Conrad Johnson's Blog, page 26

Passion and Even So Come (Jesus is coming soon)

He who testifies to these things says, “Surely I am coming soon.” Amen. Come, Lord Jesus!--Revelation 22:20

Natalie Wexler and Teaching Writing (how bad teachers are still good)

The educational ezine, The Hechinger Report, published an opinion today by Natalie Wexler about teaching writing that I tried to post a response to but wasn't allowed. That's perfect because it justifies exactly my critique of the article so I will share it here.

Teaching writing, or college exposition, was my forté for over a quarter of a century. I was privileged to have students from many diverse backgrounds including Navajo middle schoolers, inner city black high schoolers, and top Asian graduate students in Japan and Thailand at well respected universities. I can sum up and share what I learned easily and explain why Wexler, and other ivory tower pundits, never tell the unspoken truth about this highly exclusive field of pedagogical endeavor. Even with an advanced degree in Linguistics, Composition or whatever they call it these days, very few educators can rise up to the challenge and, if they do, it will make them the envy (and sometimes target of hate) by a lot of English Department lounge lizards. Allow me to explain what my lifetime of research and experience of teaching writing has taught me.

Wexler defends the latest money cow on the academic ranch, The Hochman Method,  as a program that "includes the essay-level skills, like developing an argument" as something besides just focusing on grammar which she is correct in pointing out. Language studies do indeed show that only barraging students with rules doesn't work, despite Common Core confusion on the subject. However, what she fails to mention at all in this piece is, in the most easily worded way, that teaching writing skills is teaching thinking skills. It's always been amusing to me to see how the simple things in this world confuse those who are deemed wise in some manner. Instead, she does what many writing teachers and researchers that I have come across commonly do--obfuscate wittingly or unwittingly. Remember those classroom papers you'd get back with red lines, criss crossed across your work with meaningless abandon? It's nothing more than trying to show your student that no matter what , you still know more than they do even though you might not.

Writing is a very personal and intimate expression of self. It takes a lifetime to master if one bothers at all. Teaching writing is more than just pointing out rules or showing examples of any kind of style you want to pitch, like expository, creative or narrative. It's about shaping a mind to see and to respond to the world using its most fundamental tool--language. And if you can't speak the language of your student, then you can't teach them to speak the language of writing. I'm not talking about peppering your speech with rap riffs or anything that ridiculous. Nobody appreciates that and it's insulting to say at the very least. I'm talking about establishing a specific dialogue with a specific and completely unique human being  if they are willing which helps greatly. Think of holding an innumerable amount of melting snowflakes in your hand and trying to separate and address them individually before they are quickly gone. Do this daily with several dozen students (or in some cases, hundreds) or more for years and also take home their words with you to read and respond to at night and on the weekends while they're doing something else. You are a writing teacher. You have no life. Your student's life is yours if you are truly dedicated. But is that all that's needed? Hardly. Sadly.

You yourself need to be an expert writer, an expert linguist, an expert grammarian, an expert researcher, an expert...period. And this entails, in my opinion, becoming and grooming yourself constantly as a true amateur--someone who does what they do, regardless of pay, just because they love it and they must. And you must have shared tons and tons of your writing, both good and bad, as often as possible because how can you communicate your expertise to learners if you don't communicate your language and writing skills to your peers? But be forewarned: if you're a young college student thinking about teaching Language Arts, or whatever the politically correct term is these days (and there always is one when it comes to public education) you must be willing to bleed on the page with your very best compositional attempts if you expect your students to do the same. That's how I learned and that's how many learned from me and I thank the Lord Jesus Christ for having given me the opportunity to work with all black student populations in inner city Detroit, because although some of those children did their damn hardest to try to put together even a simple paragraph for me and couldn't, I valued their belief in me and their dedicated response without talking down to them or tagging their papers. A lot of teachers hated me for that and I'm so blessed because of it. Thank you, Natalie Wexler for not posting my response on your ezine. It motivated me to compose this much better one, so you see, even bad teachers can accomplish something unknowingly sometimes.

Natalie Wexler and Teaching Writing (or not)

The educational ezine, The Hechinger Report, published an opinion today by Natalie Wexler about teaching writing that I tried to post a response to but wasn't allowed. That's perfect because it justifies exactly my critique of the article so I will share it here.

Teaching writing, or college exposition, was my forté for over a quarter of a century. I was privileged to have students from many diverse backgrounds including Navajo middle schoolers, inner city black high schoolers, and top Asian graduate students in Japan and Thailand at well respected universities. I can sum up and share what I learned easily and explain why Wexler, and other ivory tower pundits, never tell the unspoken truth about this highly exclusive field of pedagogical endeavor. Even with an advanced degree in Linguistics, Composition or whatever they call it these days, very few educators can rise up to the challenge and, if they do, it will make them the envy (and sometimes target of hate) by a lot of English Department lounge lizards. Allow me to explain what my lifetime of research and experience of teaching writing has taught me.

Wexler defends the latest money cow on the academic ranch, The Hochman Method,  as a program that "includes the essay-level skills, like developing an argument" as something besides just focusing on grammar which she is correct in pointing out. Language studies do indeed show that only barraging students with rules doesn't work, despite Common Core confusion on the subject. However, what she fails to mention at all in this piece is, in the most easily worded way, that teaching writing skills is teaching thinking skills. It's always been amusing to me to see how the simple things in this world confuse those who are deemed wise in some manner. Instead, she does what many writing teachers and researchers that I have come across commonly do--obfuscate wittingly or unwittingly. Remember those classroom papers you'd get back with red lines, criss crossed across your work with meaningless abandon? It's nothing more than trying to show your student that no matter what , you still know more than they do even though you might not.

Writing is a very personal and intimate expression of self. It takes a lifetime to master if one bothers at all. Teaching writing is more than just pointing out rules or showing examples of any kind of style you want to pitch, like expository, creative or narrative. It's about shaping a mind to see and to respond to the world using its most fundamental tool--language. And if you can't speak the language of your student, then you can't teach them to speak the language of writing. I'm not talking about peppering your speech with rap riffs or anything that ridiculous. Nobody appreciates that and it's insulting to say at the very least. I'm talking about establishing a specific dialogue with a specific and completely unique human being  if they are willing which helps greatly. Think of holding an innumerable amount of melting snowflakes in your hand and trying to separate and address them individually before they are quickly gone. Do this daily with several dozen students (or in some cases, hundreds) or more for years and also take home their words with you to read and respond to at night and on the weekends while they're doing something else. You are a writing teacher. You have no life. Your student's life is yours if you are truly dedicated. But is that all that's needed? Hardly. Sadly.

You yourself need to be an expert writer, an expert linguist, an expert grammarian, an expert researcher, an expert...period. And this entails, in my opinion, becoming and grooming yourself constantly as a true amateur--someone who does what they do, regardless of pay, just because they love it and they must. And you must have shared tons and tons of your writing, both good and bad, as often as possible because how can you communicate your expertise to learners if you don't communicate your language and writing skills to your peers? But be forewarned: if you're a young college student thinking about teaching Language Arts, or whatever the politically correct term is these days (and there always is one when it comes to public education) you must be willing to bleed on the page with your very best compositional attempts if you expect your students to do the same. That's how I learned and that's how many learned from me and I thank the Lord Jesus Christ for having given me the opportunity to work with all black student populations in inner city Detroit, because although some of those children did their damn hardest to try to put together even a simple paragraph for me and couldn't, I valued their belief in me and their dedicated response without talking down to them or tagging their papers. A lot of teachers hated me for that and I'm so blessed because of it. Thank you, Natalie Wexler for not posting my response on your ezine. It motivated me to compose this much better one, so you see, even bad teachers can accomplish something unknowingly sometimes.

What does the Bible say about transgender people? (pants OFF ladies)

Ladies, if you believe every word in the bible, then you must take off your pants!
“A woman shall not wear a man’s garment, nor shall a man put on a woman’s cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God"--Deuteronomy 22:5

One of the reasons that transgenderism is a push button topic, I believe, is that some people are looking for an easy minority to kick and to make themselves feel better. It's a problem as old as Methusala, so as a champion of the underdog in the true spirit of American defiance and courage, I share this information and site which I found and I consider to be very good. It just amazes me how people won't raise an eyebrow if somebody gets a lobotomy, but they get all bent out of shape when someone removes a testicle or a breast. Interesting times we live in, aren't they?

Transgender and transsexual issues are not directly addressed in the Bible just as the Bible does not directly address issues of nuclear power and energy efficient light bulbs. Our job as Christians is to always "rightly divide the word of truth," 2 Timothy 2:15. 
How should Christians approach issues surrounding tr@nsgenderism, transsexualism and transvestism?We factor in context when determining what scripture means.
We remember that Christians are under no obligation to keep Jewish law, Romans 6:14, 10:4.
We humbly admit that the Hebrew text meant something different to Jewish readers 3500 years ago than the English text without a context means to us today."Scripture only settles matters
about which it speaks plainly."
- Richard Hooker, 1554-1600,
Anglican theologian
"Scripture cannot mean now
What it did not mean then."
- Rick Brentlinger, 1950-
Independent Baptist preacherWe honor the Golden Rule of Jesus, Matthew 7:12, to treat others as we want to be treated. This guides our thinking about transgender issues which are not directly addressed in scripture.
We remember that differences of opinion on non- essentials like clothing are not good reasons to break fellowship with our brothers and sisters in Christ.
Read more at the site HERE

What does the Bible say about transgender people?

Ladies, if you believe every word in the bible, then you must take off your pants!
“A woman shall not wear a man’s garment, nor shall a man put on a woman’s cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God"--Deuteronomy 22:5

One of the reasons that transgenderism is a push button topic, I believe, is that some people are looking for an easy minority to kick and to make themselves feel better. It's a problem as old as Methusala, so as a champion of the underdog in the true spirit of American defiance and courage, I share this information and site which I found and I consider to be very good. It just amazes me how people won't raise an eyebrow if somebody gets a lobotomy, but they get all bent out of shape when someone removes a testicle or a breast. Interesting times we live in, aren't they?

Transgender and transsexual issues are not directly addressed in the Bible just as the Bible does not directly address issues of nuclear power and energy efficient light bulbs. Our job as Christians is to always "rightly divide the word of truth," 2 Timothy 2:15. 
How should Christians approach issues surrounding tr@nsgenderism, transsexualism and transvestism?We factor in context when determining what scripture means.
We remember that Christians are under no obligation to keep Jewish law, Romans 6:14, 10:4.
We humbly admit that the Hebrew text meant something different to Jewish readers 3500 years ago than the English text without a context means to us today."Scripture only settles matters
about which it speaks plainly."
- Richard Hooker, 1554-1600,
Anglican theologian
"Scripture cannot mean now
What it did not mean then."
- Rick Brentlinger, 1950-
Independent Baptist preacherWe honor the Golden Rule of Jesus, Matthew 7:12, to treat others as we want to be treated. This guides our thinking about transgender issues which are not directly addressed in scripture.
We remember that differences of opinion on non- essentials like clothing are not good reasons to break fellowship with our brothers and sisters in Christ.
Read more at the site HERE

Winston Churchill on Islam--a retrograde social force

Claim:   Winston Churchill wrote about the "dreadful curses of Mohammedanism" in his 1899 book The River Wars.

Origins:   An obscure quote attributed to British statesman Winston Churchill has been circulating on the Internet since at least May 2013, when Missouri State Representative Rick Stream sent an e-mail to his colleagues warning about the dangers of Islam. That e-mail cited a passage said to have been taken from a speech by Churchill, as reproduced in his 1899 book The River War: An Historical Account of the Reconquest of the Soudan: 
I am sending the attached short speech from Winston Churchill, delivered by him in 1899 when he was a young soldier and journalist. It probably sets out the current views of many but expressed in the wonderful Churchillian turn of phrase and use of the English language, of which he was a past master. Sir Winston Churchill was, without doubt, one of the greatest men of the late 19th and 20th centuries.

He was a brave young soldier, a brilliant journalist, an extraordinary politician and statesman, a great war leader and Prime Minister, to whom the Western world must be forever in his debt. He was a prophet in his own time; He died on 24 January 1965, at the grand old age of 90 and, after a lifetime of service to his country, was accorded a State funeral.


How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries, improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.

A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement, the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

Individual Muslims may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.
Go this site to find out more: http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/churchillislam.asp

Churchill on Islam

Claim:   Winston Churchill wrote about the "dreadful curses of Mohammedanism" in his 1899 book The River Wars.

Origins:   An obscure quote attributed to British statesman Winston Churchill has been circulating on the Internet since at least May 2013, when Missouri State Representative Rick Stream sent an e-mail to his colleagues warning about the dangers of Islam. That e-mail cited a passage said to have been taken from a speech by Churchill, as reproduced in his 1899 book The River War: An Historical Account of the Reconquest of the Soudan: 
I am sending the attached short speech from Winston Churchill, delivered by him in 1899 when he was a young soldier and journalist. It probably sets out the current views of many but expressed in the wonderful Churchillian turn of phrase and use of the English language, of which he was a past master. Sir Winston Churchill was, without doubt, one of the greatest men of the late 19th and 20th centuries.

He was a brave young soldier, a brilliant journalist, an extraordinary politician and statesman, a great war leader and Prime Minister, to whom the Western world must be forever in his debt. He was a prophet in his own time; He died on 24 January 1965, at the grand old age of 90 and, after a lifetime of service to his country, was accorded a State funeral.
 
How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries, improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.

A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement, the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

Individual Muslims may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.
Go this site to find out more: http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/churchillislam.asp

Sidewalk Prophets and Prodigal

And this is the record, that God has given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son--1 John 5:11

Vladimir Putin and Russia Today

Source: The Interpretermag.com

With all the hoopla and cheering coming from disgruntled Americans about Obama's perceived failure in dealing with the Syrian war and Putin's macho complex muscle flex of bombing the region, now might be a good time to take a look at the man and the country behind the media madness.

Vladimir Putin achieved modest success as a KGB Stasi, paper pusher and keyhole Peeping Tom in East Germany during the Cold War. His superiors regarded him as unremarkable and rather flawed yet his devotion to duty kept him in good favor. Arguably, his best political move was to jump on the bandwagon and renounce Communism after the collapse of the Iron Curtain and ride, then Russian president, Boris Yeltsin's populist wave of democracy in the early 90's, fatefully allowing him to assume leadership when Yeltsin resigned in 1999. Although he 'won' an election soon afterwards, many dispute the fairness of that campaign. In September 2011, following a change in the law extending the presidential term from four years to six,Putin announced that he would seek a third, non-consecutive term as President in the 2012 presidential election, an announcement which led to large-scale protests in many Russian cities. In March 2012 he won the election, which was criticized for procedural irregularities, and is serving a six-year term. This is the man some Americans cheer today as standing up for the free world in the face of Islamic State militants in the Middle East--a politico thug and opportunist cut from the same cloth as Stalin himself, who slaughtered millions to retain power indefinitely.

But what's his track record at home economically? Has he made life for the Russian people really that much better despite the fact that some can now afford ill fated trips to Egypt for holiday? Let's see what the business magazine, Forbes has to say about this:

Russia’s GDP is expected to contract by 3.8% this year and grow by maybe 0.7% next year.  But considering sanctions and the negative sentiment on Russia over the last few years, this may be as boom as it gets. 

There's no doubt that the Russian 'middle class' has seen some improvement since Putin has been in power but that is marginal at best and, compared to other industrialized nations, really very insignificant. Apart from the privileged few who used their former Communist connections to cash in on capitalism and to strike it rich, the average Russian still lives a harsh life filled with economic uncertainty, rampant poverty and crime in many cities and fear of an oppressive, censoring government which Putin and his cronies know very well how to manipulate having learned their lessons from former Communist KGB days. Is this really the Russia that frustrated Americans want to emulate? Look at the images of Russian poverty today easily available on the Internet and decide for yourselves. Plus the collapse in global oil costs, which Russia relies heavily upon for GDP, will only make things worse in the near future. With the seemingly impossible-to-cross gap between rich and poor in the country, Russia still qualifies as a Third World country with no viable middle class and, given the current declining global economy, dropping bombs in the Middle East doesn't seem like a wise option for improvement, only a rallying cry for the truly clueless.

Jeremy Camp and Same Power (Courage America!)

Courage, America. We will not be overtaken, we will not be overcome.



He shall judge between the nations, and shall decide disputes for many peoples; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore--Isaiah 2:4