20211111.1111

Again and again
I give the refrain
Would that they had been right
But we don't abstain
From working that pain
On ourselves and increasing our plight

20201111.1111

Better pens than mine
Better hands upon better keyboards
Better minds behind them and
Better hearts

Have said what can be said of this
More than a century on
But I maintain
My old refrain:
Would that they had been right

20190921.0430

The uniforms go marching by
Shining in the sunlight
Sweating beneath
And it is easy to love such things on sight
But less
Perhaps
To love the things not present in parade
Sometimes needed
Sometimes not
Unless the desires of the greedy
Whom struggle never touches
Count as need
But far from pleasant
Even when needed
Flowers grow well from shit
But what does a flower do?

20190606.0430

I have posted on 6 June in six of the nine previous years: 2010 and 2014-2018. In all save the last two, I've commented on the anniversary of the D-Day invasion of Normandy, of which this year is the seventy-fifth. It is the diamond anniversary of an event more marked by steel and lead than any precious stone, and few are left to celebrate who were united then. It's not something to which I think I ought to speak all that much at this point. Honestly, what more can I add to such a conversation, when I have not worked to make myself an expert in it? I know that does not stop many from opining at length, and I am probably among those people, but I will at least not compound the error this time.
In all save the last year, as well (again with the poem-in-sequence), I have noted that the day is my parents' anniversary; they've been married thirty-eight years today. I'm not sure what I can add to that, either, except to say again that I am glad they are and have remained married, and that I love them. But I think they have known it for some time, even if I do not think they weary of hearing it.
The commemorations may not offer much to reflect upon as I sit and write now, but some of the attending comments might. My 2016 post on the day, for example, gives me something to consider as I look back. Aside from a usage error that galls me as I read it (so much so that I've gone back and adjusted it), I find myself somewhat annoyed by the tone I hear in the piece (or perhaps an under- or overtone that sounds in my ear because I remember its composition). Not having steady work was not good for me, I think; the writing reads as having whining notes in it, as well as fundamentals in dark tones, indeed. And why should it not? I was beaten, leaving Oklahoma in defeat, and there are ways in which I've still not recovered from it.
I am not sure I ever will.
This is not to say that things are not better now than they were. I have steady work now, and decently fulfilling. More importantly, I am able to have a good life outside of work; I am not a creature of my professions only, as I had tried (foolishly) to be, or even mostly, as I often was. Instead, I have a life outside my work, and one that is of greater comfort to me than any work I have done. And I can still work on The Work--I am, in fact, getting more of that kind of thing done now than I did when I was making a go of making it in academe, which is a strange thing but not unenjoyable.
Even so, there lingers at the back of my mind a niggling voice that reminds me that I have been beaten. It calls out a cadence to which I still play, and I am not sure how to break away from that rhythm.

20190519.0430

Phonetic codes that soldiers know
Include Juliett and her Romeo
And it seems a strange thing that
In their messaging
They who opt to fight
Refer back to teenage idiots
Again and again
It is not only
The uniformed
Who do such things
So
It is not only
The uniformed
Who seem to revel in foolishness
Hormonal angst allowed to go too far
Sometimes
I do not think things through
But I sometimes think through them too much

A

Today is Sousa Day, as I have noted before in this webspace, and it's a fine day to find an A at 440...
Terrible punning aside--and I acknowledge that the puns are bad, but I am years a father and can safely offer such things--I do wonder about the popularity of Sousa's music, both during his time and in the times that have followed. Admittedly, I stopped being a music major before I got to the part of the curriculum that dealt with historical development and trends in music, so it may well be because of my failure that I do not have my head wrapped fully around the matter, but why marches--and Sousa's marches--had and have the cachet they do is not something that is clear to me. I've played enough of them, and enough parts in them, to know that they are energetic pieces, readily accessible to ensembles of reasonable but not exceptional competence--that I've been able to play them is testament to that, because I've never been that good a performer.
Yet energetic, player-accessible pieces do not necessarily make for staying power. There are any number of such pieces that have received less attention in succeeding generations--such as works by Patrick S. Gilmore, for example. Nor is it accessibility to listeners that does it; again, there are many works that were easy to hear that are no longer heard. And, if the parallel argument from literature can be made (of course I was going to find my way there at some point, being who and what I am), and it is the tastes of the socially dominant that make for staying power, then it still eludes me at the moment why Sousa's music would continue to have its place. How the interests of the putatively mighty are served by it is not clear; what the wealthy and powerful gain from it is not evident, at least not to me.
I do not make such comments to condemn Sousa, certainly. Whatever the reasons for his music's continued cachet, his marches are standard band fare, and I am a once and present bandsman; it may be nostalgia that drives me thus, but I am still pushed to appreciate the music. I enjoy a good performance of it, either as one of the people doing the performing or as one of the people in the audience; it was certainly the case when I was living in New York City and the service bands would come through and give concerts, and I think it would be the case now if I had again the opportunity to attend such a thing. (My part of the world does not get many such opportunities, and other circumstances do not always conduce to my going even when there is such a chance.) But that does not mean I do not wonder about why it is that a thing is so, and it does not mean I should not encourage others to ask similar questions.
Assumptions should be examined.

20181218.0430

On 15 December 2018, Sig Christenson's "Seventy Miles of Razor Wire Later, Some GI’s Pulling back from Border" appeared in the online San Antonio Express-News. The article reports on the current state of the troops deployed to the southern border of the United States to assist in deterring migration into the country, as well as the work done by those troops during their deployment to the Mexican borders of Texas, California, and Arizona. (The lack of troops on the New Mexico border is noted.) Political concerns surrounding the deployment also receive attention. Drawdown of troops has begun, although some troops are expected to remain on site until 31 January 2019, depending on conditions along the border.
The article reads as a quiet condemnation of the troops' deployment; I get the sense as I read that Christenson views the deployment as a waste of time and resources, though that might be my own opinion influencing my reading. (I do view it as a waste and a political stunt meant to distract from other problems by causing problems for men and women who are not in a position to respond, as well as their families.) But reinforcing seventy miles of a much longer border does seem a small effort, in all; I know those in uniform are capable of doing much more than that. And the comments Christenson reports and makes seem to indicate a similar awareness, as well, perhaps, as a rebuke to others who might for some reason--likely not a good one--favor more intensive measures.
Again, I find myself of the opinion that the response to migration coming towards the United States is an overwrought theatrical response to an issue that is, in part, the creation of the United States. And I think that there is a certain amount of anxiety among the mainstream population of the United States about immigration, generally. (I cannot take credit for the idea, though I do not recall anymore where I came across it, for which I apologize. I am happy to cite the source if it is presented to me.) It has been remarked repeatedly and abundantly that the United States is a nation of immigrants, and I have heard no few people comment again and again that "if they'd just come over legally and learn our language" and on and on and on. But I note that the "our" being referred to did not do so. The "our" that emerges from a putative "us" that is almost always meant by such phrasing is a group of colonizers who did not assimilate to local customs and ways of life--and, yes, I am the descendant of such people, benefiting even now from atrocities committed upon those who were here by others who came from far away and refused to adapt themselves to the ways of life already in place. So there is likely somewhere some kind of anxiety that what the mainstream population of the United States collectively did and benefits from will be enacted upon it, in turn.
Given what has been done, and over how long, that it should be feared is not a surprise. And it may perhaps be justice for it to happen again, though the scale and scope of it exceeds me. But it might also be justice for the United States to work to correct the errors it has made, though it does not seem apt to do so anytime soon.

20161111.0616

And since today is Veterans Day,
And since others will say it,
And since otherwise is not condoned,
And since I would allay it,
And since I know my fortunes here,
And since I know to say
The thing that should be said again:
Thanks. Happy Veterans Day!

20151111.0617

The United States commemorates today as Veterans Day, something about which I have written before in this webspace (namely here, here, here, and here). I have nothing to add about it at this point, really; my opinions on it have not changed more than they already had. Given my own work, I doubt I will be able to observe the two-minute silence at the appropriate time, which is unfortunate, but work continues, holiday or no. My responsibilities do not change because a partial public observance occurs; they do not change for full observances, in fact. But that does not mean I do not recognize the occasion.

Even as I do, however, there are other things to which I must attend. Ms. 8, as it happens, has a bit of a cold that sounds like it is trying to get into her chest. She is doing largely well, to be sure, and she is generally in a good mood, but it is obvious to me that she is not at her best. Coughing jags annoy her and worry her parents, and her refining imitation of a glazed donut continues annoyingly for all involved. We are treating symptoms as best as we can, but the cold is as it is, and it must run its course. At least it isn't pneumonia or something worse this time...

The weather around Sherwood Cottage is peculiar. Yesterday started off quite brisk and ended up being quite warm, with temperatures in the 80s F. (International friends, I forget the Celsius equivalents. Upper 20s, maybe?) Today promises to cap out in the low 70s, and the winds are sweeping across the plains, indeed. Whether they will make getting to work easier or more challenging, I do not yet know. I will find out, however, as I will be walking. It is not raining, after all, and I can stand a bit of a breeze. I blow enough hot air to be able to take some wind back in my face; it's only fair.

The semester is in its final stages at this point. Students are at work on their fourth paper (of four), and they are voting on the form their final exam (which I give because the institution says I have to, not because it is actually appropriate to the class) will take. So far, they seem to want to have a riddle exercise, one in which I give them the text of a riddle to proofread (because I embed usage errors into it), solve, and explain the solution thereof based on the text provided. It is an exercise I have given before to the current classes, earlier terms at the current institution, and at my previous institution; it seems to work well enough for what I want to do with it, although it seems also to strike a number of students oddly. Then again, so does losing points for doing assignments badly, so I am not quite so concerned about that.

20140610.0834

Because my father has worked for the US Department of Veterans Affairs for some time (he is an HVAC/R technician at one of the many hospitals), I have paid some attention to news reports about the scandalous lack of care given to veterans by the very system that is meant to aid and support them. I have heard the complaints about the travesties of veterans waiting months or more for appointments and the lies told to try to hide the fact. And I agree that the situation is bad. I agree that the US is disserving those who served the nation and that it is entirely unworthy of them or of the nation to act thusly.

I do *not* agree, however, that the situation is entirely the fault of the VA.

After years of cuts to funding, years of cuts to services, years of cuts to the number of beds available, years of cuts to hiring, years of cuts to programs designed to encourage improvement, it should not be wondered at that the system put in place to serve veterans falters. When there are not people to process paperwork, there will be delays in processing it, and when there is no money to hire people, there will not be people working. When there are not facilities in which to treat people, they will not be treated, and when there is no money to pay for facilities, there will not be facilities. When there is no chance for advancement, people will not remain in their jobs, and when there is no money for raises or bonuses, there is no chance for advancement. And when there is no money, it is not the fault of the VA alone, for it is not the VA that determines how much money the VA receives. While it is the fault of the Department that its employees lied and hid the state of things, and those who are responsible should be taken to task for their misdeeds, it is also the fault of those who control the flow of money to and through the VA for creating the situation--and the US House is ultimately responsible for determining that flow, since it is from the House that bills about money must come (US Const., art. I, sec. 7).

Establishing fault does not provide for a solution in any event, and that solution is the thing that needs finding. And it is not to offer veterans vouchers, except in the short term while deeper systematic issues are resolved. It is not more cost-effective in the long term to give the care of those who were wounded in uniform to private industry--the reverse is likely to be true, given prevailing health care prices--and that it would be more efficient is questionable at best, given the treatment times already experienced by hospitals and clinics. It is not to throw our collective hands in the air and rattle off some stock phrase about "the damned government" and give up on the endeavor.

It is to accept that we may have to pay a little more to do what we damned well ought to do than we would prefer, and to pay it if it needs paying.

20131111.0630

Today in the United States, it is Veterans Day,* upon which I have commented once or twice before.  In many other places, it is Armistice Day, a commemoration of the end of the First World War.  It is lamentable that those many who called World War I "the war to end all wars" were wrong; it is sad that the optimism in 1919 was in vain.  But it is still fitting that they who fought in that conflict are remembered; we may need remediation to learn the lesson they sought to teach, but that does not mean that we cannot learn it.

If we ignore it, though, we will not be able to learn it, and the Great War is too often ignored in favor of other conflicts.  In some senses, this is understandable.  WWII was far more horrific than its predecessor, killing far more and changing the world perhaps more drastically; that it is widely studied is appropriate.  Too, it remains in living memory, if by a decreasing margin, and WWI barely does if at all, anymore.  The conflict in Korea is in some senses still going on; the US still has forces arrayed along the border between North and South Korea, after all.  Vietnam was...what it was, and I honestly do not know enough to comment upon it.  Other, more recent actions have been more thoroughly and publicly documented, and I need not remark too much upon them; they have received more attention than I can provide.

There was much of note in WWI, however.  General of the Armies of the United States Pershing was hardly without a storied history.  Similarly Colonel Alvin York (whose commission was a later matter, but still entitles him to the style).  Yet even such people, who were lauded so highly and who exerted such influence on later generations, are overlooked; even I, who am aware that there is more to see, can recall few other than them, to my shame.  It is something which I will be working to remedy (among the many other things I seek to fix in myself and the world around me).

It is something towards which we all ought to be working.  If it is the case that such days as today exist to remember those who have fought and died on our behalf, then it is the case that they all ought to be remembered--or as many of them as can be.  This is true even for those who fought a fight whose purposes were not wholly met--and, again, sadly, the First World War neither ended all war nor even ended it among the nations and peoples of Europe.  They deserve to be honored no less than their successors--and perhaps we honor them best by working to enact their hope.

And to those who have so struggled, particularly those who have done so in uniform, I offer my thanks.

*English major bit (because I cannot help but): there is confusion about the genitive.  I have seen "Veterans Day," as I give above, from the US Department of Veterans Affairs--and that agency has substantial authority in the matter.  I have also seen "Veteran's Day," and have used it.  As I think on it, "Veterans' Day" seems most "correct," as the day is one in honor of more than one veteran.  The agency should then be Veterans' Affairs, and, as it was set up in a time when people were more...punctilious about "correct" usage, I am confused at what strikes me as an error.

20131106.0627

I admit that I have not been diligent in my civic duties of attending to elections in this cycle, to my shame.  It has not always been the case that I have not paid much mind to who is running what and where; I have remarked about such things in the past.  But this time around, I have not had the energy to spend on watching politics, I have not had much to add to discussions of them, I have not had the time to take away from a number of other pursuits, and I have found it hard to care.  (I also remain unsure about my eligibility to vote in state and local elections at this point...I really ought to ask after that...in and among all of the other things that need doing...if I remember...and if it matters...)

That I have not done so removes me from the ability to complain about things that might have been influenced by me had I voted.  Senators and Representatives against whom I have not yet had the chance to vote (and admittedly more the former than the latter) are still targets, as are those people chosen in the elections in which I voted (and there were a few).  Executives can get the same treatment.  But I did fail in some of my duties, and so I must accept the consequences thereof; I didn't do what I could to stop things, so I do not get to complain about them not being to my liking.  (Again, unless I was not eligible to vote because of my move...I really need to look...)

My "reasons" for not voting are the same as I have railed against in others, which, I suppose, makes me once again a hypocrite.  I suppose it also serves to position me among the great masses of people in the United States, consumed with my own immediate advancement and agenda rather than the greater good.  And while I know that some would say that my concern for such things, myself rather than the body politic, is actually the best thing for that body, I do not know that I can agree.  Certainly, I want to see a strong social safety net (i.e., welfare, food stamps, social security, basic universal health care, effective and ethical law enforcement and military forces, public schooling) in place.  I might need it (again), so that in one respect, it is like insurance--and I do not mind others using it while I am not, so long as it is there when I do need it.  But, more to the point, I have seen the stupidity and, frankly, evil that result from people focusing on themselves and their own immediate needs to the exclusion of others'.  It is that focus that leads children to gorge themselves to the point of vomiting.  It is that focus that prompts people defending themselves to flail about wildly, possibly hitting their intended target, and likely inflicting harm on others not involved in the attack (and leaving aside the question of whether or not an attack is actually being made).  It is at some level the same focus that has led to atrocities time and again, and--

--and, like I noted, I did not vote, so I ought not to complain.  I have helped it be this way, and I am (and should be) ashamed.

20130916.1636

I have not kept abreast of developments.
I do not know
Of football scandals
Or shootings on bases
Or imminent war,
At least not as much as I should.
It is a failing in some ways,
An artifact of my living in the literature of the past
And of immersing myself in the work I do
Teaching
And doing the reading and research upon which teaching depends--
As well as the grading that seemingly inevitably results.

(I am not sure why it is
That grading papers takes up most of my on-the-job time.
Is it really the case that marking papers
Is the most important part of teaching?
The recent and ongoing drive
Towards assessment as the end-goal of "education"
Implies that it is so,
Yet the more assessment that happens,
The more complaints that
Children are not learning and
College is a waste of money
Are voiced.
Am I a fool to think there might be causation between the two,
Or is my folly of another sort altogether?)

It is a thing to which I return,
The development and maintenance of ethos,
Of my authority to speak with authority.
If I am going to critique the writing of others,
I must be,
If not above critique
(For no one is;
Shakespeare could have written better
By having Romeo and Juliet
Kill themselves in Act I
And letting Mercutio live),
In a position to make the critique damned hard to carry out.
If I am going to work
To get the students to expand their minds,
My own must be open wide,
And it is difficult to stretch so far
When constrained by the demands of my position.

(Note that I do not complain of having the work to do.
I am glad to have the job I have.
That does not mean it is perfect.
It does not mean that things could not be better.
And it does not mean that I cannot voice my objections.
We do not fault the ditch-digger, the roof-maker, or the wall-builder
For bemoaning an aching back
Or the hot summer sun.)

The only thing to do is more,
And there is always more to do.
It is a throne in the ivory tower
In the seat of which a tack is set
Point up,
And I flopped into it.

20130904.1100

I recently graded a number of documents my students submitted
(Amazingly enough,
They were on time),
Their resumes
Their testimonies
In brief
Of who they are
What they have done
What they hope to become
And I was impressed with some of them.

Some of them have done much
Of note.
I have Eagle Scouts,
Lab workers,
And long-standing service-persons
Who have been in the world
And of the world
As I have not.

The resumes
Are windows from the ivory tower
In which I reside more fully now than before.
I look out from them,
See green yards, tall trees, and people walking about smiling,
And I confess to come envy of what I see.

Other panes reveal much less to celebrate,
As has been the case for me
Before.

I lean back from the windows
And relax into my comfortable chair,
Scholarly apparatus again in reach
And wonder if others
Look in
With green eyes
At what I have.

20130527.1015

In the United States, today is Memorial Day.  I have marked the occasion before, although I have not always been diligent about noting it on the day of observance (as here and here).  And I remain convinced that it is a day worth marking, for those who have fallen in service, or who survived grievous injury to body, mind, and soul in service, deserve to be remembered and honored where they have in truth been honorable.

(As I have noted, I am well aware that not all have.  But their failings do not detract from the good that their more righteous comrades have done in the world, and it is not the truth that no good has come from the mighty deeds of their comrades.)

This morning, less early in it than perhaps should have been, I thought I would take a look at 5 USC 6103 (United States Code, Title 5, Section 6103) and 36 USC 116 (United States Code, Title 36, Section 116), the laws providing for the formal observance of Memorial Day in the United States.  I ought not to have been surprised to find that they are as complicated as they are, but I was taken aback to note how much goes into a prescribed holiday--and there is more than the two cited sections of the US Code, as each references other laws entirely.

Much of the complication comes from the need in any law to be as specific and exact as possible.  Questions of definition always apply, although there is some oddness in trying to use words to define other words.  And, as I tell my students, there is a certain solemnity in observance that prompts formal language--which is typified in part by its preoccupation with specificity of naming and dating, with what each term means.

If we are to do honor to those who deserve to be honored, we do so in part by paying such detailed attention as formal language commands to the means by which we seek to honor them.  The very specificity of the diction and syntax serves to indicate that the thing being discussed is one worth close attention to detail, reinforcing the degree to which it is honored.  Taking the time to be sure that the thing is done correctly, and, indeed, stepping away from what is "normal" to do so, implies the regard for the thing and the value of that for which the thing is done.  Rather than being ostentatious for the sake of being ostentatious, it is a mark of respect and of the profundity of the relationship between that which is honored and those who would seek to honor it.

20111111.0835

It is true that peace is desirable.  Things tend to go better for more people during times of peace, myself among them, and I can hardly condemn that from which I benefit.

It is also true that the maintenance of peace is a tricky thing.  In many cases, it can be done through careful negotiation, but for that negotiation to work, all concerned parties must be willing to compromise; they must have a commitment to creating and keeping peace.

It is true that not all parties which might be involved in the peacemaking process will be persuaded by careful negotiation.  It is against such people, against any situation that s not amenable to reason, that the ability to effect violence must be maintained.

I do believe that the violence should be minimized.  As a student of aikido, I, acknowledging the rights of people to maintain the integrity and security of their possessions, bodies, and selves, believe that it is incumbent upon a right-thinking person to work to inflict minimal harm on others--and that it is a higher expression of martial ability to subdue an opponent such that no attack is possible than to destroy that opponent.

The human body is fragile and easily undone, after all.

I believe that the same is true for nations as for the people who compose them, and so I believe that a military force is necessary.  I know also that I will never stand among such a force.  That does not mean, however, that I do not respect those who do.  And so I offer my thanks, small as they are against so great a set of sacrifices as has been offered and is still being rendered up, on this Veteran's Day.

As I have said before, I owe my existence--in several ways--to the fact of specific people having been veterans.  And as I have also said, I can hardly condemn that from which I benefit.

Then again, I do have to be wary of overstating things.  I benefit from many things, I have no doubt, which are themselves execrable.  Some of them I surely know nothing about; I admit that I do not attend too closely to the production cycle of those things I consume, but I do know that agriculture and manufacture are rife with exploitation.  And my work does tend to remind me of the existence of the downtrodden, since many of my students are very much among that large group of people.  No doubt I contribute to the social structure that keeps the downtrodden trod down.

Wow.  I guess I am an evil hypocrite.

Even so, that does not mean that those who have served and continue to serve are not worth respect and thanks.  And so I still offer it them.  As should a great many people, whether they do or not.

20101222.1014

In a post to another blog I have recently started, I drafted a summary of a NYTimes.com article dealing with some of the effects of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell repeal. I'll not repeat myself here, but I will add to what I posted as an example for my students that I find it interesting that so many of the university presidents have so suddenly expressed support for ROTC. I also find it interesting that one of the professors who is on the Stanford U. committee that will rule on whether or not to open more fully to ROTC notes the possible issues of political expediency that resulted in the shut-down of the Stanford ROTC in 1973.

Is it possible that there is a similar political-expediency motivation behind the current upswelling of support? Given the multiple calls for engagement by the academy with the outside world as well as concerns over the diminishing relevance of university education, I rather think so.

Even so, I am minded of the concept of the Fortunate Fall: without sin, there can be no redemption. So even if the motives behind the push are politic rather than sincere, I cannot say that the expansion of the ROTC program is bad. It opens access to higher education, which is good. It also promotes service, which is good. And every so often, it introduces people to each other whose later unions produce people I value.

My parents, after all, met in ROTC.

20101111.0846

Yes, it is Veterans' Day, and yes, it is the old Armistice Day, as well. And I am very much grateful to those who have served and still serve this country. That service has not been perfect, and it has been badly used by those in power over it, but it is a damned sight better than a number of the alternatives.

Faint praise, I know.

The people in the armed services are just that: people. They are human. They err. Sometimes they err greatly. But they also are in a position that does much for others. And for that, I thank them.

20100921.1551

Senate, I am disappointed in you. I truly, truly am. And I am so for several reasons.

Does it matter who a soldier goes to bed with if he or she is on duty on time the next day?

Is a sailor's performance affected by the gender of who rubs his or her genitals?

Does a Marine lose the ability to aim and fire a weapon if he or she has sex with someone of the same sex?

Can a pilot not fly if that pilot's controls are played with by another person with the same equipment?

Really?

Or is it that you are afraid that more people will know that more of you do things like tap your feet in bathroom stalls or have the wrong kind of fun with pages? (I know the second is a Representative, but it's not too far from that chamber...)

20100606.2152

I realize that I am fairly late in posting this. I can only plead the excuse that I have been a bit ill for the past few days. It is not anything major, but it does put me a bit out of my element.

The major event of the day is, to once again betray my prejudices, the anniversary of the D-Day landings at Normandy during WWII. Sixty-six years ago, the largest amphibious assault in recorded history was launched. Although many thousands died in that attack, their deaths ultimately led to the overthrow of one of the most evil men in history.

And so, though it is a small thing, such thanks as I have to give I give to them. God bless and keep them.

Of more personal importance to me is another anniversary marked today. In 1981, my parents picked this day to become husband and wife. Today, they are still happily married, and the home and family that June 6, 1981, afforded me are at the root of my being.

I am hardly ungrateful for that.

I am also far from ungrateful that I am in a position to be able to spend my evenings contemplating academic readings or offering my opinions on the world. I could be spending these moments frantically searching to find enough food to put on the table, or money to buy it. I could be trying to escape predation of one sort or another. I know that many are in such situations, and I thank the Almighty daily that I am not among them.

I am in a position of privilege. And I am human enough that I hope to see that privilege maintained; who among us does not like to keep what we have?

But I do some small things to aid the situation. I do give to a number of charities. And my work as a teacher, particularly in that such work services traditionally underprivileged populations, tends to aid those who are in disadvantaged positions to attain some form of advantage.

It is good work, I think, and worthy. And even if I do not raise my hand in anger or slay the enemies of a nation or of cross-national human concerns, I work in my own small way to ensure that the promises of an open society, one in which people are given the opportunity to accomplish what it is in them to do, one in which the various things for which we discriminate against people cease to matter--save only a very few.

For though I believe that a person's race, gender, sexuality, religious stance or lack thereof, socio-economic status, and condition of ability do not determine a person's worth, I am not about to say that a person who is lazy is deserving of esteem. Those who seek to advance themselves at the expense of others--not by building upon their accomplishments but by willfully and knowingly stealing them for their own--should be condemned. And those who will say that the endeavor of the expansion of human knowledge in which I and many others are engaged is a facile folly earn nothing but my enmity.

Does such a statement make of me a hypocrite? Perhaps, but as I have before noted, if I am, I am in fine and ample company.