"That which we would call a rose by any other name would still smell as sweet."
I'm not sure Billy Bob Shakespeare had in mind all the ramifications of his transcendent words when he penned Romeo and Juliet, but here we sit over 400 years later still quoting him and for such silly reasons as fantasy football.
Regardless of one's motives or hobbies, Shakespeare's words just don't hold water, especially in the context in which I am about to use them. You see, when it comes to fantasy football, wins and losses aren't what really matters most. It's not about selecting the best running back (probably Adrian Peterson) or making crucial mid-season trades (Peterson's backup when he gets injured) to bolster one's playoff run. The most important aspect of fantasy football, and that which will garner the most respect out of your peers is the name you select for your team. Not all team names smell like roses.
First, a team name has to be well thought out. We're talking about the perfect blend of poetry, creativity, and originality. It must either induce fear in the hearts of your opponent, or make them pee their pants from laughing so hard. Truthfully I have spent just as much time thinking about what I will call my ffl teams as I have studying up for the draft. That said, there are a few directions one can take to create the perfect fantasy football team name and gain the respect of his or her peers. On the flip side, a bad team name could mean incessant ridicule from opening week in September all the way through the holidays. The following paragraphs will present both sides of the coin.
As I see it, there are four general categories of fantasy football team names: 1) player references 2) football references 3) pop culture references and 4) intimidation.
Let's start with player references. Other than Michael Vick, no other football player has been in the news more than Brett Favre. With his flip-flopping decisions ("Should I re-retire? Should I re-un-retire?) he has been an easy target for ridicule. Favre puns are almost too easy and slightly cliche, but there's no mistaking the comical possibilities:
A) Favre Dollar Footlongs
B) It's Favre O'Clock Somewhere
Both of these possibilities, while clever and comical, also make use of two of the four general categories: player and pop culture references.
C) Drew Brees' Facial Mole
D) Michael Vick's Dog Grooming Service
Both of these possibilities, while some would consider funny, cross the line from funny to cruel and insensitive (and there are some who believe killing dogs isn't funny. Wow, go figure.)
A classical football reference can make for a great ffl team name:
A) The Steel Curtain (this was mine for years. Jack Lambert was a beast!)
B) The Purple People Eaters
Both of these reference classical defenses from the 1970's which avid football fans would easily identify, and respect.
C) The Dallas Cowboys
D) The New Jersey Generals
Now exhibit C is just sad. Despite how one feels about his or her favorite pro franchise, the unoriginality is unforgivible. This wouldn't receive ridicle, but worse, silence. Now exhibit D is a little better because it is a franchise from the long-ago-defunct USFL, but again, one must dig a little deeper and go for originality.
Pop culture references are my personal favorite. There's a world of posibilities out there between music, movies and the long string of mishaps in Hollywood, just to corner a small area of this market:
A) The Truffle Shufflers (one of mine from two years ago)
B) A Team Named Sue (last year's playoff contender in my local league)
These two names reference classics. The first one, a poor fat kid's belly-jiggling dance from The Goonies may be the funniest team name I have ever heard of. The second one plays off of Shel Silverstein's Poem (later made famous in song by the great Johnny Cash) "A Boy Named Sue." One of my students from last year came up with that one. Classic.
C) Evander Holyfield's Ear
D) anything poking fun at Michael Jackson
Yes, Mike Tyson bit off Holyfield's ear. It happened more than a decade ago. It was gross back then, it's still gross now. As for Jacko, let the man rest in peace. That goes for anyone who has died.
The final category is intimidation. While this is my least favorite, there are some good ones out there that will strike fear in the hearts of one's competition. But for each great intimidating name, there are a hundred pathetic ones.
A) The Children of the Corn
B) The Emasculators
First, was there a scarier, weirder, make-you-sick-to-your-stomach movie than Corn? Okay, The Blair Witch Project, Poltergeist, and The Exorcist along with a handful of others, but the intimidation factor is certainly there ("Malachi, he wants you too Malachi!" Classic.) As for The Emasculators, it gets points for being both funny and not funny at all.
C) The Ferocious Mountain Lions
D) The Maimers
Cue the crickets. "chirp, chirp. chirp, chirp."
All things considered, I would like to win both of my ffl leagues this year, if only for the payouts, but I would settle for having the best team name. One of my drafts is tomorrow, and I have my list limited down to four possibilities. Feel free to weigh in on my semi-finalists, and for that matter on any of today's rant.
A) The Name... Is Dalton - Classic line from an ultimate '80's "man" movie Road House.
B) The Tri Lambs - Revenge of the Nerds. Classical underdogs. A student of mine came up with this one. He automatically gets an A in my class.
C) The Large Wooden Badgers - An obscure reference in the funniest movie of all time, Monte Python and the Holy Grail.
D) The Knights Who Say "Nee" - Again from the Pythons, but a bit more obvious.
I'd say Shakespeare is most certainly turning over in his grave about now.
Friday, August 28, 2009
Saturday, August 22, 2009
The Shack
Two books that I have recently read have had a profound impact on me. They have mede me ponder on the most influential books ever written. Well, that title goes to the Bible. But supplementing the Bible with Jesus' teachings of love, these books will do a spirit some good. The first one, The Shack, must be read with a box of tissues. The second one, Nobody Don't Love Nobody... must also be read with a box of tissues. The point that makes these books so influential is that they are considered non-fiction (despite the Shack being written from a 3rd person fictional narrative.) The topics are very tough to swallow. But any book that I can catagorize with the second most influential book I have ever read, Black Like Me, deserves mention.
For those of you who don't know, Black was a research project. Set in the 1950's before the civil rights movement, a white man underwent skin treatments to change the color of his skin to a darker shade, and completed the ensemble with black shoe polish. As a "black" man, he then proceeded to make his way through the South from New Orleans eastward, journaling the way he was treated, in many cases very poorly, and sometimes by the same people who had a week earlier, treated him with generosity and kindness when he was "white." It also showed the unbreakable spirit of a race of people who were willing to band together for survival, strangers helping strangers in the name of love and justice. Its author opened the eyes of many people during a time when our country needed to change its thinking. He paid the ultimate price for it though. He wasn't murdered, but contracted a disease it is believed from the treatments to change his skin color, and died a premature death. The cause was so simple, yet so profound that anyone with bigoted ideas who reads it can't help but feel ashamed by the simplicity of truth.
The Shack, for those of you who haven't read it, but heard about it, have probably heard one thing: God in the book is a black lady. That is all that was told to me by my friends who had read it, and I knew it had to be deeper than an issue of what God looks like. I read it, weeping when the main character went through the pain of losing his child, then weeping more when "Mama" took him through some tough lessons to soften his hard heart. It wasn't until afterwards when I found out that it was a true story, written like a novel by one of the minor characters. Having read it, I found it much like Ninety Minutes in Heaven, another example of God's miracles. And after all these miracles, people still doubt His existence.
Secondly, Nobody Don't Love Nobody is an older book, copywrighted in 1994, but it plays to an issue that is still present today: poverty. Non fiction again, it consists of many lessons a first-year teacher learns from teaching in a homeless shelter called The School with No Name. Examples include the teacher adopting a crack baby when a mother can't take care of it, taking in three siblings so that they won't be split up in foster care while their mother gets clean, to the strength a little girl teaches her from her own experience of being locked in a dirt-floor basement for a week or two because the mother's boyfriend didn't like her. Each chapter shows agape in the face of inhumanity.
Each of these books has left me changed forever. They were easy and tough. Easy to read, tough to get through. Each shows the evil presence that plagues this world, and the unbreakable human spirit. Like one of my favorite quotes from the movie Fried Green Tomatoes, "The heart can be broken, but it goes on beating just the same."
What is the most influential book you've ever read, and why?
For those of you who don't know, Black was a research project. Set in the 1950's before the civil rights movement, a white man underwent skin treatments to change the color of his skin to a darker shade, and completed the ensemble with black shoe polish. As a "black" man, he then proceeded to make his way through the South from New Orleans eastward, journaling the way he was treated, in many cases very poorly, and sometimes by the same people who had a week earlier, treated him with generosity and kindness when he was "white." It also showed the unbreakable spirit of a race of people who were willing to band together for survival, strangers helping strangers in the name of love and justice. Its author opened the eyes of many people during a time when our country needed to change its thinking. He paid the ultimate price for it though. He wasn't murdered, but contracted a disease it is believed from the treatments to change his skin color, and died a premature death. The cause was so simple, yet so profound that anyone with bigoted ideas who reads it can't help but feel ashamed by the simplicity of truth.
The Shack, for those of you who haven't read it, but heard about it, have probably heard one thing: God in the book is a black lady. That is all that was told to me by my friends who had read it, and I knew it had to be deeper than an issue of what God looks like. I read it, weeping when the main character went through the pain of losing his child, then weeping more when "Mama" took him through some tough lessons to soften his hard heart. It wasn't until afterwards when I found out that it was a true story, written like a novel by one of the minor characters. Having read it, I found it much like Ninety Minutes in Heaven, another example of God's miracles. And after all these miracles, people still doubt His existence.
Secondly, Nobody Don't Love Nobody is an older book, copywrighted in 1994, but it plays to an issue that is still present today: poverty. Non fiction again, it consists of many lessons a first-year teacher learns from teaching in a homeless shelter called The School with No Name. Examples include the teacher adopting a crack baby when a mother can't take care of it, taking in three siblings so that they won't be split up in foster care while their mother gets clean, to the strength a little girl teaches her from her own experience of being locked in a dirt-floor basement for a week or two because the mother's boyfriend didn't like her. Each chapter shows agape in the face of inhumanity.
Each of these books has left me changed forever. They were easy and tough. Easy to read, tough to get through. Each shows the evil presence that plagues this world, and the unbreakable human spirit. Like one of my favorite quotes from the movie Fried Green Tomatoes, "The heart can be broken, but it goes on beating just the same."
What is the most influential book you've ever read, and why?
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
The "Nine-Month" Teacher
As school rolls around again, students and teachers both begin to get that dreaded feeling in their stomaches. For teachers, the end of summer break ushers in a flurry of activity that doesn't end until roughly Memorial Day. Lesson planning, behavioral planning, interventions for those "bless yer little heart" children that need to be saved from themselves. Checking medical records, academic records, re-reading and complying with the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA.) It's enough to make a seasoned teacher feel like he or she is at the bottom of a mountain with an avalanch crashing down upon them. And all of this is without mentioning one little chore: ACTUAL TEACHING!
In my district, children go back tomorrow. So after all the lectures from the experts (they are experts because they found a publisher to put out their book,) faculty meetings, departmental meetings, grade-level meetings, coaches meetings, course-alignment meetings, and meetings to plan future meetings, the teacher then retires to his or her room, looks at a list of chores to do, checks the clock on the wall, and screams.
Now you may ask, "Then why doesn't said teacher just prepare for the upcoming school year throughout the summer?" If only it were that simple. Teachers do go to different trainings, think about certain lessons, and so on, but most of the work to be done can only happen after the mandates from up above come down the pipe. If I print off a syllabus without knowing the new and improved rules, I'd just have to redo the work. So it's a waiting game.
Yesterday I spent the whole day in meetings. The calendar had yesderday scheduled as a teacher work day, but I didn't put a single minute of work into my classroom. So I stayed until 10:00 at night, preparing what I could from what I had learned that morning. So after two hours of meetings this morning, I was finally released to my room to prepare to save the world, one "bless yer little heart" at a time.
And the meetings will continue throughout the year, scheduled outside of class time. A teacher goes to school at 7:30 in the morning, leaves at 4:00 thirty minutes for lunch (tutoring time) and with five minutes to stand in line at the bathroom every hour. Tutoring before and after school. Then the teacher drags his or her bones home to be Mr. or Mrs. Mom, waiting for the kiddo's bedtime so paper grading may begin.
That is why when somebody tells me that teachers only work nine months out of the year, I tell them two things. 1) Summer break is only two months now. 2) We put twelve months into the ten we work.
Friday, August 7, 2009
"Grading Scales" (Subtitle: "How I Have Been a Bad Teacher for the Last Ten Years")
I have always tried to practice fair grading in my class. True story: my junior year in college, I wrote a paper for my government class. Now I didn't have much going for me when it came to taking tests, and since most classes had three grades (mid term, research paper, final exam) it was imperative that I did well on the res. pap. Luckily, that was my strong suit.
Well, without getting into party line specifics (those of you who know me know my political stances) I wrote a comparison/contrast paper on capitalism v. socialism. My professor just happened to have the complete opposite viewpoint, so when I recieved my paper back, the grade written on the first page was a C. I don't make C's on papers, so I freaked. Never mind what I said after I read the only comments he wrote on the page: "You're wrong."
That was it! Nothing about lack of support, unity issues, GUM (grammar, usage, and mechanics.) The C was based totally on his opinion on the topic. I am not a confrontational man, but I stayed after class to talk to him. He asserted himself, gave me his swayed viewpoint, and didn't allow me to counter. I learned a lesson that day.
First I found out that I had better study hard for the final exam, but that's irrelevant here. I vowed from that point forward that when I became a teacher, that my grading practices would be based on a fair, objective rubric that allowed for opinions that differed from my own, as long as the opinion was well-written and adequately supported. From what I have seen, most K-12 teachers follow this fair practice because they are taught how to teach while in college (yes, college professors need only a master's degree in their specialized field and no training in pedagological practices.)
I always thought I was a fair teacher until I went to another "boring" teacher in-service today and had my socks blown off.
Here's the idea: giving a zero for a missed assignment on a 100 point scale is a time-tested, widely used practice which is very wrong. The instructor, Rick Wormeli, said that in his classes, any student who doesn't turn in a paper gets a 60%. I about threw up when he said this. But then he gave his logic and I suddenly felt very stupid. Maybe you will too.
Flip the scale around. If 0-59 represents an F, would it be a good practice to flip it around and make 40-100 an A? In my class, 90 is an A, 80 is a B, 70 is a C, and 60 is a D. Anything below 60% if flunking. His point was, why assign ten different levels of A, B, C, and D, but 59 different levels of F? How is that fair?
If a student gets a zero on one assignment, then makes five 100%'s in a row, the average comes out to 83%. 0 plus 100 plus 100 plus 100 plus 100 plus 100 equals 83%? Seems that the student 5 times out of 6 is making a perfect score. How can I justify giving the student a B for such mastery? This is indeed an unfair grading practice.
But I didn't buy into giving a student who was lazy and didn't do the assignment a 60%. That is also unfair to the student who tried and earned a 50%! That will only make the one who tried not do any more assignments and make a 60% each time. That isn't motivational, and I am all about motivation in the classroom.
Therefore I have created a scale which I am going to pitch to my high school on Monday. I think this is much more fair, because it keeps each letter grade within a decade of percentages. It goes as follows:
Old Grade New Grade
0% 50%
10% 51%
15% 52%
20% 53%
25% 54%
30% 55%
35% 56%
40% 57%
45% 58%
50% 59%
55% 60%
After that, 90, 80, 70, 60 would stay the same.
Now wouldn't you have loved to have this grading scale when you were in high school? Feel free to weigh in, and wish me luck on Monday as I try to convince a group of people who have never come to a full consensus on anything!
Well, without getting into party line specifics (those of you who know me know my political stances) I wrote a comparison/contrast paper on capitalism v. socialism. My professor just happened to have the complete opposite viewpoint, so when I recieved my paper back, the grade written on the first page was a C. I don't make C's on papers, so I freaked. Never mind what I said after I read the only comments he wrote on the page: "You're wrong."
That was it! Nothing about lack of support, unity issues, GUM (grammar, usage, and mechanics.) The C was based totally on his opinion on the topic. I am not a confrontational man, but I stayed after class to talk to him. He asserted himself, gave me his swayed viewpoint, and didn't allow me to counter. I learned a lesson that day.
First I found out that I had better study hard for the final exam, but that's irrelevant here. I vowed from that point forward that when I became a teacher, that my grading practices would be based on a fair, objective rubric that allowed for opinions that differed from my own, as long as the opinion was well-written and adequately supported. From what I have seen, most K-12 teachers follow this fair practice because they are taught how to teach while in college (yes, college professors need only a master's degree in their specialized field and no training in pedagological practices.)
I always thought I was a fair teacher until I went to another "boring" teacher in-service today and had my socks blown off.
Here's the idea: giving a zero for a missed assignment on a 100 point scale is a time-tested, widely used practice which is very wrong. The instructor, Rick Wormeli, said that in his classes, any student who doesn't turn in a paper gets a 60%. I about threw up when he said this. But then he gave his logic and I suddenly felt very stupid. Maybe you will too.
Flip the scale around. If 0-59 represents an F, would it be a good practice to flip it around and make 40-100 an A? In my class, 90 is an A, 80 is a B, 70 is a C, and 60 is a D. Anything below 60% if flunking. His point was, why assign ten different levels of A, B, C, and D, but 59 different levels of F? How is that fair?
If a student gets a zero on one assignment, then makes five 100%'s in a row, the average comes out to 83%. 0 plus 100 plus 100 plus 100 plus 100 plus 100 equals 83%? Seems that the student 5 times out of 6 is making a perfect score. How can I justify giving the student a B for such mastery? This is indeed an unfair grading practice.
But I didn't buy into giving a student who was lazy and didn't do the assignment a 60%. That is also unfair to the student who tried and earned a 50%! That will only make the one who tried not do any more assignments and make a 60% each time. That isn't motivational, and I am all about motivation in the classroom.
Therefore I have created a scale which I am going to pitch to my high school on Monday. I think this is much more fair, because it keeps each letter grade within a decade of percentages. It goes as follows:
Old Grade New Grade
0% 50%
10% 51%
15% 52%
20% 53%
25% 54%
30% 55%
35% 56%
40% 57%
45% 58%
50% 59%
55% 60%
After that, 90, 80, 70, 60 would stay the same.
Now wouldn't you have loved to have this grading scale when you were in high school? Feel free to weigh in, and wish me luck on Monday as I try to convince a group of people who have never come to a full consensus on anything!
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Reality Television
Due to circumstances beyond my control, I have had to sit down and watch a few reality television shows in my time. I understand that reality tv has become part of our pop culture (thanks MTV) but there are a few issues that I want to address:
1) What is so interesting about seeing people yelling and cussing at each other? I understand that the days of Beaver Cleaver are long gone, but we are what we watch. We already had talk shows like Jerry Springer for this trash. Why bring it to prime time?
2) Television has a way of shaping people. As a teacher I see students trying hard to re-enact what they see on tv. Just tonight on Big Brother I watched a guy who was apparently auditioning for a career in muscle building, sporting a wife beater no less, yell at a girl who cussed right back at him like she was a sailor fresh in from months away from civilization. My students think that it is okay to settle disputes in such a manner because their role models on tv are paving the way. Imagine how hard it is for a teacher to reverse what they have learned! To teach men to value women (not as objects of any kind) and teach women the meaning of the word GRACE!
3) I don't get the constant interviews. These people on these reality tv shows are not important members of society, and I can't seriously believe that people give a rat's butt about what is on their minds. Despite this, "Dope Boy" may get into an argument with "Diva Wannabe" most of which is bleeped out so you can't understand it even the root of the conversation, just that they have a great distaste for each other. Immediately following this argument, they interview "Dope Boy" who uses this opportunity to act all big and bad. Of course the only way you know that he's doing this is from his body language because eight out of every ten words are, you guessed it, bleeped out. That's really interesting. Honestly?
4) Having very little positive to say about some of the crap that's on tv, I will say that there are some reality shows that are positive in nature. That is to say that they don't make their money off of hiring a psychologist who will then put fifteen people together who have fifteen different belief systems, all of which contradict each other. It's like tossing a match into a warehouse full of dynamite. The following is a short list of reality shows that try to either make dreams come true, or at least try to focus on the positive aspects of life, like love.
-American Idol
-The Bachelor/Bachelorette
-18 Kids and Counting
- Extreme Home Makeover
I tried to think of others but couldn't. Maybe you can think of some other positive and uplifting reality shows, or maybe you differ in your opinion. Love to hear from you. This could be an interesting debate. Educate me.
1) What is so interesting about seeing people yelling and cussing at each other? I understand that the days of Beaver Cleaver are long gone, but we are what we watch. We already had talk shows like Jerry Springer for this trash. Why bring it to prime time?
2) Television has a way of shaping people. As a teacher I see students trying hard to re-enact what they see on tv. Just tonight on Big Brother I watched a guy who was apparently auditioning for a career in muscle building, sporting a wife beater no less, yell at a girl who cussed right back at him like she was a sailor fresh in from months away from civilization. My students think that it is okay to settle disputes in such a manner because their role models on tv are paving the way. Imagine how hard it is for a teacher to reverse what they have learned! To teach men to value women (not as objects of any kind) and teach women the meaning of the word GRACE!
3) I don't get the constant interviews. These people on these reality tv shows are not important members of society, and I can't seriously believe that people give a rat's butt about what is on their minds. Despite this, "Dope Boy" may get into an argument with "Diva Wannabe" most of which is bleeped out so you can't understand it even the root of the conversation, just that they have a great distaste for each other. Immediately following this argument, they interview "Dope Boy" who uses this opportunity to act all big and bad. Of course the only way you know that he's doing this is from his body language because eight out of every ten words are, you guessed it, bleeped out. That's really interesting. Honestly?
4) Having very little positive to say about some of the crap that's on tv, I will say that there are some reality shows that are positive in nature. That is to say that they don't make their money off of hiring a psychologist who will then put fifteen people together who have fifteen different belief systems, all of which contradict each other. It's like tossing a match into a warehouse full of dynamite. The following is a short list of reality shows that try to either make dreams come true, or at least try to focus on the positive aspects of life, like love.
-American Idol
-The Bachelor/Bachelorette
-18 Kids and Counting
- Extreme Home Makeover
I tried to think of others but couldn't. Maybe you can think of some other positive and uplifting reality shows, or maybe you differ in your opinion. Love to hear from you. This could be an interesting debate. Educate me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
