The Key

Tomorrow is another speech and debate tournament. One outside of the debate subculture may wonder why it is such an enjoyable activity. Why do a bunch of teenage homeschooled kids want to dress up in suits and talk to judges for 10-12 hour stretches? There is one simple answer, for me at least - people.

Certainly there are other factors. The thinking and argumentation involved is stimulating. The competition is inspiring. The opportunities for travel and scholarships exist. The skills gathered are important to life. Taken collectively, these are reasons why I debate, not why I enjoy debate. There must be something else.

The friendships, the fellowship, and the interaction on a personal outside-of-the-competition level provides a ready theory. I've never met a debater I didn't like ... although some took some getting used to. All throughout my life, this theory receives distinct evidence to support it. Summer Camp is not necessarily enjoyable ... it depends on who goes with me. Hiking in the middle of nowhere was a blast, with a specific crew of people. That same hike with other, not as amiable, people was a drag.

It's not like its just my life either. My dad had a job in college as a janitor's assistant. Scraping gum off the underside of a desk is not the most exhilarating of activities. However, he had the time of his life. Why? The people doing it with him. He still corresponds with several of the friends he made doing a seemingly tedious job.

This, therefore, is a post not just about reminisces, but about future ideas. Quite frankly, with all the extemporaneous preparations I've been doing, I'm tired of current political events for the moment. So then, my goal is to be one of those people that make a boring task or duty enjoyable through my attitude.

Being cheerful, even in the midst of irksome tasks and weighty responsibilities is no easy thing. One thing I've learned is putting cheerfulness on the outside first. If you pretend to be cheerful (not sarcastically ... we've had this discussion before) and smile about it, you actually begin to feel cheerful. When you're cheerful, quite often others will join in.

I think it is important to clarify at this point that being cheerful among friends is not "acting out." It is simply a personal attitude that is plainly visible but often unnoticed in a direct sense. One's desire to enjoy the activity and each other's company is the true key to Joy.

That is one of the reasons, aside from all I will learn, why I so look forward to the tournament tomorrow. I am going to interact with some refreshing and cheerful people with an attitude towards life that truly will excel. The key isn't what you do, it who you do it with.

MyThoughts on MySpace

Everyone and their dog has a MySpace site. A bold assertion? Probably. But it is definitely popular. An estimated 48 million users were registered as of February 3 … with membership growing every day.

MySpace is the largest social networking site on the web at this time. It allows photos, postings, blogs, comments, videos, music, instant messaging, web based email, and all manner of such networking activities. Don't ask me too much more than that … all I know is what Wikipedia tells me. I don't know firsthand, because I choose not to have a MySpace.

"Gasp!" "Shock!" "Horror!" "Why not?" Such is the reaction of a large number of my friends and even my casual acquaintances. I offer my email; they offer their MySpace. Well, this post is an answer to why I don't have a MySpace … and why I won't get one.

The first consideration is my time. The Rebelution writes much more extensively on this topic, but we all need to be aware of and guard our time effectively. I have enough trouble responding to email, posting to the blog, and finishing school to spend any time on MySpace to do anything. There are a myriad of endeavors that I should be doing … and chatting isn't one of them. I believe in networking. I do not believe in an all consuming web service. As Ben Franklin once said, "Dost thou love life? Then do not squander time, for that the stuff life is made of."

My second consideration is the situations presented. I would rather not put myself in situations where I input filth into my senses. I don't want to read your cussing to try to make some sort of point. I don't want to listen to some random song about my-girlfriend-left-me-so-it-hurts despair. I don't want to look at alluring over-stylized pictures of yourself. I don't want to have to interact with possible predators. Even if these situations don't occur, MySpace makes it too easy for my liking. The spirit is willing but the flesh is proverbially weak. I'd rather not even toe the line. I won't put myself into a situation that could present material expressly against my personal beliefs and convictions.

One may argue that I can simply disallow those I don't know from commenting or otherwise talking to me over MySpace. Well then, what is the point of having MySpace? I can achieve all these same networking benefits over more "conventional" means without the time issues and other considerations.

I would contend that some I know are addicted to the web and MySpace in particular. But even becoming obsessed involves a decision. That first initial step to create an account is not something I intend to do. Even if I prove to be on the wrong side of history (so to speak), it's better to be safe than sorry. As a friend once remarked, "The Internet is like alcohol, one chooses to be addicted."

I have one final caveat before I conclude. I believe in globalization. I love the book "The World is Flat" by Thomas Freidman. The world is becoming more "flat" and streamlined. People are becoming much more able to communicate, collaborate, and compete with one another. MySpace could arguably be a part of that "flattening" process. This remains one step I would rather not take. The benefits of socialization are outweighed by considerations of time and the influx of junk. You want to talk to me? Send me an email … or to go even more archaic, call.

Legal Cheating

Homeschooling is different. We had this discussion in American History one Wednesday. A previously homeschooled college student received an essay packet for a final in English. For clarification, she asked if the essay-final was a "closed book" or an "open book (notes and research allowed)" test. The class was dumbfounded. The teacher didn't quite know how to react, and responded: "Of course it's open book … what else would it be?"

The public school system, whether in high school or college and evidenced by its representative English teacher, expects cheating. A closed book test involves honesty, and apparently that can't be expected in the public school system.

I would agree that it is better to be safe than sorry. By not even giving the opportunity for cheating via the closed book test, there will not be any cheating. Well … that's what some schools think.

Mill Creek Middle School in Kent, Washington, has allowed "cheating." Instead of requiring students to regurgitate "rote memorization," the school now allows online research during the midst of tests … from the weekly vocabulary quizzes to the end of the year final.

One school official rationalizes that it's not cheating because "we changed the rules to allow it." All right then, why was it once considered cheating? I concede that the point of academics isn't to spew back random information. You have to be able to find, analyze, and present information in order to be successful in most of life. However, you need to learn more than finding definitions online. If a student is allowed to research and compare notes digitally in the midst of a test, there is no reason to listen to the lecture or study the material. It becomes an even worse kind of regurgitation … repeating the words of others without previous exposure to any sort of information. No learning takes place if you cheat. Providing a means to allow what is normally considered cheating seems to be very irresponsible.

This reflects poorly on the public school system in general. Certainly each school and teacher is different … but therein lies the problem. Some schools and teachers don't care about quality or completion of work. Another college example is where an American Literature teacher told another friend and the whole class, "I don't expect you to actually read the material … but try to." So much for instilling a sense of responsibility and work ethic.

So, in conclusion, there is a problem in the contemporary public educational system. It was recently portrayed by the legalization of cheating by changing the rules at the middle school. This is only a symptom of the dysfunction of education. The system is obviously not teaching ethics of work or the importance of morality. It isn't creating a dynamic atmosphere to prepare kids for adulthood and life. Instead it seems to separate the environment from reality. If you aren't educating for life, you are wasting five out of the seven days of the week on a consistent basis. As Mark Twain quipped, "I have never let my schooling interfere with my education."

Stick and Stones

Statements, such as, “You’re dumb,” “That’s a stupid idea,” or any other insulting dig, are apparently acceptable … if you attach the caveat that you are “just kidding” or “only joking.” This seems to be the prevailing idea of many people in our American society. They can say whatever they want without regard to propriety or reason, as long as they qualify their statement with a satirical implication. I readily admit that I engage in this practice. I reason to myself that it is all in good fun.

C.S. Lewis wrote in the Screwtape Letters, "Humour is for them [the English] the all-consoling and (mark this) the all-excusing, grace of life. Hence it is invaluable as a means of destroying shame." What C.S. Lewis wrote sixty years ago is definitely applicable to the United States today. Words have power, even when spoken in jest. The Psalmist exhorts (34:13), "Keep thy tongue from evil, and thy lips from speaking guile." This is not "keep thy tongue from evil … 'except when making a funny'"

Have you ever noticed that the people who dish out sarcasm and caustic wit first can't take it back in equal measure? I am sure we all can think of plenty of personal examples, but this is true even on the national stage. Ted "Nothing is Sacred" Rall has plenty of caustic material on his web based comic and column site. When Ann Coulter sarcastically remarked, "Iran is soliciting cartoons on the Holocaust. So far, only Ted Rall, Garry Trudeau, and The New York Times have made submissions." Rall cleared up the situation by saying that Ann Coulter lied and he would sue if his readers voted for him to do so. Simply browsing his site, there are plenty of "lies" flying around there too. He can make fun of everything, but no one can make fun of him.

This is not a post advocating the stopping of "fun." This is a post urging caution. Even among friends, the group dynamic is an important aspect to consider before showing one's wit with words. Not only should we be "slow to speak," but we must be sure to be "slow to anger." In doing so, we can remain friends with our comrades and form friendships with others. This is a thought, a ramble (read the description - "random ramblings"!) Speaking to me (and Mr. Rall), the author Jonathan Swift noted, "Satire is a sort of glass, wherein beholders do generally discover everybody's face but their own." I intend to go about trying to find and change myself in that glass before I start criticizing others.