Welcome!

Thanks for stopping by! If you like what you read, tell your friends! If you don't like what you read, tell your enemies! Either way, please post a comment, even if it's just to tell us how much we suck! (We're really needy!) You can even follow us @JasonBerner! Or don't! See if we care!







Saturday, January 26, 2013

Recess Used to Be My Favorite Part of School

 
The Constitution allows presidents to appoint people to positions that normally require senate confirmation during times when the senate is not in session (i.e., in recess).  Originally, this rule was established because travel to the Capitol was difficult, and the founders wanted to ensure that important governmental vacancies could be filled during times when the senate was not around to confirm appointments.  Of late, though, presidents of both parties have used recess appointments to circumvent senators who would hold up appointments on purely partisan grounds.  Now, in a direct rebuke of this strategy, a federal appeals court has ruled unconstitutional several of President Obama's recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).

The use of the tactic in this situation was undeniably a political power play.  Then again, it was also a response to a nakedly political power play on the part of Congress.  In the past, the senate would, while technically in recess, hold "meetings" that consisted of one senator going in, gaveling a meeting to order (despite the fact that no other senators might be there), and then adjourning.  Last year, during one such senatorial recess, Republicans in the House of Representatives used "the power of the House to block the Senate from adjourning for more than three days."  President Obama decided to challenge these pro forma sessions and made the appointments that have here been declared unconstitutional.

The ruling judges are all Republican appointees, so the spectre of partisanship hangs over their decision.  The fact of the matter is, though, the decision is correct.  As distasteful as the congressional strategy is, a president can not simply declare Congress in or out of session as he sees fit.  Of course, this ruling opens up the possibility for even greater governmental dysfunction than we've sadly grown accustomed to.  Nowadays, many senators see their role in the appointment process not so much as "advise and consent" but as "pontificate and obstruct."  Unless and until we find a way to minimize partisanship in the confirmation process, we face the prospect of never-ending battles over filling even the lowest level technocratic posts.   As much as I have appreciated attempts by Democratic congressmen to thwart the most retrograde appointments of Republican presidents, I am not blind to the fact that such constant battling weakens government's ability to function, as well as undermining the public's faith in government as a whole.  What is to be done?

Over the next few months, my college will be hiring a number of new full-time faculty members.  It's a fairly drawn out process, but first the college sends out a job announcement listing "minimum qualifications" (MQs) for the job.  Applicants must demonstrate (via resumes and questionnaires) that they meet these MQs before they are brought in for interviews.  The interview process is lengthy, but the college faculty and administration can rest assured that whoever is ultimately hired will at least be qualified for the job.

I would humbly suggest that a similar approach be adopted by other branches of government.  A list of MQs for every position should be drawn up--perhaps a list of disqualifying factors as well.  Any candidate proposed by a president who meets these MQs should be voted on--straight up or down, no filibustering allowed.  Perhaps Congress could be allowed a maximum number of rejections of people who possess the MQs.  That way, extreme partisans would have to take care before rejecting a candidate, lest they waste their "peremptory challenges" on candidates who may turn out to be the most palatable choice.

I'm just spitballing here. I have no idea how these ideas or others like them would be adopted at the federal level.  But something needs to be done.  Presidents should not flout the will of Congress, but neither should Congress stymie the ability of government to function out of purely partisan motives.  Recess appointments would not seem so attractive to presidents if Congress would actually do its job when in session.

Friday, January 25, 2013

Just Another Day at Solipsist Central--Workplace Edition

SOLIPSIST'S LACKEY: Since I'm not an English tutor, I need to ask a spelling question.

OTHER LACKEY OF SOLIPSIST: What?

SL: How do you spell 'douchebag'?

OLOS: What?

SL: It's for this thing I have to write for my teacher.

OLOS: You're calling your teacher a douchebag?!?

SL: No, it's a paper I'm writing.

OLOS: You want to use 'douchebag' in a paper?  Why?!?

SL: I'm saying that, if you want people to follow you, you need to be, like, sensitive to other people; in other words, don't be a douchebag.

OLOS: I don't think. . . . What class is this for anyway??

SL: Leadership.

All I can say is, he better not have been writing about me.

Thursday, January 24, 2013

Advice for New Teachers: Changes Are Always Coming

I've been teaching the same class for over ten years now.  The students are getting pretty darn tired of being left back, I tell you what!

Ba-dum bump.

But seriously, folks, I've taught this basic writing course at least once a semester, every semester, including summers, since the fall of 2002.  Over thirty times!  And I'm pleased to say that the last ten times or so, I've done it right.

Not that I was doing it "wrong" the first twenty times.  I delivered my curriculum and provided my students with thorough, professional instruction in the basics of academic writing.  But it took several semesters before I really put everything together, finding the right balance, for example, between instruction in grammar and instruction in content.  It took time for me to "reverse engineer" finished products I wanted students to create, and then--after examining the components--devising instructional strategies to help students grasp the "how to" beneath the "what."  By semester 21 or so, I had not only figured out a set of "best practices," I had also devised a manageable, logical, and, if I do say so myself, comprehensible schedule of instruction.  Everything that needed to be covered was covered, and I felt confident that my students were prepared for their exams and subsequent classes.

And now, everything is changing.

The latest buzzword in higher-education is "acceleration": moving students more swiftly through their basic requirements and, ultimately, their degree courses.  And so, in my department, we, too, must accelerate.  This semester, we have begun to revamp the curriculum, to make the content more demanding, more comprehensive.  In the long run, this should prepare our students better for the work ahead.  In the meantime, though, I'm back to square one.

One of the joys of a teaching career is the fact that every term--every day--brings something different.  One of the challenges, though, is that every term CAN bring something different.  Even when you've "got it," you've never got it completely.  You're never really done.

Wednesday, January 23, 2013

Another Great Moment in Student Service. . .

. . . Or, "Teacher of the Year"?  I'm Lucky I Haven't Been Shot!

STUDENT: Excuse me, I'm looking for a writing group that's supposed to be meeting somewhere around here?

SOLIPSIST: A class?

STU: No, it's just a group. . . A student group.

SOL: A club?

STU: Yeah! It's an unorganized writing club!

SOL: This school has a club for unorganized writing?  It must be enormous!

STU: What?

SOL: Nothing.

STU: Oh! No, it's an unorganized CLUB.

SOL: I. . . don't know what that is, exactly--although it might explain why you can't find it.

STU: No, it's. . . You know, it's like, the club isn't really being run by the regular club groups.

SOL: You mean 'unofficial'?

STU: Yes! That's it!

SOL: Ah, OK!  You're looking for the unOFFICIAL writing group!

STU: Yes, do you know where it's meeting.

SOL: No, I still have no idea what you're talking about.

STU: Oh.

SOL: Yeah. (Pause)  Well, good talk!

Tuesday, January 22, 2013

More Musings

What is the average number of objects one can shake a stick at? And is the size and composition of the stick a factor?

Monday, January 21, 2013

Buckingham Bruiser

I know you've all been busy with Martin Luther King Parties and solemn observances of President Obama's inauguration (I might have that backwards), so I take this opportunity to update you on the news that you really need.  To wit:

Stop making fun of the Royal Family.  Not that they don't deserve it, but just for your own good.  Turns out that Prince Harry is quite the bad-ass.  He's off in Afghanistan flying Apache helicopters and bumping off Taliban insurgents.  Maybe it's the red hair--God only knows that gingers are capable of all manner of depravity--but Harry may be the fiercest Royal warrior since Henry V (the Kenneth Branagh variety, not that wuss Olivier)--or at least since the Queen Mum faced down a Luftwaffe squadron armed with nothing but a bumbershoot and a package of Pontefract Cakes.

So, congratulations President Obama.  And while you're guarding us against terrorist insurgents, just give a small prayer of thanks that the Brits are on our side.

(This post has been edited to reflect the following correction: "bumbershoot" is now spelled correctly.  God, you readers are persnickety!)

Sunday, January 20, 2013

All Hail the Weekend Warrior

Today was "Championship Sunday" in the NFL--the day the conference championships would decide which two teams will compete in the Super Bowl in two weeks.  Across the country, millions of people sat largely motionless, not counting occasional trips to stock up on greasy, fat laden snacks and/or frosty adult beverages.  I found it ironic, therefore, that the lead article in the sports section of today's Times was a feature taking a critical view of men participating in--as opposed to passively absorbing--football.

"Alumni football" games are becoming increasingly popular.  As the name implies, these games allow former high-school players of all ages to relive their glory days (or not, as the case may be).  Under the auspices of such organizers as Alumni Football USA, games between old high school rivals can be organized.  Often times, these games raise money for local chairities, in addition to providing aging athletes the opportunity to "have some fun and hit people."  Today's article, however, dwelt primarily on the injury risks incurred by weekend warriors who may too hastily throw themselves into full-contact games.

Now, I will acknowledge that a middle-aged man in typical middle-aged-man shape might be taking a foolhardy risk trying to tackle someone half his age--to say nothing of being tackled by same.  On the other hand, COME ON!

Look, we're not talking about pee-wee football players exposed to concussions because of overachieving parents trying to live vicariously through their offspring.  These are grown men who obviously love playing football and are more than aware of the risks involved.  Sure, they could get hurt.  One especially unlucky participant suffered a (non-fatal) heart attack; but he could have suffered a heart attack mowing the lawn, too--or choked on a Cheez Doodle while watching the games on TV!  Which do you suppose he preferred?

There are plenty of things to fear in the world today, and sensible precautions should always be taken.  But if a personal cost-benefit analysis leads people to take a small personal risk in the pursuit of a greater personal pleasure, more power to them.  And for those who took today to relive the glory of their high-school playing days, may I just say: It's the Niners against Baltimore in the Super Bowl.