Good morning.
We took a
brief winter break to visit friends in Florida.
I can usually manage to write at length when we go somewhere, but this
was a vacation, not traveling. Vacations
involve doing nothing worthy of remark, and that's what we did. Kathy and I were joking before we left that
we don't know how to vacation; neither of us could readily recall the last time
we had taken one. We think we were
reasonably successful in vacationing.
It is
always required that I hand out the periodic "Kathy and Gary Award for Warm
and Gracious Hosting" when appropriate.
It is now. To Joe & Genie
Dixon (second-time awardees), to Ann & Brian (also second-time awardees),
and to Victoria. Not only did we not
have to make arrangements for lodging, we had good meals and good company the
entire trip. (We also had good weather,
which improves any trip immeasurably.)
It was
great fun to connect with three high school classmates who I have not seen in
decades. Two we met for lunch in Naples
(with spouses); the third we stayed with in Cape Coral for a couple of
nights. We've all gotten older.
With
respect to the classmate with whom we stayed in Cape Coral, all three of us
took a gamble. She and I have been
exchanging emails for several months, after we reconnected about our upcoming
reunion, and she receives these electronic epistles; it seemed like all would
go well on a visit—but one never knows until you're face to face. The gamble paid off: we (and, by her testimony, she) had a
marvelous time together, both in activities and interactions. Kathy, who's always been gracious about me dragging
her to meet friends of mine—repeatedly over the years—was a little more
apprehensive about this introduction, not unreasonably. I hadn't seen this friend in nearly five
decades. As it turned out, Kathy and she
hit it off famously (I liked her, too!), and my classmate was a wonderful host.
We have an invitation to return, one
that we may take advantage of in future winters.
That said
about my classmate, her town of residence, Cape Coral, is about as interesting
as Richfield or Bloomington as a place to visit for the sites. (Yes, I'm just snotty enough to dismiss the
Mall of America as a tourist destination; I am aware that a good chunk of the
world doesn't agree with me.) That it is
a tourism desert, however, doesn't matter, because on these winter trips to
Florida, the goal is to enjoy the company of good friends, sun, warm, and green—and
not play the tourist role.
It
continues to amaze me, year after year, how refreshing it is to be surrounded
by green and warm weather. There must
have been considerable evolution in human psychology for our hunter-gatherer
ancestors to have migrated to northern climates and survived through the long,
dark, cold winters. That wasn't the
habitat in which humans evolved from the apes, so there must have been
adaptation of a kind that isn't visible in skeletons and pottery shards. Some didn't fully evolve to winter climates,
hence SAD, I bet. (Even though I find
the green and warm invigorating, I don't suffer from SAD. Winter is winter, I get through it.)
I am
constitutionally unable to walk on an ocean beach and not pick up shells. At least this year I was choosier than I have
been in the past, so I only had a small bag of them to bring home—still with no
idea what to do with them once I have them.
It is one of my life's goals, however, to identify one or more ways to
do something tasteful with shells.
My friend
Rolf and I concluded, after a number of drives to their place on Leech Lake,
that we could have made our family fortunes if only we had begun opening
self-storage facilities. There are many
on the road north from Minneapolis.
There are a large number of them in Florida as well, only confirming our
conclusion. I wonder, however, if that
won't be a relatively short-lived enterprise, with declining demand as Baby
Boomers die off. Everything I read tells
me that Millennials (and the younger among us generally) are far less
interested in accumulating material goods, so presumably they will have much
less to store and they will unload all the stuff they inherit from their
parents. (We'll see whether, as they get
older and into houses, this materialistic minimalism continues to characterize
their lifestyle.)
We again
encountered one of the minor irritants in life.
Why is it that in an outdoor setting, such as a nature preserve where
peace and quite are demanded by the surroundings and by good manners, there are
always 2-3 people who insist on talking loudly, often about inanities? Walking through Six Mile Cypress Slough
Preserve in Fort Myers, a large area of cypress trees, ferns, and wild fauna,
the ambience calls for silence or subdued conversation about the plants and
animals. The quiet, except for the buzz
or insects and the calls of birds, is a respite from city noise and
chatter. Not for everyone, I guess. If you've no interest in the surroundings,
why not walk around your neighborhood or at the local shopping center or a park?
* * *
A
recent Chronicle of Higher Education
newsletter on teaching focused briefly on the neuroscience of the teenage
brain. My interest wasn't piqued by the
teaching advice but rather by the neuroscience and what it means for going to
college.
There are two important facts about
the development of human brains that bear on college attendance. What is central is that "in many ways,
18- to 22-year-olds are adults. But in
one significant way, they are not: The
human brain doesn't reach maturity until people are in their mid-20s." The two pertinent facts are that (1) "teenagers,
it turns out, make and retain memories better than adults, making these years
ripe for learning," and (2) "the most important part of the brain, 'where
actions are weighed, situations judged, and decisions made,' develops last."
My take on those findings from
neuroscience is that (1) they confirm my long-standing view that the best time
in life to go to college is right out of high school, when we can still absorb
much, and (2) college students are going to engage in hijinks and really stupid
and sometimes dangerous behavior. In the
case of the latter, every college and university administrator knows it and
hopes fervently that nothing horrible happens on their watch. Apart from cases where students die or are
injured, I think most people who work in a college or university get to be
pretty nonchalant about the goofy things students will certainly do.
In the case of the former, (1), kids
will get the most out of college starting at age 18. That is not to argue, however, that people
who have the ability and inclination shouldn't go (back) to school any
time. As with some of Elliott's friends,
if they couldn't go at age 18 because of family or economic circumstances, they
should go whenever they are able.
College in your late 20s or beyond, however, is a very different
experience—nowhere near as much fun, certainly.
In terms of pedagogy, at both the
K-12 levels and in undergraduate higher education, teachers' and "professors'
assumptions that students 'have the self-discipline to study regularly for
far-off deadlines' and 'know how to structure and sequence large projects' may
be misplaced." I bet most every experienced
teacher and faculty member knows that, too.
* * *
A
friend of mine wrote a piece on guns.
Aren't Guns for All the Solution to
Protection Against Mass and Individual Murders?
To stop a bad guy with a gun, it
takes a good guy with a gun.
Wayne LaPierre, CEO, NRA 2/22/18
Since it is often difficult to tell who the bad guys are,
it is best for all the good guys to have a gun, so they can shoot the bad guys
before the bad guys shoot them.
1
I understand the NRA proposes that every person from
kindergarten age, or age 6, whichever comes first, carry a lethal weapon, preferably
an AR-15 or equivalent; or if that is too heavy, a pistol until the bearer is
able to handle a heavier weapon. The
NRA recommends also that fetuses in their last three months before birth be
exposed regularly to the sound of gunfire (which may be recorded for
convenience), and that infants be given toy guns of all kinds to play with as
soon as they open their eyes. By these means we may be assured of a nationwide
deterrent to individual or mass homicide by an individual or group, and tourists
(if any) and the entire population of the US—except for unarmed illegal aliens—may
be free of fear of being killed or wounded by a malicious person or persons.
Kind and thoughtful POTUS Donald Trump has taken a
long step in the right direction by suggesting that teachers carry concealed
weapons, a change that will benefit everyone concerned: students, teachers, and
those who manufacture, sell, and lobby for guns. Cultural savior Wayne LaPierre,
Exec VP of NRA, further advanced the cause while preaching at a conservative
conference in Maryland (2/22/2018).
He said that schools should have armed guards—presumably in addition to the
armed teachers—and fulminated against everyone and everything that would
abridge the liberty of persons wishing to own one or more guns and bear them at
will.
2
A less costly alternative to this kind of deterrent,
although it would come regrettably at the expense of manufacturers and sellers
of firearms, and of politicians who benefit from campaign contributions from
such individuals or groups, would be to reduce drastically the circulation and ownership
of guns by members of the public. This kind of deterrent is implied by the
Second Amendment to the Constitution, which is invariably misused and almost
never quoted in full by the NRA and gun-lovers generally. The Amendment reads
in full,
[1] A well
regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, [2] the
right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. [2nd
Amendment adopted 12/15/1791]
It will come as a surprise to many that the Amendment contains
the first clause: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the
security of a free State" is the reason for the second, as originalists
probably often notice (though seldom if ever note). That is, the purpose of "the
right to keep and bear Arms" is their potential service in a "well-regulated
Militia." A militia is not just any body of one or more that wants to keep,
bear, and adore guns. No, it is, according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary,
1 a : a part of the organized armed forces
of a country liable to call only in emergency
"The militia was called to quell the riot."
1 b : a body of citizens organized for military
service
2 : the whole body of able-bodied male
citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service [italics
added]
First known use, 1625.
Even if there is a "body of able-bodied
male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service,"
it doesn't matter, because the Amendment refers to "A well-regulated
Militia," which "the whole body of able-bodied male citizens"
definitely is not. In any case, meaning 2 is only the dictionary's: it gives no
example, and the entry does not quote the Second Amendment anywhere. Nor does
it need to: the "well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of
a free State" is self-defining: weapons used by the military for national
defense. The fact that it is ignored by gun salesmen, gun lovers, and politicians
shows only that these persons either don't know or choose to ignore the
Constitution—widely regarded as having much the same authority as the
Bible—when it contradicts their views.
3
It is possible as well as desirable that the current
outrage shown by many young and old citizens over the frequent slaughter of
school children and others by persons who obtain with ease not only guns but
high-powered, rapidly-repeating guns will have some effect in legislation and enforcement.
But given the number and determination of owners and other lovers of guns, and
the fear or disinclination of many other adults of every calling to show
opposition to guns and their ownership, significant and effective action seems
unlikely.
I
hope the tide is turning on this issue.
* * *
A University friend wrote back
about the reasonable person.
If it makes you feel any better,
the terms "reasonable" and "prudent" are still alive and
well with the federal government. It
appears in the Uniform Guidance (2 CFR 200.404) in the description of "reasonableness"
- which says in part: "A cost is
reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be
incurred by a prudent person under the circumstances prevailing at the time the
decision was made to incur the cost."
The rules go on to explain that a bit more.
I am always glad to know there are at least parts of the federal
government below the level of Congress and the White House that still believe
in prudence and reasonableness.
Gary
No comments:
Post a Comment