Getting older: truly bizarre

I've got a milestone birthday of sorts coming up in November.  On the 27th of that month, I will be eligible for Social Security.  If that doesn't make you feel a little older, I don't know what will!  (Actually, I already qualify for some "senior discounts," including the golf course that I'll be playing on tomorrow.)

In many ways, I feel as though there's still a 22-year-old trapped inside this body, and I've been doing my best to reaffirm it.  Ran a half marathon earlier this month in a slightly better time than I ran the same race eight years ago.  And at that event,  I beat a student of mine by over 30 minutes, which was a real ego boost.  And the reality is, that for a 61-year-old (gosh, it's even hard to own up to that number; I usually don't mention it), I've done OK so far.  Never a night in the hospital, never a headache, and I can still crank out 13.1 miles when I put my mind to it.  But I'm keenly aware, to use a golf metaphor, that I'm playing on the back nine.

At this point in my life, it becomes a balancing act, a kind of personal accounting, between the things that I have accomplished against all of those missed opportunities and personal failings.  Sometimes it's hard to know which side is winning out.  I don't want to live in the past, but I am constantly aware of old relationships, old memories, and all the things that I've experienced.  To let go of those memories is to let go of a lot.  And yes, sometimes I'd like a "do over," but I've come to the realization that if you put me back in those same situations in the past, I'd probably end up doing pretty much the same things all over again.  There are reasons why I am where I am, and not somewhere else.

In the end, what's hard to articulate is how truly strange it feels to be getting older.  I read the local obituaries every day, and I also notice all the various celebrities who pass on--people who were a part of my life in some way.  And I keep thinking about that famous Woody Allen notion that I'd rather not become immortal because of anything I've done--I'd like to become immortal by not dying!  I guess the latter is my plan--and so far it's working!  But it's always wise to check for lumps.

Dealing with mass insanity

OK, this is a theme that has made its way into these pages from time to time.  But because it doesn't seem to go away, I keep having to revisit it.  And that theme is: the world is a very crazy place in so many ways--some small, some big.

The small ones are like wood ticks on your leg that just don't want to let go.  For instance, there are some of my relatives who believe every word of the Bible is literally "true."  There's an old acquaintance from decades ago who refused to have coffee with me because she's married, and doing so would violate some weird principle about opposite-sex friendships.  A fair number of people in the U.S. actually believe that cavemen and dinosaurs co-mingled.  And my right-wing friend "Kyle" (see other posts) continues to send me stuff that refers to the "Socialist cabal" that is controlling America and anyone he doesn't quite agree with is a "nutjob" (with the exception of Senator Al Franken, who is a "clown"--a clown, by the way, who graduated from Harvard with honors in political science, but never mind those little details!)

And then, of course, there are the even bigger wood ticks, about the size of small puppies and engorged in blood and pus (hmm--love that image).  Same-sex marriage is already not legal in Minnesota, but let's vote on it again just to make extra sure those gays can't marry!  And let's make fast-food chicken restauranteurs our experts on scripture, and morality.  And let's keep making the tax rate for poorer Americans higher than it is for richer Americans.  And let's keep dropping bombs on people from drone aircraft, wherever we choose, all in the name of stopping "terrorism."  There's public beheadings in Saudi Arabia, genocide in Africa, female genital mutilation and gang rape all over the place--and let's not forget the President of Gambia, who believes he has a green herbal paste that's an absolute cure for AIDS!

And you wonder why I think the world is insane?  What I desperately yearn for is someone (a) who can talk sense about all these things and (b) have a platform and an audience through which to do it.  I was hoping that our current President could be such a person.  I think he has tried, but I think he could do better, all the way across the board.  My friends: we are wallowing in ignorance, strange beliefs, and downright evil behavior, and I don't see it ending anytime soon.  Thank goodness, at least, that I'm in education--if there is any long-term remedy for this foolishness, I really do think it resides in the classroom.  But we're at least one or two generations away from any sort of widespread "sanity," I'm afraid.

Living Biblically--Living Inconsistently

One book that made it onto my summer reading list was The Year of Living Biblically, by A. J. Jacobs.  The subtitle of the book almost says it all: "One Man's Humble Quest to Follow the Bible as Literally as Possible."  Simply put, Jacobs identifies about 700 "rules" that are embedded in scripture (mostly the Old Testament) and then spends the next year trying to live his life with those rules in mind.

Not surprisingly, these scriptural proclamations are quite a strange collection.  The Bible says to bind money to your hand, to wear fringes on the corner of your garments, to avoid wearing clothes made of mixed fibers, to leave the edges of one's beard unshaven, to never sit on a chair where a menstruating woman has sat, to not eat fruit from a tree that's four years old or younger--and of course, the more trivial demands, such as to stone adulterers, and the license to beat your slaves as hard as you want--as long as they survive for at least a day or two after the beating.  One of Jacobs' favorites in this regard: If you're in a fistfight, and the wife of your opponent grabs your private parts, you must cut off her hand [Deuteronomy 25:11-12].  In the end, it is such a bizarre and arbitrary hodge-podge of rules that no person can follow all of them without acting inconsistently.

Jacobs cites survey data that suggests millions of Americans take the Bible literally--depending on which survey you use, that figure is somewhere between 33 percent and 55 percent.  For those of you who are in this category: please read Jacobs' book, and then get back to me.  If you still believe that the Bible can be taken literally, you have flunked any reasonable test of intelligence and critical thinking.

A quarter century and counting

This year marks the 25th anniversary with my current main employer. Hard to believe it's been a quarter century!

After all that time, one can't help but look back on one's career. I know there will be a faculty appreciation luncheon in May that I should probably attend--because someone who reaches such a milestone will receive, I'm guessing, some sort of tangible recognition of that longevity. And I suppose it will be nice to get a knick-knack to commemorate the milestone.

Still, I'd trade any knick-knack for some sincere, specific, and informal "good words." It's taken me a long time to realize this, but I work in a place where benign neglect is standard operating procedure. And in some ways, that's truly great: I don't spend time looking over my shoulder, wondering if someone is monitoring me or is about to terminate me, and that is a tremendous benefit--one that I never take for granted. Nonetheless, I yearn for an environment where people--especially administrative people--say the little things, face-to-face, that make all the difference. For after a quarter century in the same place, I'm still not sure what people think of me, or what they value in me, or even (to some degree) what they don't like. Whatever feedback I get from "higher ups" is inevitably formal and brief and is normally delivered every 10 years or so--if that. At best, I'm left to conclude that "no news is good news."

As George Herbert Mead proposed a century ago, our self-concept is largely derived by what the world tells us about ourselves. And what my world has told me is: basically nothing. From time to time, I get incredibly rewarding feedback from students, but that feedback is sporadic. What's missing in all this is a sense that I've done more than simply hang around for 25 years--that someone in a position of authority knows who I am and values what I do.

Praying away the gay

This post could also be titled, "Star Tribune editors can't stop me, part 17."

When I submit things to the local newspaper, I know they won't all be published. Over the years, some have made the cut and some haven't. This past Saturday, a reader asked six questions about homosexuality and same-sex marriage. Not surprisingly, embedded within his questions were implicit arguments. There was something about the questions that provoked me, and so I submitted answers to them all. But, according to the StarTrib editors, they received so many responses to his questions that they could only print one representative reaction. And, frankly, they chose a good one from a woman who's an "assistant priest at St. Mary's Episcopal Church-Basswood Grove." She makes many of the same points that I did--just more gently and diplomatically. And that, perhaps, makes her response the better one. Nonetheless, I do have to post my reaction somewhere--hey, how about my blog? So for better or worse, here it is:

Reader Dan Nye (Star Tribune, January 14) has asked some reasonable questions regarding homosexuality and same-sex marriage, and I will try to provide some reasonable answers.

He wants to know if our ancestors were all “dumb and bigoted” because they thought homosexuality is wrong. Although that’s an extreme characterization, the short answer is “yes.” Human history has shown that our ancestors were not always enlightened. They thought the Earth was the center of the universe. They owned slaves. They killed “witches.” They thought women belonged in the kitchen. They didn’t know about germs or genes. They did the best they could with what they knew—but they didn’t always know that much. No, our ancestors weren’t “dumb,” but they were in many ways ignorant and often very dogmatic.

Nye claims that “prevalent homosexuality has made its appearance in human history before and has never lasted.” That’s just factually incorrect. Whether it is visible or not, or socially sanctioned or not, homosexuality has been a part of every world culture—always—period. Indeed, I would challenge him to show even one nation on earth where a fairly predictable percentage of the population is not gay.

Mr. Nye argues that “sexual desires, if not controlled, easily lead us into trouble.” He’s right. That’s why we have laws against rape, child sexual abuse, and sexual harassment. Absolutely no one—straight or gay—can justify sexual violence or sex that is not consensual. So with respect to sexual orientation, it’s really irrelevant to a discussion of same-sex marriage. We can all agree that sex which is abusive or hurts others crosses a line, and Dan should not be alarmed by faithful homosexual partners. Indeed—ironically—that’s the very reason to support same-sex marriage: these people want to make a public commitment to love and fidelity.

Dan wonders, “Don’t our sexual organs exist for reproduction? How does homosexuality square with that?” Here the answer is certainly more murky. But it’s a bit like saying, “Don’t our mouths exist basically for eating? So how do talking, singing, and whistling square with that?” Yes, heterosexual intercourse is how babies are made, but the question assumes that everything in the human body has one and only one purpose or function. Following Dan’s logic, we should probably annul any heterosexual marriages where there are no kids, because all those folks are doing in such marriages is enjoying sexuality with no concern for progeny. Yes, our sexual organs enable human reproduction, but that is not their only function or purpose. Sex is not just a way to make babies; it’s a way to express one’s love and intimacy. And with the planet’s population at 7 billion and rising, I’m not sure why he’s worried about human reproduction anyway.

Dan’s last question is perhaps the most ominous. It implies that those who support same-sex marriage may be sending gay couples to “perdition” because God might be opposed to homosexuality. Worse, he toys with guilt by association: even straight people who support gay rights, he muses, might be in line for eternal damnation as well. Of course, these ideas are a combination or paranoia and limited understanding of the Bible, not to mention a conception of God that’s both chilling and a little presumptuous. If a loving God would create people with a homosexual orientation (this is really not a conscious choice, after all) and then send them and even their friends to hell for good measure, that’s a conception of divinity which is light years from divine. I hope and pray that Dan will re-think this idea of a vengeful, spiteful God, because it is out of character with Christian values as I understand them.

- David Lapakko, Richfield, MN

In this election year, be prepared for lots more discussion out there about same-sex marriage. It's only just begun!

Tebow Mania is Insania

"Because Tim Tebow is a religious figure rather than an athletic one, the limitations of his talent wind up testifying to the potency of his faith. The fact that he'll be almost comically inept for three quarters and then catch an updraft of mastery in the fourth serves to demonstrate not that he's a winner but that Jesus is — and, above all, that Christianity works." - Tom Junod, Esquire magazine. [Read more: http://www.esquire.com/the-side/feature/tim-tebow-christianity-6619366#ixzz1j0KYJ1ds]

Tim Tebow is the current poster boy for the miracles of Christian faith. And like Michele Bachmann, who believed that God had called her to run for office (and apparently, to lose!), Tebow's success on the field is due to--what else?--his faith in Jesus. At one level, all of this is warm, fuzzy, and even sort of inspirational. But at another level, it is a silly, incoherent, and even toxic way to think about one's life challenges.

All it really takes to unpack this belief system is to put it in a broader context. If it's 3rd and 7, and Mr. Tebow prays for a first down, what does it mean if he's successful? Apparently, it means that Jesus was on his side. Yet Tim Tebow is one of 54 Denver Broncos, at least some of whom are not of the same religious persuasion. So, does Jesus just figure that only the quarterback counts? If there are some non-believers on the team, are they just able to ride along on Tebow's coattails? And why does Jesus favor quarterbacks in the first place? Further, if he does succeed in converting that 3rd down, does that mean Jesus does not like the Steelers, or the Jets, or the Bears, or whoever the opponent is? If Tebow is praying for a 1st down, but two evangelical defensive lineman are praying to sack the guy, what in the heck does Jesus do? Flip a coin, I guess. At some point, the whole idea of divine intervention in a football game is nonsensical.

Even worse, in my view: attributing one's successes and failures to a higher power is to abdicate one's responsibility and one's power to choose. When Tim completes a 60-yard TD pass to win the game, as he did this past weekend, he should bow and take the credit. If he hits the receiver in stride and it all works out, that's his doing. And if he throws one that's picked off by the opposing cornerback, that's not God punishing him--no, that's Tim Tebow reading the defense incorrectly and/or a glitch in his motor skills as a passer. To think otherwise in either case is to engage in some kind of twisted, medieval claptrap.

But all of that will not faze Mr. Tebow. If the Broncos lose in the next round of the playoffs, he will still praise God for getting them there in the first place. And if they should win the Super Bowl (perish the thought), you might as well set up a revival tent outside the Broncos' locker room, because we all know how that happened.

The lesson is clear: if you want to play college football for a winner, choose either Oral Roberts or Brigham Young. They have a clear edge over those heathen public universities. And if you make it to the pros, pray that you can play your home games in Colorado, with Tim Tebow taking the snaps.

[News update: According to a telephone survey conducted Tuesday by the website Poll Position, 43.3 percent of people believe Tebow's accomplishments on the field can be attributed to divine intervention. The poll surveyed 1,056 people, and of the 756 who said they were familiar with Tebow, roughly 327 of them said they believe God plays a role in the second-year NFL quarterback's success. Only 42.3 percent of those familiar with Tebow said divine intervention does not play a role in Tebow's success (14.4 percent gave no opinion), meaning there are more respondents who do believe Tebow is receiving a little extra help than there are who don't.]

Whiny students

Lord knows I'm not perfect. And, although I could be deluding myself, I think I'm pretty well aware of my strengths and weaknesses as a professor. And, I really don't mind constructive criticism, especially when it's specific, fair, and reasoned. What I do mind are whiny people, and while my course evaluations are generally positive, I do get some "zingers" from time to time.

This past academic term has been such a case. I had one student who believed that I was dissing his informative speech because of his skin color, when in reality I was dissing it because it didn't meet some standard tests for coherence. (Nonetheless, he sent a video of that speech to two other instructors in my department, both of whom told him the same things that I did, with scores to match.) I had another student who went on record as saying that it's "impossible" to pass one of my courses, even though 80 percent of the students received either an "A" or a "B" in the class. (And let's not forget that she missed 3 of the 8 class meetings, a minor detail.) Then there are those who suggest that "if you don't agree with him, you won't have a chance" to succeed, because the course is just an exercise in being brainwashed by his opinions. (We all know what an intimidating, authoritarian personality I have.) What's even more maddening is that these comments appear in rather public and permanent places--they are in electronic form, and as such, they will never really go away. If I make negative comments about a student, they are largely confined to their exam or their paper--but their rants can be accessed by tenure and promotion committees, and in the case of ratemyprofessors.com, by anyone on the planet with an iPhone or a laptop.

It can be a cold, cruel world out there--and sometimes I just need to persevere despite such feedback. But, it's certainly not all bad news. What keeps me going are comments like those from a student on his blog that mentioned me as one of his "favorite professors" to date, "passionate" about his subject. (Josh, I thank you for that--it keeps me in the ballgame.) And on some rare occasions, I know that I've played an absolutely critical, life-changing role with respect to someone's career choice and/or their future success; that's a huge payoff.

Nonetheless, those of you who labor away in cubicles: be a little thankful that your every move is not being seen and evaluated by 25 other people. It's a challenge!