Post #26, 13.1 miles into the marathon that is “52 Mondays.”  Most marathoners take their split at the midway point, begin self-assessing how everything is going, and often make adjustments to the pre-race plan.

Well, how is everything going?  Mom likes the blog and says dad would be proud.  That’s more than enough motivation to continue running, I mean writing.

Thanks to the detailed and insightful feedback of a much more experienced and knowledgeable blogger, I am going to make several changes to 52 Mondays, the majority of which will take awhile to implement because of my technical limitations.  Hopefully, I’ll launch a “new and improved” site by the end of the year.  One immediate change is not writing more, but in the interest of shortening my posts, posting mid-week on occasion.  

Transition 1.  A few weeks ago I told a friend of mine at work who oversees our First Year Program that I might create a new writing seminar based upon the positive psychology/happiness studies literature.  I think 18-19 year olds are at the perfect age to seriously explore what’s most important to them and how they want to live their adult lives.  My friend’s response was hilarious because I could tell he was trying to mask his gut reaction.  It was as if I had punched him in the gut.  This is what I read into his squeamish smile, “Are you kidding me?  I can’t believe you’re not just lending credence to that fluff, but you’re considering subjecting unsuspecting students to it too?”

His preconceived notions about positive psychology probably parallel many people’s thoughts when they hear the word “wellness.”  In contrast to a phrase like “social justice,” “wellness” conjures up images of people sitting in a circle, sharing their feeeeelings about all sorts of personal issues, and then sharing a group hug before going out to drink white wine together.

Social justice. . . Che Guevara, in your face street protests, dark beer, youthful, U2, cigarettes, piercings, tats, levis, birkenstocks.  Wellness. . . Oprah, group therapy, strawberry lemonade, middle-aged, Enya, vitamins, pleated Dockers, Topsiders.

So given that baggage, why the subtitle, “Wellness writ-large week-by-week?”  Because I don’t think about wellness as a watered-down version or weak alternative to social justice.  In my thinking, it should incorporate political well-being and be edgier and more substantive than people expect.

Transition 2.  Free Zimbabwe.

In the spring of 1990, while teaching in Ethiopia, L and I spent the week of spring break traveling throughout Zimbabwe.  We were amazed by how excellent the roads, hotels, and housing were, especially in the cities.  Quality of life in Kenya was much higher than in Ethiopia and the quality of life in Zimbabwe was much higher than in Kenya.  Among other highlights, it was awe-inspiring to hear the roar of Victoria Falls from a few miles away and then stand near its edge soaked by the mist.  As suggested, we rented bikes and road over to the Zambian side for an even better view of the falls.  We also visited an artists’ cooperative and bought a beautiful soapstone statue from the artist who made it.  Like in most sub-Saharan countries, there were pictures of Mugabe everywhere.  Even during this golden age of Zimbabwe’s development, some of our guides were critical of his leadership.  Also, one day on a Harare sidewalk, we saw a member of the security forces clubbing a person who had allegedly committed a petty crime.  Still, despite that disturbing scene and the criticisms of Mugabe, we had no clue of the tragedy that lied ahead.

Since then, Mugabe, age 84, has single-mindedly focused on maintaining his grip on power at the expense of everything else.  As a result, no citizens in any country on the planet have experienced a more precipitous drop in quality of life over the last ten years.  In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if the pace and extent of the cataclysm is unprecedented in world history.  In the last few weeks and months, Mugabe has ignored the results of an election he lost and vowed to ignore the results of the “runoff.”  His henchmen have killed at least 86 opposition politicians, illegally detained 2,000, injured and maimed 10,000, and internally displaced 200,000.  Mugabe can match credentials with any dictator on the planet, yet he flies under the radar because the U.S. and other western powers don’t think of Southern Africa as important and Zimbabwe doesn’t export oil.  To make it into George Bush’s “Axis of Evil” you have to be located in a strategically important place and/or have natural resources the West is dependent upon.

A “friend” of mine must have recently made a donation in my name to the Republican Party because I’ve been getting letters from the likes of Dino Rossi and John McCain.  Last Monday’s was “From the Desk of John McCain.” 

Hard to believe, but a reputable institution of higher education pays me to teach writing on occasion.  I last taught a writing seminar in the fall of 2007 and I’m not scheduled to teach another until the spring of 2009.  So, to stay fresh, I’ve decided to grade the letter “From the Desk of John McCain.” 

When I assess my students’ writing, I always start with three or more strengths.  Sometimes that’s easy, sometimes, not so much.  Next, I identify what I term “next steps” which helps create more positive momentum than the more conventional “weaknesses.”  I limit myself to three “next steps” so as not to overwhelm the student or presidential candidate.  Often, as in today’s example, that requires prioritizing.  Finally, I close with a summary sentence and the only thing some students and presidential candidates care about, the almighty letter grade.

Dear John,

I enjoyed reading your letter.  It’s obvious you spent a lot of time on it, which is admirable given the fact that you have been traveling a lot lately.  Among other strengths, the following four stood out.  First, you do an excellent job of masking your age.  For example, when you refer to your “vision for our country,” when you explain your need to “hit the ground running” given the “Democrats’ battle-tested fundraising machine—fueled largely by liberal special interest groups” and when you promise to “listen to the people of our nation,” the subtext is obvious, you can still see, run, and hear.  You subtle dog, all I can say is I’m down with that anti-aging literary trifecta.  Very nicely done.

Second, as I’ve emphasized in class, you do a great job of using details instead of vague generalities.  One of several examples is when you ask for “a generous contribution of $2,300, $1,000, $500, $100, $50, or $25 today.”  That’s much clearer and more engaging than your initial draft references to “heaps of money” and “bucketloads of cash sometime soon.”  

Third, you graciously acknowledge your readers intellectual limitations by zeroing in on three main ideas—keeping taxes low, cutting wasteful government spending, and ensuring our troops come home victorious and with honor—and then repeat each main idea three times.  Nice application of the KISS principle—Keep It Simple Senator. 

Finally, I was touched by the warm “Dear Friend” salutation (that’s the first line in the letter) and could hardly believe the “Monday Morning” date when I received it in my mailbox that same afternoon.  The fact that you hand delivered it shows extraordinary care and commitment.

At the same time, as always, there are a few next steps.  First, your postscript, “Please make a generous contribution of $2,300, $1,000, $500, $100, $50, or $25 to support my campaign to become your next president” is an exact restatement of the second to the last sentence that almost immediately precedes your postscript.  Postscripts should communicate an altogether new point, something you forgot until the very last minute.  For example, “Barack Obama’s middle name is Hussein.”

Second, and more importantly, try to pay closer attention to the internal consistency and logic of your arguments.  For example, on the top of page 2 you write, “I know the voters want more than petty partisan bickering.”  But then only four sentences later you write, “Whether it’s the rising costs of food and gas, the mortgage crisis, out-of-control government spending, the war in Iraq, or soaring health care costs, the Democrats’ proposed solutions to these problems have proven time and again that they are out-of-touch with the beliefs of most Americans.”  Since your letter is in effect a monologue it doesn’t necessarily come across as “petty” or “bickering”, but it’s clearly partisan.

Third, in terms of the substance of your ideas, I want to encourage you to highlight other issues—climate change, domestic and international poverty, the need for a national energy plan—that are of interest to many voters.  Also, when you say you want to “keep taxes low” you should follow through more and explain what governmental programs you intend on cutting and why. 

In short John, this letter shows genuine improvement.  If you continue to work hard, and show this type of progress, there’s a chance you may pass the course.  To borrow from the last African-American presidential hopeful, I’m going to “keep hope alive.”  Please come to office hours if you have any questions and remember you have one week from today to resubmit for a higher grade.

Ron

Final Grade:  C-

A month or two ago, in Norway, I was watching Larry King on CNN. It was a free-for-all debate among some know-it-alls about Barack Obama’s relationship with his pastor. One obnoxious woman concluded her convoluted rant with “. . . and that’s why the U.S. is the greatest country in the world.” Similarly, I wish I had a dollar for every right wing talk radio host that ends his/her program by declaring the U.S. is “. . . the greatest country on God’s green earth.”

That self-declaration is ludicrous on so many levels, why do we let CNN guests, radio hosts, and others get away with saying it? Of course the “greatest country on the earth” choir can belt out their chorus whenever they want, but whenever they do, instead of us passively/mindlessly accepting their parochial kneejerk claim, we should pepper them with the following questions: How many countries have you lived in? What did you do in those countries to understand how ordinary people live? How many languages do you speak? How many regions/cultures/countries histories are you intimately familiar with? What’s your methodology for ranking countries? Is arrogance factored in?

Absent those types of questions you and I have to take some responsibility for the “greatest country” idiocy.

Often it seems “greatest country on the earth” thinking is equal parts conservative politics, nationalism, and tortured biblical interpretation. I sometimes envision these folks flashing their US passports at the pearly gates like some self-important bozo cutting in the front of an airport security line, “‘Scuse me, American coming through, ‘scuse me, ‘scuse me!”

I’m not sure I’ll ever understand why so many conservative, literal interpretation-bible believing, “greatest country on the earth” proclaiming Christians refuse to evaluate our nation’s historical actions in the context of the attributes highlighted in the Sermon on the Mount. Go figure, instead they highlight our relative military might.

Don’t insult my intelligence by suggesting I have to either proclaim, “America is the greatest country on the earth” or succumb to anti-Americanism.

I propose a reframing of the question to, “Is America an admirable country?” Foreigners are best positioned to answer that and they will not be swayed by style over substance. Our best hope is to boldly challenge the arrogance of the “greatest country on the earth” contingent while redoubling our efforts to realize our extremely inspiring, yet still unfulfilled ideals spelled out in the preamble to the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights.