Monday, July 29, 2024

Teaching and Politics

 I’ve seen memes around the web asserting that teachers should never reveal their political leanings to students.  The point of education, the meme continues, is to get students to think, not to indoctrinate them.

And that is true enough.  Indoctrination is for churches and parents, and more power to them.  Or rather, wouldn’t it be nice if they too got young’uns to think instead of to follow doctrine!  On the other hand, when it comes to teachers not revealing their political prejudices, as those same young’uns say, YMMV.

 

I think back to my 12th grade social studies class.  The course was titled Problems of Democracy.  It was a terrific class.  We didn’t have a textbook.  Rather, the teacher, Mr. Kocher, had us read real documents.  The Declaration and the Constitution, of course.  But also a series of Supreme Court cases. I remember three in particular:  Marbury v. Madison; Plessy v. Ferguson; Brown v. Board.  Those are almost a gimme, verging on trite, if you will, from the point of view of being essential to the development of American democracy.

 

Mr. Kocher took us through the documents and the cases.  We talked about them, discussed them, took positions pro and anti, debated the merits and demerits.  It was a really immersive experience.  It introduced us, more than introduced us to the bones, tendons, and muscles of the American system of government.

 

It just so happened that Mr. Kocher, besides teaching that crackerjack couse, also ran for Congress.  As a Republican.  Of course we all knew that he was a Republican—how could we not.  Did his political leanings leach into the course?  I suppose at the margins they did, since it’s impossible to keep one’s fundamental beliefs out of any discussion.  But did Mr. Kocher indoctrinate us with his beliefs?  Nope.

 

On the contrary, Mr. Kocher always encouraged independent thought.  That extended to his third occupation back then.  He was the teacher who sponsored the school’s debating team, of which I had the honor of being captain—an honor not at all deserved, I have to say, since I was both a lousy leader and a lousy debater.  But faut de mieux, I suppose.

 

I point to that third of Mr. Kocher’s tasks because the topic for debate that year was profoundly political.  We're talking 1969-70, the middle of Nixon’s expansion of the Vietnam War, with the bombing of Cambodia and Hanoi and the Tet Offensive and . . . .  The royal mess that we got into in Southeast Asia, in short.  And the topic for debate?  “Resolved:  that Congress should prohibit unilateral United States intervention in foreign countries.”

 

The political division of hawks and doves back then was not entirely clear cut.  Sure, there were Democrats who wanted to get out of the war ASAP—hence McGovern and McCarthy, for instance.  But the war had been a Democratic enterprise from 1960 onwards—hence “hey hey, ho ho, LBJ has got to go.”  And for the most part (I don’t recall an exception, but no doubt there were), Republicans were all for continuing the war—hence the peace demonstrations at the Democratic Convention in Chicago in 1968, but not, at least not so extensively, at the Republican Convention in Miami Beach.  We could influence the Dems, but not the Reps.


I suppose that "we" is revelatory of where I stood!

 

Despite that fundamental division between the two parties, and knowing full well that as a Republican Mr. Kocher would probably be in favor of continuing the war—he never indicated one way or the other, as I recall—we debaters took direction from Mr. Kocher without any doubt at all that he would be as forthcoming for the affirmative as for the negative on the resolution to be debated.  And Mr. Kocher was helpful, suggestive, full of insight and encouragement for those of us on the affirmative, arguing against what probably were his deeply held beliefs about the war.

 

So yes indeed, it’s a good to say that teachers should not impose their political, or almost any other belief on their students.  Deliberate imposition is always always wrong.  But that’s not the same thing as saying that teachers should keep their beliefs secret.  Indeed, it might even be worse, from the point of view of indoctrination, to keep the teacher’s politics hidden away.  The impression that the students then get is that the instruction they are getting is entirely neutral.  As far as I'm concerned, that's never the case—bias always creeps in.


As I see it, better to know where the bias lies and correct for it, than to assume that what comes from the teacher is straightforward, unbiased truth.

Tuesday, July 23, 2024

Can You Believe It!

Can you believe it!

Once upon a time god was supposed to know, omniscient as he is, who was the closest living heir to Adam himself in each and every country, province, county, city in the world.  That direct descendant to Adam—and here you thought that we were all direct descendants!—was the rightful king of the country, prince of the province, count of the county, sovereign of the city.

 

That’s what Sir Robert Filmer, writing in the mid-17th century, asserted in defense of the divine right of kings.  His book, Patriarcha, or the Natural Power of Kings, wasn’t published until 1680, however, so it was alas too late to prevent the people of England from rebelling against their god-appointed king, Charles I, trying the king for treason against the nation, beheading him in 1649, and declaring England an electoral commonwealth rather than a kingdom.

 

So much for divine right.

 

Still and all, we live in a world where the idea that god intervenes in human affairs in that kind of direct, physical, determinative way still buzzes in the minds of a great many people.  It’s not kings that we think about anymore.  Even the grand monarch of England, Charles III, more or less direct descendant of Charles I, is king by parliamentary concession and, more importantly perhaps, agreement on the part of the British people.  The execution of 1649 and its aftermath put England, and then Great Britain, on the path to becoming a parliamentary democracy, after all.

 

No, it’s not kings.  It’s billionaires.  Surely god’s hand is at work in the accumulation of so much wealth!  And it’s presidents.  Surely god’s hand is at work in Crooks’s bullet missing Donald Trump.  And it’s nations.  Surely god’s hand is at work in making the US that shining city on a hill.  And it’s individuals.  Surely god’s hand is at work in saving Joe Blow from dying in the flood and saving Jane Doe from being squashed when the façade of the fifty story building fell right in front of her on the sidewalks of New York and she survived with nary a scratch.

 

Can you believe it!

 

And the converse must also be true.  Surely god did not love the slob who lost all his wealth or JFK who did not dodge the bullet or Bangladesh that has no hill to shine on or Billy Bob who sank away in the tsunami or Susie Sapp whose body parts are still being gathered on the highway where the tractor trailer ran into her SUV.

 

Can you believe it!

 

Personally I’m on the side of the citizens of London, who in 1641 forwarded to Parliament the so-called Root and Branch Petition.  The petition was all about abolishing episcopacy, which is to say the Church of England, and making members of each congregation self-governing rather than subject to the authority of the episcopos, the bishop, appointed by the god-given king.  Tearing out bishops’ authority root and branch was a step towards tearing out the king’s god-given role.  In a god-besotted world, the Root and Branch Petition was a step towards the rise of common persons as arbiters of their own destiny.

 

So too with billionaires and presidents, nations and individuals.  It is as we behave that we become who and what we are.  There is no hand of god moving us in one direction or another.  If that Mac truck rams into our SUV, it’s not god guiding it and our own death or survival, only the irresponsibility of the drivers and pure unadulterated chance.  Kings are not appointed by god.  Billionaires are made mostly by inheritance from their parents or by canny investing and good luck.  Nations become great by the bounty of their geographical place and by the pluck, luck, and social habits of its people.  Rome did not rise and fall because Jove favored it and then Yahweh did not.

Thursday, July 11, 2024

Nostalgia

I often think of that wonderful opening to L. P. Hartley’s The Go-Between:  “The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there.”  I really do believe that Hartley is right.  And that belief goes beyond the obvious point, that what people believed and did during Claudius’s reign is a universe divided from what they believed and did during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I, and both equally divided from what we believe now, during the threatened reign of King Donald I.  I also believe that the past that we have lived—or, to be humble in all this, the past through which I travelled is profoundly different, not just from my actual present but also, and powerfully, from the past as I remember it now in my doddering old age.

 

It's hard, maybe impossible to quantify the difference between what was and what I remember.  If there were others who remember the same set of events and who can compare and contrast their memory with mine, then I could have a vivid sense of the misperceptions that memory enables.  I imagine some people can check their memories that way, with at least some success.  In my case there are no such voices.  In fact, not only are there no such voices, but there is also no chance that I can compare my memory of the most concrete, realest of objects with their actuality.  Exile will do that for you.

 

But it’s not just that distant and physically remote past that I can’t recover with any degree of accuracy.  In exile in Miami or in Harrisburg or in State College or in Boston or in Carlinville—even here in Reading where I now type this—I experienced things that are involved in convolutions of memory that defy any effort to pin the past down.  Even as I wrote the beginning of this paragraph, which starts with a “but,” I remember some teacher in elementary school drilling into her students that one should never ever start a sentence with that word.  That is a true thing.  But did I really then ask her, “But why not?”  I like to think so.  And the very fact that I like to gives me pause.

 

I have what I know must be a fanciful notion of what I was like back then.  Independent, willing to challenge authority, even if in a fairly minor way.  I also like to think of myself as being adept with English, no doubt because English was my second language and fancying myself an adept made me less of a stranger in a strange land.  Here again, that I like to think that about me back then gives me pause.

 

For me the most challenging part of memory, though, is nostalgia.  I sometimes define nostalgia as a neuralgia of the soul.  The handy-dandy dictionary built into the Mac operating system, the New Oxford American Dictionary, tells me I’m wrong.  Nostalgia, it says, is “a sentimental longing or wistful affection for the past, typically for a period or place with happy personal associations.”  In my book, sentimentality and wistfulness are other words for neuralgia of the soul—but I’ll let that pass.

 

What’s the effect of nostalgia?

 

As far as I can tell, in the first place it substitutes comfort, sometimes pleasure, for reality.  In my memory, in whichever place I might wish to dwell on, from Cienfuegos at least through State College, I never once encountered bullying, for instance.  Now you have to understand that I am an eminently bullyable kind of guy.  I’m short and gawky and nerdly.  A milquetoast (what a wonderful word, which I never get to use).  So not to have been bullied, other than by my siblings of course, for those twenty-odd years would be nothing short of miraculous.  I have to wonder, then, whether what I remember of those places and my reception in them is an actual reality or only an effect of nostalgia, framed by the fact that what I’m really celebrating is being young and naïve rather than not being bullied.

 

Still, I cannot get  it out of my memory that what I encountered back then was the opposite of bullying.  Let me move from Cienfuegos to Harrisburg in illustrating the point.  What do I recall in that town, to which we moved when I was in 10th grade, so 15, going on 16 years old?  In William Penn High School, alas now closed, I remember being welcomed with open arms into the school community.  And not just the teachers, although I imagine that the welcoming was fostered by them.  The kids were wonderful.

 

One memory that definitely begins in fact, although it might trail off into nostalgia, will demonstrate the point.  In the spring of 1968 Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated in Memphis.  That horrible event resonated through the school. The school had a wonderful mixture of students.  It was fully integrated, although I have no idea what the percent of each ethnic group might have been.  Anyway, the powers that be thought it wise to address the assassination directly.  So they set up groups throughout the school, about twenty or so kids per group, for rap sessions—and for the kids of today, “rap” here does not mean music but conversation—to confront the fact of Dr. King’s death.  Each group was led by a teacher, who guided the discussion.

 

I rehearse all this because in the rap session that I experienced there was one student who stands out in my memory.  She was a Schwenkfelder, a member of a small Anabaptist confession that, nowadays, numbers a total of around 2,500 souls.  How many Schwenkfelders there may have been in 1968 I do not know.  As I hope to show, the numbers here are not irrelevant.


In the course of the rapping, the question came up, “Would you marry one of ‘them,’” where the characteristics of the “them” depended on each person’s own self-identity.  Most of us said that we would, so long as love was in the air.  But the Schwenkfelder begged to differ.  Not only would she not marry a person of color, she said, but she wouldn’t even consider marrying anyone who was not also a Schwenkfelder.

 

You see why the numbers are important.  That poor, at least from my perspective then as now, young woman would have to go fishing in a very very very shallow gene pool.  From the three and a half or so billion people on the planet in 1968 she was obliged to choose to love from a scant 2,500.  I felt sorry for her.

 

Where does the nostalgia come in?  Well, given the accuracy of my memory of what she said in the rap session, am I also accurate in remembering that that same girl was kind, friendly, welcoming to me, not only a new student, but a Latino egghead?  Was that the way things actually happened, or am I coloring the past in the shade of nostalgic wistful affection?

 

Memories of my first love fall under the wraith (I mean that word) of nostalgia very powerfully.  Everything surrounding first love is for me, I assume also for everyone, peak times in no trump.  The first date, the first handholding, the first kiss, the first time naked, the first . . . .  All of it is full of wistful affection.  Even the falling out and the breaking up is wrapped up in the warmth of nostalgia.  There are times when I long for that past, all of it, from first date to the falling out, with all my soul, which suffers that longing as a phantom neuralgia.

 

I wish I could remember clearly because I’m sure—or the nostalgia makes me think, at any rate—that all of those memories, from Cienfuegos to State College, were indeed fabulous.  But like the old song says, how can I be sure?


Fortunately, thanks to my love, I can validate the memories from Boston to the present.  Some of the past is really as wonderful as I remember it to be.

Wednesday, July 10, 2024

Essays from the Heartland

My Neighbor's Dog

When we first moved from Boston to Carlinville, Illinois, we brought with us four cats, later to become five when we lost one Bostonian but were adopted by two mid-Western natives.  Each of our cats loved the outdoors, and each one, used to the crowded conditions of the Northeast, was determined to establish for itself as extensive a territory as possible.

Since our yard in Carlinville was rather small, even by the standards of the lower-middle-class suburban Boston we had come from, the cats of course decided to be imperial.  They annexed the yards of our neighbors on either side, the alleyway behind the three houses, and as many of the yards beyond the alleyway as did not have resident dogs—and then they discovered that dogs in the heartland are invariably tied up, so even those yards were claimed as provinces, with the exception of the arc of territory governed by the pooches' teeth.

Most of our neighbors did not really mind the feline invasion.  Our left-hand neighbor, in fact, welcomed the cats because they protected his not exactly weather-tight garage from field mice and other vermin.  Others, already having to pick their way through fields of dog doo—the doggie pooper scooper is strictly an urban invention, we discovered—did not even notice the finicky cats, who were as careful to hide themselves as their feces.

The only exception to the generally laissez-faire reaction came from the right-hand neighbors.  They were the kind of people who consider well kept yards the ultimate expression of civic pride.  But for them a yard meant nothing more or less than the lawn itself.  An untrammeled swatch of greensward was for them heaven itself.  Any deviation from green, perfectly mowed blades was akin to sin.  Trees have brown trunks, so of course they allowed none in their yard.  Shrubs and bushes add a disquieting amount of verticality to a landscape, so the only shrub they had, a poor, lonely, non-deciduous (the Lord forbid that leaves should profane the ground!) hemlock, disappeared the first summer we were in Carlinville.  Flowers tend to be all colors but green, and in any case weed eaters—these neighbors were, as far as I can tell, the only people in the entire block who owned a weed eater, or at any rate, who used one—cannot distinguish between weeds and flowers, so of course the neighbors had no flowers that might interfere with the machine or with their God-given right to make their property reflect their flat plainness as thoroughly as possible.

Picture, then, the horror with which the neighbors first saw our cats issue from our back door and, with little understanding of the niceties of meum et tuum, go into the neighbors' yard.  The neighbors frowned, the neighbors scowled, the neighbors all but called the dog catcher:  but there was nothing they could do.  Imperialists though they were, the cats maintained the highest decorum in the way of hiding their poop; and since the yard was nothing but an expanse of grass, there was nothing at all that the cats could harm.  Practically speaking, for the neighbors our cats were simply an affront to their pride of property.  The town, however, had no laws to regulate the movement of cats—later a leash law for dogs was adopted, but cats were free to roam.

Tied though the neighbors' hands were, like the cats they too were free agents.  Slowly their minds worked through the problem, and slowly their minds came up with a solution.  They would buy a dog and chain it next to the property line, thus establishing a feline exclusion zone that the cats would be unable to penetrate.  Furthermore, since the dog would be next to our yard, he would be likely to poop on our property rather than theirs.

The genius of the strategy was unfortunately not matched by brilliant tactics.  The neighbors' first mistake was getting a puppy rather than a full-grown dog; their second mistake was getting a dachshund-sized dog; their third mistake was in getting an animal they did not like.

Each mistake contributed to the collapse of the feline exclusion zone and the backfiring of the poop-export policy.  First of all, a puppy does not know that cats are his enemy, so the little dog, Barney by name, thought that our cats were his playmates and tried to entice the cats onto his owners' property.  The cats objected to the attempts, but had enough acquaintance with the mysteries of dog-chains to know that they could lie down just outside the dog's reach and drive him mad.  As we all know, dogs give voice to anger rather readily, so the silence of our back yards gave way to the agonized yipping of a frustrated Barney almost from the day the neighbors tied up the poor puppy.

Barney's frustration was increased because four of our five cats were larger than he, even at his imposing full-grown length of twenty inches.  When he got loose, which was not often, and tried to enforce his friendliness, he invariably was scratched on the nose—so much so that he developed a permanent scar on his snout.  The neighbors, in short, had not considered that cats, delicate though they seem to those who have never owned one, are feisty fighters, endowed by nature with a series of good, sharp arguments against enemies anywhere near their own size.  Even had he wanted to do so, poor Barney did not stand a chance of enforcing the feline exclusion zone.

As time passed, Barney came to the conclusion that the cats were not about to take him up as a playmate, so he became a bit despondent.  Adding to his depression was the fact that his owners never, but never, came out to play with him.  It was clear enough to us that the neighbors had gotten poor Barney just to irritate our cats and us, and that the emotional welfare of the dog—a concept probably so alien to the neighbors that they would not understand what it meant—mattered to them not at all.  But to us, Barney's welfare mattered a great deal.  We happen to like animals of all sorts.  So we decided that if the neighbors did not play with Barney, we would.  Nor would we have to trespass in order to do so, for after all the neighbors had been kind enough to chain Barney so that he could come over to our yard whenever he wanted to.  Of course, the intent had been to have Barney poop in our yard:  but since we were the only ones who played with him, and we did so in our yard, Barney never did poop in our yard.  The neighbors' yard, on the other hand, developed large patches of unsightly and smelly brown.

One day, when our landlords came to visit us, they told us a story that illuminated the pain that the neighbors had undergone just to get back at us for having free-roaming cats.  It happens that out landlords used to live in our house before they got rich and moved to the big city.  They too owned cats, and they too had the same reaction from the neighbors.  But the landlords also owned a dog, which they allowed to run loose from time to time.  And from time to time the dog would go to the neighbors' yard and do his duty there.  Whenever that happened, our landlords told us, the neighbors would scoop up the poop and carefully place it on the front stoop of our house.  The message was clear as a bell:  keep your pooch to yourself and off our immaculate conception of a lawn.

 

The Fire This Time

The dog, Sheba, howled day and night.  She was a gorgeous husky, with the fearsome blank eyes that huskies have, but in Sheba sharpened to pure emptiness by agony and loneliness.  Good heartlander that he was, Sheba's owner, Loy, tied her up and never paid attention to her.  Loy was in the spirit of the heartland, best defined by the neighbor, on the corner of our street, who had whittled dog ownership to its bare essentials:  his dog was permanently fenced into a four-foot square of dog shit and dog food.  The enclosure had no gate.

But that owner had thrown in a dog house for his pet.  Loy, on the other hand, did not bother to provide housing for Sheba.  Instead, she lived under an old, beat up truck in Loy's side yard, right under my bedroom window.  When it rained, the hard-packed earth puddled the water and the white patches of Sheba's coat turned brown.  For days after it rained she would lick and lick and lick until finally she had cleaned herself enough to look like a husky again.  And then it would rain once more.  At least when it rained Sheba had a guaranteed supply of water.  Oftentimes, Loy simply forgot that the dog was there.

It was easy for Loy to forget the dog.  He did not have to use the truck that was Shebas' home, after all.  Loy had another truck, a handsome, black pick-up truck with running lights and flashy signals on every available surface.  It bore a sign that explained the presence of the other truck in the yard:

LOY W——

SCARP COLLECTOR

The other truck was not a spare, only "scarp" metal waiting for the best offer to roll in.

In fact, Loy belonged to one of the odd subgroups in towns like Carlinville, which do not have municipal facilities for trash collection.  As we found out when we moved to Carlinville and were faced with a choice of trash collectors, feudal warfare is a pale shadow of the wars of garbage.  There were four different companies in Carlinville, a town that claimed to house fifty-four hundred souls, and each of the companies was wholly owned by a different branch of the same family, the S——.  Indeed, we met Loy on the first day we arrived in town, when we were freshly moved into our house and he came over to advise us on the issue of trash collection.  He warned us against the perfidy of the senior branch of the S—— and against the shiftlessness of one and the duplicity of the other of the cadet branches, and urged us to put our trash bags in the capable hands of the most junior branch, which also ran the local beauty academy from the same location.  As a matter of fact, when we first drove into town, my wife and I saw and marked for further inquiry the sign for the S—— Beauty Academy and Trash Collection Agency.  The wags of the town, we learned, called it S—— Beauty and Trash Academy.

One glance at Loy's trucks told us that his advice about trash collectors was not entirely disinterested.  He was on the margins of the profession himself.  He was a scarp collector.  S—— Beauty and Trash Academy subcontracted the odd lots of trash, and Loy was one of their chosen, a villein.  Loy's zealotry in the interests of his profession was legend, and his yard proved it.  There were mounds of scarp everywhere.  There were old refrigerators and old washers.  There were several vehicles and many parts of vehicles.  There were hundreds of empty plastic jugs.  There were cans and bottles and automobile tires.  In fact, my wife and I were living next to a junkyard, and Sheba was the junkyard dog.

It took us a long time to do something about Sheba.  We stewed and we fretted and we felt guilty.  There was no humane society for us to call, and the police would do nothing unless the animal were a danger to humans.  But Sheba was so broken-spirited that even our cats found her pitiable and tried to befriend her.  We were also worried that, if we caused trouble for Loy, Loy would cause trouble for us.  He was not an entirely balanced man.  There was, for instance, the brouhaha during our first Fourth of July in Carlinville, when suddenly our house came under a barrage of rockets launched, good-humoredly and in the American spirit of do all that you can do for a good time, by Loy, who couldn't understand why we were concerned about how to explain to our landlord the burn marks that marred the surface of the deck.

Finally, however, after a particularly wet season, when Sheba's howling finally broke our hearts as well as our sleep, we called the mayor.  The mayor had been elected, before we came to town, on a good populist platform.  She promised the voters that, if she were elected, the then-current drought would end.  She was elected.  The drought ended.  The mayor was also known to be an animal lover.  We called her and the howling ended.  Some days later, as we drove by the mayor's house, we saw Sheba, in the company of the mayor's five other dogs, lolling in the shade.

Loy did not suffer depredations after he lost his dog.  On the contrary, the scarp blossomed and bore fruit.  One day, as I was washing the dishes in our kitchen, I casually glanced up to look at the fall colors of the trees in our back yard.  It took me some seconds to realize that our yard, as well as Loy's, was on fire.  I ran next door to rouse Loy.  He came out in his underwear, said "Goddamn" under his breath, and strolled to his hose.  As is the custom in the heartland, Loy had been burning trash, along with some rejected rubberized scarp, in his trash barrel.  Autumn leaves around the barrel had caught fire, and the fire had spread from his yard to ours.

It did not take long to put the fire out.  I turned a quizzical eye to Loy.  All he said was, "Goddamn Sheba'd a let me know."

 

Venice in the Heartland

I think my wife and I emit a kind of survival pheromone, if such a thing exists:  at any rate, stray cats know we're suckers, and they do not hesitate to prove our foolishness time and time again.  From the time we moved to Carlinville in 1985, to the time we moved to Reading, Pennsylvania in 1989, we were adopted by three cats, each of them relatively bedraggled and ragged, but each resolute in its will to survive.

We usually know when we have a feline guest because our normal complement of cats resents any encroachment on its territory.  The last adopted, usually also the youngest and feistiest of our cats, vociferates most vigorously against a newcomer.  So when Macbeth—now about four years old, and a mighty murderer of sleep from his earliest day with us—began to yowl one afternoon, we went out to see what the fuss was all about.  And there she was, crouching before Mac, so pitiable that we knew as soon as we saw her that we were her only hope of salvation.

We named her Venice in remembrance of all the semi-starved feral cats we had seen in that otherwise lovely city on the Adriatic.  So emaciated and ill did she seem to be that, for the first time during our time in the mid-West we hesitated about letting a cat come in the house.  Instead, we brought food and water out to her, and fed her on the front stoop.  She ate a can and a half of food before she slowed down.

She seemed to be no more than eight or nine months old, a tiny little thing.  And the more we looked at her, the more it seemed a miracle that she was not dead.  Least of her problems was that both her ears were covered with patches of ring-worm.  Her neck was so very thin that it seemed incredible that she could swallow any food at all.  Between her shoulder blades was that ugly indentation starved cats have where well-kept cats have muscle.  Her fur was patchy, dirty, unkempt.  Most incredible, at least to me, was that she was either pregnant or had just had a litter.  Her mammary glands were swollen, her nipples charged with milk.  Had it not been for the bulk of her underbelly, she would have had no girth at all.

That night she slept outdoors, on our front stoop, with a bowl of water and another of dry cat food.  The next morning we arranged to take her to the vet's, where an examination of her teeth led to the absolutely unbelievable conclusion that she was over one year old.  Even the vet's assistant could not believe that a cat so very small could possibly be that old.  But the vet insisted he was right.  As to the litter, he suspected that all the kittens had died or been still-born.  Certainly Venice was so malnourished that she could not possibly have had a normal litter.

The vet assured us that, besides the ringworm, Venice had no contagious diseases, so when we brought her back home, she came inside.  Macbeth, of course, was not—and is not yet—very happy about the circumstance.  He stalks Venice around the house, keeping her on edge all the time.  Venice, however, is a survivor.  Small as she is, she takes absolutely no nonsense at all from Macbeth, nor from either of the other two cats, Winkin and Artemis, that are left to us.  Her hiss is mighty large, and frequent.  However, there are times now when Venice seems to forget that she ought to hiss at the three enormous beasts that beset her.  She would rather be able to relax, to forget the need for constant vigilance.  She sleeps a great deal, and by now it takes more than Macbeth's stares to wake her up.

Unfortunately when she first came to us, Venice did not know about litter boxes.  I discovered that fact one night soon after she arrived when, as I was watching television, Venice began to scratch the rug in the way cats scratch in their litter after they have used it.  The patch of wet was discreetly small, but the odor was not.  I blotted up as much of the urine as I could, sprinkled baking soda on the spot, used carpet cleaner after vacuuming the soda.  It still smelled a bit.

My wife and I did not really mind, and the other cats soon enough got used to their new housemate—used enough to her to live together without constant fighting, at any rate.  Even if they had not, however, there would have been nothing for us to do.  Perhaps the neighborhood cats were right, perhaps it is a biochemical we emit that they smell and seek out:  it is simply impossible for us to ignore the starving cat that asks for our help.  That is why living in the heartland was so difficult for us.  In Carlinville, when it comes to the treatment of cats, it is Venice in the heartland.

It's a Feature

I will confess that I really hate to kill anything.  Some little critters I can’t avoid killing because they are little, I’m big (only in relation to the little critters!), and clumsiness is inevitable in the interaction of little and big.  So I will smash to death an ant and not even know I’ve done so.  Involuntary insectislaughter.

 

But if I see the critter I will avoid stepping on it.  If it’s in the house, I will do my best to capture it and move it to the great outdoors.  Sometimes the effort to capture produces terrible results, but usually I manage to move the ant or the spider or the earwig outside.  Although spiders I try to leave alone because I like spiders.

 

I’ll also confess that some critters I do not spare.  Fleas.  Centipedes.  Cockroaches.  Mosquitos.  I’m sure the list could go on a bit more, but it’s really not extensive.  I do not molest or try to kill wasps or hornets or yellowjackets.  We hang our clothes out to dry, and use wooden clothespins in the process.  Wasps love to rasp up the wood from the pins, and sometimes a wasp will be on the pin as I’m hanging out the clothes.  If that happens, I wait.

 

There are all sorts of other critters that I don’t kill.  From feral cat to robin, from fox to pheasant, from coyote to deer—I leave them alone.  I know that the cat will try to eat the robin, the fox will try to eat the pheasant, and the coyote will try to kill the deer.  That’s nature red in tooth and claw.  About killing critters I’m not natural.  I imagine that if there were no supermarkets handy and no supply of meats at the store, I’d become a hunter.  And I know that the chicken I buy nicely wrapped in plastic was once a live critter.  I acknowledge the hypocrisy, if that’s what it is.  I have to live somehow.  And if hypocrisy is the path to continuing life, then I’ll walk down it.

 

I’d say sue me, but I suspect the feral cat, fox, coyote will not be taking me to ethical court.

 

I focus on insects, though, because when it comes to those tiny critters, the general attitude of us humans is that they are just bugs, and bugs need to be extirpated.  My sense, though, is that the software universe is right:  the little critter is not a bug; it's a feature.

 

I think we all recognize that truth when it comes to insects that serve us, like bees.  But the same is true for all insects, even the ones that I don’t hesitate to kill.  Even cockroaches serve a purpose.

 

Once upon a time I bitched to a friend about the continuing existence of mold.  Having performed its evolutionary service, I said, why do we still need it around to grow grossly in the seams of bathroom tiles!

 

And my friend said:  would you then give up your Stilton?

 

I would not give up my Stilton.  Now would I give up that marvelously formed little flying insect, so exquisite in its tiny little physical form.  It may not be a great soul, that critter.  But it is as beautiful as my Stilton.

Monday, July 8, 2024

Presidents of Harvard

            Presidents of Harvard, one presumes, know whereof they speak.  And so, for all the talk and controversy about what is wrong and what is right with higher education, nothing comes closer to pinning down the issue than old (pres. from 1909 to 1933) Pres. Abbott Lawrence Lowell's remark that "Universities are full of knowledge.  The freshmen bring a little in, and the seniors take none away, so knowledge accumulates."  The witticism may say something about the educational accomplishments of Harvard undergraduates in the first third of the last century.  But more significant is what Lowell doesn't say.  One listens in vain here for hints of exit testing to determine the educational differential of a school's product output.  Indeed, one listens in vain for any hint at all of the pompous flapping that we hear all too often from the professional hierarchy of academe:  education, Lowell suggests, is scarcely serious, and surely not useful.  Only asses would set out to assess the enterprise.

            On the contrary, Lowell implies that the function of universities is to be repositories of knowledge rather than the automated student-stuffing machines for which our modern educational czars drool.  I would go Lowell one better, in fact:  any college that graduates seniors who think they know a great deal is infallibly not doing its job at all. Colleges ought to sap all confidence from students, and can do so very simply by letting their knowledgeable freshmen, and even more their wise sophomores, loose in the stacks of a great academic library.  Consider:  50,000 miles of shelves, at a conservative 8 books per foot and 500 pages per book, with 500 or so words per page, all to be read in 4 years.  Even the most replete of freshman minds is bound to collapse under the strain.

            Humility is not a darling of the modern educator's canon of virtues, but surely it ought to be.  True humility such as Lowell suggests in the graduating senior must lead to a never-ending quest for knowledge.  There is always the fifty-thousand-and-first mile of shelving being added onto the stacks, after all.  One can imagine Lowell arguing that the greatness of Harvard as an educational institution is the sense it fosters in all students and faculty, not only that there is that extra added mile to go, but that a peer or colleague (and certainly one's teacher or mentor) is well past the three-quarter-mile mark.

            While she was visiting New England in the 1930s, Gertrude Stein said, "Education is thought about and as it is thought about it is being done it is being done in the way it is thought about, which is not true of almost anything."  And that is the problem with education today.  We cannot risk thinking that the learning of skills, portable and useful as they are, is education.  If we do so, we will also risk graduating seniors who know more than the entering freshmen.  Lord only knows what chaos might be the consequence!

Monday, July 1, 2024

What Happens Next

What happens next?  The question kept me moving
into the novel—into the play—into my life.
But now I know.  There will be joy and grief.
There will be peace.  There will be war.
The old lady in the hospital gown will die.
So will the man with the cancer.  A boy,
a girl will wail a first lungful of air.
Perhaps my grandchild, perhaps not—details
I do not know.  But now I know what happens next.

Life in Retrospect

on the horizon light would shimmer once
the sun had sunk into the tropic sea.
youngling I did not yet know the twilight
entwining of light and dark nor know yet
the feel of that birthmark above her hip.
the seduction of so light a period
on the smooth perfection of her skin
made me shiver with desire with lust
to wind my body with hers in sensual
similitude of what the sunset taught
lingering in that higher latitude
souls eternal interpenetrating
as if night would never cut off the light.
more apt the sudden dark in tropic falls
of night that did not linger the moment
so I knew the loss was loss the past gone
irretrievable like the birthmark now
gone but for the finger's remembering
the punctuated smoothness of her back
so long untwined that now the sense recedes
all drowned in an abyss of forgetting
certain only that the flash of passion
darkens even as the senses note it
and desire turns to sad nostalgia
for a past that every day slides further
into the dark backward of oblivion.

Music

Just half a bar and  back I reel, a fingerling
of memory, hooked as to a thinning strand
of the hair I once had, rat tail down my spine.
And now . . . a smiling public man, as like to Yeats
as is a gnat to a bull elephant.
I was greater then, by the length of a future
now shrunk and thinner than my hair.
A year or two, a decade.  All my hopes
behind me.  And tricksy time reels onward.


My First Love

My first love peed her pants with laughter once.
Not lovers yet, we walked on a springtime street,
the buds just barely on the branch, when something—
an incongruous word, the fall of shadow
from a cloud on a melting hill of snow,
a crow pecked off by a rutting sparrow—
something filled her with such glee that laughter
made her lose control, and down it came warm
then chill in the cool spring air.  Falling
with laughter she was, and what then could I
but fall as well, in love with spring and above
all her, not aware yet that life's rictus comes
as summer finally crisps the last snowdrop—
and then the sere fall, and the yellow leaf.