Children of Men

Several months ago, Dr. H. and I watched the movie Children of Men based on a suggestion on Wil Wheaton's Blog. I was intrigued by the premise: a world in which no human child had been born in decades - and the social collapse and despair surrounding the impending end of the species. The movie was very good and I would recommend it, though it was not what I expected. (From the premise - I was thinking Sci-Fi - but really it was an action/adventure movie.) It came out in 2006, but totally escaped our radar somehow.

I was intrigued enough by the premise and the movie to follow up and find that it was based on a novel by P. D. James. I quickly ascertained that the book and movie were quite a bit different, so I stopped reading things on-line until I had a chance to read the book. Immediately after acquiring the book, Dr. H and I both read it in just a few days. It is short and quite compelling. I picked it up right after it arrived - just to look at it for a few moments and I was several chapters in without realizing it. I highly recommend it.

I found the book to be more satisfying than the movie as it gives a lot more context for some of the interpersonal interactions. Many characters are different and the political issues are related, but different. The movie is said to be only "loosely" based on the novel, and I understand why some of the major changes were made. The movie does do an excellent job of presenting the feeling and overall mood of the book, despite these major differences. One funny change (this does not give anything away) is that in the book, the main character is a history professor - this is not so in the movie. I guess professors are considered to be too boring. Perhaps it has been too long since we have had a movie about the archeology professor with the fedora - but apparently that will all change this May.

 

Doing my part for the Democrats

My mother, a white, middle-class woman over 60, is about to move from McCain country to super-important swing state.

She is a registered Democrat. She voted for Clinton in the primary. So far no problem.

She has occasionally voted for Republicans, but doesn't seem to remember doing so, or consider it to be significant. In the last four national elections she voted for Clinton, Clinton, Gore and Kerry. I really thought W had put her right over the edge and squarely into the Democratic camp for good. And if Clinton wins the primary, we can count on one more democratic vote in that swing state.

But, there is a problem in an alternate scenario: She is scared of the angry black people.

That isn't what she said of course - what she said was: "I'm just so concerned."

I really wanted to ask my mother, "What do you think is going to happen?" This wasn't going to get us anywhere, however, because admitting this sort of thing to me when she knows how I feel indicates she wants to feel differently - better to focus on that.

Instead, I urged her to listen to Obama's entire speech. She is open enough that this might be sufficient. She was surprised to learn that Wright is an ex-Marine. Fortunately, this alone convinced her that she might not know the whole story. She was also receptive to the idea that the images and sound bites she is being plagued with are taken out of context and politically motivated, something the UCC's Response to this whole thing sums up nicely:

What's really going on here? First, it may state the obvious to point out that these television and radio shows have very little interest in Trinity Church or Jeremiah Wright. Those who sifted through hours of sermons searching for a few lurid phrases and those who have aired them repeatedly have only one intention. It is to wound a presidential candidate.

I think anti-racism activist Tim Wise is also on to something here when he touches on white discomfort with black anger:

But here we are, in 2008, fuming at the words of Pastor Jeremiah Wright, of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago--occasionally Barack Obama's pastor, and the man whom Obama credits with having brought him to Christianity--for merely reminding us of those evils about which we have remained so quiet, so dismissive, so unconcerned. It is not the crime that bothers us, but the remembrance of it, the unwillingness to let it go--these last words being the first ones uttered by most whites it seems whenever anyone, least of all an "angry black man" like Jeremiah Wright, foists upon us the bill of particulars for several centuries of white supremacy.

I'm not sure this last thing is something my mother is ready to hear.

Besides referring my mother to Obama's speech and trying to contextualize this whole issue, I'm not really sure what else to do. My whole family is like this - and that is just the ones who are Democrats. For example my aunt (a democrat) is really mad at Oprah, for supporting Obama over Clinton. "Isn't she supposed to be for women?" she asks. What I want to ask her is "Are you really mad about that, or are you just mad that Oprah has reminded you that she is black?" This is unlikely to get me anywhere, but I feel ill-prepared to confront racism, especially in my own family. At some point in the conversation with my mother, I turned the phone over to Dr. H, who has some more perspective. He reminded my mother of his adopted brother's experience as an African-American child growing up in a white family in a very white rural suburb - and the very understandable anger that resulted from the bias, prejudice and abuse he encountered.

Perhaps we made some headway with my mother. Time will tell.

---

Bitch, Ph.D. has some things to say on this subject and the comments are also interesting.

This is not directly related, but Jerald Walker has another interesting piece up at the Chronicle about race and the academy.

Another one

The other day, a worker at the kids daycare asked if we were planning to have any more.

I'm forty, so it is now or never.

So, we're thinking, probably never.

(Don't worry, I know the window of time is diminishing at an astronomical pace, and even if we did decide to go forward right now, there would be no guarantees.)

It is a complicated issue. We always said two, even before we were together.

Once we were together, the picture was even clearer, with only the little hiccup of anovulation to worry about. I gave H the number run down: This is my fertility issue, so first we try Clomid, it has an X% chance of working and if it works, a 10% chance of twins and and Y% chance of multiples where n>2. (At the time, I knew the numbers) Then, if that doesn't work, we go on to Pergonal, which for this situation, has a Z% blah blah blah. Full disclosure. We joked about twins, and "getting it all done at once." In fact, any time we imagined our future family, it was us and a set of boy-girl twins.

So, one could argue, we have the family we always dreamed of. So, what is the problem?

Even more puzzling, right before we started trying, I suggested we could consider stopping at one.

So why the ambivalence about stopping at two?

I think there are a few reasons. The first is that incredibly heady feeling of looking at these creatures and thinking, "Wow, we made those!" (I know that is a totally cheesy thing everyone says.) But it really does blow my mind, on a molecular and probabilistic level as well as a psychological one. Biochemistry just works - somehow putting all those molecules together to grow a baby. And, if I had not rushed back from that conference, making my colleague skip a meeting, it may not have worked that month. Indeed, we may have conceived a different set of twins on a different month, or a singleton, or even triplets. The ability to open up this set of possibilities again is enticing.

Another reason is not having the birthing or nursing experience that I wanted. (I'll write about this some other time.) I keep reminding myself this is not a good reason to have another child. Nor is the fact that I like the idea of using all the information I've acquired about pregnancy, birth and newborns again.

There are the other positives of course - the joy and amazement of watching a baby turn into an actual kid, Curie and Dalton having a little brother, having no regrets.

This last part is perhaps the crux of it. I am annoyed this decision can't be revisited later. In a really short period of time, my eggs will have had their day, and that, as they say, is that. It seems unfair that this is the case for women, but not for men. I object to the idea that the universe has put me in this position. If we had only had one the first time, I think we would have absolutely tried for a second by now. But given that we already have two, another seems frivolous. Not to mention tempting fate again - the chance of having a second set of twins is not insignificant.

Many of the cons about having another child are obvious: sleep deprivation, daycare $$$, less time, stretched resources, having to purchase a vehicle that will hold three (or more, gasp) carseats, age-related concerns and the like.

However, for me, I think the biggest drawback is starting all over again. We've made so much headway: We may have finally bought our last package of diapers. Dr. H and I often get enough sleep. We are starting to be more productive at work again. We even occasionally have a chance to talk and laugh about things which are not logistical in nature.

My dean, herself a mother of two, said to me "you won't believe what a difference it makes to your life transitioning from preschoolers to having kids over five" A former colleague and I had an opportunity to have lunch and catch up last week. He's a very involved father of three. "You are entering the best phase - the next eight years are the best part."

I really can't see hitting the reset button and heading back to level one, especially when we are four years in and on the verge of being in the zone.

.....

Hat tips to two academic bloggers who inspired me to write about my thoughts on this: Addy N. expecting her second child after a long break following her first, and Trillwing considering whether or not to stop at one.

Spring, the season for self-promotion

Today was officially the start of spring break. We had no classes today and are off all next week. My to do list seems to be under the impression that we have about three weeks off.

After classes ended Thursday, a senior colleague of mine, who cares only about face time, pointed out that He would be working Friday. I said our daycare was open, so I would be in also. He looked a little thrown off by this. Odd, I thought.

Now I know why. I came in around 10-ish. He left 20 minutes later. Given his normal arrival time, that means he spent no more than 1-2 hours at work. Which I couldn't care less about, except that yesterday's remark was a pointed "I'm working tomorrow and you aren't" sort of affair.

For the record, calling him on such things, even accidentally (by showing up at work) usually has a negative impact on my life in future dealings.

Friday Live Cat Blogging

Happy St. Patrick's Day

• Green light corresponds to a wavelength of about 525 nm.
  
  

• Cl₂ is a poisonous green gas
  
  

• A bag of plain m&m's contains 16% green m&m's. However, 20% of the m&m's are green in a bag of the almond or peanut butter variety.
  

  
  

More on the potty-training front

I must confess that despite my discomfort, this peeing standing up thing has its advantages.

Me: Dalton, do you have to pee?

Dalton: No!

Me: Really?

Dalton: No!

Dr. H: Dalton, you haven't gone in a long time and you are running around holding your penis. [Dr. H is rather analytical that way]

Me: Are you sure you don't have to use the potty?

Dalton: NO! I don't WANT to use the potty! [starts to cry]

Me: Dalton, I have an idea. Do you want to try peeing in the potty standing up?!!

Dalton: Yeah! [smiles, laughs, runs into bathroom, and immediately pees in toilet]

I must thank EarlytoBed as it was her comment on my previous post that made me try to use my son's interest in peeing standing up to my advantage. On a completely different subject (women, science, sexism) check out this amazing story from her blog.
 

Friday Cat Blogging

A photo from Haleakala a few years back.

 

The cooling scare of the 70's

Today, a student in one of my classes said she had heard that in the 70's everyone thought the world was cooling. She wondered if it was true. Of course, there were a few headlines about this idea in the 70's, and this is a commonly cited among doubters of climate change. Fortuitously, Real Climate had a post about this recently, which I was able to send around after class:

Here's a quote:

Remote sensing, integrated global data collection and modeling were all in their infancy. But our analysis nevertheless showed clear trends in the focus and conclusions the researchers were making. Between 1965 and 1979 we found (see table 1 for details):

* 7 articles predicting cooling
* 44 predicting warming
* 20 that were neutral

In other words, during the 1970s, when some would have you believe scientists were predicting a coming ice age, they were doing no such thing.

Another Tip

Problem: Cat dander in eye

Complicating factor: No allergy eye drops in desk

Solution: Science lab eyewash

Verdict: Works better than allergy drops

Nice

In a stunning upset Saturday that could be a harbinger of trouble for the GOP this fall, a little-known Democratic physicist won the special election for a seat drawn to re-elect former Republican House Speaker Dennis Hastert.

- Chicago Tribune (emphasis mine)

Ill equipped

Recently, I've been wondering if I would have a four year old still in diapers. Everyone says boys take longer, but the summer and that four year mark is coming up fast.

Fortunately, I'm now feeling optimistic. A week and a half ago we had a breakthrough, and now Dalton is going to the potty quite often.

This is all great news.

After starting this process somewhat late, he seems to be forging right ahead into new territory. For the last few days, he has been insisting on peeing standing up.

I feel totally unprepared, and completely ill equipped to deal with this.

Dalton: "I'm going to pee in the potty standing up!"

Me: "Uh, okay. Are you sure you don't want to sit down?"

Dalton: "Yeah! I'm going to stand up!"

Me: "Okay"

I leave and say to Dr. H. "I have absolutely no idea what to do. You go."

Maybe I just need a little more time to adjust to the idea.

Different Reactions

Recently, I found I was not so happy about this business:



So I did this:


Now, dying my hair is not unusual, having started going gray at 20. But, being short on time and vanity, I usually do this only on semester breaks. I missed my usual before the term window and found myself with a block of time in the middle of the week.

My honor's class, consisting of mostly freshman women:

"Your hair looks cute!"

My major's class, consisting of mostly junior-senior men:

"Whoa! Did you DYE your hair!?"

Friday Cat Blogging

Missed Exams

When I first started teaching, I was stunned to find out that students actually missed tests! They sometimes just don't show up! Who knew?

I quickly grew tired of feeling like (a) a failed lie detector (b) a pushover or (c) a resentful bitch instructor, so I searched for a better way.

In my lower level classes, I adopted the "retake" policy of one of my former colleagues: everyone gets to take one (modified) test over for any reason. That seems simple enough, but the policy does get more complicated: If you didn't take the test the first time, you must score at least X to have your test counted. If you did take the test the first time and you score higher, you get the higher score. Score lower, but within Y points of the first attempt, keep your higher score. Score more than Y points lower and your score is determined by this ultra-complicated formula: (2*HI+LO)/3.

This provides a negative incentives for skipping just because you can, as missing tests is not, in my experience, a good omen for success. There is a small risk of retaking so if you are not prepared, you won't waste my time, or yours. The, um, "ultra-complicated" formula seems to be a deterrent as well, simply because some students aren't sure what it means.

So does it work?

Yes! I love this system. I also love that the student who blows the first test (Whoa! college.... Science...) but gets organized and buckles down can re-take that first test (in a similar incarnation). My current record point increase is 54 on a 100 point test.

I don't do this in my upper level classes. Why? Because I've never really had much of a problem there. Then this happened. The short version: one student, called Jill here, missed an exam and had a "suspicious" excuse. Whatever. This is rare enough in this class, I let it go. Everyone in my upper level classes gets the benefit of the doubt the first time. Then Jill asked another student what was on the test. I believe she skipped the test to gain more study time, and the cheating attempt was a crime of opportunity, but either way, I was not happy.

So now, the "Jill Rule" joins all the other specific rules added to my syllabus because of the actions of one student. There is the "Bob Rule", the "Alexis rule" and even the "Crazy Paranoid Student Rule". What is the "Jill Rule"? An XX% penalty on exam retakes for unexcused reasons.

Guess who missed the first test this semester? I guess she didn't read the syllabus.