Lost Cat!

We've all seen posters and classified ads for lost pets. They always makes me a bit sad. I have had one or more pets nearly all my life, and feel for the loss and worry these people are suffering. We know how they love their pets--each with its own special place in their hearts.

Like many writers, I have a hard time using "it" to describe a pet, but in our gender-neutral language, only homo sapiens are granted the personal pronouns of "he" or "she" in formal writing. This, however, is not formal writing, because I am writing about my missing cat. She is a three-year-old calico, indoor-only cat. She slipped out last Sunday, and we've seen no sign of her since. We've searched everywhere she might have gone, talked to neighbors, called local shelters, left out food, distributed flyers, and put ads in the classifieds, but after four days, she is still missing.

She was part of a litter of five that was born in our garage. We had successive generations of feral cats in and around our yard during the preceding years, but when the new litter was born right in our garage, we decided to collect the kittens and hand raise them so that they could become someone's pets. It turned out that they became our pets. We've had them since they were three weeks old, and they have always been indoor cats.


Our missing kitty is a bit shy and is not much of a cuddle-cat. She doesn't like to be picked up, and only tolerates stroking when necessary to get a treat, so she would be very hard for a stranger to catch. But she is lively and funny and vocal, and is very much missed.

People are kind. A neighbor called upon seeing a cat who, it must be said, despite the photos we put on our flyer bore no resemblance to ours. It's the thought that counts. Another person responded to our Craig's List ad that we shouldn't lose hope. Her cat came back after 10 days with no sign of him. That helped quite a bit.

But what will help the most is an actual sighting of her--or her return. While she is out in the world, where she has no experience fending for herself, there is not much more we can do--except worry.

Can You Find Independence Day on a Calendar?

If so, you're among the 94% of Americans who can. Unfortunately, that means 6% of us cannot.

Ignorance of our past is nothing new. Jay Leno has poked a lot of fun at Americans who think the first flag was sewn by Betty Ford, the first president was Benjamin Franklin, and Louis Armstrong was the first man on the moon. These are some of the same people who can't name the vice president or tell you in which country you would find the Panama Canal. We laugh and assume such ignorance is rare, and that Leno had to ask a lot of questions before getting the answers he put on the air. 

Now, however, we have more cause for concern. The Department of Education reported in May that only 20% of 6th graders, 17% of 8th graders, and 12% of high school seniors scored at the "proficient" level for history on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). Only 1% of seniors scored as "advanced."

If high school seniors enter college knowing very little about history, the colleges must spend time teaching things that their students should already know. In turn, this means that colleges do not have the time to give students a higher level of education on the subject, leaving college-educated adults with minimal knowledge and understanding of history.

And it's not just history. Knowledge of all social studies is lacking. Facebook has revealed Americans' ignorance of geography, ranking 117th among 193 countries. Knowledge of civics is similarly poor. In 2009, when Oklahoma high school students were given the U.S. citizenship test--the test given to those who hope to become naturalized U.S. citizens--only 2.8% passed.  Compare that to the 92% pass rate for those from other countries who are seeking U.S. citizenship. In addition, only 23% of the Oklahoma students tested correctly identified the first president of the United States. Subsequently, Newsweek found that 38% of their sample of 1000 Americans also failed the citizenship test. See the test questions Newsweek used here. 

This is embarrassing, but so what? Is this really such a problem?

Putting aside the often-quoted maxim that those who do not remember history are doomed to repeat it, in a democracy, this is very important. The majority of recent high school graduates meet the age requirement for voting. Citizens can run for office. But can a democracy thrive if its voters are ignorant, or if they put ignorant people into office? 

I'm not talking about the slips of the tongue to which all politicians fall victim. There is no doubt that President Obama knows that there are 50 states in the U.S.--not 57 as he once said in an off-hand comment at a campaign stop. Michele Bachmann, if she had thought about it, probably would not have said that Concord, New Hampshire was where the "shot heard 'round the world" was fired. Campaigning is exhausting; people make mistakes. Just ask Joe Biden. (He's the vice president, you know.)

But when they refuse to acknowledge their own ignorance, we have a problem. We saw this when Michele Bachmann refused to admit her error in saying, "But we also know that the very founders that wrote those documents [e.g. Declaration of Independence] worked tirelessly until slavery was no more in the United States." Bachmann's statement sounded good, but the last surviving signer of the Declaration of Independence, Charles Carroll, died in 1832, decades before the end of slavery. She then referred to the abolitionist efforts of John Quincy Adams, who was not quite nine years old when we declared our independence, and who died in 1848, nearly fifteen years before the Emmancipation Proclamation. This rhetorical error was not nearly as important as the content of the rest of her speech, but because she refused to admit that she misspoke, it has become the only thing people know about her talk.

Sarah Palin staunchly defended her description of Paul Revere's famous ride to secretly warn colonists of the movements by the British regulars as, ". . . he who warned, uh, the, the British that they weren't gonna be takin' away our arms, uh, by ringing those bells, and, and, um, making sure as he's ridin' his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that, uh, we were gonna be secure and we were gonna be free." It was a forgivable blunder if she owned up to it, but instead she stood by it saying she knew her history. What is even worse, some of her supporters tried to change the Wikipedia page on Paul Revere to coincide with her erroneous statement.  Fortunately, Wikipedia closed the page to revision when it discovered the effort.

Ignorance can be cured, but a dogged persistence in, and defense of it cannot. Nor can the willful distortion of "facts" so often engaged in by politicians and pundits.

I am fortunate to occasionally co-teach a day-long seminar on civics for high school students. These students are hand selected by civic organizations for this special program, and they give up some of their free time to attend. They are usually well informed and enthusiastic about the subject. And they always pass the U.S. citizenship test. These young people give me hope for the leaders of tomorrow, but they are few. What about the rest of our young people?

President Obama has called for reform of No Child Left Behind which focuses on achievement in reading, writing, and mathematics. Knowing that we're doing so poorly in teaching our children history, geography, and civics, perhaps we can take this opportunity to refocus our energies in that direction. Our schools are not just there to generate test scores. They help create informed and involved citizens.

What do you think? Are social studies as important as reading, writing, and math? And on this Independence Day weekend, are you willing to take a challenge?

Take the sample test questions on the NAEP History assessment here. There are five questions each at three different levels: 4th grade, 8th grade, and 12th grade. Let us know how you did.

The Serial (and Very Serious) Comma

To comma, or not to comma . . .

That question has been debated among writers for some time. Since a comma is used to replace the word "and" when listing several items in a sentence, must one use a comma before the last item listed even when there is an "and" before it? Example (with the debated comma): I bought bread, apples, and peanut butter at the grocery store.


Over the years, the University of Oxford Guide to Style has insisted upon including the last comma in this situation. The serial comma has become so identified with the university that it is known as the "Oxford comma." Oxford's position has been echoed by the Chicago Manual of Style, Elements of Style by Strunk and White, and the BBC.  (Thanks to the Oxford comma, you know when reading the preceeding sentence that Elements of Style is by Strunk and White, not by Strunk, White, and the BBC.)

Others have disagreed about the necessity of the final comma. The AP Stylebook, for instance, says that the comma before the last item in a list should be omitted unless it is necessary for comprehension. The AP Stylebook is primarily intended for journalists, but we have seen that journalistic style has a way of entering the mainstream. Consider, for example, the greater acceptance of the use of "alright," when traditionally (and more correctly) it should be written "all right."

So when word came out that the University of Oxford was abandoning it's own comma, punctuation nerds felt the ground shake a bit. Cries of angst arose on Twitter and Facebook as people tried to make sense of it all. It took several hours before it became clear that only the public relations office at the university had changed its guidelines for press releases to journalists, having no affect whatsoever on the advice offered in the Guide to Style. 

So grammar geeks can heave a sigh of relief. Their Oxford comma is safe. Everything, it appears, is alright.

Following Police Orders vs. Exercising Your Rights

I respect the police. They have a very difficult job--one that most people are unwilling or unable to do. They never know from moment to moment, on duty or off, when someone might produce a weapon and try to end their lives. Yet, they are sworn to protect the public, and put themselves at risk for us every day. Even after their shifts end, they cannot turn off their instincts, grounded in their training and experience, to be vigilant and aware of their surroundings--to identify dangers before they become tragedies.

Sometimes, however, their instincts can lead them to go too far. Take, for example, the case of Emily Good, a resident of Rochester, NY, who, last month, videotaped a traffic stop outside her home. Ms. Good is a self-proclaimed activist who, earlier this year, was arrested with others who were trying to prevent a home foreclosure. But this time Ms. Good was standing in her own yard recording what was happening in the street right in front of her house.

After the person stopped was under police control, one of the officers addressed Ms. Good directly. He told her he did not "feel safe" with her standing behind him. She asserted that she clearly had no weapons and that it was her right to observe and record what was happening in her neighborhood from her own yard. The police officer said that she seemed anti-police from some unspecified thing he claimed she said to him before she started recording. (Other witnesses say Ms. Good said nothing to the officers before beginning to record them.) Refusing to return to her house as the officer suggested, Ms. Good was arrested for the crime of "obstructing governmental administration," for not following police orders. You can see her video here:



Putting aside for a moment that it is difficult to imagine how observing and recording an event from a distance is "obstructing governmental administration," one still has to wonder why this confrontation ever took place. Perhaps the officer did not feel safe at first. There was someone standing several feet away, whose intentions were unknown, while their attention was focussed elsewhere. Taking control of a situation is the best way to avoid having things get out of hand. But after realizing that the witness did not pose a physical threat, why did the officer pursue it? A less generous interpretation might be that the officer did not want his actions recorded in case they might tend to show him in an unfavorable light. If that were his motive, he certainly failed to avoid that unhappy result. But as you watch the video, it seems that the officer just doesn't like that a person refuses to automatically do whatever he says.

Granted, Emily Good did not give in, but she was fully within her rights as a citizen to do what she was doing. The fact that she continued to record the encounter after the officer threatened her with arrest showed a certain grit and determination that she will now have to defend in court.

So where does one draw the line between obeying the police and standing up for one's rights?

Certainly there are times when bystanders need to follow police orders for their own safety or the safety of others, even if they don't understand why. But there are also times when the police need to be reined in and told that they have gone too far.

It seems to me that one of the best ways to protect our rights as citizens is to use them. I also believe that peacefully recording the police from a distance while they are engaged in a traffic stop should not subject one to arrest. Sometimes, as with the Rodney King police brutality case, only a bystander with a camera can help a victim get justice. As the lauded Supreme Court justice, Louis D. Brandeis, said, "Sunshine is the best disinfectant."

What do you think? Would you have done what Emily Good did? Do you think the officer's reaction was justifiable? Just how far would you go to defend your rights?

Is it "Next Year" Yet?

As you probably know by now, I grew up in New England--Massachusetts, to be precise. And, like many of my peers, I grew up to be a life-long Red Sox fan.

Now, when I was a kid, the Red Sox were not known for winning championships. The last one they had won was in 1918, so there weren't too many people around who could remember it. But every season, we would root for them, and hope that this was the year when they would beat the odds, and bring us another World Series Championship. When they came close (and they nearly always came close) but didn't win, we'd say, along with fans of most other teams, "Just wait 'til next year."

Our "next year" finally came with a World Series win in 2004, and, surprise, surprise, again in 2007. This year, they're predicted, along with the Philadelphia Phillies--my new hometown team--to make it to the World Series again.This year, they say, the Sox have put it all together: phenomenal pitching, great fielding, and hitting beyond belief. 

But Boston lost their first three games and are tied for last in the AL East. What about our dominating pitching staff? In our second game of the season they let in twelve runs. Not a very auspicious beginning.

To take our minds off of our troubles, a bunch of us decided to participate in a fantasy baseball league. I've never done this before, so I knew I would make some rookie mistakes. We held our draft yesterday, and I really had no idea how it worked. The only thing I knew for sure was that you had to draft a player for each position, six utility hitters, and one entire squad for pitching--not individual pitchers. 

I did some homework. Okay, my husband helped me--even though he was drafting a competing team. He pulled out his many scouting books, and researched everyone online. (I told you we New Englanders were fans!) All I knew was that I wanted to draft Kevin Youkilis, the Red Sox Gold Glove first baseman, who this year will be going back to his original position, playing third base. He once told the manager that he would be willing to play any position except catcher. How can you not like a guy like that?

And I knew I didn't want to draft any Yankees. There was no way I would end up cheering for a Yankee player just because it would help my fantasy team.

But I was so worried about pitching that when my first pick came (8th out of 10 in the first round), I picked my pitching squad. Apparently, that was against protocol. Other players seemed shocked, and suddenly were flinging papers everywhere, trying to adjust their next picks. Hmmm--throwing off the competition. Maybe I'm better at this than I thought. Which pitching squad did I pick? The Phillies. You might think this a bit disloyal, but the Phillies are undefeated, and in first place in their division, their league, and all of Major League Baseball!

Everyone was given 90 seconds per pick, so I expected the draft to take forever, giving me a chance to sort through and select my players with care. But everyone picked so quickly, that before I knew it, it was my turn again, and I got Youkilis! Fist pump of joy! On my next pick I got Dustin Pedroia, also of the Red Sox--our second baseman and former Rookie of the Year and AL MVP. Two fist pumps of joy! 

The draft was stressful, but went so fast, I hardly knew who I had until it was all over. It turns out, I have a pretty good team. At least they look pretty good on paper--so far. So I'm pulling for my Sox, the Phillies, and my fantasy team, "Mama's Boys." I hope they all win.

But if they don't, well, just wait 'til next year!

A New Friend

My husband and I adopted a dog last weekend. We've always had pets. Mostly we've had cats, but we've had a dog before--a sweet, lively Australian Shepherd named "Cindy," that we loved for thirteen years. It has taken us five years to be ready to adopt a dog again.

As anyone who has shared a home with both dogs and cats can tell you, while you adore both, the relationship with the two species is quite different. Your cats honor you with their attention, while your dog lets you know the honor is all his. Dogs live for you, trying their best to please you, whether they succeed or not. If you've never had a dog, read Marley and Me. You'll get the idea. Losing a dog leaves a big hole in your life, and it takes time to be ready to have another dog.

But now we are ready. We decided to go with a shelter dog--a mutt. I searched online, and found that a local shelter, Furry Feet Rescue, had a litter of eight Australian Shepherd mix puppies who were ready to find homes. Another Aussie. It sounded great. Cindy was a great dog. She had the personality and energy of a puppy nearly all her life. Her joie de vivre was infectious. And she was smart enough to train her people to understand her. She mostly left our cats alone, and they tolerated each other well.  Our memories of life with Cindy made us want another Aussie.

Then we saw the litter. Oh my. They were such an adorable bunch of puppies. Playing, chewing, tugging on each other with seemingly boundless energy until they simply exhausted each other and fell into a heap for a nap. Nothing could be cuter than a pile of puppies. My husband picked one he liked best, I had another. So we decided to go home and think about it.

The more I thought about it, the more I wondered if such a high-energy dog was best for us. We're not as young as we were when we got Cindy. And we have more cats than we did when we had her. We were concerned that our clowder would find the rough play of an Aussie puppy too difficult to bear.

That's when another dog went up on the rescue's website. This was a Newfoundland mix pup. I didn't know anything about "Newfies," as they are often called, so I looked them up on the internet. The first thing I saw was that they can be enormous. That sounds like a dog that will need a lot of space and a lot of exercise. The next thing I read was that they can make good "apartment" dogs. What? How can those two go together?

It turns out that the Newfie, while being smart and extremely affectionate, is not big on exercise. They can be content with a little play, a short walk, and then spend the rest of the day relaxing at their people's feet. This sounded like a dog that was more our speed. We're both writers, so we spend much of our time in more quiet pursuits. In this light, a hyperactive puppy seemed impractical. A couch potato seemed just right.

Newfies can also be good watch dogs, although they are gentle by nature. They are great with children. "Nana," the dog/guardian of the Darling children in Peter Pan, was a Newfie. And if you ever need a fishing net dragged ashore, or fall overboard on an ocean voyage, well, a Newfie is the only dog for you. They have often been credited with saving scores of people at a time from shipwrecks. One is credited with saving Napoleon who fell overboard in rough seas during his escape from Elba.

I contacted Furry Feet Rescue and asked to see the Newfie and our two favorites among the Aussies again. After that, it was simple. The Newfie picked us. We brought him home last night.

The cats are very wary of this new beast in the house, but he's indifferent to them--much more interested in lying at our feet after a relatively short period of gentle play than in chasing cats. We hope for a swift detente among them.

Now we're back in the business of housetraining, and bonding with a puppy. Of course, he is a mix with nobody-knows-what kind of dog. This will have an impact on how he grows and develops. It already appears that he will be on the smaller side for his breed--which might be good. But he is definitely more of a couch potato--even at his young age.

We've named him Mr. Darcy. It's a great name for a tall, dark, and handsome fellow, don't you think? (I guess I'll tell him when he wakes up.)

Happy Valentine's Day

Interesting, isn't it, that we choose to commemorate someone's death by giving each other Hallmark cards and boxes of chocolates?

It's true. Saints' days are celebrated on the dates of their deaths--not their births, as we so often do for modern heroes from Washington to Martin Luther King, Jr. to Elvis. But it gets even more complicated.

Apparently there were several saints named Valentine. The one whose death was recorded to have occurred on February 14 was, according to Wikipedia, "martyred in Africa with a number of companions, but nothing more is known about him."  He and two others, Valentine of Rome and Valentine of Terni, share the saints' day established about 500 A.D. While all of the Valentines were doubtless ardent believers and died in the faith, none of them seems to have been particularly romantic so far as we know.

So why do we consider Valentine's Day a day of romance and love? Ask Chaucer. Apparently it was in the 14th century when he wrote, "For this was Saint Valentine's Day, when every bird cometh there to choose his mate."  And from there we get to the Hallmark holiday we know today.

I have known people who hate Valentine's Day, in part because the world pairs off, and if one is without a mate, the celebrations of the day only accentuate that state. Others feel that the day is an artificial excuse for florists, chocolatiers, and greeting card companies to dip into our wallets. And still others revere it as a chance to focus on their significant others, and tell them, in words they might not often say, that they are important and loved. Whatever the origin or exploitation of the day, that can't be all bad.

What do you think? Do love Valentine's Day? Hate it? Or are you somewhere in between?