If I Were First (A Sonnet)

If I were first with you, then you'd turn red,
As blood fouled up your youthful countenance,
And mid the roses of our wedding bed,
Might weep lost days of pious innocence.

It isn't wrong to pick a blossomed rose,
Or to enjoy a summer-ripened fruit,
But sad to trim the bud that springtime blows
Or cut the upstart sapling at its root.

Then you who have endured the spring and thrived,
And given seed entrapped in berries sweet,
Whose pleasant taste the winter has survived,
Know well the flavor that my tongue will greet.

Oh let me fall as drops of golden rain,
Upon your garden hid by lonely pain.

Education Reform (My Personal Platform)

So, as all of you know, I am a teacher. I have taught for the past six years in various private institutions. I also had the great opportunity of teaching in a public school for a little while at the beginning of my career, and I have met and worked with students from both a public and a private background in the context of an online environment. That, admittedly, may not amount to a whole lot of experience professionally next to some of you, but I would submit that the following suggestions are not so much centered on a criticism of the teaching profession or education per se, but on the way that we organize the education system as a whole. In other words, what I am talking about here is the way that we integrate all of the state's learning environments into a coherent whole. And that has way more to do with politics than it does with educational praxis. So this is a sort of outline, in brief, of the various ideas I have collected over the past few years for reforming Arkansas' public educational system.

First, I think it essential that, in order to have a uniform assessment of skills regardless of educational background, we have a fairly objective system for assessing a student's qualifications at the end of his education. It does very little good to have yearly exams (most of which do not prevent a student from passing to the next grade) which are merely intended to assess the ongoing quality of instruction, if the students, at the end of the program, are not prepared to go on to higher studies. There is also the challenge that annual benchmark exams, as we used to call them in Arkansas, are very specific to each grade level and so encourage teachers to merely "teach the exam" to up their qualifications. I think this is an abuse of the whole idea of instruction. What we should be using exams to do is to help parents decide whether their children are getting the best out of their education, and that would imply a high-stakes exam leading out of high school.

So, what I would propose is that we break apart the whole separation between schools, homeschools, and private schools. Students in Arkansas would simply receive an "Arkansas High School Diploma", of which there would be two different categories. The first, taken at the end of tenth grade, would be a "Standard Level Diploma", which would essentially cover most of the material in the GED and ACT. Students who passed it would receive a diploma and could legally discontinue their education, if they chose. The Standard Level Exam would also include a number of sections for elective courses, which a student could decide to take based on his own level of confidence in the subject. It would not matter where they were educated; they would all qualify for the Standard Level Diploma in the same way.

Students who passed the Standard Level Diploma and qualified with above average or excellent scores in particular subject areas could then take courses in those areas to prepare themselves for the Advanced Level Exam, which they would take at the end of the twelfth grade. Provided that they received average or higher scores in a minimum number of subjects and at least one or two electives, they would qualify for the Advanced Level Diploma which, again, they would receive directly from the state with no involvement from the local school or school board.

I believe that this method of qualifying students would ultimately be the most equitable for students. Parents themselves could decide: Is paying money for a private education really worth it in terms of results? Can I educate my child to the qualifications necessary for them to achieve a useful diploma? I believe in freedom and choice in the realm of education, and I think that forcing the parents (and students) to look seriously at the alternatives before them would benefit everyone involved.

The next part of this is where I will probably get myself into trouble. On the one hand, I support school choice, in the sense that I do not believe that parents should have to pay taxes or fees to public schools when they choose to enroll their children in a private institution, unless, of course, those fees are redirected to the schools which parents themselves chose. This, however, I only support in the instance that the schools that parents are enrolling their children in are free of charge, meaning that they do not ask nor require those parents to pay for their children to take classes at the private school. This is because the taxes themselves are collected on an ENTIRE community to guarantee that everyone in that community receives an education, whether they can afford it or not. It is a rudimentary form of wealth redistribution, and I agree with it wholeheartedly. Just because a person can afford a better school, does not mean that funds should be withdrawn from those schools that serve everybody. It would be like letting people bring their own popcorn to the movie theater. On the other hand, if those private schools are doing a good job educating the community as a charitable organization, then of course, we should support the charitable instinct of individuals over the crushing presence of a welfare state. Another option, of course, would be to exempt individuals from paying the school property taxes and instead taxing tuition payments to private schools, but I doubt that would be any more or less popular.

Where I absolutely do not support school choice is in allowing parents whose children live in one school district to send their children to another school district unless, in exceptional circumstances, the student is simply unable to go to their local school. The reason for this is much the same. Many students, particularly those in poor neighborhoods, will be unable to afford to send their children to schools outside of their district due to additional transportation costs; and if they do decide to send their children away, the longer distance will mean less time at home with family, less time for homework, and less connection between the local community and its school. A local school is a center of knowledge and empowerment for a small community, as well as a neighborhood. If we allow students to flock to this or that public school, it will inevitably rip students out of their communities during the most foundational time of their lives and ultimately result in their integration into a general culture-less consumerist society with no morals and no background.

I also believe in small local schools. Oftentimes, small local schools become a target for accusations of waste, poor management, and poor instruction. However, consolidation has not achieved any more financial viability in the long term as unconsolidated schools, and the negative effects (peer pressure, violence, high teacher-student ratios) seem worse than the problems they were trying to fix. Yet, even from a financial and professional point of view, technology has finally caught up to the problem. It is now possible that a small school in, say, Ash Flat, Arkansas could have a course in Mandarin Chinese, taught by an instructor from Hong Kong and supervised in a large multi-level classroom with a paraprofessional supervisor. I know this because I do this job on a regular basis. It has its own challenges, of course, but in general, I have been satisfied with the results. Today, every school in every small town could have any course offered in the state of Arkansas, and qualified professionals could teach from their own hometowns in multiple districts at competitive pay without having to take jobs outside of their field. Who needs a coach to be a history teacher any more?

I also believe that the school day should be significantly shortened or opened up throughout the state. Ideally, students should be free for at least an hour in the day to study, participate in intramural sports, receive religious instruction from clergy of their choosing, or some other profitable recreation. Students do not have enough time to really process what they are learning in the modern school environment, and I think that results in very shallow presentation by the teachers to keep up with the curriculum timetable. What those periods of time set aside for leisure should NOT be used for is work. Work can happen in the classroom or after school: schools should not be in the business of turning their students into so many cogs in the industrial machine.

Finally, I think it is essential that we consider establishing specialty institutions to target boys and girls for fields in which they are underrepresented. This would require some gender segregation, but with the overall goal of making the professional field more diverse in particular areas. For example, Arkansas needs a public school of math and science that is for female students only. Imagine, also, a boys-only arts and humanities school, or an advanced academic institution for students with learning disabilities. Once again, it is essential that these institutions be either free or public (or both) and focus on enlisting students who show particular aptitude for these skills. Merely making them available would lead to a consistent downgrading of expectations to meet parents' demands.

There are, of course, many different areas where we could improve our educational system and methods. I, however, am a teacher, and if I wrote down every possible improvement (additional courses in agriculture and fine arts, people?), I would never have enough time to grade papers. As it is, I think that adopting even a few of these ideas would so radically change people's perspective on education, that a lot of other improvements might simply follow as a natural consequence.

Jupiter Ascending (2015): Movie Reviews from the Sidelines

There is no movie that seems better designed to drive critics nuts than Jupiter Ascending (2015).

Seriously, you have stunning but cluttered visuals, quirky acting, and a movie that clearly should have been at least an hour and a half longer than what it was. But that's not the story here. The story should be that Jupiter Ascending is an awesomely risky movie set in a fascinating universe that revolves around an ordinary girl from our (non-post-apocalyptic) planet.

In this gorgeous film, a young cleaning lady by the name of Jupiter Jones (Mila Kunis) is found to have the exact genetic sequence of a noblewoman from outer space. This apparently happens because...science. In any case, many of the upper class from this extraterrestrial society, which is populated by humans (actually, our ancestors), tend to view this as a sort of "reincarnation" and even go so far as to leave trusts for such individuals in their will, leaving meek Jupiter to inherit the earth. What do the space-humans want with the earth? Well, that's complicated, but let's just say that we are the crops, and they are the consumers. 

The adventure part of this begins when the heirs of that noblewoman all seek to claim for themselves the inherited treasure of their mother from Jupiter. They all have their various ways, of course, but all of them pretty much center around Jupiter being dead. Enter her faithful (and hunky) protector Caine Wise (Channing Tatum) who risks his life to save hers. Most of the action centers around Channing Tatum, er, Caine, being heroic and making Jupiter weak in the knees.

It would be SO easy to hate this film. Eddie Redmayne, for example, one of the heirs trying to knock Jupiter out of the royal orbit, gives one of the strangest performances to ever hit the big screen, whispering some of his lines and switching from listless mumbling to screaming tantrums. And yet, one really must wonder how entitled nobility who live thousands of years and harvest human beings for profit ought to behave. It is genius that he manages to even show vulnerability in such an emotionally remote character. In fact, he gives one of the only possible depictions of such a character that anyone could give, if the aim were verisimilitude.

At the same time, Mila Kunis, whose main problem in this film is a slight aversion to opening her mouth while she speaks, is nonetheless the perfect "hero" to take on this role. Admittedly, it isn't one of the most female-empowering roles ever created, but she still manages to embody her character: a quirky, discontented twenty-something who is both terrified and fascinated with her surroundings. I can't see any obvious flaws.
The plot is overly complicated. No one can deny that. It has a backstory that would require an HBO miniseries to explain (which would be--geek alert--TOTALLY AWESOME), but it is not incomprehensible, whatever some may say.  In fact, the world is so beautiful and the idea behind its existence such a compelling tale that this reviewer was hungry for more plots set in this classical medieval steampunk dystopia. Any critic that doesn't agree with that sentiment is not worth my dear readers' time.

My Rating: B+ (Go see it.)

Don't Smile (A Lullaby)

Don't smile, little feet, don't smile,
Hold onto that frown a while;
The covers are taken away;
The night did not last all day;
And who should be moved from rest,
By sweet at a milky breast?
So wail, little feet, and scream,
And never give way to a dream!

Speak Honestly (A Sonnet)

From women like yourself a gentle word
Can make me feel that I am built of lead;
Like scotch, your compliments are full of guile,
Smooth going down, but rushing to the head;
Then drowsily the thought of you takes flight
To where I see myself in cape and hood;
Admiring thus, in faerie shades of light,
I cannot see by you aught else but good.
So fleeting loves will flitter to the clouds,
And drunken dreams goad drunks to jealousy,
But hung at rosy-fingered dawn their vows
Are blown away like mists of fantasy.
    Your honest speech which baser minds disdain
    Is all my hope to honestly remain.


             -Clayton Orr

The Presidential Veto Amendment - A Proposal to Restore the Three Branches

Everybody learns in school that our government is composed of three branches: executive, legislative, and judicial. They also learn that these three supposedly "distinct" and "independent" branches are given a system of complex checks and balances that is meant to insure that one branch does not try to become too powerful and upset the system. Thus, for example, the judicial branch has the power to overrule unconstitutional laws passed by the legislature, the legislature can impeach and remove any of the other branches, and the president has the veto power over the legislature, which they can overcome by a mere 2/3 vote in both houses of Congress. Moreover, all money spent by the executive must be approved by law in the Congress.

Of course, as the recent immigration debacle has demonstrated, checks and balances cease to be actual checks or balances when a President commands enough of his party members to prevent the Congress from checking him. (For the record, I agree with the President on immigration and would have liked to see Congress pass a law that did legally what he did illegally. The problem is that the President as EXECUTIVE is not meant to execute merely the laws that he likes.) Thus, for example, when a President acts in a way contrary to the will of Congress, Congress indeed has the power to prevent him from doing so, but only with the force of legislation, which he can then proceed to veto, protected by a significant minority in either House. The President becomes the only politician in government who is able to actually effect his will, meanwhile controlling judiciary appointments and prosecutions, setting the agenda on the legislative branch using his extensive veto powers, and exercising his commander-in-chief functions almost without limitation by the people who are supposed to represent us.

Of course, this would be of no consequence if Congress would ever actually stick up for itself. But a President, endowed with such powers to govern the direction of the country, can hardly be blamed for making it a priority to ensure that party discipline protects his agenda, which he perceives (quite wrongly, as it turns out) as being a mandate of the people. People do not very often elect agendas, particularly in our system. They elect people. And the people that elect are, more often than not, specifically elected to either implement or prevent the President's agenda, which makes him legislator-in-chief as much as commander-in-chief.

I have given this lecture numerous times to my students, which I usually start with, "If the President is the Chief Executive, why are all the candidates, even the so-called constitutionalist or libertarian ones, running on a legislative agenda?" And of course, they generally have no answer, except to conclude with me that the three-branch system is a sham which, presently, is used to shift blame between different branches of government for not responding to the actual will of those who elected them.

By the way, I agree with having separate branches with checks and balances on one another. But a check and a balance is supposed to cause thought, discussion, and compromise, not deadlock. Otherwise, the party that is most decisive will always be the winner, and, in general, a President is more decisive and effective than the Congress, while the Congress can hardly get a two-thirds majority to agree on the day of the month, much less their legislative priority.

So that is why I argue for two overriding checks on the federal government: first, a system of direct democracy, so that the states and people can bypass federal deadlock and enact laws for their good, whatever the cost to a politician's political capital; second, the reduction of the threshold needed to override the President's veto to a simple majority, such as is had in a large number of state governments. What follows is how I would word such a text.

The Presidential Veto Amendment

Article I
Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on the Journal and proceed to reconsider it. If after such consideration a majority of the whole number of members of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House by which it shall likewise be considered, and if approved by a majority of the whole number of members of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays and federal holidays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not become a law.

Article II
Every Order, Resolution or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take effect shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be passed again by a majority of the whole number of members of the Senate and the House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.

Article III
Congress shall have power to enforce this Amendment by necessary and proper legislation.

Pretty Things (A Sonnet)

Most working days the solitude obscures
My view on life- not sad and not depressed,
But hidden. Then some ray of beauty lures
My thoughts to open spaces with the rest--
Unbuckles me from safety like a coat;
Then cold desire, that biting draft, attacks
And makes me feel what had been so remote,
For thoughtful men can hide from painful facts.
Then as your light retreats again from view--
My sun, my eastern star--I hate the light
Which makes me miss its warmth the more, and you
Who made my swollen eyes recall lost sight.

O beauty changing peace to thoughtless rage,
Remain, and all my lonely wounds assuage.