SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Ichy Smith who wrote (181793)10/6/2006 1:02:53 PM
From: carranza2  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 794298
 
For fun...

Fat, middle-aged male Neocon professor of American Studies at BYU hides his tutu and ballet slippers but can't restrain himself from occassionally performing in front of his amazed students..

Enjoy. The world is big.

chronicle.com

By KERRY SOPER

I will never forget the first time that I performed ballet in front of an introductory American-history class.

I was executing an especially energetic pas de cheval or "step of the horse" (not an easy task for a middle-aged man of my girth who fancies corduroy pants and flat-knit sweaters), which nicely illustrated some of the more draconian measures of the Marshall Plan that had been advocated by old-line, classical economists. The reverential calm of the large classroom (180 freshmen!) suggested that my point was being well taken. But then I heard it — a faint snigger from the back of the classroom.

The derision was obviously limited to that one ignorant student, but it was still too much for my fragile dancer's ego. My proud bearing — which had resembled, just moments before, the nobility of an exceptionally virile Lipizzaner stallion — collapsed, and I ran from the room loudly sobbing into my trembling hands.

It took me weeks of anguished soul-searching before I got up the courage to "promenade" my skills in front of a large group of students again. But as other talented professors can attest — those of you who can both "teach" and "do" — the performer's passion, once ignited, cannot easily be extinguished. Whether those few callow rubes in my survey classes liked it or not, I was destined to gracefully leap across the great gulf that sadly divides theory and practice in our métier.

I must admit, modestly, that I am a self-taught ballet dancer. Although I have spent countless hours (and worn out several pairs of sweatpants) perfecting my craft in front of a mirror in my basement, I would hesitate to compare myself with masters such as Nureyev and Baryshnikov. I am still, and always will be, an eager student of this demanding art.

I had been attracted to "the natural nobleman's dance," as I like to call it, from a young age. Sadly, however, a fragile constitution, sedentary habits, and a bookish personality prevented me for a long time from lifting my metaphorical toe to the barre. But then in my graduate-school days — that crazy, tumultuous period in the early 1980s when campuses were abuzz with the electricity of Reaganomics — I rediscovered my first love. My fellow graduate students and I felt so strongly about politics that we weren't content to just sit around and merely talk about what was happening in the country; we had to dance!

Some of my confused classmates — those whose politics pranced to the left, as it were — found themselves attracted to what was then in vogue on most liberal college campuses: a sort of ersatz miming or interpretive dance that had been corrupted by the free-form chaos of post-Marcel Marceauvian deconstruction. (It was an abomination: mimes pretending to defy gravity, tearing holes through figurative walls without even breaking a sweat, or collapsing in the middle of a performance into ironic "metagiggles.")

But my fellow neocons and I would have none of that. We were enchanted by the unapologetically proud and earnest grands battements (big kicks) of old-school ballet. Here, indeed, was a physical form of expression that could do justice to the ideological elegance of the Ol' Gipper and "trickle down" economics.

As a young assistant professor who had to hide his "tutu and slippers," as it were, from hostile colleagues, I chafed against the restraints of the traditional lecture classroom. Day after day I had to pontificate dryly as the students passively scritch-scratched into their notebooks — when all the while there was a whole realm of gloriously active learning waiting in the wings.

I often wonder how many of my early admirers in those classrooms noticed that I would occasionally, almost unconsciously, execute an understated détourné (a smooth turn made by pivoting on elevated toes) while moving toward the chalkboard to emphasize an important point. And did they appreciate that impish petit jeté (little jump) I could not seem to contain whenever I felt compelled to add a visual exclamation point to an argument? Who knows, but the suppressed smiles of admiration I occasionally glimpsed on some faces suggest that those rhetorical flourishes did not go entirely unnoticed.

Now that I have achieved tenure (by the skin of my lightly calloused toes, I might add), and learned to silence the sniggers — at least in my own hyper-focused, dancer's mind — I can share my talents in the classroom with abandon. At last students now benefit from witnessing some of the following visual clarifications in my large survey courses: the glaring flaws of Roosevelt's New Deal policies dissected with the help of a series of deftly executed entrechats (a startling jump in which the dancer's legs scissor back and forth with lightning-speed precision); a re-creation of the tension surrounding the Bay of Pigs crisis by remaining en pointe (elevated on the tips of my toes) for as long as possible (20 seconds on a good day!); the sad fall from grace of President Richard Nixon given metaphorical expression through a dramatic, lingering penché (a slow, graceful tilting of the body toward the horizontal).

I have to admit that I occasionally let my newfound spontaneity as a dancing lecturer get the best of me. For example, in class last week I dare say that I gave a young female undergraduate the thrill of her life when I pulled her from the front row and initiated an impromptu pas de deux. I wanted to illustrate the delicate peace negotiations between Anwar el-Sadat and Menachem Begin at Camp David in 1978. Her coy resistance to my effort to lead her through a series of sweeping tournés was actually the perfect embodiment of Sadat's early suspicions of the Israeli leader's diplomatic intentions.

I recently unveiled my pièce de résistance during a capstone lecture on contemporary American history (to be specific, a discourse on the budding legacy of the Bush administration). To the strains of Stravinsky's joyfully martial Rite of Spring, I performed an athletic, 15-minute-long, tightly choreographed celebration of the war on terrorism. For the first time I took advantage of all the space in the auditorium-size classroom and ended with a beautiful grand jeté (a long, horizontal leap, legs outstretched) over the heads of several awestruck students whom I had strategically placed on the floor in front of the lectern. I found this performance to be so emotionally and physically exhausting that I was forced to end the class 30 minutes early, right there on that high note.

I know that there will always be colleagues (and perhaps some of you readers) who look askance at my use of ballet in the classroom. But can any of us deny who we are, or where our strengths lie as instructors? By relating my successes in making American history come alive through the talents with which I have been blessed, I just hope that some of you will be empowered to bring your own hidden abilities (accordion? clogging?) into the classroom and the lives of our young charges.

And now I bid you adieu, make a slight curtsy, andwith one final, magnificent jetéexit stage right.

Kerry Soper is director and associate professor of American studies at Brigham Young University.



To: Ichy Smith who wrote (181793)10/6/2006 3:56:35 PM
From: KLP  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 794298
 
John Hinderaker: --- Did Democrats Cover Up Foley Misdeeds?

October 06, 2006

powerlineblog.com

Various Democrats are accusing Republicans of covering up Congressman Mark Foley's boy problem, a charge for which there is no evidence. One wonders, though, whether that is exactly what the Democratic Party did.

How did the email and instant messages that triggered the scandal come to light? It has been reported that at least one set of IMs became public after they were sent to "political operatives favorable to Democrats." But when did that happen? The messages themselves are three years old. When did the Democrats find out about them? Did they sit on them for a while, so they could use them as an "October surprise" for maximum political benefit?

I don't know the answers to these questions, but they are important and need to be answered. If the Democrats have known for some time about Foley's transgressions but failed to act until now, they endangered more boys--and why? Solely to advance their partisan political interests.

Yesterday, eleven Republican Congressmen sent letters to Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean and Rahnm Emanuel, asking them to cooperate with the House Ethics Committee's investigation by appearing before the Committee and giving testimony under oath. The letters say, in part:

We fully agree that anyone with knowledge of Foley's activities, who then attempted to conceal such activities, should be held accountable. Today, the bipartisan Ethics Committee announced that they will be conducting a complete investigation of the facts surrounding the case.
We support this decision and also believe that the seriousness of this goes beyond partisan politics and hope that you will join us in demonstrating full cooperation from your Members and and political operatives as this investigation continues to unfold.

Just as it must be determined whether any Republican Members or political operatives were aware of and attempted to conceal Mr. Foley's activities, it must also be determined whether any Democrat Members or political operatives were aware of, and attempted to conceal these same activities.

Therefore, we respectfully ask that you appear, under oath, before the House Ethics Committee.

I found the reference to Democratic "political operatives" interesting. One would hope that the Ethics Committee will subpoena the reporters who broke the Foley story to find out where they got their information, and when. The question to be answered is, What did the Democrats know, and when did they know it?

Is it possible that the Democrats deliberately delayed disclosure of Foley's transgressions, thereby endangering the security of current Congressional pages and other teenage boys, solely to advance their own political interests? One would certainly hope not. But it is obviously a question that needs to be investigated and answered.

Posted by John at 11:47 AM