Convention Notes 2008: Democratic Convention

Four years ago, I wrote up National Election convention notes for my family. Those notes can be found on my blog. This year, I am posting the notes directly to the blog. The Democratic Convention is this week. The Republican Convention is next week. I will post (almost) every day with the current day first.

I should state first that although I am more or less a conservative libertarian, my interest in the conventions is mostly centered on communication: what choices do the parties make? how do they portray themselves? what sort of speeches do they make? and what exactly does the convention hall look like?

I should also state that I (usually) watch PBS with Jim Lehrer, Mark Shields, and David Brooks (when my television is working) plus the PBS pundits, all looking a little older than four years ago. I like the civility. I think Mark Shields tends to be a little too "Democrats can do no wrong; David Brooks is the only acceptable Republican in the world." David Brooks is, granted, (relatively) conservative, but his analysis tends to be more prudent and self-effacing. I find self-effacement very charming.
 

Thursday, August 28th

It's a DeMille film! The Democratic Convention has moved to a football stadium and become the cast of thousands. And thousands. And thousands.

I turned on the television about 9:30 and the current speaker was talking about Obama's ability to be Commander-in-Chief. As far as I can tell, the Democrats have decided McCain's military record is the Republican's biggest threat. It seems kind of odd when you remember that pollsters in 2004 said "moral issues" were deciding factors in how people voted, not the war in Iraq. But maybe that was just one survey.

We are about to hear from "regular, everyday Americans." And next week, Republicans will haul out their "regular, everyday Americans" and frankly, the whole game makes me tired. I mean, what exactly is the selling point? "MY regular American only earns minimum wage." "MY regular American only earns minimum wage and is a single mother." "MY regular American only earns minimum wage, is a single mother, AND takes care of her four aging grandparents." "MY regular American only earns minimum wage, is a single mother, takes care of her four aging grandparents, AND works near Willy Wonka's candy factory--" oh, sorry, strayed in Roald Dahl there.

The speakers did a good job, but I still can't get behind this technique. If you want to find a struggling family that has fallen on hard times in the last eight years, geez, how hard is that? Finding a struggling family whose lives have improved over the last eight years won't be that hard either--it's called life, people.

Before my PBS went kapluey, David Brooks referred to the convention as a "spectacle" rather than a "political event." Well, the conventions are always "spectacles," but he has a point. Will it sell the Democratic party? Maybe. Those who plan to vote Democrat anyway will love it. Those who plan to vote Republican will scoff at the flash and glam. And the rest of us will react according to taste. Personally, I dislike being sold things from health insurance to phone plans, and I really dislike people selling me things by going on and on about HOW GREAT IT IS, HOW COOL IT IS, HOW WONDERFUL IT IS. "Look," I tell the salesperson on the phone, "just tell me what you are selling, and we can go from there." And the person doesn't, and the conversation is over.

But that's me.

Now I will wax libertarian--I don't much trust in either party. Politicians have to sell themselves; one of the inevitabilities of selling oneself is there has to be something to sell. With businesses, the thing being sold is the latest product. With politicians, it is the latest service. So politicians have to keep coming up with services to sell, things to do, problems to fix. Defining an ideology, presenting a political perspective, arguing over the role of government: all these things fall by the wayside. Sure, intellectuals within the parties may be doing these things, but politicians have to keep selling themselves, have to keep convincing the American people that they can make life better.

And here's the thing: the human animal is insatiable. Nothing is ever enough. Things can always be better, different, improved, more, beyond. In some ways, this makes humans marvelous, great, idealists, movers and shakers. In other ways, it makes humans greedy, base, self-aggrandizing, and even amoral. Politicians will always be able to offer more because nothing will ever be enough. But that isn't necessarily a good thing.

I don't know if there is a solution to all this or at least, I figure the solutions could be much worse. Actually, I do think there is a solution, but the solution lies within the individual, not the state. This problem the state can't fix because the state's invested interest is NOT to fix it. It is up to individuals to draw the line, fall back, refuse to take more, refrain from asking for more, suffer without government involvement, choose virtue over satisfaction, freedom over indulgence.

Thus endeth the lesson.

Sometimes, the news media is just silly. CNN's coverage includes the phrase: "Obama expected to address change in speech." Wow! I never ever expected THAT!

Obama speaks!

He will address the economy first.

He praises McCain--is this the Republican convention? Oh, wait, nope, it's Obama speaking. "John McCain has voted with George Bush 90% of the time." The irony is that pro-Bush voters who think John McCain is too left or too maverick will be comforted by this "fact."

But I don't think Obama is really aiming his speech at Republicans (whatever the Democrats say) but at Independents.

Apparently, McCain has said we are "a nation of whiners--" okay, I admit it, I laughed. It's not very smart politics, but when you consider how often higher academe goes on and on about our decadent American society, it's kind of funny that McCain would be criticized for saying something that gets written about in the New York Times on a daily basis.

Obama is criticizing McCain for giving tax breaks to the rich. Unfortunately, this is such a common knee-jerk criticism of Republicans, I'll need to hear the other side before I pass judgment.

Okay, Obama, so what are you going to do about the economy?

Insert Jeopardy music.

More Jeopardy music.

Here we go:

• Tax breaks for small businesses
• Keep jobs in the United States
• Eliminate capital gains taxes on small businesses
• Cut taxes for 95% of all working families
• End dependence on oil from the Middle East in 10 years (but he isn't going to drill)
• Invest in clean-coal technology!!
• Safely harness nuclear power!! (He's got me!)
• Fuel-efficient cars built in the United States
• Invest in wind power and solar power (he lost me) which research will provide new jobs (he really lost me: government creating jobs to improve the economy--erk)
• Invest in early childhood education (kind of pointless)
• Pay teachers higher salaries
• Raise education standards
• "If you commit to [help] our country, you will be able to afford college." (Well, that's already true--it's called enlistment in the U.S. Army.)
• Affordable healthcare--lower premiums
• Insurance coverage similar to what U.S. Senators have
• Stop discrimination by insurance companies
• Equal pay for women (what is it with this non-issue?)

How will he pay for it?

• Close corporate loopholes
• Eliminate Federal programs (which will make him ALL kinds of friends)

I don't think that's enough.

Obama addresses foreign affairs:

"Don't tell me Democrats won't defend this country." Well, Democratic leaders didn't exactly line up behind Reagan, now did they?

He's going to end the war in Iraq, curb Iranian and Russian aggression, and end terrorism.

Ohhkay. Now, I really don't think he has a clue. International politics are hard, Barack. Pollyanna optimism will not solve the problem.

He looks forward to debating McCain. He thinks they both have a Patriotic perspective.

How bothered am I by Obama using Martin Luther King, Jr.'s legacy to bulwark his own image? (No, he didn't say that, but that's how it feels). I'm not sure.

Obama is a good speaker. He's clear, passionate, and has the ability to hit fundamental/common values. (Good parallelism too.)

Can he do all the above? Well, bonus points for self-confidence, but I think life is much messier than Obama is promising.

Does he know that? Does he believe he can sweep into office and fix everything? Or does he know that politics is hard and messy and is simply talking the talk to get to the White House?

I don't know.

I must say again, GREAT music this time around for the Democratic Convention. The big closing blow-out also looks good although I miss balloons. I really, really like balloons at a convention.

Ah, but they do have fireworks. I LIKE fireworks.

I will say, the Democrats have put on one of the snazziest conventions I have ever seen, even including Bush 2000 which was pretty good.

Part of a convention's job is to energize the delegates, so they will go back home and work hard to convince others how to vote. I think this convention has more than done that job. However, as many, many people have told me over the past week, few people watch the conventions themselves. So how big an impact will the Democratic convention have on the long term vote? Very little directly. (There really wasn't anything new said.) However, indirectly, it could have a great deal of impact in terms of how the Democrats continue to portray themselves.

On to the Republican Convention!!

Wednesday, August 27th

Tonight, Biden speaks. I'm curious to hear him. I've heard (from my personal group of pundits) that Biden is given to putting his foot in his mouth and sometimes just comes out and said what he thinks. It would be fun if he did that tonight, but these conventions are much too carefully crafted to allow for that.

Oh, yeah, and Bill Clinton is speaking. Kind of forgot about him--ahh, the short-lived memory of the public.

"No roll call." Instead Obama is elected by . . . Hillary's say-so? Soooo, Hillary Clinton has allowed Obama to be nominated--oh, thank you, Hillary. (Apparently, women can't lose primaries without being patted on the head and made to feel important. See my brother's blog about the state of feminism in the United States.) Okay, okay, despite my snarkiness, it is smart politicking to give Hillary this role. (And bypassing the roll call speeds up the process.)

Another speaker rambling about energy. The floor isn't listening--kind of odd. Is there something going on elsewhere? One of the drawbacks of PBS is the "gentleman's agreement" to focus on the speakers. I approve, but I'm curious. Maybe Harry Reed, the Majority Leader in the Senate, is just dull.

Well, yes.

Major Michelle Jones: So, will Iraq finally be addressed? "He is the type of Commander-in-Chief that American soldiers need and deserve." But he has never commanded anyone militarily. Ah, I see, he's a cradle-to-grave type of Commander-in-Chief.

I confess, I can't get overly invested in the whole Commander-in-Chief idea. I kind of figure a good president listens to actual generals serving on the ground. A bad president doesn't. Is a person with military experience more likely to do the former than the latter? Eisenhower maybe, but I wouldn't count on MacArthur.

Congressman Patrick Murphy and a bunch of veterans: I hate to tell you, Murphy, but the Republicans do the "We LOVE you, Military Guys" hoop-la better than the Democrats (always have).

In any case, nobody is talking about Iraq itself--just goodies for veterans at home.

It's supposed to be hawk night, but so far, it's been cute little sparrow night.

Madeline Albright: Will SHE talk about Iraq? "Overseas problems, if not addressed, ultimately come home to America." Hey, I would agree with that. "A blow aimed at extremists that strengthened radicals." Why not a "blow aimed at radicals that strengthened extremists"? I have nothing against Albright, but she is not talking about what Bush was supposed to do about Iraq--specifically--or what Obama should do now. Fluff, fluff, fluff. David Brooks must be grinding his teeth. Sure, he is a self-effacing guy, but he is a self-effacing guy who needs some meat to analyze.

Evan Bayh: Apparently, we are going to beat the terrorists by becoming isolationists. Which will make the terrorists happy.

My personal approach would be to allow big business to go into the Middle East with the understanding that the United States army will not protect them. Wild West style. If you really want to alter a culture, give it McDonald's.

"McCain is not a bad man." Interestingly enough, most of the people who work with McCain seem to like him. The press quite likes him. Can he jump the gap to the American public?

"[Bush] divided our country more profoundly than at any time since the Vietnam War." And whose fault is that? I'm going to get all obnoxious and biased here and say that, living in Maine, my experience has been that anti-Bushites are the most divisive, intolerant people I've ever met.

Jack Reed from Rhode Island is up. Rhode Islandites tend to be independent in their views. Is Reed? Well, he appears to be a hawk. Reed is selling Obama as a military guru. It's Reed's job to do this, but I don't buy it. Does anyone? Obama just doesn't have the background. It's a problem.

At least Obama's not doing Kerry's "I served a long time ago in a war I didn't support and have never thought about since; therefore, I will make a great Commander-in-Chief." But then, Kerry's whole campaign was "I showed up once or twice in the Senate; therefore, I have two thoughts to rub together." Obama isn't that hard a sell.

VP Mondale in the PBS box: Mondale is trying to make the vice presidential position sound like more than an invisible man job. He isn't succeeding.

Bill Clinton: I should state I am not one of those people who thinks Bill Clinton is evil. I think he is a rogue. I wouldn't have cared much if he was impeached, but I didn't care that he wasn't. His morals don't impress me; I think his only moral code is "What will make people love me?" I actually think this makes him different from his wife: I think Hillary wants power. I think Clinton wants to be loved--at all costs (interns, conservatives, voters, anyone). It makes him completely amoral, but it doesn't actually make him a totally terrible president since he will do what the great American public wants, and the great American public (despite wishful Hollywood movies) tends more to conservatism than liberalism. (Basically, Clinton is Ahab from the Old Testament.)


"I'm here first to support Barack Obama." Well, yeah, like we didn't see that coming. Clinton can be bitter, but he's too crafty not to choose the side that will bring him kudos. I kind of like craftiness in a politician. It is easier to swallow than Gore's self-righteous surety although Gore may actually be the better person.

You know, psychologically, Clinton may actually be getting what he needs emotionally from basking in his wife's power.

Clinton gives a good speech. He's less used-car-salesman than he used to be, but he does have the ability to communicate ideas beyond the pulpit.

But there's still no meat. "A power of our example rather than an example of our power." Nice turn of phrase. Still . . . I don't remember past conventions being quite so--empty of context. I know conventions are usually flash and glam, yet . . . Perhaps, I should read my old notes. But it's all "look at the badness of the Republicans." And I grant there's badness to point to. But what will Obama supply in its place? There's this nifty parable in the New Testament about devils leaving a house; when they return, the house is empty, so they go and collect even more devils. (Par-tah!) An absence of decision does not automatically supply goodness.

Clinton is being positive about McCain. That's nice, but is it the best tactic to use? The main thing I'm going remember from this convention is that everyone likes McCain.

Clinton points out that he was criticized for being too young and inexperienced to be Commander-in-Chief. And . . . he was. His foreign policy isn't anything to write home about, and yes, I do think 9/11 occurred partly because Clinton turned a blind eye to growing tensions in the Middle East. (However, before anyone pulls out the conspiracy theories, I think 9/11 would probably have happened anyway--the price of freedom is partly the freedom to allow terrible things to occur.)

John Kerry is speaking tonight--major urgh. (Yes, I have a super low opinion of Kerry.) I don't see the point of writing about anything he says.

I have to mention, the speakers tonight keep pointing out how tense things are internationally. Which is a good reason . . . to elect a Republican military man. But then, what else can the convention managers do? They must address foreign policy, but the Democratic Party isn't known for strong stances on foreign policy. It's a problem.
Kerry has gotten the floor energized! I'm impressed. Amazing how not being a candidate can give some people some personality.

Salute to Charlie Paine, Obama's (very white) uncle who fought in WWII--that is extremely cool. I have to mention how much I like Obama's truly diverse background. (Like those totally cool commercials for AT&T? with the white husband, Hispanic wife, and mixed-race kids.)

Actually, I think Kerry is making the "what I wish I could have said 4 years ago" speech. He's a bit riled.

Well, I take it back. Kerry did good and actually gave a speech worthy of a convention.

Lt. General Claudia Kennedy: No wonder Shields was having conniptions last night at the supposed lack of women in power.

Congressman Chet Edwards: More about taking care of veterans. I really want to know how Obama is going to deal with Iraq and terrorists. I don't think anyone is going to tell me.

Stephen Spielberg's tribute to the military. Nice work. I was a little tense, thinking it would be some kind of "evil military" arty flick. But no. (And I like Tom Hanks.) This is really, really smart. In 2004, the Democrats were desperate to look like hawks, and they failed. So--get an expert to do it for you! But it makes you wonder how many anti-war liberals are chewing furniture right now.

Gwen Ifill talks to military people. Who are all pro-Obama? Come on, PBS, get a little tough! Wait, I like PBS's soft approach. Still, sometimes . . .

Bo Biden introduces his dad. Nice job. (Although all these family values speakers keep telling stories about how good people shouldn't become politicians. Well, yeah.) The children speakers this convention have done a good job.

By the way, the Democratic convention this year has used some great music.

Senator Biden: Okay, I like him. He is easy to like. Boy, if you took out the political context, this could be a speech for some self-esteem seminar.

Speakers keep confusing McCain and Bush. They think it is funny. The crowd laughs, but . . . it kind of betrays that their distaste for Bush is so severe, they aren't dealing with McCain as an individual threat, merely as the face of Bush. That might work. It could seriously backfire.

The floor spontaneously applauded McCain's bravery. That's truly nice.

It's Batman and Robin! Obama and Biden are going to SAVE THE UNIVERSE. I know this is typical for all convention speeches, but honestly--they're going to save the Middle East, Georgia, get a new energy source, and . . . and . . .

"Remember when the world used to trust us" . . . under Reagan's leadership, for example?

Biden is an energetic speaker. And he covered foreign policy. Can he make up for the gaping void of nobody saying anything specific about Iraq tonight?

Hey, Obama just showed up a day early. That's pretty cool. (Although he stole Biden's thunder--I can't help wondering if Obama just can't stay away from the loving crowds.) What a way to get the floor going.

This is a very, very smart convention. I'm not sure it's enough though. If the Republicans hit the ground running with strong, specific proposals, the Democrats are going to look very weak in comparison. (If not, it won't matter.)

David Brooks thinks Clinton and Biden made the case for McCain being too much like Bush, so now McCain has to pick Lieberman. I don't mind the idea of Lieberman, but I don't agree with Brooks at all. Clinton and Biden's speeches simply convinced me that the Democrats desperately need people to believe McCain and Bush are carbon copies of each other. Is McCain that big a threat? I came into this convention thinking Obama had the election in his pocket. Now . . . I'm not so sure. McCain worries them something bad. (Or is it easier to define McCain than it is to define Obama?)

Tomorrow night, I will miss the first half of the night, but I won't miss Obama! Look for notes on his speech tomorrow night.


Tuesday, August 26th
Tonight is Hillary Clinton. Three things could happen:

1. She comes out and says, "The evil news media and evil conservative bloggers and evil conservatives had made me look like I'm opposed to Obama. I've never been opposed to Obama!"
2. She comes out and says, "My supporters are so wonderful. They love me so much. They went overboard. Of course, I support Obama!"
3. She comes out and says, "You delegates are horrible. I hate you. You should have voted for me. I'm going to run for president anyway--nah nah nah."

Well, yes, #3 would be totally fun, but I'm thinking she will opt for #1 or #2.

If she is smart, she will do #2, but although the Clintons are clever, they have a certain self-destructive quality. 

She is completely capable of doing #1 which will immediately tick off the newspeople who have all the evidence they want to prove she has opposed Obama (even after he won the primaries). A friend of mine attended the Democratic Convention here in Maine, and the Hillary supporters were already whining (Obama was just about to win). Also, when PBS entered primetime tonight, Gwen Ifill had just finished interviewing delegates, and she referred to a petition going around opposing Hillary for nomination (she's being proposed for nomination? vice president?).

Representative Hoyer: "We are worse off . . ."

How does anyone know? Sometimes politics makes my head ache. Completely imaginary cause and effect. If Bush hadn't gone into Iraq, the terrorists could all be over here, and people could still be losing jobs. If Kerry had been elected, well, words fail me. (Speaking of country clubs . . .)

Still, Hoyer is doing his job--make the case for change.

Pauline Beck: I like her. She's just reading her talk without making eye contact, but hey, she's got some real experience with Obama.

Anna Burger: Oh, okay, this is the "we put up regular people from the streets to show how down to earth and relevant we are" part of the convention.

I'm not a huge fan of unions, so I can't say I'm terribly sympathetic to her "the average worker is in a terrible situation, and it's all Bush's fault" argument.

In any case, see my remarks from Monday about killing the winter king--if the harvest goes badly, kill the king. If there's a drought, kill the king. I'm telling you, this "economy equals how much we love the president" idea is positively ancient.

Governor Napolitano: She's a good speaker. And I've got to say, avoiding the Iraq war and going after the economy is pretty clever: see remarks above. The most fundamental human desire is to obtain genetic and/or economic security, so it is super smart to go for the jugular--McCain will take all your money (and kill your babies).

People ARE voting for Clinton tonight. Exactly how stupid are the Democrats? They could win this election easily, and they might just destroy themselves because of this give-me-give-me-give-me-now attitude.

Plug for libertarianism: the question re: the economy shouldn't be "Does the average family need the government's help?" Or even "What should the government do about the economy?" The question should be, 

"Is the economy the government's job?" and "What happens to civil liberties when the government owns your soul?" (see comments above about the ultimate security).

Mark Shields actually got downright puzzled about women who get angry with him because (presumably) he thinks Obama is a good idea, and they think Hillary was their last chance to get a woman into politics. He was actually spluttering: What about all these political women we've seen tonight! David Brooks pointed out that the current generation (one generation younger than me) doesn't get it either. Young female Democrats voted for Obama because they liked him; they didn't even consider gender as an issue.

Another Republican! He says he isn't. I'm confused. He is a registered Republican who "is here to endorse 

Barack Obama." He's Alaskan. Oh, he's the mayor of Fairbanks. He's doing a better job than Leach. I like Alaskans. But why is an Alaskan advocating wind and solar energy?

Nancy Floyd: More wind farms--urgh. That will not sell Obama to me. Pushing nuclear energy as cheap and far less dangerous than it is portrayed--THAT would impress me. Will any politician do it?

No.

According to Floyd, Obama is going to make sure all our cars are built by U.S. companies . . . hmm, government directly interfering in trade--there's a ticket for success (insert super sarcastic tone). This is the kind of claim that makes the people who write Forbes magazine get weak at the knees and prophecy doomsday.

Governor Sebelius: Another female politician. I'm beginning to see Shield's point. As my brother Eugene has pointed out--feminists have a tendency to compare themselves not to regular males but to alpha males. I mean, hey, there are plenty of women engineers, novelists, computer programmers, web designers, artists, and gardeners out there (just to name a few jobs performed by males in my family.) But that's not enough! Give us alpha power! (Hint to feminists: people dislike male lawyers and politicians for a reason.)

Another reference to McCain's multiple homes. Sometimes, the hyprocrisy just makes you wince. That's right, Kerry lives in a shack. Ted Kennedy hangs out in a one-room apartment, and Gore is just this guy eating out of a trashcan.

It's governor night. Sorry, readers, it's getting tedious, and it's about silly green policies, and I'm not even going to apologize for thinking green solutions to energy are silly.

Senator Casey: Good speaker. He got a chant going (it's always important for speakers to get a chant going): "Four more months."

Lilly Ledbetter: Equal Pay Activist--this is still an issue? Talk about making a career out of a fading issue. This is why feminism is a sinking cause. I'm a feminist, and I get so tired of women who insist on sticking to a image of victimhood rather than examining complex issues with objectivity and intelligence. There are many reasons women get paid less, and many of those reasons have to do with individual decisions (see my post about Susan Pinker's The Sexual Paradox).

The audience--I'm not kidding--just applauded because Ledbetter "went to court." Hooray for litigation!!

I apologize for the lack of objectivity, but convention Tuesday nights are usually dull and/or stupid. Apparently, the convention managers opted for stupid. (However, that doesn't mean it isn't smart politicking, and yes, unfortunately, that isn't a contradiction.)

Governor Warner: "Folks always ask me what's my biggest criticism of President Bush." Really? What a totally stinky conversationalist he must be. "He never really asked us to step up." I think that's kind of true. Presidents Bushes have always had a hard time communicating their visions to the great American public.

"We will have a president who believes in science . . ." The kind of science based on silly green policies apparently.

The crowd is way more energetic tonight than last night.

You know I don't get how a progressive, forward-thinking party (which is what all the speakers are claiming for the Democratic party tonight) can be against sending jobs abroad. Maybe I'm a libertarian, but I think a global economy is much more likely to result in new ideas, cultural exchanges, exported democracy, related interests, and growing opportunities than insisting that all jobs stay at home. (Oh, wait, I am a libertarian.)

David Brooks just referred to the convention speeches as "banal." Shields says they are "typical." They are both right. Convention speeches are typical banality. Which is part of what makes them so interesting. What types, cliches, and images do people use to sell themselves? And why does it work , if it does?

Woodruff interviewing Michelle Obama: Nothing new, but I do like Michelle Obama. She is also much more articulate in a one-on-one session.

Missed his name, but some guy just gave a great quote: "Democrats do not deserve to win just because Republicans deserve to lose." Wow!!

Hillary Clinton: The introductory video is pretty good. Hits all the right notes (but no, I don't think Hillary is the person who broke or even damaged the glass ceiling all that much).

Nice clean introduction by Chelsea. Good for you, kid.

Tactic #2--nice choice, woman.

Nothing new yet. As my brother Henry will point out: for all her talk, Hillary plays it safe in the Senate. She's playing safe now. Lots of stories about "regular Americans." You know, politicians have been using that speech since Roman times--probably before. Let's haul some poor, hard-working guy onto the stage to convince citizens what a good relationship I have with The People (reminds me of the scene in Monty Python's Search for the Holy Grail where the farmer starts spouting Marxist theory at a well-meaning, yet surprised King Arthur).

"Were you in it just for me or were you in it for [the regular American]?" Very nicely played, Hillary. I'm rarely impressed by her, but this was a smart political decision. Now, let's see if she mentions Biden.

Not yet.

She mentioned Biden!! Impressive! So, is she aiming for 2012? Probably. But still, it must have taken some deep breathing on her part endorsing men for "her spot." She is a very ambitious lady. So, she's impressed me. First time in a long time.

Twin cities remark: "These days [McCain and Bush] are awfully hard to tell apart." Well, it's nasty, but it's smart.

She's an United States Senator because she carpet-bagged her way into New York. Playing the feminist card won't work with me, chickie who overlooked her husband's multiple infidelities for the sake of political benefits. I don't mind that she actually got something out of that marriage to her benefit, but I don't think it makes her progressive or feminist. It's actually pretty Edwardian wife-like: he stinks, but he has a great title.

Overall, good speech. Nothing of meat, but she made her position known.

It'll be interesting to see if her supporters follow her lead.

Two nights down. Two to go!

Monday, August 25th

As I mention in my introduction, I watch PBS with Jim Lehrer, Mark Shields, and David Brooks plus the PBS pundits, all looking a little older than four years ago. I like the civility. I think Mark Shields tends to be a little too "Democrats can do no wrong; David Brooks is the only acceptable Republican in the world." David Brooks is, granted, (relatively) conservative, but his analysis tends to be more prudent and self-effacing. I find self-effacement very charming.

A case in point of above: Mark Shields just referred to the Democratic party as "cerebral"--yawn, yawn. This stereotype of Democrats as intellectual know-it-alls and Republicans as down-homespun doofuses is so cliche (and so completely opposed to reality), I confess to an immediate disgust: Just how silly are you, Shields? (I personally think there are smart people on both sides of the political fence as well as foolish people; down-homespun types as well as sophisticated intellectuals (real and wannabes), etc. etc.)

Nancy Pelosi is up next. She just congratulated Hillary Clinton for a well-run race. I will say now (get it out of the way), I consider Hillary the worst type of feminist, the ultimate poor-me-female-victim-baby-me-please-men-are-so-meeeean representative. (After all, Pelosi didn't congratulate Edwards. Well . . .) Hillary is either an incredibly cunning woman who presents this image on purpose, or she really thinks that way. Either way, errrk.

Conventions always remind me of pep rallies (and, yes, that is what they are). No matter what the speakers say, people clap and scream and applaud. It can get really tedious.

Hey, Pelosi just flubbed. She recovered nicely. Instead, of immediately correcting herself (which always opens up the speaker to later parodies), she paused for three seconds and started over. Good job.

Urgh--reference to Ted Kennedy. No, I'm not a fan of the Kennedys. (In case, you are wondering, I do respect Obama.)

"Health care is a right."

No, it isn't. Do you think any politician will ever have the guts to say so? Or to not say, "We must do it for the children!!"

No.

Pelosi isn't a bad speaker. She is playing all the right notes. Patriotism! "Barack Obama is right, and John McCain is wrong!" Brooks says her speech was cliche, but I think that works for an opening speech.

Brooks wants people to define Obama, but I'm not sure defining Obama is in the party's best interest. Shields points out that people don't know McCain either. Yeah.

I must comment on the hall: in the past, Democratic convention halls have always been dark and depressing. Unfortunately, I get such bad reception on my television, I'm listening to the convention more than watching it--wait, got onto cnn.com with the sound down: The hall is not completely awful looking. Still too flash and glam. Really, people, streamers and balloons always work fine.

Jimmy Carter video. He is a very, very nice man.

Barack Obama's sister: Maya Soetoro-ng. I enjoyed her speech. Sweet but not saccharine. What a unique family!

Jesse Jackson, Jr. Junior! Wow, where have I been? Nice Martin Luther King, Jr. "I've Been to the
Mountaintop" reference (my favorite of King's speeches). Do you think any of my college students would get it? No, probably not.

He just mentioned Obama's speech in 2004. I personally thought Obama and Schwarzenegger's speeches were the two best this-is-why-I-am-what-I-am speeches of 2004. Giuliani's speech was fun. Zell Miller's was the best written speech.

Jackson just stated that Obama won in Illinois without help from the "powerbrokers"--hmm, is that a reference to the Clintons and their powerbrokers? I get a big kick out of the Jacksons. As O'Rourke once said (I'm paraphrasing), "Jesse Jackson was the only candidate in the convention to display any knowledge of Western rhetoric." Jesse Jackson, Jr. is doing what he is supposed to do at a convention--sell the candidate.
PBS speaks to Carter. (He's 83--impressive!) What a nice guy!

Hooray, it's PBS' pundits: the historians! I love these guys. However, I admit to having little interest in Carter's impact on the Democratic party.

Judy Woodruff is interviewing a delegate who knew Barack Obama in high school. This is actually really funny (unintentionally). Like any good biographer, Judy Woodruff is trying to get the delegate to say, "Oh, yes, I just knew Obama would be something someday." But the lady just thought he would grow up to be a basketball player because he liked basketball. Now that is real life. (People not automatically knowing what will happen to individuals they met in high school)

I'm sorry Ted Kennedy is ill. But you know, illness doesn't make people any more likable than they were before they got ill. I think it is bizarre how negative people can be about the Bush "legacy" while positively cooing over the Kennedys. Geez, people, if you want nepotism and power built on nothing more than a name and an image-- In any case, I strongly question the Kennedy's supposed legacy, and I think JFK sold Cuba down the river. (I admire Caroline Kennedy; I think she is a real lady.)

Well, the speech was nothing remarkable. This hasn't really been a "meaty" night.

Oh, hey, the Democrats got their own Republican (like Republicans got Zell Miller).

Eh, Leach is no Miller. Miller's speech at the 2004 Republican convention was a work of art:

For it has been said so truthfully that it is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us the freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the agitator, who has given us the freedom to protest. It is the soldier who salutes the flag, serves beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag who gives that protester the freedom he abuses to burn that flag.

Just look at that parallelism!

It is the soldier who salutes the flag,

serves beneath the flag,

whose coffin is draped by the flag

who gives that protester the freedom he abuses to burn that flag.

And Miller gave it the way you're supposed to give a speech with parallelism--on beat. (He didn't sound like he was reading the teleprompter.) The next morning, people at work complained about Miller for being "angry." Angry? How about actually saying something well? Give me Miller and Jackson any day of the week. 

(But not Sharpton--Sharpton just shrieks like Richard Burton doing Shakespeare.)

Brooks just said more Democrats are passing over to McCain than Republicans passing over to Obama BUT there are more un-Republicans--people who now claim themselves as Independents rather than as Republicans. Hmmm.

McCaskill: the same old chestnut that Republicans tax the poor to give to the rich. Do Democrats think that if they say it enough, it will become true? I can't forget Kerry wanting to tax "rich" business owners who dealt with revenues of about $100,000. Talk about crippling the small business owner!

Michelle Obama is up next. Before tonight, she has tried to play the "I can say whatever but you can't call me on it" card, but I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt.

Michelle Obama's brother: Craig Robinson. Again--sweet, not saccharine. Just the right note. (I hope neither party brings out the little kiddies.) Hey, I actually like the basketball metaphor.

The question is: Will Michelle sell Obama? I didn't think Theresa Heinz Kerry sold Kerry. It was like she went to give a speech and oops, ended up at the Democratic Convention. Laura Bush did sell her husband. I think, considering the venue, that selling her husband (or his wife as the case may be) is the speaker's job.

The speech is somewhat uneven, but it's real. You get the impression she wrote her own speech and is giving it without the teleprompter. She sure is selling her brother--is he up for promotion or something? Ah, no, she's showing that she is a family woman. Hmm, interesting tactic and buyable since I think she really is. (Unlike with the Clintons, who have their own wacky relationship, I get the impression the Obama-Robinson clan would all still be together even without politics.)

I always think it is funny when the audience realizes, "Oh, it's time to clap."

Also, unlike Edwards and Kerry and Gore, the Obama-Robinsons actually have the middle-class background Edwards and Kerry and Gore were always claiming for themselves.

She's getting into her stride--she's got the energy. Oh, she just mentioned Hillary. And Biden (I confess, I know nothing about Biden).

"End the war in Iraq responsibly"--what does that mean? Obama's going to fix everything! But every candidate is supposed to do that. My theory is that, setting aside the trappings of democracy, the presidential elections speak to a truly atavistic part of our humanity--we want to worship, lift up, and then kill the winter king. Extol him, elect him, destroy him.

Well, I'd give her a B for the speech (shifting pronouns! shifting pronouns!), but it felt real and heartfelt, and she did her job. Maybe a B+ for returning to her thesis.

They brought the kiddies out, but I confess the spontaneous "Hello, Daddy!" was pretty cute although they kind of interrupted their daddy's greeting. The historians think the girls are vote-winners; eh, I don't know. It ended the evening on a preschool note. On the other hand, they remind us that Obama is young enough to have young daughters. Young is very appealing.

In general, this was a strong beginning. It will be interesting to see if the Democrats can keep it up. Usually, Tuesday and Thursday are dull days; in any case, I hope to post tomorrow!

Please feel free to post! However, I will warn that I consider posts saying, "Republicans (or Democrats) stink" or "How can anyone not think exactly like me!" boring beyond belief. And I delete excessive vulgarity.

Darcy, Extreme Introvert

I am currently reading commentaries about Jane Austen's novels. In general, they are pretty good, but nearly every commentator feels obligated to explain away Darcy's letter to Elizabeth. The agreed-on commentatari seems to be that Darcy would never, never write such a letter in real life.

I find this reaction odd. I have never had any trouble understanding the purpose behind the letter or believing that Darcy would write such a revealing letter.

To begin with, I should state that out of all the film interpretations of Darcy, well, yes, I consider Colin Firth's to be the most accurate.

I know, I know, but my reasons do in fact go beyond the portrayal of Colin Firth as numero uno sex magnet. Rather, I am incessantly amused by Colin Firth's depiction of Darcy as the ultimate male introvert. And I am continually impressed by how pitch perfect he is in every scene (I'm convinced he either is an introvert or knows one).

I come from a family filled with male introverts of varying intensity. When Colin Firth's Darcy grumps his way around a ballroom, yet becomes downright friendly on his home turf ("Look at my computer program, my remodeling job, my lawn!"); when he wanders to the window during contentious conversations; when he drops by for a visit and then spends the whole time skimming through a magazine; when he answers questions monosyllabically . . . I laugh my head off: Yeah, I've seen this before.

This brings us to the letter. First, I find it completely plausible that Darcy would write a letter rather than explain himself verbally to Elizabeth. Darcy is a sharp dude. He is observant and can often recognize things in Elizabeth she doesn't recognize in herself. But he isn't a battle-of-wits type of guy. Faced with a verbally gifted and angry woman, he needs to draw back, regroup, and organize his thoughts.

In his book A Fine Brush on Ivory, Richard Jenkyns points out that Darcy does this at Rosings in the scene between Darcy, Elizabeth, and Colonel Fitzwilliam. Elizabeth zings Darcy. She then starts talking to Colonel Fitzwilliam and Darcy interrupts (which is not typical). But it took him a few seconds to marshal his thoughts and come up with an answer.

In the A&E production, Colin Firth nails this reaction--this is what I mean by pitch-perfect. In the first proposal scene between Darcy and Elizabeth, he walks back and forth in the drawing room, scuffing his boots. When Elizabeth accuses him of dissing Wickham, he stops at the fireplace and gives her this "Uhhhhhh" look. He knows she's wrong. He knows she doesn't get how correct his actions have been regarding Wickham (and her sister). But he doesn't know how to say it. Here's this bright, angry woman that he adores trouncing him verbally from all directions. He's got to get home and send her an email telling her how wrong she is. Oh, wait, no such thing as email. But she's got to understand that she's got him totally wrong.

This brings us back to the letter. The other reason I believe in the letter is because of how Darcy writes it. He does not say, "Oh, Elizabeth, I love you, I love you" (again). He does not say, "You stupid woman. Why don't you agree with me?" He doesn't even whine about her behavior. What does he do? He explains to her his process of thought.

This is so typical of a left-brained, male introvert, I can only assume commentators don't know any left-brained male introverts. You must get me. You must get why my utterly logical reasons resulted in my utterly logical behavior. It isn't about getting the woman to like or even love him. It's gone beyond that. His pride is on the line. A person he values (which, for this type of man, is a person whose judgment he respects even if he doesn't respect her family) has accused him of bad reasoning. Oh, man, that's just so wrong.

This doesn't mean that Darcy's reasoning is correct. Elizabeth has an invested interest in both her sister and Wickham, but she correctly deduces that while Darcy's line of reasoning re: Wickham is correct, his line of reasoning re: her sister is somewhat flawed. The reasoning "Wickham tried to seduce my sister to get back at me; therefore, he is a jerk" is pretty smart. The reasoning "The Bennett parents and younger sisters make me wince; therefore, my friend shouldn't marry the very sweet-natured Jane" is pretty bogus.

This doesn't alter Darcy's motivations though--he feels compelled to point out to Elizabeth that he actually thought his actions through. He didn't just act on a whim. He didn't behave ungentlemanly. He isn't the person she thinks he is.

Now, I do agree with those commentators who think Darcy is not a man to lightly expose himself. However, Elizabeth does not fall into the category of people to whom Darcy won't expose himself--even as early in their relationship as Rosings. Granted, he is attracted initially to Elizabeth's "fine eyes" (and lively conversation), but he would not have gone on being attracted if he had believed Elizabeth vulgar or incapable of discretion. He simply wouldn't have fallen in love with someone like that, and he is proud enough to believe that if he has fallen in love, she must be refined and discreet.

Now I will grant that at the age of almost 80, my father--an excellent example of the genus Introverti (male)--would probably no longer write such a letter. But then he has my mother edit all his letters. Now that Darcy and Elizabeth are married, whenever Darcy feels compelled to write to Lydia and Wickham, explaining exactly what he thinks of them, Elizabeth will be there at his shoulder, editing his prose.

10 Reasons College Students Shouldn't Plagiarize (And We're Not Even Going to Get to Ethics)

10. Free essays are very badly written. (Seriously, we're talking "F," "D" and "C-" territory.)

9. Paid-for essays are very, very badly written.

8. Paid-for essays are usually plagiarized. (Ironic, huh? Think about it: A site that will help you plagiarize is, what, devoted to lining its pockets out of a sense of decency?)

7. It is becoming easier and easier for instructors to check plagiarism. (I have access to Turnitin.com which can search not only the web but printed articles and books plus students' essays from across the country.)

6. Speaking of which—just because it took you a long time to find the essay, doesn't mean it will take ME a long time to find it. Think, "Google," folks. "Google."

5. You could write the darn thing in the time it takes you to plagiarize.

Whenever you cut and paste from a website, you cut and paste all the garbage from that website as well. I have spotted plagiarized papers because of all the little links like this one that were embedded in the original text and showed up nice and bright on a printed Word document.

I have also spotted plagiarized portions in papers because the font suddenly changed. Sometimes the font type changed, sometimes the size, and sometimes, the color. Gray is not the same color as black and many web pages come up gray when copied into Word.

The time it takes to hunt and search for all the embedded links, fix the font, and smooth out the paragraphs . . . you could have jotted down an essay that would at least have gotten you a "C" (see #1 above).

4. You think this sounds like you? In your dreams.

I am always amused (but not enough to pass the student) when the tone of an essay suddenly shifts:

Yo, I think marijuana should be like totally legal, ya know. Since the 20th century, most countries have enacted laws affecting the legality of cannabis regarding the cultivation, use, possession, or transfer of cannabis for recreational use. Many jurisdictions have lessened the penalties for possession of small quantities of cannabis, so that it is punished by confiscation or a fine, rather than imprisonment.

Yes, the second and third sentences are from Wikipedia.

The change in tone isn't always this obvious, but one of the give-aways of online material is how much of it sounds like it was written by a committee—a committee of colorless, humorless, mind-numbing people. Okay, not always, but it often sounds mucho-professional or like an encyclopedia-entry. I occasionally have students who write like this naturally, but it's uncommon.

3. Speaking of encyclopedias . . .

Another give-away is the sudden use of specifics:

Cannabis users included nineteenth century literary figures Robert Louis Stevenson, and Le Club des Hashishins members Victor Hugo, Alexandre Dumas, Eli Lilly and Company and others sold cannabis tinctures over the counter for a variety of maladies.

Okay, so maybe the student knows about Robert Louis Stevenson (he did write Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde) but Le Club des Hashishins? Eli Lilly and Company? Eh, I might just feel compelled to check this paper out.

The above is ALSO from Wikipedia (do you honestly think your professors haven't heard of it?).

2. No citations anywhere.

But, you may say, maybe the above student is just using the information from Wikipedia to enhance his/her essay. That could be true, despite the fact that Wikipedia is not a trustworthy source (useful, just not trustworthy). The give-away is when (1) the words are exactly the same; (2) the student has not given credit to Wikipedia in the actual text or on the Reference page. (Really, people, it isn't that hard to put something in quotation marks and say where you found it.)

1. If you're that stupid, I should fail ya.

I think there are strong ethical reasons why plagiarism stinks. From my perspective as an English instructor, I fail plagiarized papers automatically—I can't grade/judge someone's writing if I don't have that person's writing. (I'm not sure how I would react if I were a History instructor—maybe give the student credit for some research? And then remove points for the sources being misused and lousy?)

But I also think there are lots and lots of reasons (see above) why plagiarism is just stupid. If a U.S. college student* has reached this point (college) in his or her academic career and doesn't know that copying an essay wholesale is ethically suspect, can't read my syllabus where I state that plagiarism is not allowed, can't understand the words, "Plagiarism is not allowed in this class," can't tell bad writing from good and hasn't figured out how Googling works yet, why was that student graduated from high school? I mean, if the student can't even cheat intelligently . . .

*Many students from abroad will inadvertently plagiarize since their educational background has emphasized collecting and organizing information over putting information into their own words. However, these students almost always give credit to the sources they have plundered, incorporate the sources into their own writing, and, as soon as I explain plagiarism according to MLA and APA rules, apologize profusely, asking me desperately if I intend to fail them. (No.) Which is all to say: U.S. students, don't try to use this excuse--plagiarizing information in order to "get it right" does not fall into the same category as cutting and pasting an entire document and then pretending it's yours.

If you can fool me, I'll pass you. But then, to fool me, you'd need to know something about writing to begin with.

Yeah.

© Katherine Woodbury

HISTORY & LEARNING

The Romantic Hero: Three Versions for/by Women

Romance OCD-Style

The first is the most common. This type of romantic hero is all about the girl. He notices what she wears. He notices how she smells. He notices where she spends her free time. He picks up on tiny clues regarding her tastes, her wishes, her whereabouts. Edward from Twilight is this type of romantic hero. Darcy from Pride & Prejudice is a dialed-down and more realistic version. This hero has an impressively retentive memory: for instance, if the heroine leaves town due to some minor misunderstanding with the hero, he will remember that she once mentioned her grandmother used to live on Bailey Island in Maine, and since her grandmother recently died leaving her an inheritance, he will cleverly deduce that she has gone to her grandmother's house on Bailey Island and follow her there.

Positives: The obsessive can be alluring. Darcy is, without a doubt, one of the most attractive heroes in all of literature and television. Colin Firth's interpretation of Darcy as intensely introverted helps to offset the intensity of his observations (and Darcy, thankfully, doesn't notice everything). Still, this particular romantic hero feeds the seductive idea that the woman is the all-consuming and constant center of the male's universe (and he is not usually written as complexly as Darcy).

Drawbacks: Unless tempered by time or some outside interest (like, ya know, an estate), this hero runs the risk of being a domineering jerk. If he isn't violent or manipulative, he might just irritate the heroine to death with all his minute "observations." And if he doesn't have a moral compass, he will simply move on to the next woman who fills his universe whenever he gets bored with the previous "all-consuming" interest.

The White-Knight or (as Shawn refers to him on Psych) "Dwight"

The White-Knight flies to the rescue at the right time with the right equipment. He kills the dragon, uproots the bad guy, and, if he's a variation on the first type, remembers chocolates. But he isn't necessarily a noticing short of chap. He notices big problems like dragons, mean relatives, pirates, and the end of the world, and he tries to make an appearance at those events. He has a long and reputable history in film, including Wesley (Princess Bride) and Shrek. (I had a hard time coming up with an example from literature, believe it or not! Jane Austen's heroes occasionally perform rescues, but they never rescue the heroine--although Darcy does rescue Elizabeth's reputation--and Bronte's Jane Eyre rescues Rochester. I settled for Ellis Peters' Cadfael series since men do lots of rescuing in those books but it's nice and not totally annoying.)

Positives: The White-Knight plays to male strengths. While I find it completely unlikely for a heterosexual male to remember such minor details as the mention of a grandmother's inheritance (see above), I do consider it likely for any male to render a physical service, such as finding a dog, fixing a roof, or mowing the grass. Granted, killing a dragon is a little more exciting but evolved biology has nested the desire to protect within the male psyche. (Which is a good thing, I say to any "all-male-behavior-should-be-stopped" feminists. I'm a feminist, just not that type.)

Drawbacks: The desire to protect may also be accompanied by the desire to smash things. Which is fine so long as it isn't illegal. Also, once the romantic hero runs out of things to fight, he might not be able to adjust to home life. Dragons v. lawn . . . as the princes in Into the Woods discover, once the enemy is beaten, the girl isn't quite so interesting (or as House says to Wilson, "You're right. It was the schizophrenia."). And, here's my feminism, the heroine can sometimes rescue herself. (And should in the case of Bella from Twilight; okay, okay, I promise not to bring up Twilight again.)

The Only Guy Around (for Miles and Miles and Miles . . .)

I admit a preference for this particular hero/romantic situation. In this set-up, the hero and heroine are trapped somewhere--a small community, an island, work. They may even be trapped on a trip á la It Happened One Night and The Bourne Identity. In an extended sense, Mulder and Scully belong to this situation since, although they work amongst many people and have many contacts, they are tied together by their knowledge of the conspiracy. No one else is as fully informed, as invested, or as close as they are.

Positives: First, by necessity, the emphasis is on the relationship. Because there are no other options--because no one has to prove him or herself the better match--the focus moves from "Will they get together?" to "How will they stay or function together?" which is far more interesting to my mind. I have stated elsewhere that I consider Mulder and Scully the most romantic couple in all television precisely because in (almost) every episode, the intimacy and mutual reliance is assumed rather than proved. I also find the "trapped" situation interesting due to what I learned (in my master's program) to call liminality: people who might not otherwise come in contact, meet on the edges of their cultures. It isn't the rebel factor that interests me (Romeo and Juliet disobeying their parents), it's the negotiations that have to take place in order for the involved parties to understand each other (My Big Fat Greek Wedding).

Drawbacks: Stockholm Syndrome anyone? I can't help but wonder, "Would they stay together if you removed them from this situation?" Is the relationship built on necessity or desire? It could depend on the participants, but without the setting or, for that matter, the thrill of the unknown, would the relationship have the ballast to survive? If you got rid of the aliens, would Mulder and Scully still have Paris?

2008 Photos!

2008 photos can be found on the Introduction page.

Teaching Millennials: Kate's Philosophy In Progress

I don't usually post about my job since this site is supposed to be about popular culture. However, college is, in its own way, becoming more and more of a marketed commodity, so why not!

I should start by saying that teaching is the most exhilarating thing I have ever done, and I care more about it than just about anything I do.

I will now add that teaching is also one of the most depressing things I have ever done. "It's a circus!" as they say in The Fugitive.

There's a karmic pay-off involved here. I get depressed because, as the saying goes, "I care." When students plagiarize, answer cell phones in class, try to manipulate me, argue that because they pay to go to college, they shouldn't be expected to attend class (this week's particularly depressing occurrence), I feel sad (as well as about 1,000 years old) because, well, yes, I care--however, hokey that sounds (and perhaps no job can depress you until it matters to you).

But what do I care about? This is something I started asking myself about a year ago, and I keep chipping away it. What exactly do I expect from students in the first place? I should state here that I don't know whether students today are worse behaved than in the past, whether colleges are expected to service a larger and less prepared generation than in the past, or whether what I deal with is just the way 20-years-olds are. (I think all three of these "whethers" are probably partially true.)

But here is what I believe about my role as a caring teacher.

It started over a year ago. It's the end of the semester. Four of my classes are winding down, one of which is a preparatory writing class. This class started with 20 students; due to attrition, we are down to approximately 17. Out of the 17, at least 10 come to every class, hand in their projects on time, and take every test. Out of the remaining 7, 4 have met the minimum requirements to pass the course. They have no complaints with me. I have no complaints with them.

The remaining 3 have caused me nothing but heartache. For example, one of these students has not met the minimum requirements to pass the course for (what appear to be) completely legitimate and unforeseen reasons. After conferencing with the student (and, believe it or not, being contacted by the student's parent), I extend mercy so long as the student meets certain criteria. The student does not meet the new criteria, instead writing me long, emotionally charged explanations. I extend mercy (and criteria) a second time with the warning that I will not be able to extend mercy a third time out of fairness to the other students. The student does not meet the second set of criteria. I drop the student from the course amidst much wailing and feelings of victimization.

So the Monday after dropping the student, I'm standing in class, and I think, "I'm so sick of this."

I wasn't just sick of dealing with people who don't take advantage of opportunities. I wasn't just sick of my own waffling and indecisiveness. I was sick of a single student occupying so much of my time, my energy, my caring. I looked at my 10 good students--the ones who came and did the work and handed things in on time--and I was suddenly sick and tired of those students not getting the attention they deserved.

They got as much of my attention in class as anyone else. But they didn't get it outside the classroom. Outside the classroom, I was spending more time fielding complaints and pleas from "well-I-know-I-should-be-there-here-are-all-my-reasons-why-I'm-not" students than worrying about how to connect with, for example, an extremely shy good student. My energy, my love of teaching was being squandered and siphoned off into what often amounted to a waste of time.

Colleges have become more and more competitive with each other over students, meaning that instructors like myself are pressured, more and more, to chase after the students who don't come to class, the ones who don't commit themselves, the ones who need to be cajoled, consoled, rallied, encouraged, and nannied into attending their classes and handing things in. I don't mind answering questions, but I've spent an inordinate amount of time dealing with personal life-crises as well as "here are all my reasons for not doing what I've been asked to do" issues. I've spent more time on students who want to hand things in late and students who want to be excused for being tardy and students who want to be given special privileges than on those students who come to class, hand things in, take the tests, and try to learn.

And I'm tired of it. Humans only have so much energy. I only have so much to spare. I'm tired of uncommitted or quasi-committed students getting my attention. I'm tired of good students being appreciated but peripheralized because teachers are expected to concentrate on getting the remaining students to CARE about their education in the first place. I'm tired of good students losing out not from getting A's and passing (of course they do) but from having the teacher's full attention, the teacher's thoughts out of the classroom as well as in it.

A year ago, I began revising my classroom approach so, more and more, what students get out of the classroom experience is their responsibility. I don't mean students do my work (correcting essays, creating tests, holding meetings, devising lessons plans, fulfilling administrative tasks). But more and more, I clarify my philosophy to my students: what it means for them to be there in the classroom; why I include certain expectations on my syllabus.

This approach may seem rather obvious. And to a degree, it is. Teaching, to a degree, is all about confidence. Teachers have to believe in something--some standard, some preferred quality within their students. The more I teach, the more (not less) I believe that a student decides exactly how educated/committed/focused he or she will be. Nobody can distill desire or action into another human being. Education, believe it or not, cannot be forced onto a person, no matter how well-intentioned the educators.

There's a scene from American Idol (several years back). A young man comes in. He can't sing. Simon tells him he isn't going on to the next level. The young man begins to plead, to explain how much it means to him, how much he cares about being on American Idol, how hard he has worked. Finally, in frustration, Simon snaps, "Oh, well, NOW you can sing."

Wanting a thing, I try to clarify for my students, is not the same as earning the thing.

On the other hand . . .

But then I think, "Is my attitude fair?" Perhaps, encouraging students and teaching them what education means while helping them enter adulthood is the purpose of education. I've heard fellow adjuncts talk about how a single professor's encouragement really helped them at a rough time in their lives. I've had success myself pushing a student (gently but forcefully) to finish despite problems at home and/or illness. "You'll thank me later," I tell students á la Monk when I push them to hand things in on schedule no matter how tired or sick of school they feel.

And to be honest, a large part of my weariness is not the legitimate excuses but the expectation of entitlement, the belief that simply having the excuse is enough to make me change my standards, the course requirements, not to mention the definitions of "pass" and "on-time." Not to mention the expectation that I will accept the excuse without question. "Everybody lies," as House says to Wilson.

I feel downright warm and fuzzy when a student says to me, "I'm not going to be in class Wednesday because I'm going to stay up late to watch the baseball game" as compared to the students who tell me their grandparents died, their pets died, their sisters are getting married, etc. etc. etc. Oh, just pull those heart strings already. I recently had a student who, when I refused to say he'd met certain requirements when he didn't, told me (in order): I'm a nice person. I tried hard. This is really important to me. I only didn't do X amount of work. I live far from campus. I had to take care of an ill parent. I need this. I paid for this class. You're ruining my life. Abuse.

When I was in college, I went to class. I never asked for an extension. In four years, I called one professor once when I was throwing up all over the place. Yep, I was one of those students.

I also solved my own problems, hunted up my own answers, figured out my own grades, and thought for myself. It never occurred to me that I would go to a professor for any reason, not even to clarify an assignment (I should have; it just never occurred to me). Granted, I was living 2,000 miles away from home. But my behavior in college was not substantially different from my behavior as a senior in High School. Everything I accomplished academically was due to me reading the assignments, checking the syllabus, figuring out the answers on my own, and following through.

My students puzzle me. I try desperately to remember myself as a 20-years-old (beyond the obsessive independence which led me to move into my own apartment at age 22). "I wasn't in class last week," my students tell me, looking limp and innocent. "You had a syllabus," I say, trying not to sound like Simon. "The assignment was on the syllabus."

"I couldn't do the assignment. I don't know how to write a comparison/contrast essay," they say.

"You've got the freaking Web," I don't say. "I figured out assignments from asking other students and reading my freaking textbooks. You couldn't spend two minutes
Googling 'how to write a comparison/contrast essay?'"

I don't say it. They plagiarize enough from the Web (which makes them remarkably easy to catch). Still, where's the problem-solving? Where's the energy to figure out an assignment on one's own?

Which is when I think, Perhaps I'm right to refuse them too much pity, to refuse--no matter what the excuse--to say, "Oh, well, NOW you can sing."

HISTORY & LEARNING