Halfway!

I just finished my Latin essay. That was pulling teeth. I got it in just under deadline, and just over minimum length. Probably not my best paper, but not my worst, either.

Anyway, I want to give a plug to one of the professors at Willamette: John Doan. I was at his Christmas concert last night, and I was blown away. I knew he could play the harp guitar, but not the tremeloa (a really bizarre Hawaiian instrument)! Anyway, I would really suggest his Christmas album, which is on iTunes.

This post has nothing to do with the fact that I'm taking guitar from him next semester.

I Hate...

Insomnia. Combine insomnia with an essay in Latin, and it becomes loathing. I've had a major case of writers block with my term paper in Latin, and finally came up with a topic: the dichotomy portrayed in Catiline. If it sounds boring, that's because it is. It might even get me to sleep.

Ancient Rome, Final Exams, and the Death Penalty

I just finished my first final exam—Latin Prose—and now I only have to write two term papers and study for a chemistry exam. Anyway, for my exam we had to translate a good chunk of Sallust's Bellum Catilinae (The Catilinarian Conspiracy) and write a "linguistic and historical analysis" of another chunk. Not entirely painless, but not pulling teeth, either.

What brings me to write about this is a speech by Julius Caesar that Sallust quotes. After Catiline, a traitor against Rome, has been discovered, there is a debate in the Senate over whether to execute him (which was illegal, since he was a Roman citizen). After a rather obscure senator named Decimus Silanus (I'm still waiting for Biggus Dickus) makes a speech urging for the death penalty, Julius Caesar—the future emperor of Rome and one of the best prosecutors of the day—makes a speech against the death penalty.

So Caesar was more civilized—2000 years ago—than we are today.

I think anti-death penalty advocates could learn a thing or two from Caesar. He doesn't dispute that Catiline and his co-conspirators are a threat, or that they deserve death. Instead he says, essentially, "yes, we have the power to revoke the Porcian Law (which protected Roman citizens from execution) but we shouldn't because it is not worthy of us and will set a dangerous precedent." I think that we need to refocus the debate on these two arguments. We are honestly getting nowhere with the arguments that capital punishment is unconstitutional (and will get nowhere for some time), or that it doesn't prevent murder, or that we're executing innocent people. We need to say that we are a compassionate people, and a nation of just laws. We are not a people that indulges in mob violence, and we are not a nation of retribution. We must say that the death penalty is perfectly legal, but that we ought to rise above petty retribution.

Single Sex Education Turns Ugly

There's an article on Slate highlighting some of the problems of single-sex education. Although I think some kids might benefit from the lack of distraction (certain boy-obsessed teenage girls I once knew come to mind), proponents are now pointing to the innate differences in male and female brains and saying that we need to tailor education to each sex.

I'm not an extreme gender feminist, and I do think that there are differences in average male and female brains, but it's dangerous to go from average to individual. These educators are saying that, since the average boy is more mathematical than verbal, and the average girl is more verbal than mathematical, we should play to their instincts. One problem. I'm a guy, and I'm a hell of a lot better with words than with numbers.

They want girls to read Are You There God? It's Me, Margaret, Beloved, etc. and role play; while they have boys read Hemmingway and Lord of the Flies and make maps. This is a horrible idea for young women who are spatial or young men who are predominantly verbal (like me).

And what about the fact that, if girls are so different from boys, they will have different insights and teach each other?