Instructing an Orchestra

The more I prepare for my ultimate goal of becoming a teacher, the more I realize that I was preparing for such a career since fifth grade. It isn't that I wanted to become a teacher that long, in fact that is a very new development in my life, and I kinda fell into it by chance. Well it wasn't even a thought until my chemistry professor at the county college I attended for a semester suggested it. Actually he merely said that a teaching certification would be a great backup to whatever I decided to do with mathematics. I took his advice, but a short year and a half later, that was were my sights were set.

You are probably wondering that if I haven't wanted to be a teacher since fifth grade, how have I been preparing for that career since then!? It was in fifth grade where I picked up my first instrument, and being in the school band was something I did until I graduated high school, as well as being in the marching band starting in eighth grade. This brings me to the whole point of this entry; teaching has consistently reminded me of music.

When listening to a composition, whether it is the classical music that you tend to play in school bands or songs from pretty much any genre; there is an intro, a build up. As the listener feels the beat, and gets into the song, a transition occurs and we get into the meat of the piece. In a song the singer will come in and bring in the lyrical aspect of the tune, many instrumentals add more instruments and change the sound. Yet there is a familiar backdrop, a consistent theme through out. This could be a repeated melody, or the chorus of the song, either way the tune comes back to the main theme. Lastly there is an outro that sums up the song and brings it to a close.

Lets think of the our times back in school. How did the class start!? The teacher poses a question or gives out a "DoNow" and you get started into the rhythm of the class. Then there is a transition from quiet seat work into the main instruction. The teacher (like the singer) joins into the orchestration and takes the "DoNow" work and weaves it into the main lesson and sets the theme for the class. The students find out the topic that they will learn and the teacher will show the ideas and land back to the main topic. Then the lesson covers something additional, and the teacher brings it back to the main idea, the chorus. Lastly as time starts running low, the teacher brings the class to a close by summing up the main ideas and letting the students leave with a conclusion.

But there is one thing wrong with that comparison, there is more to music then it's organization, the volume and tempos make enormous contributions to the song. Where are these seen in the teacher's lesson? Tempo is easier to see, cause it directly relates to the pace of the lesson it self. how fast do you go through this idea, how long does it stay at that pace, is the whole lesson the same pace or do you change it up for different topics. These subtle differences are needed if the teacher expects to keep the students engaged.

Volume of a song is related to how the teacher delivers the instruction. I don't mean the volume of speech necessarily. I mean think about it, how weird would it be for the teacher start talking with a whisper and slowly increase their volume to shouting. It wouldn't make much sense. However, the teacher will need to make variations in their speech, who wants to listen to Mr. Monotone!

The different instruments of the song is like the different teaching techniques and tools the teacher can use. Should the topic be taught with lecture, group work, maybe have the class act something out...(to name a few ideas).

And the teacher is the conductor who coordinates all the aspects of the "band" into one coherent fluid idea, one lesson. The effective teachers use the various styles and techniques to create variety and excitement in each lesson. Their students may dislike some "songs" the teacher "composes", but none should hate them all. A challenge that I can only work toward accomplishing.

Really!?

So there a times when you just need to be disgusted to be part of humanity; this is one of those times. The Supreme Court, in a decision that should revoke the title of Supreme, "ruled... ...that a grieving father's pain over mocking protests at his Marine son's funeral must yield to First Amendment protections for free speech." I have provided four different articles on the decision for you to read for yourselves.

I am all for upholding First Amendment rights, and rights that have been granted to us by our fortune of being part of this great country, but there are certain things, especially regarding our freedom of speech, that should be restricted. Just like how free speech is limited in the case of yelling fire in a crowded movie theater without there being an actual fire because it risks putting others in danger of serious injury, so should it be limited in this case.

Now you may be wondering how is a protest regarding the gay-rights debate anyway related to the movie theater situation, but it is logically the same. I am not ignorant to the concept that other people hold a different belief system then me, and I am not posting this as a retort to those who hold the differing view from me. I am posting this in regards to this one situation, this one instance. The only thing I am trying to say is there is a time and a place for such demonstrations, and such a demonstration at a Marine's funeral is probably the least appropriate place ever.

Let me get back to how using this location for such demonstration relates to the movie theater. These 'people', and I use that term very loosely for this group, are demonstrating against gay rights, at a funeral of a fallen Marine, because "Westboro believes that God is killing American soldiers as punishment for the nation's sinful policies." This is detrimental to the morale of our Courageous Soldiers who have made a decision that this nation and its people are worthy of their time, and the risk of their lives. Knowing that this is how the people of the nation show their appreciation for such devotion does not establish confidence in what they are doing.

I guess in this entry I am trying to say two things. First, I appreciate the sacrifice the people of our Military have voluntarily made in order to allow me to sit here and write this blog. What they do allows me to go to college and follow my ambitions. It is because of them i can go out and party with my friends and live a safe, adventurous life. It is to these men and women I salute and raise my ever filled glass to. Thank you for what you do, and don't let the hatred and ignorance of few sully the majority's appreciation of you, and your dedication to us.

The second thing I am trying to say is that a reinterpretation of the Freedom of Speech needs to be made. We need to add a new clause. I deem this new clause that I am proposing as the "Don't be a Dick Clause." As you can probably tell from the name, if you are being an over the top excessive dick you should not be allowed to continue your protest. I do not mean your everyday asshole, I mean those over the top pricks who go out of their why to force opinions on people at the most inappropriate times.

Let me give a couple of examples to clarify:

Intentionally splashing pedestrians by speeding through a puddle is a dick move, but you are safe.

Protesting gay rights at a Marine's funeral based on some skewed view of religion, you should be sentenced to 100 kicks into the nuts by those you offended. Or some other fitting sentence (like maybe having to give that 5 million dollars to that soldiers family).

I was going out of my way to not be crass, but upon seeing this article I was just ENRAGED. It was not only that these 'people' could not have the common decency to respect the sanctity of a funeral, but one honoring a brave Marine who gave the ultimate sacrifice so those 'people' can have their opinions.

Honostly something I have said here are probably excessive, but this goes under the "Harm Principle." This protest has caused irreparable emotional harm to those there to honor the fallen, and nothing can change that. This is why i am disgusted with this decision, and what made it worse was that the Supremer Court made this ruling in an 8-1 decision. It scares me that Justice Samuel Alito is the only person representing the highest court in our nation, who still has some common sense and common decency.

Articles on the Supreme Court Decision

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2011/03/supreme-court-oks-anti-gay-churchs-picketing-of-funerals/1

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-03-02/us/scotus.westboro.church_1_anti-gay-protests-albert-snyder-westboro-baptist-church?_s=PM:US

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110302/ap_on_re_us/us_supreme_court_funeral_protests

http://www.livingstondaily.com/article/20110303/NEWS01/103030302/Supreme-Court-Anti-gay-picketing-at-military-funerals-OK

Links regarding Free speech and its Limitations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech#Limitations_on_freedom_of_speech

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harm_principle

Information found on Fred Phelps, if you actually care about some insensitive person (And yes I was polite, because I am better then this guy.)

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1662196/bio

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Phelps

Next "Thai"me I'll Just Go Hunt it With My bare Hands

I went to a Thai restaurant, Penang in Princton (NJ), and this restaurant was my first experience for Thai, and any following venture into this world of potential deliciousness (as what I saw from my friends meal) will not be tainted by this experience.

I ordered the Pi Pa Duck, which was the most abysmal disgrace to the concept of food I have ever seen. Taco bell's non-beef beef is of a higher quality and is actually satisfying, unlike his pathetic excuse for an entree. At $17.00 I expect the meal to exist.

What I received was little more then a duck skeleton with the little meat that they forgot to remove from the bone prior to serving you those bones. The only positive thing to say about this dish was the sauce was tasty if it wasn't all over the bone and the skin.

By the time I was able to separate some small pieces of meat from the bones using my two forks, I was too frustrated to taste the meal. I was forced to use the two forks since I was not given a knife, nor did the waiters come by to see if we needed anything, including drinks. This service was poor enough for me to tip barely 10%; I usually tip 20%, and that is for mediocre service.

This is the first time I have ever gone out to eat, spent more than $3.00 and came buck hungrier then when I left. So hungry that I had to make food at home.

To summarize, the next time I would like to eat table scraps and be ignored I will go to a third world country for dinner. It will cost more to do, but at least I will get to see the world while not being fed.