First Day

Good morning and welcome to English 101, "Introduction to Writing."  This is the textbook we'll be using for this class.  It contains various pieces of writing.  Say "Hello,"  There, you've now been introduced to writing.  Ha ha.  OK, seriously.  In this class, you'll be learning how to write essays.  Now, the most important thing to know about essays is this: Nobody reads essays.  I mean, nobody really reads anything anymore, but seriously no-body reads essays.  Even I don't read essays!  Except yours, of course, but that's because I'm paid to read them.  Normally, you couldn't pay me to read essays!  Unless they're about unicorns or something.  What?  No, you can't write about unicorns. 

Anyway, the first thing you need for an essay is a topic.  Well, the second thing you need is a topic.  The first thing you need is a pen.  And paper.  So the third thing you need first is a topic.  Like unicorns.

After you have your topic, you write your introduction.  An introduction is like a beginning.  All essays need an introduction, a body, and a conclusion.  Not necessarily in that order.  You also need a thesis statement.  This is where you tell your reader what the main point of your essay is.  Now, when you write your thesis statement, you need to make sure that it is appropriate.  You need to make sure, for example, that if you take your thesis statement to a fancy dinner party it won't stick its elbows on the table or slurp its soup.  Your thesis statement also needs to be specific and arguable.  So you could write, "Unicorns are delicious," but this would prove nothing except your utter inability to write a thesis statement: "Delicious" is not specific enough.  You could write "Unicorns taste like mangos," but then I would laugh at you because you have merely stated a fact and therefore not composed an arguable thesis statement.  What's that?  No, "Unicorns don't taste like mangos" is still a statement of fact even though it's wrong.  I would hurl your paper back at you, and if I hit you in the face and gave you a paper cut on your cornea, you'd have no one to blame but yourself.

No, an appropriate thesis statement for this essay would be "Unicorns provide a nutritious and delicious alternative to many high-fat ingredients in Italian cuisine."  Specific and arguable.  But you still can't write about them.

In our next class, we'll discuss the body of the essay, which is very similar to the human body, only without quite as much cellulite.

To Tweet or Not to Tweet

The other day, we had a presentation on using social media in the classroom.  The presenter endorsed YouTube, as well as Facebook and old favorites like e-mail (not, strictly speaking, social media, but why quibble?).  She was especially enthusiastic, though, about Twitter.  She said Twitter provided a great way to stay in touch with your students.  I'm still not completely clear on how Twitter works, but I guess the idea is that you could have your students "follow" you, and thereby have an easy way to pass along interesting bits of information, as well as to communicate more prosaically about such things as class announcements, homework, etc.

Sounds reasonable enough.  And I suppose that, if I ever do decide to commence tweeting, I can now justify it under the pretense that I was doing it to become a more effective teacher.  Sure, you and I know the truth: that I could no longer resist my gnawing unease at the thought of a media platform existing without my presence.  But we'll just keep that between us.

I still have trouble with the whole 140-character limit: It takes me 140 characters just to say "Good morning" (I use a lot of extra 'o's).  On the whole, though I suspect I'm slowly but inexorably being drawn into the Twitterverse.  Resistance is futile.

Look Who's Not Honoring Me Now

Every August, right before the fall semester, a meeting of the entire college community--faculty, staff, administration, students--is held.  At this meeting, representatives of the student government present an award to an outstanding teacher, chosen by members of the student body.  The "golden bell"--changed some years back from the "golden apple," which made quite a bit more sense if you think about it--is the highest manifestation of the love and admiration of those whose young, malleable, mushy little minds we strive to mold .  Well, today, after ten-plus years of service to the students of my Bay Area community, I sat in the auditorium and heard for the first time this semester my name not called!

I know teaching is a thankless profession, but must the students do such a consistently great job illustrating this?

Bioeconomics

The other day, I read that the average "price" paid by the "Tooth Fairy" currently hovers around $3,00.  This represents quite the increase over the $0.25 or so I used to receive.  More to the point, though, why do parents feel the need to reward children for tooth loss?  What's the incentive?  It's not as if children will go on some kind of strike if their parents don't pony up.  Some say it's not so much a payment as a small way to celebrate a developmental milestone, but if that's the case, shouldn't kids get like a thousand bucks for pubes?  And you just know that somewhere some kid has made the not-illogical assumption that if a tooth is worth three dollars, then a finger should bring in at least ten--and a leg below the knee could cover the cost of an Xbox.  Keep them away from the table saw.

For Your Consideration

Feeling a bit writer's-blocked today, so let's talk actors.  The Emmy nominees for best actor in a drama series are Hugh Bonneville, Steve Buscemi, Bryan Cranston, Michael C. Hall, Jon Hamm, and Damian Lewis.

Bryan Cranston ("Breaking Bad") has become the "Mad Men" of the best-actor category: the default winner.  He's already won the award three times.  Unlike "Mad Men," though, the continued adulation of which--as I mentioned in an earlier post--somewhat mystifies me, Cranston deserves every accolade he receives.  He is the primary (though not sole) reason that "Breaking Bad" is the best show on television.  That being said, let's consider the other nominees.

Buscemi ("Boardwalk Empire"), Hall ("Dexter"), and Hamm ("Mad Men") are repeat nominees.  Of those three, Michael C. Hall is by far the most deserving.  Steve Buscemi is great as Nucky Thompson, but ultimately, any time you see Steve Buscemi. . . you see Steve Buscemi.  I don't mean this as a criticism: It's just that Buscemi has such a distinctive look/persona that it's hard for him to escape being him.  Jon Hamm faces almost the opposite problem in "Mad Men": Don Draper is essentially a void, a blank space.  And Jon Hamm fills that space with his all-too-typical good looks and coolness. There's really no "there" there.  Michael C. Hall, though, carries "Dexter" to at least the same extent that Bryan Cranston carries "Breaking Bad."  And his portrayal of an "ethical" serial-killer--who must constantly play various roles himself--is more than worthy of an Emmy.

Then there are the two newcomers.  Damian Lewis is great in "Homeland" but ultimately overshadowed by Claire Danes (about whom I imagine we'll talk in a future installment).  I've never seen "Downton Abbey," so I can't speak to Hugh Bonneville in that show.  He is, however, hilarious in "Twenty Twelve," an "Office"-type sitcom that focuses on the members of the Olympic Deliverance Committee, responsible for bringing the Games to London.

And then there is the glaring omission in this year's nominations: Hugh Laurie.  True, this final season of "House" was far from the best, but it was the final season.  The character of Dr. Gregory House is iconic, and it would seem only right that Hugh Laurie be given at least a chance to finally win an Emmy for his performance.  I think the Emmy voters got confused: They gave the obligatory "Brit-Who-Does-an-Annoyingly-Perfect-American-Accent" spot to Damian Lewis and the "Brit-Named-Hugh" spot to Bonneville.  Someone should really point out their mistake.

Olympic Addendum

At first, synchronized diving impressed me.  Then I realized that rocks can do it.

I finally understand how the International Olympic Committee comes up with new events.  It's all about evolution.  A single-sex sport becomes co-ed (boxing), an individual sport adds a "team" event (rhythmic gymnastics), or athletes are challenged to do things simultaneously that they had previously only done sequentially.  Already, there is talk of men's rhythmic gymnastics becoming a demonstration sport in 2020.  I wouldn't be surprised someday soon to see team javelin (look out downfield!) or synchronized pole-vault.

I'm waiting for the Olympics to introduce synchronized blogging.  Then again, I don't think I could compete with Fareed Zakaria.  (Too soon?)



Image from Boiledbeans.net

Naming Candidate Ryan

Mitt Romney has concluded that the only way to win the election is to prevent as many people as possible from voting for Barack Obama--not by convincing these people that he, Romney, would make a better President but by preventing them from voting at all.  His GOP supporters have facilitated this goal in a several swing states by passing voter-suppression--er, sorry, "Voter Fraud Prevention" laws, which will have the curious effect of keeping large numbers of people who, statistically speaking, are more likely to vote for President Obama out of the voting booth.  Well played, GOP.

In his latest masterful move of electoral jiujitsu, Romney has selected House-Elf Paul Ryan (R-Azkaban) as his running mate.  Sure, many observers feel that Romney has all but handed the election to President Obama: Rather than picking a safe, non-controversial running mate, Romney has selected the one man in all of Washington who cannot realistically distance himself from the Medicare-slashing, Social-Security destroying budget devised by. . . Rep. Paul Ryan.  (Then again, Mitt Romney has distanced himself as much as possible from the Massachusetts universal healthcare plan devised by none other than Governor Mitt Romney, so I guess anything's possible.)  But Ryan's unelectability may just be the point!

Romney and his supporters have already done a great deal to make sure that people who want to go to the polls and vote for Obama can't do so.  But what about the rest of the electorate who aren't minorities or poor or college students?  How can Romney dissuade the solid middle-class liberal from voting?  Simple!  Make the likelihood of his election seem SO unlikely that we don't bother to go out and vote.  Lest you think this far-fetched, as soon as I heard of Ryan's nomination, I chuckled, shook my head, and made plans to get an all-day massage on November 6th.  Thankfully, I realized in time, that's just what they WANT me to do!

Be alert, people.  Complacency is dangerous.