"Proswayed," a female student in one of my classes wrote. When I pointed this mistake out to her, she was befuddled. "It's spelled 'persuade,'" I said. "Oh," she replied.
This one word sums up much of what is wrong with education these days: carelessness, inattention, lack of pride in a job well done, unconcern about one's own language, rushing to finish one project in order to hurry through another.
The flip side is that my fellow educators seem unconcerned about the deterioration of standards. Over the years, I have seen such a steady decline, and this has been disheartening for me. I wonder how sloppy we will eventually become, how much further into the mud we will sink.
And that's one reason why I am glad to be leaving Cal State. Professors who don't care and students who care even less. I will certainly not miss either one.
Saturday, May 02, 2009
The Mikes in my Life
A few days ago, it hit me that Mikes have figured prominently in my life. Mike Riek was the love of my life. Mike Cincola was my favorite massage client. (We had such a smashing repoire that his wife was jealous, and Mike abruptly ended our weekly massages with a $700 tip.) Mike Phan is my compassionate cardiologist, and Mike Butman is my dear nephrologist. (Perhaps doctors don't mean that much to you, dear reader, but for someone in my position, having doctors I trust and can relate to means the world.) And most importantly, Archangel Michael.
When this notion of the noteworthy Mikes entered my head, I wondered if this has been the archangel's way of telling me he's watching over me. Sending me Mikes to take care of me on Earth. Certainly Mike Cincola took care of me financially, and of course it did me a whole bunch of good to see a man once a week who I really liked and who really liked to see me. And I've written previously about how Drs. Phan and Butman are rooting for me, doing their damnest to get me on the transplant list, taking care of me physically and medically, as well as boosting my spirits.
But what about Mike Riek? In so many ways, Mike was a huge detriment. Psychologically and mentally abusive, neglectful, self-centered, self-absorbed, filled with rage, self-deprecating, self-destructive. But he certainly took care of me sexually for four years. So, sure, Mike too could have functioned as the archangel's emissary.
And now one more Mike has been added to the mix--Mike Leon, Aaron's artist friend whom I've commissioned to render the archangel as I saw him on that April day in 2000. Mike said he's long been interested in Archangel Michael. I hope to sit down with Mike soon and work on a sketch of that experience. Something like an artist who sketches a suspect from a witness's memory. A little more muscle. Hair a bit more tussled. Blinding light of his minions to either side and to infinity in back of him. I can see him so clearly, but I want so much to have the likeness rendered so that I can gaze upon it many times a day.
When this notion of the noteworthy Mikes entered my head, I wondered if this has been the archangel's way of telling me he's watching over me. Sending me Mikes to take care of me on Earth. Certainly Mike Cincola took care of me financially, and of course it did me a whole bunch of good to see a man once a week who I really liked and who really liked to see me. And I've written previously about how Drs. Phan and Butman are rooting for me, doing their damnest to get me on the transplant list, taking care of me physically and medically, as well as boosting my spirits.
But what about Mike Riek? In so many ways, Mike was a huge detriment. Psychologically and mentally abusive, neglectful, self-centered, self-absorbed, filled with rage, self-deprecating, self-destructive. But he certainly took care of me sexually for four years. So, sure, Mike too could have functioned as the archangel's emissary.
And now one more Mike has been added to the mix--Mike Leon, Aaron's artist friend whom I've commissioned to render the archangel as I saw him on that April day in 2000. Mike said he's long been interested in Archangel Michael. I hope to sit down with Mike soon and work on a sketch of that experience. Something like an artist who sketches a suspect from a witness's memory. A little more muscle. Hair a bit more tussled. Blinding light of his minions to either side and to infinity in back of him. I can see him so clearly, but I want so much to have the likeness rendered so that I can gaze upon it many times a day.
Good Energy for May 8
Round three in the transplant fight: a May 8 meeting with a UCLA cardiologist. The director of the program and the surgeon, with whom I met on April 16, will bow to her decision regarding my suitability as a transplant candidate.
The possible outcomes of this meeting:
* overturning the director and surgeon's decision to keep me off the pancreas list
* giving me her blessing for placement on the kidney-only list
* requiring me to undergo more tests before she can make a decision
* refusing to put me on the kidney list
The first is highly unlikely. The second is also a real long shot, according to Dr. Butman, who told me yesterday that patients who had no history of heart disease are often required to undergo an angiogram, so someone like me surely will have to do so.
The last outcome is the one that haunts me. I try to stay focused on 2 and 3, but 4 keeps creeping in.
If she hits me with 4, I will offer her this analogy: The doctors' hesitancy to put me on the list because of an angiogram done in 2006 seems analogous to a 35-year-old who applies for a job and is told he is not a candidate because he was arrested for shoplifting when he was in junior high. He tells HR that he's radically changed since then and is now an upstanding citizen--and he has church membership and community-service awards to prove it.
This seems to be the situation I'm facing. Why are the UCLA docs focused on my "arrest record" rather than on the miraculous transformation my heart has made since the onset of dialysis? (For the past month, I've been lifting weights and walking two to three miles four days a week.) Am I missing something? Are there flaws in my analogy? What more can be done to get them to see the "upstanding citizen" and not the "troubled youth"?
Literary devices worked wonders for Socrates and Jesus. Maybe this analogy will do the trick for me.
The possible outcomes of this meeting:
* overturning the director and surgeon's decision to keep me off the pancreas list
* giving me her blessing for placement on the kidney-only list
* requiring me to undergo more tests before she can make a decision
* refusing to put me on the kidney list
The first is highly unlikely. The second is also a real long shot, according to Dr. Butman, who told me yesterday that patients who had no history of heart disease are often required to undergo an angiogram, so someone like me surely will have to do so.
The last outcome is the one that haunts me. I try to stay focused on 2 and 3, but 4 keeps creeping in.
If she hits me with 4, I will offer her this analogy: The doctors' hesitancy to put me on the list because of an angiogram done in 2006 seems analogous to a 35-year-old who applies for a job and is told he is not a candidate because he was arrested for shoplifting when he was in junior high. He tells HR that he's radically changed since then and is now an upstanding citizen--and he has church membership and community-service awards to prove it.
This seems to be the situation I'm facing. Why are the UCLA docs focused on my "arrest record" rather than on the miraculous transformation my heart has made since the onset of dialysis? (For the past month, I've been lifting weights and walking two to three miles four days a week.) Am I missing something? Are there flaws in my analogy? What more can be done to get them to see the "upstanding citizen" and not the "troubled youth"?
Literary devices worked wonders for Socrates and Jesus. Maybe this analogy will do the trick for me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)