesting and we like to write about that as well as to write whatever else it is that we write.

That is my view.