Supreme Court Diversity, Justice Sotomayor and GMOs.

Supreme Court Diversity, Justice Sotomayor and GMOs.

When I hear someone call for diversity these days, I am never sure which way the intent is directed.  But this I read a while back and gave pause.  Justice Sotomayor said in an interview at Brooklyn Law School, “I, for one, do think there is a disadvantage from having (five) Catholics, three Jews, everyone from an Ivy League school (on the Supreme Court).”  

Here we have a justice calling for a different kind of diversity on the Supreme Court.  And it makes sense.  She seems to suggest that Justices from other law schools may bring different perspectives.  This is sorely needed.  

In 2014 the Supreme Court ruled that “Monsanto may sue a farmer whose field  was accidentally contaminated with Monsanto materials.”  On the surface this seems to make some sense.  There is a patent by Monsanto which protects the GMO seeds which they have developed.  GM surely has thousands of patents to protect devices they have developed for their cars.  

There is a problem here.  Cars are a material object created by humans.  But seeds and the way these function have been developed over millions of years by Nature to assure their survival and success.  To give the right to a company to sue for what Nature has been doing since, well, since the earth cooled, displays a level of ignorance or complicity which is nothing short of scary.  How can it be ignorance?  

We live now in Georgia and where we live can have some strange wind patterns.  Often in the morning the wind comes from the west, later on from the south and occasionally from the east and once in a while from the north.  The seeds I plant can conceivably be contaminated from a large area.  I could plant trees around the border and this would reduce the chances of cross pollination but certainly would not end it.  So the ignorance rests on the utter cluelessness of how weather can work with Nature.  How a farmer’s heritage seeds can be contaminated by “an act of God”.  The Supreme Court Justices might alter their views, if they understood farming.  There is also the danger in allowing a company to have a patent for a seed and give them the right to check another farmer’s field without permission or knowledge.

This ruling clearly is for the benefit of giant companies to be able to control who manages the food supply, not just for the USA but for the entire world.  This is where complicity comes in.  It is illogical to assume that when someone becomes a Supreme Court Justice that they delete their past, their past of employment, their past education, their past views.  After all, who and what each of us is depends on what we read, studied, heard and where we worked.

So when this ruling was made, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the majority opinion.  From 1976- 1979 Thomas worked as a corporate lawyer for Monsanto.  This, to me, is a serious conflict of interest.  He did not recuse himself.  It appears that members of the Supreme court are exempt from having to recuse themselves, when a case comes up in which a former associate or employer is involved.  They are permitted to evaluate their own obligation to recuse themselves.  A rather convenient arrangement.  

Justice Thomas has received gifts from groups which support programs such as those developed by Monsanto.  $15,000 bucks from American Enterprise Institute which opposes regulations on GMOs,  speaking engagements at organizations which also oppose GMO regulations.

So it seems that integrity is not only lacking in Congress and the Executive branch but also the Judiciary.  This is scary because one thing, it seems to me, preserves what freedoms we have and that is the fact that one branch of government is supposed to watch the other.  This conflict between the three branches has kept them off of our backs, for the most part, for more than two centuries.  

There is not much doubt that corporations play a huge part in elections, in both parties.  This is clear when we see how Senators respond and how Congress people respond and how Presidents respond. President Obama appointed Michael Taylor to run the FDA.  Where did he work previous to his appointment?  He was a lobbyist for Monsanto!

Who appoints Justices?  The President.  Where do they come from?  Many from corporations, major power interests.  President Obama nominated Judge Merrick Garland to replace Justice Scalia.  Where did he work?  For a company which defends corporations.

Just exactly where in all this are the interests of the country as a whole defended?  

Modern Epicureans as Anti-intellectuals

Current argument by some claim that there are certain matters settled and beyond dispute.  I agree that some issues come under this group:  the distance of the sun from the Earth, or that the Earth revolves around the Sun.  There are hundreds of others.  But there are some problems which science, for example, faces which are at least questionable. 

Lets change subjects for a moment and think about the ideas of Marcus Tullius Cicero.  He wrote a book, On the Nature of the Gods in 45 BC.  It consists of a dialogue between Cicero, his friends, Balbus, Velleius and Cotta.  Cicero narrates but hardly participates in the discussion.  As though he sits at the side, follows the conversation and thinks of what is said.

Velleius submits the argument of the Epicureans who argued that only things exist. And these things, atoms are constantly shifting about and that no object ever remains the same.  He carries his argument to all areas. God does not exists for God does not consist of atoms.  The ideas in your head can not be the same as those in mine.  Pleasure and pain determine how we act, why we act (because only atoms, physical objects interact).  Thus we seek pleasure but avoid pain.  No one does something for country because it is right but because there is some personal advantage for doing so.  Such as saving the country to protect one’s own property.  Any argument or piece of litarature outside of these limits is not worthy of study.

One of the characters in the dialogue, Balbus, a Stoic, critiques Velleius’ points.  Balbus makes the case that Epicureanism tends to be dogmatic- here is the list of what is true, learn it and then one will know; that here is no need for knowledge outside of what the senses provide, because Epicurus (the founder of Epicureanism) has transmitted to all posterity what is true and what is false; that Epicurus saw no need for examining any other system of thought or anyone else’s ideas; that any system which disputes Epicurus is not just wrong, but foolish; that Epicureanism has the tendency to argue that the matter is settled and case is closed.  Balbus is extensive in his arguments to refute Velleius and Epicureanism.  

But all this leads to a question about Epicureanism.  If it had gained ascendency and had the power to enforce its views, would it be tolerant of different views?  After all does dogma see any need for dispute?  Epicureanism never says that it appears to be correct but that it is correct. 

At the end of the dialogue, Cicero says that he favors the Stoics but realizes that upon further study, he may change his mind.

My concerns is that if only things exist and constantly change how can love or justice or courage be nailed down?  It would be like nailing jelly to a tree (as Dick Goddard used to say). In fact how can any aspect of life be understood in any way except as objects of matter?

It seems to me that modern liberals (I despise the use of that word- it is derived from Latin, liber-free, al- pertaining to. pertaining to the essence of what freedom is.  But it is the word in vogue, so here we go.)  modern liberals are much like the followers of Epicurus.  First they are followers, they deny any value to an idea which questions theirs.  They hurl snide remarks at those who offer a different perspective (as Velleius does in Cicero’s book), there is no need for discussion, no need for debate and certainly no need for study of anything but accepted liberal views.  In the end Epicureans and modern liberals are curiously anti-intellectual.  And had they ascended to indisputable preeminence, no ideas but their own would be tolerated.

It is interesting and telling that Epicureans saw little of value in Cicero’s ideas.  Yet, it was Cicero who took advantage of an opportunity to save the school in Athens which Epicurus set up, because Cicero felt that all systems of thought deserved a reading and study.  Ironic is it not?  Or is it?

Liberty and Common Core

These are thoughts about Liberty and Common Core.  The comments evolved on Face Book from a nice discussion on an article about whether there should be evaluative tests, written tests or that these should be eliminated. 

 A friend of mine made the point about Common Core exams/tests that these rely less on recall and more on the performance of complex tasks where there is more than one right answer.  Those are good points and a nice observation on Common Core.  I can see the attraction for some of these features.  The problem I see with Common Core tests and one I feel is loaded with danger is that the writers of the tests determine what is taught.  This may seem a strange point but bear with me, please.  I use the following as a means to make my point.  

I taught Latin.  In some ways I liked the AP Latin tests, but what bothered me was the clear indication (as the years passed- I did not notice it for some time) that the same passages were hit over and over in terms of say a five year period.  Thus there were passages never hit which were stunning displays of artistic quality and of personal value for a student’s view of life.  My point here is that those who wrote the tests and selected the passages had the imprint of THEIR view of what  was significant in a piece of literature.  I noted, too, that the authors selected and the works selected represented the social and even political views of the test designers (This point is picked up later).  These points make the case that a teacher would tend to focus on what the test designers felt was valuable.  I ignored that, frequently, but the time constraints made it difficult to fit in.  My system jeopardized my students' performance on the exam, because I did not always select passages for my tests which I knew may be on the exam.  I hope that these sentences make my point understandable.  

I have another example.  I investigated the International Baccalaureate syllabus for Latin.  I was stunned to see that every author selected, every one, was from the imperial period, there was nothing from those authors who defended liberty, free speech and opposed tyranny.  Of course, I point out that we are a country which cherishes liberty.  I understand the title of the program is IB, but even so, it is heavily promoted here in the U.S.A.. My concern is this- it is dangerous to have authors selected or tests designed by a centralized group.  It will defend its turf against a challenge.  

Years ago a group of Latin teachers, like my self, asked the committee which selects authors and passages for AP Latin courses to help with the process.  These were permitted to sit in the room with the committee, but were not permitted to ask questions, make comments, written or spoken.  And this was the result of an extended set of negotiations.  

I might add that the Romans never had any national syllabus or anything vaguely similar to public education, yet there was very strong similarity between the authors covered by one teacher or group of teachers and another.  Yet, because there was no national control of any kind, teachers were known to tailor their program to the interests of individual students.  Even in the imperial period, teachers continued to teach authors who defended liberty and fought against tyranny.  Thus there was for a long time a constant stream of those who opposed the manner in which some emperors operated and challenged conventional thinking.  Opposition ended when a way was found to end the system where teachers designed their own program.

Uniformity in Education

Is it wise to want sameness and /or uniformity?

I admire the paintings of Monet.  Do I need to compare the paintings of Monet to Renoir in order to know that his paintings are beautiful and well done? Do I need to compare Raphael to Michelangelo in order to know that Raphael has skill?  There is great skill in each but in terms of consistency, consistency between one and the other in terms of presentation, there is very little similarity.  Each approaches their area in a different way and one can not be used to evaluate the other.  Yes, there is value in comparing and contrasting one great work with another.  But only in terms of enhancing our love and admiration for each.  If we compare great works for the purpose of producing uniformity, we do so at the risk of killing creativity, expression and freedom of thought.

So what are we doing comparing the students of Oregon to those in New Jersey?  We are comparing a product.  There is great value in a set of same products to be not similar.  I noticed through the years that business terms and industry terms crept more and more into education speak.  It may be a coincidence but I doubt it.  Language usually reflects how people think about things.

In production of an object, there is great value in sameness.  But a human is not a product, but a distinct individual with intellect.  

How does making kids into a product comport with all this talk about individuality and thinking outside the box?  What we are doing with nationalized tests and national standards is creating uniformity.  This is weird in terms of all this talk of diversity, divergent thinking and independent thinking.  Those are smoke screens for what is actually happening.  What we have is a push to create uniformity in thought on a number of areas.  I once had In School Suspension duty one period a day at West G.  Boring job, but in the suspension room were text books for examination for adoption on a shelf.  So I picked up American history books and selected a period.  I chose the abolitionist movement.  It mentioned famous Black activists who worked for it, certain groups who did the same.  But not a word of the real hot bed of the abolitionist movement:  the churches.  I wonder why.  I noticed, too, that when it came time to discuss the modern civil rights movement that Martin Luther King was referred to as Dr. King, never Reverend King.  His reference to news papers at the time was always Reverend King.  The civil rights movement first began and maintained its drive in the churches.  Yet, the insistence of some for the necessity of uniformity and the zeal for some committee to decide what topics to approach, how to approach these and how long, controls in a nuanced manner what people know about something and how they feel about particular individuals, ignored some interesting facts.

I showed Inherit the Wind several times in class.  It portrays in a fictional manner the trial which took place in Tennessee years ago.  A teacher was on trial for teaching Darwin’s theory of evolution.  Frederick March, Spencer Tracy and Gene Kelly gave impressive performances.  We had been translating selections from Cicero where he presented arguments on difficult and controversial topics.  We watched the movie 20 to 30 minutes each day followed by a series of questions to make sure the students followed the arguments.  The main point of the movie was that the teacher was not permitted to express his views on a controversial subject.  The court room exchanges were engaging and dramatic.  At the end of the movie, I gave a brief presentation on Intelligent Design which has been relentlessly attacked by many.    I then asked my students to write a paper constructing an argument why a teacher should be allowed to present a case for Intelligent Design.  

I was looking for two things- 1. I wanted the students to take arguments used in the movie to justify why someone should be allowed to present an argument for a controversial topic such as ID, 2. I wanted the students to confront the defense of an idea with which they might not agree.  

How would a review committee of Common Core (or by whatever name it goes) feel about my idea?

One more.  I taught Latin a particular way.  Others I knew by the dozens taught another way.  Some used one textbook method, others a different one.  Each method was quite different from other systems.  It would never occur to me to dictate to another Latin teacher, which book to use, which method to employ, what history topics to cover or what was valuable in an author.  Each teacher must employ that system which best suits their nature and personality.  To enforce my views upon them would be a disaster.  And that is what we have with CC.  

I suggest that any system which sets standards for education contains the values and views of those committee members who write out the program.  Their values may be fine points, but their values and the necessity for uniformity end up preventing alternate views, alternate views which just may increase admiration for those values of the committee or even improve them or perhaps cause those to be rejected.  At the heart of this is the ability to critique a viewpoint, the right to think outside the box and the right to think.  This is a dangerous path we have taken. 

My Roman Garden- presented at ACL 2014-William and Mary

My Roman Garden 2014

Biclinium in vineyard near amphitheater, Pompeii

The Romans had various gardens.    There was the vegetable garden much like those of today- in fact modern gardens are very roman for many vegetables grown today are plants developed and improved by the Romans.  The famous family of Caepio may have been well known at one time for their onions, that of Cicero for the chickpea and Fabius for the bean.  There are other gardens, formal and informal- both of these gardens were attractive but also very practical. It was the place where the family often spent a great deal of time- here they dined, walked, talked, sat in silence and enjoyed peace and argued.  This is the garden primarily which we will look at today.  

Why bother to develop a Roman garden?  Can there possibly be any advantages?  To someone devoted to Roman antiquity? To someone trying to interpret texts?

Olive, a symbol for Mercury

Think of the number of times something has been missed simply because of preoccupation with something else.  That scene in the Aeneid where Mercury swoops down from Mt. Atlas to put a fire under Aeneas.  It is easy  to focus on some deep meaning. But if a person is not careful it is easy to miss the realization how much Virgil loved nature and how keenly he observed it.

So when the garden began to take shape and as plants were added and more and more time was spent in the garden, passages in Cicero, Virgil, Ovid or pick your favorite author, became moments to connect with nature instead of passages to be studied in a windowless room.  In fact much of Latin literature is meant to be read outside. 

Entrance from the road

Entrance from barn area

Walkway- house of Tiburtinus, Pompeii

There are three ways to enter this garden.  One from the road, one from the barn ( Romans reveled in design which moved from dark to light or light to dark) and one from the house. From left to right we see herb beds, a pergula with a wisteria clawing its way up, then moving on to a circular graveled area entered via a winding path and last fruit trees, apples, followed by the vegetable garden now with raised beds.

Wisteria

Wisteria

Years ago before this garden was conceived, there was a cherry tree beside which a wisteria seed was placed.  It grew and grew, strangled the cherry and the pergula came along to support the wisteria. This wisteria has long since killed the cherry and now is putting pressure on the pergula.  Now it can be understood why the Romans let such things go- they are beautiful, attractive and delightful.  If the wisteria ever destroys the pergula, another will be built. Better that than cutting down the wisteria.  Just think of those murals with scenes of vining plants climbing a pergula and embracing it.    Beauty trumps practical.  

Yet the wisteria provides shade, even protection in a light rain, and comfort on a hot day.  

The open circle is for cooler times.  Here the sun can be enjoyed and provide warmth and a view of the sky.  Romans found the sky fascinating night and day. 

Warm reading area

Chimney swifts arrive in north eastern Ohio sometime in late Spring. They build their nests with mud and sticks inside the chimney and provide much pleasure because they can be heard descending into the chimney from inside the house. When the young hatch, their eager voices can be heard the moment mom and dad enter the chimney with a mouthful of insects.  No way could anyone ever forget the sight of these agile flyers as they enter and exit a chimney.  Every time they change direction in flight it means that they have seen an insect and grabbed it.  

While watching these acrobats twist turn at will, the sheer beauty of Mercury on his way to tell Aeneas to shove off becomes striking. Mercury sets out and flies down from Mt Atlas and - well, let Virgil tell:

Chimney Swifts

from Mt. Atlas Mercury headlong with his whole body hurtled himself toward the waves, like a bird which around the shores, around rocks full of fish low flies near the water's surface.  In the same way between land and sky he cut the air coming from Mt Atlas. ( IV. 253-258 ) 

Of course the poetry is wonderful, the style is so very artful but it takes on value because it is based on the real world, the world any Roman could see, imagine and enjoy.  The chimney swifts make Virgil's passage beautiful and very real.  This would not have been noticed without this garden. These lines would be worthwhile to translate just for the beauty of the scene.  Virgil was outside in his garden when he wrote these words. 

Romans placed baskets in ivy beds and let the ivy engulf the basket.  Here logs were used. 

Ivy mounds buried in snow

The mound of ivy takes on a pleasant shape in winter.  Virgil's description of Mercury's flight past Mt Atlas could easily be appreciated here:

Ivy mounds

Then flying along he sees the head and lofty sides of Mt Atlas, who balances the sky at his peak.  Atlas whose pine covered head continuously with dark clouds is pounded by wind and rain. Snow covers his shoulders, then rivers of snow trail from his chin and his beard bristling with pine is stiff with ice.  (IV.  246-251)

No birds, no mountains but the chill of ice and snow is there. Was Virgil swiftly composing these lines while outside in the c

old? Imagine Virgil's delight when he witnessed falling leaves and then composed the scene near the River Styx.

In Cicero's work, De Oratore, he lays out what an orator needs for excellence.  Here, just as in the Aeneid, it is easy to miss how much these people enjoyed nature. In De Oratore I.28 we see Cicero's beloved teacher, Crassus, and friends talking and walking through a garden.  In II.20 they are walking along a portico, looking out on to a palaestra, part of a garden, around which were several benches. The scene in III.17 is interesting as Cotta, one of the gathering, relates how after their rest he found Crassus in the garden in serious thought, so much so that Cotta backs away.  In III.18 they decide to locate in the woods because it is shady and cool.

The literary images makes the scenes come alive.  The scene is presented as one familiar to Romans. It was chosen as a place suitable for discussion.  A garden breathes life into old books.

Leaf skeleton in early Spring

Looking at Virgil, Pliny, Cicero, Ovid and others through the lens of a garden it becomes clear that Romans liked nature.  They enjoyed flowers, insects, trees and the fragrance these bring and animals.The very nature of their gardens attracted countless birds, insects and reptiles.

In De Natura Deorum Cicero sets out the different views on religion.  One view, that of Epicurus,  suggests that the universe is the product of chance.  Beyond the material world there is nothing.   Matter is all that matters.  It seems that the epicureans are winning the argument that chance and not any plan has brought life and the universe to this point. They met at someone's home, seated around a curved bench in a garden.  

Maybe they are correct but it seems that it is more than valuable to have someone like Cicero who holds out for another view. I have learned few things in life but of this I am sure- no advancement has ever been made in understanding when everyone is in agreement.  Partly because each person must learn what others have learned.  Knowledge is not something which one person learns and then everyone else accepts it as truth- that is the road to dogma.  The acquisition of knowledge is constant and ever reaches back.  

Even though our culture has so many differences with antiquity it is well to remember that the nature and needs of humans have not changed.  

The stoic replies to the ideas of Epicurus:

Examine the earth, placed in the middle, a solid sphere and everywhere rolled up into itself by its own gravity, clothed with flowers, plants, trees, fruits, all of whose incredible magnitude with its own endless variety is distinguished /marked.  Add to this the cool ever flowing fountains, the crystal clear rivers, their banks clothed with radiant green, the vaulted loftiness of caves, rugged rocks and cliffs…..but how much beauty there is of the sea, the appearance of its vast expanse, countless variety of islands, charming shores and bays… (II. 98)

In another work, De Finibus (III.73), he wonders how anyone can make judgements about good and evil unless the whole system of nature has been learned.   

The garden was the place where these people thought, wrote and talked and argued.  The garden influenced thought and supported argument.

It is difficult to miss the fascination, the respect and awe the group has for the world around them.  The garden questions a common modern view that all of life, the complexity of humans is no more than statistical data.  

De Natura Deorum takes place around an exhedra at someone's house.  There is one similar at Pompeii- part of a tomb with a garden at one time behind it.  It makes sense that this discussion took place in a garden in an exhedra.  Its shape is very conducive for a discussion as no one is left out.  Those present must surely have looked around at the plants, sky, birds over head as points were made.  In a garden one can hear their voices.

So often chance seems to explain it all.  But then again how can chance come from reason and order? How can chance be predictable?

A curiosity

To return to the garden in winter setting, there was this leaf whose stem somehow imbedded in the snow.  Look closely and then imagine how the circles were made in the snow.  The bulbous end of the stem kept the leaf in place but the wind blew from enough different directions to cause the leaf to spin.  That is chance, an accident. A wondrous accident.  But the complexity of the leaf, its structure, development and final form is merely a result of accident?  The fellow who espoused Epicureanism would say yes but the stoic would point to plants about them and express doubt.  Perhaps life is too complex for numbers alone to explain it all.

In Pliny the Elder's Natural History we learn that peppermint (menta) was used to stuff pillows and brushed on tables to provide a pleasant scent for dining(XIX.160.).  This was also used to increase energy, promote eagerness for food, prevents milk from souring(XX.147) .

In Ovid's Baucis and Philemon we see Baucis leveling the table with a broken piece of pottery; and then wipe clean the table with mint. (VII. 662-663)

The mint just outside the door no doubt was used to bring pleasant odor to the scene and make their guests eager to eat.  The scene must have been one familiar to anyone reading this.  One of the most fun areas to weed in this garden are these patches of mint.  Afterwards the hands are very redolent and the fragrance lasts.

Herbs, a pot and a frog- all of which were welcome in a Roman Garden

One of the pleasantries of a garden is that nature is everlasting and that the worries with which the news media bombards us pales beside the pervasive power of nature.  

So what good would  a garden be during trying times?  During the Civil War of the Republic, Roman armies had marched all over Spain, Africa, Italy, Greece, Turkey, Egypt by the time Cicero wrote to Varro in June/May of 46.  In 46 BC all was not going well.  The Civil War was still raging. Munda was yet to come.  The courts were a mess. Tens of thousands died on fields of battle at the siege of Brundisium, early battles in Spain, Pharsalus, Zela and Thapsus.  Elections, real elections were non-existent. 

Gardens are havens for fascination- note spider deep in nest

In a letter Cicero mentions to Varro (177) the difficulty of enduring the arrogance of Caesar's crowd, the pain of watching what was taking place in Rome and the need to dive into literature and philosophy.  Cicero does suggest that if no one seeks their advice, perhaps they should write on political theory in hopes of the future. As Varro and Cicero make their plans for a visit, Cicero writes:

if you are less able to come to me, I will rush to you.  If you have a garden as part of your library, nothing will be lacking (180).

When Cicero went to visit Varro he looked forward to their talks, Varro's library and garden. Gardens empowered these people. Was there mint nearby? Peppermint?  The times could gnaw at the heart but books and a garden could make it better.  

A doll made from an althea flower

Sometimes a garden can give us a glimpse into the lively imagination of children. A sweet young lady picked an althea, placed it on a spindle and imagined a dancer with skirt billowing as she spun about. 

These gardens meant more than the house itself.  After the earthquake at Pompeii in 62 AD, Jasemski's digs at Pompeii showed over and over that the first repairs done were to the gardens. ( D. Octavius Quartio/Loreius Tiburtinus) 

So it makes sense when Cicero went to check on his brother's place that he gives an update on progress for his house at Laterium.  While there were many comments about room plans and column alignment, Cicero commented on the utter beauty of the gardener's efforts (21):

although your house which is a place for contemplation seems to scold the insanity of certain luxurious houses. I praised the gardener. Ivy has so thoroughly entwined everything ; the foundation of the house and the spaces between the columns of the walkway that those draped statues seem themselves to be busy in the garden and offering the ivy for sale.

Thyme was used to treat snake bites and huge fields were grown to allow bees to make honey of it, honey which was highly prized(XX.245).

Few herbs have the potent fragrance and flavor of rosemary.

Rose from my parent's farm

Rose was used in perfume, chaplets, garnish on tables and amorous crowns in bedrooms. (XXI.  14-15)

Penny royal (puleium) was used for its sweet scent and to relieve headache(XIX.159-160).

In Pliny the Elder it is fun to see that Varro, a very serious scholar, had a sense of humor.  Pliny says: 

As far as Varro was concerned a crown of pennyroyal was more properly in the bedroom than one of the rose for it possessed the ability to relieve headache.(XX.152)

Sculptures of rabbits , deer, ducks, dogs, cows, birds, and so on have been  found on site in Pompeii.  Here we have Rana custos who is on guard duty and La Tartaruga plods. Romans did invite tortoises into their homes as they devoured insects.

Ara Pacis- there are numerous insects and birds

If ever in Rome, spend a day sitting around the Ara Pacis.  It is a place of peace.  Here numerous plants favored, used, grown, admired by ordinary Romans are everywhere.  There are grasshoppers.  This fellow feasts on the flower of the acanthus.  But he needs color- a garden can provide that.  Interestingly many plants are common weeds. Lizards dart about.  Snails softly glide. Frogs are there too.  But frogs are green.  What is more beautiful than a butterfly?  He begs for color.  How about a striking yellow? And look at that morning glory; blue would suit it just fine. Here one can learn that there is no need for statues in a garden, for the rose speaks of Venus, the frog of Apollo, the scorpion of Dionysus and grain of Ceres. A garden makes the Ara Pacis explode with color. 

Ovid's  Baucis and Philemon kindly receive a disguised Jupiter and Mercury.  Lelex, the story teller, describes the area.  An oak tree beside a linden stands among grassy hills surrounded by a low wall.  On the lower branches hang garlands placed there by those who have gone to visit the spot.  This is a garden tomb such as those at Pompeii.  Such a story would conjure up the reality of the presence of divinity.  A garden empowers the mind to color a tomb.  The sight takes on its own intrinsic beauty. What greater gift can divinity give than for two so devoted to pass together while doing what they loved?  These tombs are places of celebration and joy far more than a spot for grief.

Gardens are a vehicle for time travel.  Pliny the Elder gives detailed information on the grafting of trees.  He says that it was discovered by accident- after a farmer  had cut down a row of trees he jammed young branches into and among the stumps. The fence above began to grow using the base of the other tree below as a host. (XVII. 101).  From there the Romans became masters at grafting. 

Apple trees are an odd group.  Take a seed from a yellow delicious, plant it and what do we get?  Who knows but maybe not a yellow delicious.  The Romans somehow figured out that grafting preserved genetic purity.  If one takes a twig, called a scion, from a yellow delicious,  and grafts a bud to a suitable trunk, we get a yellow delicious.  There are some apples very very old which have been preserved through the centuries in this manner.  The pendu plat apple is the oldest known apple, brought to England by the Romans, perhaps during the time of Claudius. When near this tree it is easy to argue that this tree, the pendu plat, the one here in this garden, is a continuation of one grafted by Columella, Cato or Pliny.  When we touch this tree, we can touch Cato or Cicero.  A garden allows us to walk with Cicero as he discusses natural law along the Liris River in De Legibus.

Technology is not needed for time travel.  All we need is a love of nature. That has been here with us since the beginning of time.

Why have a garden? In a day and age when Hollywood mentality sets the tone for society's view of the past, it is nice to meet reality and wallow with Romans in the music of Nature's lessons. After watching Romans tend, fit, weed and fill their gardens, I have a suspicion that this is their source of power and this is at least part of the reason why they toiled and fought so hard.  

In every garden lies a pot of gold.

Old People are just Resistant to Change

Old People are just resistant to Change

These are the words of an angry old teacher.  

I remember when I first began to teach that I was told by those who do not teach that my ideas were not so good.  I read, I studied and I even began to keep a list of books which I had read.  This material I found ways (some of it) to incorporate into class.  Thus began a life long attempt to incorporate difficult learning into a class room atmosphere in such a way that vastly different levels of students could find it useful and I hope maybe on occasion empowering.  Early in this game I remember once showing a narrated slide show by Thomas Hoving of the Metropolitan Museum of Art about ancient Egyptian art.  About a third of the way through a student, nice kid but not my brightest (this is not a put down in my view) gave out a sigh and said, "This is boring."  My feelings were hurt but I had a policy when possible to allow students the freedom of expression. (I must admit that there were occasions I regretted this.  However, more often than not it played to my advantage as a teacher.)  But before I could become miffed, she said, "Why don't you tell us what is going on?" I realized that she meant- make it so that she could and would want to understand.  At that moment I understood that I needed to combine what I knew with a presentation which could be absorbed by my kids.  I do not mean dumb it down,as they say, but choose the right words combined with a flow of thought which took into consideration what a kid knew at a particular level.  No book, no author, no study could explain to someone how to combine knowledge of a subject, student level, tone of voice, a teacher's genuine interest, almost unique minds and certainly unique personalities of twenty students into a meaningful experience.  It is certainly arrogance of sorts to even make the claim.  This combination, this union of a kid's mind and the beauty of the Pantheon must be made with the above in terms of experience with the life and minds of young people.  Not just a few experiences but the more the merrier.  

So I gave up as the years passed using prepared stuff and created my own.  I adapted.

Then later as I hit 10 to 15 years I was told by those who are older and wiser that my ideas were noble but misplaced. I read more, kept keeping my lists, re-read those books which I realized each time I read I saw something which I had not noticed before or whose ideas began to click after I had experienced enough to suddenly realize what the author meant in the first place.  

By now I had changed school from Indiana to Ohio; from a modest country school to a district very wealthy.  In fact Geauga County is the wealthiest county in Ohio.  I must add for purposes of clarity that I had students in Indiana who hunted for their own food.  I mean picked up rifle, shot, skinned, prepared and ate an animal.  I do not say this to shock.  Even in the the big noble towns, the same thing is done.  It is just that they have someone else do the killing, dressing, packaging and shipping for them.  These people I knew in Indiana simply cut out the middle man who tends to soak those in the city for the same item.  So my point is this- I taught people in Indiana whom most would consider at subsistence level or ignorant barbarians and, of course, vastly different from the sophistication of civilized people.  I noticed that kids were the same in Indiana and Ohio.  They saw the same movies, heard the same music, ate the same food, went to school. AND POSSESSED THE SAME ABILITY.

So after ten to 15 years I had expanded my belt with more books, more learning, more studies and much more experience with the minds of students.  I was and still am in my element.  Again I noticed that in any conversation I had with those who do not teach that I was naive.  My ideas they would say have no place in reality.  Onward I marched.  When Cicero, a hero of mine since childhood, once mentioned to his friend how when they were young and playing in the yard they wanted to be like Achilles and as the Iliad says "to be the best and to be unsurpassed."  I am a pygmy compared to Cicero but those words stayed with me through thick and thin.  I wanted to be the best, understand more, be able to present any lesson no matter how difficult to any group.  

So I adapted from the ambiance of Indiana to that of Geauga County, Ohio. As the Video Recorder came along, I could see, in a limited way, its use for the classroom.  It was of course by those who sell them presented as the cure all for all ills and problems in schools.  These convinced those who purchase such things in education to fork out the money.  For it would bring the world to our door step.  We all in a room could watch something which happened 20 centuries ago, or 12 centuries or what happened last month in Belize.  Dear Thomas Hoving reappeared.  The movies, tapes, call these what you like were rarely made by someone who understood presentation and the minds of young people.  Absolutely not a single video was made by anyone who understood the kids in my room.  Now don't you think it odd that in modern times we pride ourselves on individuality and how different we all are from each other, how unique we are, yet when it comes to education we all are forced whether a round peg or a square one into a triangle?  

So again I adapted.  I could see the potential for a video recorder.  I admired that potential which technology offered.  Yet, dear Thomas Hoving was there.  He was happy.  His like was making money.  All was well, nope.  It was not.  I noticed that some videos leaned this direction or that.  One view that the Romans were vicious and cruel.  All they thought of was war, money and power.  Yet, I kept reading and reading and learned that the interests of Romans stretched from stars to thoughts of what is the ideal form of government to an interest in what makes people tick, what love is, why we get angry.  What I saw in many presentations did not match what I had learned and I realized that even a video well edited and presented is limited by time and space as scientists like to say.  

So I adapted and made my own.  I submitted a request for money to an education foundation of our local school district.  I purchased a video recorder which could be edited on a simple level.  I used this to make videos for class, such as the life of Cicero or the Pantheon.  I had to adapt again and write my own scripts and create dialog.  These scripts and dialog had to be adapted to the ability and will of young people.  No book, no author, no principal ,no advisor from the state or federal government could possibly know my students.  Now, they could very easily know more than I do but they could not know what my students needed to know in view of what we studied in class.  Nor could they know the range of ability of my unique students.

As the years wore by and I learned more and more I was told by those who do not teach that my ideas were outdated and too resistant to change.  Not so good, too naive, too outdated and resistant to change.  That was a load.  A load of what you may now guess on your own.  But I kept reading.  I studied.  Being a teacher this was helped a great deal by summertime.  I am sure that many would have thought that it was repulsive that I could have the leisure to spend my summers reading. I was told many times that I should get a summer job.  I adapted to that, too.  In fact I am still adapting to it.  When people ask what I do, now that I am retired, I often mention in addition to woodworking, gardening and astronomy that I read and study.   The look is always the same.  Can you guess that look?  The kindest put on a puzzled look.

So along came the internet, youtube videos, the wireless world on a major scale, hand held pads and such.  Again, those who sold and sell these things claim it will solve all of our problems, will bring the world instantly into the classroom, will bring understanding to humanity and instant love of others.  In fact it is clear that many think that these devices will do a much better job than a teacher.  Think of how weird it is that all people are different, we are all unique, yet every teacher who is a n individual and unique is expected to fit that triangle, and all students "need" these same devices without any input from a teacher.  Anyone who opposes or questions this current wisdom is called a fool, out of date.  Those attacks were/are most vicious by those who sell these things.  Again, it did not matter, for the sellers convinced those who do the purchasing that these are necessities and that those who are with it will gleefully follow and those who see another way will be dragged along, for their own good.  

There are wonderful things to be found on the internet.  Youtube can easily be an afternoons delight.  And be informative too.  I once watched a lecture about the Battle of the Chosin Reservoir in Korea.  I learned a great deal.  I watched an amazing video of beauty as interpreted by the golden rectangle and the fibonacci sequence.   These and others have been fun, delightful, entertaining.   All of which must be adapted to the individuality of students by a teacher who has learned not from books and direction from someone sent by the state to set things right but from personal presentation, instruction,  discussion and tests and quizzes and talks and reflection of what students have said, of what people have said and of what great thinkers have said and written concerning what makes students tick.  

But again I adapted.  I saw what was available for Latin.  Some I rejected or I felt it needed adapting.  I created my own DvDs for all levels of Latin.  When I talked to marketers they gave the same look as those to my summer reading.  I found these  DvDs useful for myself and my students.  It was nice too because, if there was something I did not like or did not work, it could be changed.  So again, I saw the value of technology; I used it.  I adapted it to my purposes on my own terms in light of my students.  I learned from those youtube presentations.  I learned from a number of places and people but all of it every scrap of what I learned had be interpreted in terms of what I thought was best and correct and in terms of what my students needed.

So who is the individualist here?  Me or those who want to fit everyone into that triangle whether they are round or square?  Those who are forcing this stuff are chasing away, no shutting the door, to those who want to combine teaching with thinking.  To be blunt these methods are telling thinkers to stay out of education.  Who is more willing to be adaptable?  Those who tell teachers what to use or those who look at new technology and decide for themselves whether it fits their subject, their manner and the needs of their students?  If you think that new technology is only made available to teachers for teachers to pick and chose what they want, you are sadly out of it, clueless.

It is a bizarre simplification of young people or any people to assume that some programmer in Silicon land who diligently works with computers, who has zero experience with young people has a clue what or how students listen, think, study, live and suffer.  To create this blog I read the instructions supplied.  There were so many assumptions upon the the part of the person or persons who put the instructions together that parts of it were unusable and misleading.  Yet they pushed and pushed hard to put that round peg into the triangle.  These assumptions are a symptom of their arrogance.

 So finally what is at the bottom of all this?  I think that it is prejudice.  Prejudice against the very nature of being a teacher.  It is often said that those who can, do, those who can't, teach.  It is clever and easy to remember and has a rhythmical catchiness.  Actually I think it is more logical to say that those who can't teach make the laws and rules about teaching.  

I also think that this prejudice is caused by circumstances of life.  We all go through school: kindergarden, grade school, middle school, high school and maybe college and graduate school.  We carry with us memories of those years.  We are all somewhat overwhelmed by our own prowess.  I guess it is natural.  This prowess perhaps makes it easy to make some very serious assumptions.  For example, as a teacher, I shutter to think that after five, even thirty seven years of teaching that I knew it all.  (I usually did not act like a know it all, when I did, some student who was a blessing to my life brought me back to earth.)  Every time I presented a lesson, even my last year, I stood dumfounded that I had not used the little trick I had just employed in class in past years.  Yet, here we have people, who went through the experience of school ONCE (hopefully) as a student, who never adapted to different student experiences, who have never taught, retaught, evaluated, re-evaluated a lesson,  who feel empowered by what little tidbits they haul from ten, twenty years ago, who feel that they are not equal to what a teacher knows in terms of the needs of students but superior.

If that isn't the biggest load of crap I ever heard!  

FIVE INNOVATIONS

I read this following article in Farm and Dairy, January 9th 2014 edition:

Five Innovations That Will Change Our Lives

Response to Five Innovations that Will Change Our Lives.  January 9th Edition.

I respond specifically to the section:  The Classroom will learn you.  The article does not indicate what is meant by "sufficient education".  How can a discussion take place when we do not know what the article discusses?  It never defines those "skills critical to meeting personal goals".  Nor does it even give a hint what skills are needed. The article does indicate that these things will be done by computers.  What these things are is left nebulous at best.  

"In the next five years the classroom will learn about each student using longitudinal data such as test scores, attendance and student's behavior on learning platforms."  

 What is longitudinal data?    What are learning platforms?  I admit that the paragraph above is meant to sound impressive.  But a careful look at the words brings absolutely no clarity in terms of the article.  The words which do make sense such as "attendance" are smothered by "longitudinal data and learning platforms".

"Sophisticated analytics delivered over the cloud will provide decision support to teachers"- It appears to say that teachers need a computer's analysis based on statistics alone to understand a student.  The article attempts to lift computer analytics to a level driving decisions instead of a tool.  It is only a tool.  Just a tool.  But a tool which contains prejudice which is driven by the statistics selected and limited in scope by the very nature of statistics.  When I taught, there was little I learned from statistics to know, as a student came in to my room, on any given day, what problems they faced.  I had students , some of which, came from very wealthy homes, yet had no food in the house, parents not home when child arrived after a day at school, no discussion around a dinner table, often no one even there when it came time to go to bed.  The statistics, however, showed a wealthy family who lived in a very expensive home, owned by people who made a great deal of money, had college degrees and the list goes on and on.  The statistics also would have shown a student above average who had no trouble in school as far as the principal's office was concerned.  Yet, this student had problems, serious problems which only one person in a school setting would know- the teacher.  I emphasize "person".  What we need are teachers who learn to understand people.  That can only happen with human to human contact.  

There is another aspect to the quote above and the article in general- the language used and the grammar employed is strange in terms of normal conversational English.  As far as I know communication only takes place when something is understood.  Examine the title of the section- The Classroom will learn you.  We learn a subject, we learn how to do something.  Who says, "He learn me"?  "They learn them"? We do say "He teaches me", "They teach me."

The article treats students as objects of study, not as people.  I admit that this approach has become common in schools.  It has been disastrous. People are not objects, are not bugs under a glass.  It is weird how in modern times we seem obsessed with talking on an on about individually, how everyone is different, how everyone is unique.  And then we proceed to pigeon hole everyone into a set of given categories as though people can be categorized like the elements in chemistry.  Yes, there are similarities from one person to the next but to take it any distance at all means that people are dehumanized in the sense that all must fit in some slot.

In fact this section of the article gives every indication that the teacher is merely a tool whose job is to sit and wait for "data" to come in in order to know what to do.  It dehumanizes teachers into speaking tools.

It takes 10 to 15 years for a teacher to become proficient.  By this I mean it takes an attitude that learning is a life long process in order to learn a subject well enough that class instruction allows for pleasant give and take in a classroom setting, and it takes at least a decade to know how to read students as they come through the door, to understand the nuances of behavior, how to direct youthful energy toward learning and how to make the lesson meaningful and useful for life.  However, the article assumes that a computer will do this with statistics.  Weird and inexplicable.

So I conclude with my prediction.  This may indeed come to pass that computers will do what it appears the article contends.  But it will happen by opposing the powerful winds of reality.

Bill Prueter

8200 Mulberry Road

Chesterland, Ohio  44026

cicero106@gmail.com 

#4. MY FIRST DAY ON THE JOB

I entered the teaching world in Indiana.  I was hired to teach Latin.  The day I entered school for an introductory meeting, the Principal handed me a Civics book, Geography book and a World History book.  I did not know that these would be my new friends.  I was young and too foolish or maybe too lucky to become angry.  I can tread water with the best of them.  I looked at the Geography book first as this and Civics were semester classes.  Geography was first.  I looked at the chapters which covered such wonders as clothing, food, shelter- all those things which, of course, make us so different.  I ended up chucking the book for the most part.  We did use it for kind of government, language, industry, resources etc.  The students and I painted a huge map on the wall- about 7feet high by 15 feet long.  We drew out all of the continents and country boundaries as they existed at that time.  A dot and only a dot was fixed where the capital was located for each country.  Then each three week period or so we had tests over capitals and countries for each area.  The other time seasons were taken up with articles which students found in magazines or newspapers about the area or country we covered.  Each student at their moment, went to the map, pointed out their country and capital and gave the report.  Each article was attached to a page and summary written on it. The final exam consisted of a blank map of the earth- students labeled seas, continents, main mountains, rivers, countries and capitals.  Years later I have had students thank me for showing them that Lithuania is not a made up place.  My point is this- when confronted with a task never imagined, it can be turned into something positive. I had no intention of failing.  The course grew, students heard that there was much to learn without fear of drowning.  Civics was another problem.