My husband chastised me the other day because my blog’s been idle for a while. I admit, I’ve been lax, but I do have some really good excuses if you’re interested! First, I’ve been in summer school hell. Like an idiot, I accepted a double assignment which means I’m teaching two classes covering 15 weeks’ material in 6 weeks. I’m a lesson planning-student-email-responding-paper-grading automaton! Second, the novel that has been gestating in my brain for the past 8 years has decided it’s time to be born. So in between my manic teaching work, I’ve been spending most of my writing time writing that. And finally, well, most of my blog stuff’s been focused on current events, and the oil spill in the Gulf has been dominating that spectrum for a while. The whole fiasco simply paralyzes me with disappointment and anxiety. I am so angry with BP, disappointed in our government’s response, devastated about the environmental impact, and grief-stricken for the people of that region, I don’t want to write more than these few lines about it. Soooooooo…

My guilt-ridden conscience thus temporarily cleared, I can move on to something kinda fun.

As an English teacher with a couple of degrees in literature, I am often asked for summer reading recommendations. Now if you were talking to me in person, I’d ask you several questions about your personal tastes before I would presume to recommend anything because the possibilities are really endless. Plus, I have some rather particular tastes in reading materials, especially the stuff I read in my free time.

Since you’re just reading this blog, though, I’ll list my personal favorites. Please bear in mind that I read some rather heavy stuff for my professional work, so in the summer, I tend to read fun, low-impact books. I love Dante, Shakespeare and Henry James, but I’m not going to recommend them for light reading on the beach. Please don’t hold the fluff in this list against me!

In no particular order:

Wishful Drinking by Carrie Fisher: A memoir of Princess Leia’s life, growing up in a celebrity family. Painfully funny, it is particularly fascinating if you are remotely interested in Hollywood history. The only thing I didn’t like about it was that it wasn’t three times as long.

Fool by Christopher Moore: A retelling of Shakespeare’s King Lear from the fool’s perspective. I’ve been a Christopher Moore fan for years, but I was leery of his taking on my beloved bard, especially Lear, which is my favorite Shakespearean tragedy. Moore is irreverent, hilarious and dirty, so I had my doubts. I needn’t have worried; it is hilarious, and his love for this magnificent play is obvious just behind all the four-letter words and naughty bits.

Angels and Demons/ Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown: Imaginative novels about Catholic conspiracies. If you’re one of the few Americans left who haven’t read these, pick ‘em up at your local library or used book store. They’re fun, fast-paced, and intriguing, especially Angels and Demons, which moves at a near-breakneck pace that keeps your nose in the book right until the rather farfetched end. I can’t recommend the third one because I haven’t read it yet. I refuse to shell out $30 for a hardback, so I’ll wait until it’s available at the library.

Stephanie Plum novels by Janet Evanovich: Series of mysteries about an unlikely bounty hunter in New Jersey. These are pure fluff, but I was hooked when my sister lent me the 9^th book in the series, and I read the line: “Punky Balog had an ass like Winnie the Pooh…big and fat and furry.” That was the first page, and it just got funnier from there. They’re all filled with wild characters and improbable fumbles – the kind of stories I have to stop and read pieces aloud to my husband now and then.

Sex with Kings/Sex with the Queen by Eleanor Herman: A whirlwind tour of European history via royal bedrooms. I’m a sucker for European history, so I love Herman’s books. They’re not your high school history textbooks, for sure. All the juicy particulars of romance, passion, sex, and political intrigue are woven into real history to make it come alive in lurid detail - everything from tsarist Russia to Prince Charles and Princess Di.

Murder of Roger Ackroyd by Agatha Christie: Murder mystery with a twist before twists were cool. My mom has read every Christie novel. I’ve read about a dozen or so, and the Hercule Poirot stories are my favorites. This one is a classic. Think M. Night Shyamalan before his father was even a twinkle in his grandfather’s eye.

Frankenstein by Mary Shelley: The monster classic. I taught this to freshmen a few years back, and I was worried. The course was designed for non-majors, and I feared the 18^th-century language and sensibilities might turn them off. I warned them to forget about watching any of the film adaptations and faking their way through discussions; this is nothing like what you think you know about Frankenstein. They loved it. It’s actually an easy read despite its age, and it is still fascinating and disturbing and thought-provoking.

Dracula by Bram Stoker: The other monster classic. Again, forget what you think you know. Even more so than Frankenstein, Dracula has been done some terrible disservice by Hollywood. Stoker’s novel is far richer in characters, plot and paranoia than any of the film adaptations. This novel is what I started to write my Master’s thesis on, so it’s a personal favorite. I’ve read it about 20 times. A couple scenes still give me chills!

Around the World in 80 Days by Jules Verne: An adventure tale about an OCD British gentleman who makes an outrageous wager. If you ever watched “Frasier” with Kelsey Grammer and David Hyde-Pierce, you’ll recognize Phileas Fogg’s type – fastidious, exacting, particular, and over-educated. But you can’t help but fall in love with him as he battles his way around the 19^th-century globe. I read this to my 8-year-old son, and we had a blast following Fogg’s travels.

Carter Beats the Devil by Glen David Gold : Historical fiction about a magician in 1920’s San Francisco. I love historical fiction done well. This novel is full of surprises and keeps you guessing until the end. Supposedly, it was just picked up by Warner Brothers for a film adaptation. That’s been a rumor for a while, though, so don’t wait for the movie.

The Alienist by Caleb Carr: Historical fiction about a profiler in turn-of-the-century New York City. Sherlock Holmes does Jack the Ripper in the United States. Sort of. This book is dark and twisty with cameos by great historical figures like Teddy Roosevelt.

Alice In Wonderland/Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Carroll: Classic children’s fantasies. Most people (including myself, obviously) label these as children’s books, but they are so deep and full of tricks and word plays children would never catch, I think it’s a shame to dismiss them or relegate them to a genre where adults who never read them as kids will feel foolish picking them up. They are amazing, and I find myself quoting them all the time: “If you do such a thing again, I’ll have you buttered!”

So there you go. I wish I hadn’t read any of these so I could read them all this summer for the first time. They are such fun to discover. If you’re fortunate enough not to have read some of them, I envy you.

Meanwhile, I shall trudge off into the unknown bookshelves, mining for gems. Happy reading!

As an English teacher and writing tutor, I spend a lot of time thinking about words. Lately, it seems like many other Americans are thinking about them too. From Rahm Emanuel, Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh to John Mayer to Shaun White, people are taking flak for the words they are using.

First, we had the spat between Rahm Emanuel and Sarah Palin over Emanuel’s use of the word “retard.” Then Rush Limbaugh jumped into the fray, repeating the word half a dozen times and accusing Palin of trying to be “politically correct.” Now you can go about 50 different ways with this argument.  You can go the Mom direction: if you can’t say something nice, don’t say anything at all. You can go the political route: liberals are all about political correctness, so Emanuel’s use of such a word is particularly egregious. You can even go the etymological route: “retard” is derived from the Latin “tardare” which means “to slow,” so there is nothing intrinsically wrong with the word itself. I’ll let other people take on those debates.

What really interests me in the classroom, at the tutoring table, and in the news lately is the issue of audience. I was talking with some students the other day, and we decided that the world is made up of two kinds of people – those who are only concerned with getting their point across for their own sake and those who want to communicate in a way that affects their audience appropriately. In all the recent language scandals, what has made the difference to me is the audience.

Take Rahm Emanuel first. He actually used the word “retard” months ago in a private meeting with staffers (telegraph.co.uk, 2/4/10). His intended audience was a small one, a group of people with whom he works on a regular basis. Did he offend some of them? Maybe. He probably didn’t surprise any of them, though, since he’s known for his brash, Machiavellian, potty-mouthed style. But he never intended everyone in America to hear his remark. It only came to light in recent weeks because of a tell-all book and Palin’s attempt to jump into the spotlight again by calling for his resignation. I’m not excusing Emanuel. It’s not a word I use, and I don’t like to hear other people use it. I’m not sure I can give Emanuel a pass. It’s pretty insensitive language to use with any audience, but he’s certainly not as guilty as Limbaugh.

Limbaugh used the word multiple times on his radio show which reaches millions of Americans. He not only repeated it, he defended its use. He was talking about the word, its meaning and his right to use it. To me, that kind of conscious discussion in front of a huge audience of whom you are proudly aware is far more egregious than an incidental usage in a private meeting. Limbaugh fail. As usual.

Evidently, Sarah Palin does not agree with me. Shocker. For her, it’s all about the speaker. Emanuel is a Democrat, so his use of the word is wrong. Limbaugh gets a pass because he’s a conservative. Just more evidence of Palin’s deep thinking.

But word snags are not hitting just the political world. The music world got a dose of the drama when John Mayer’s Playboy interview went public (Associated Press, 2/11/10). His use of the n-word and rude comments about his ex-girlfriends offended millions. Does he get a “pass” because he’s an artiste? Full of angst and creativity? No. At least not as far as I’m concerned. The guy was doing an interview with Playboy. It has millions of readers and subscribers all around the world. What an idiot. Did Mayer really think no one would notice his racism or misogyny? Fail.

I woke up this morning to another word snag, this time at the Olympics. It seems the sports world can’t get enough of this language craziness. Today it’s about Shaun White’s coach, Bud Keene. Evidently White and Keene were at the top of the snowboard run. They knew White had the gold medal wrapped up. They were excited and happy, and they were talking. To each other. Unfortunately, NBC had one of its huge boom mikes close enough to pick up a couple of F-bombs (Chris Chase, Yahoo! Sports Blog, 2/18/10). So the NBC announcers immediately had to apologize “for Bud Keene.” Wrong. Bud Keene was talking to his athlete, a guy he’s known for years. They have trained for this moment for ages, and they were thrilled with the outcome. Two adult professionals should be able to say anything they want to each other. The fact that NBC felt the need to eavesdrop that closely in that situation is not Keene’s fault. Would I have been angry if I’d been watching with my kids? Sure, but not at Keene. His intended audience was Shaun White. He gets the pass.

Language is a tricky thing, and these days it’s getting harder to keep track of your audience. Cell phones can record anywhere at any time. Sometimes we post things on Twitter or Facebook, forgetting that certain of our friends may be offended. As technology becomes more and more invasive, those of us who actually try to consider our audience when we communicate are going to find it ever more difficult. For the other folks who don’t care who’s listening as long as they get to say what’s rattling around in their head at the moment, I guess they’ll just go on offending everyone in their wake. Soldier on, Limbaugh and Mayer!

I’ve been in the hospital all weekend with my daughter who is very sick with pneumonia. There’s not much to do here. We got hit with a snowstorm on Friday, and today is Super Bowl Sunday. Most of my friends and family are either hunkering down trying to stay warm or prepping for Colts’ parties. So in between my daughter’s breathing treatments and meals, I’ve been reading and surfing the net.

This morning I noticed that the Yahoo! News page had three Associated Press stories in a row on Sarah Palin: “Palin assails Obama at ‘tea party’ gathering,” “Palin says ‘absurd’ not to ponder presidential bid,” and “Palin: Obama could win votes by playing ‘war card’.” I read all three, but it was the last one that just blew my mind.

The article is only four sentences. The first: “Sarah Palin says that if President Barack Obama ‘played the war card,’ he could improve his chances of being re-elected.” So sending troops to risk their lives is akin to a card game? Or even worse, the president should use troops to improve his political chances of re-election? I know many soldiers in our armed forces who have already served multiple tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. I know they were proud to serve their nation and felt they were doing good things for the people in those countries, but I also know they would not appreciate being “played” as pawns in some political game. Such an assertion is disgusting.

The second sentence: “Palin says that declaring war on Iran or showing stronger support for Israel might convince voters that Obama is tougher than they think on national security and doing all he can to protect the U.S..” Obviously, Mrs. Palin subscribes to the George Bush school of foreign policy: do whatever you have to do to other countries, regardless of the impact on their citizens, as long as it gets you votes back home. Again, a disgusting notion. Mrs. Palin claims to be a Christian, but evidently she has forgotten the Golden Rule of doing unto others as you would have them do unto you. Should Vladimir Putin invade the U.S. or show more support for China to improve his chances of re-election? Somehow, I don’t think I or my fellow Americans would appreciate that much.

The third sentence: “Otherwise, according to Palin, Obama won’t be re-elected if he continues on his current path.” Palin seems to have forgotten that one of the main reasons Obama was elected was because Americans were worn out with the Iraq War. Not only that, but she assumes that all voters are hawks who would welcome another politically motivated conflict. I thought voters made it pretty clear to the G.O.P. in ’08 that we did not think much of that behavior. Maybe Palin believes in SSDEC – Same S#!^ Different Election Cycle.

The final sentence of the article: “Palin was interviewed on ‘Fox News Sunday’ — the network where the former GOP vice presidential nominee is a paid commentator.” This final line was really the icing on the cake. So let me get this straight. Palin is a Republican poster girl; she is being interviewed on Fox News, which, despite their protestations, is just a mouthpiece of the Republican party. She is also now employed by this “news” outlet which “interviewed” her about her speech at the tea party convention. Does anyone else see the irony, not to mention the conflict of interest, in this?

It just so happens that this article was the last one of the three listed and the last one I read. But I couldn’t help synthesizing the points Palin made in this article with a line in the “Palin assails Obama at ‘tea party’ gathering” article: “Aside from broad conservative principles like lower taxes and a strong national defense, the speech was short on Palin’s own policy ideas that typically indicate someone is seriously laying the groundwork to run for the White House.” Evidently, she did her usual sweeping-generalization-folksy-jokesy-talking-point speech style during her tea party speech. (That would play well with that audience, which she ironically described as “fresh” and “young” although the average age of the attendees was about 95.) Her “interview” on Fox News Sunday filled in some of the blanks in her policy ideas, though: use the troops for your own political gain, invade whenever it will promote your career, assume that all Americans love war, and use any outlet necessary to forward your ideas, even when it’s unethical. So those are some of the things we can expect from Candidate Palin in a couple years?

Sarah Palin ’12? Excellent.

All my liberal friends are mourning today. All my conservative friends are gloating.

Last night, Republican Scott Brown won the Massachusetts special election for the Senate seat vacated by the late Ted Kennedy. Pundits on both sides are having a field day. It’s the “Democrats’ Nightmare.” It’s the return of “The Reagan Revolution.” To be honest, I’m just not that fussed about it.

The Democrats put up a candidate with the personality of a warm rattlesnake, then let her run a half-hearted campaign. At the last minute, when they realized she’d blown it, they tried to throw the president at it. Didn’t work. Now they’re all freaking out, and the Republicans can hardly contain their glee.

The G.O.P. wrested the old Kennedy seat from the Dems, and now they can stop President Obama’s socialist agenda. Well, sort of.

First, the Democrats really gave this one away. They couldn’t imagine that seat in that state going to a Republican. Much less could they imagine going to THAT guy. He has a truck. Did you know that? I don’t even live in Massachusetts, but I know he has a truck. (I have a truck, but I still want healthcare reform.) He also posed naked in Cosmopolitan a while back. Classy. You know, Burt Reynolds posed naked in Cosmo too. Maybe he should run for the Senate. And Mr. Brown is not above using his political platform to marry off his daughters. In case you missed his acceptance speech, they are both “available!” Gentlemen, step up for your chance to play Levi Johnston to Brown’s Sarah Palin!

Second, the G.O.P. is still the minority in both House and Senate, and a Democrat sits in the White House for another 3 years. (Which is also, by the way, how long Brown has in that seat, but more on that in a minute.) So if the Democrats could get their act together, they could still pass some good legislation. The Republicans managed for years without a filibuster-proof majority. Of course, the Dems aren’t ideological and dogmatic, so they don’t move very fast. They actually think about the consequences of their actions. So maybe they will never get anything done. Meh.

Okay, so Brown won the remainder of Kennedy’s term. He will be up for re-election in 2012, and I believe that he will lose. See, I’m pretty sure the independents didn’t even show up for this election. They usually don’t for non-presidential years. And Coakley was rude and out of touch; liberals couldn’t get excited enough to get outta bed for that. But EVERY conservative in the state was ready to pounce on this, even if their candidate was a Cosmo pin-up! In 2012, when all of Massachusetts votes, Mr. Brown and his big…truck will be driving into the sunset.

I wonder if anyone in the Republican party is at all concerned about their recent champions. A full-frontal pinup, two beauty queens, and a loudmouthed drug addict. Brown, Palin, Prejean and Limbaugh - now there’s a team I could get excited about. If they were on a reality TV show. Or maybe a remake of “Boogie Nights.” Brown can take Burt Reynolds’ part. And then Reynolds can take Brown’s Senate seat.

Alright, all you folks out there screaming “NO! NO! NO!” to the Obama administration’s healthcare plan, you’re entitled to your opinion. You don’t like his plan? Fine. Let’s hear yours.

Seriously. I’m listening.

Leave it as it is? That’s working for you, is it? How nice for you! Evidently, you’re just super-lucky and have never been very sick. Congratulations. Or maybe you and your family have amazing health insurance from some little company I’ve never heard of because I’ve worked for or had insurance with the four largest health insurance companies in the country, and let me tell ya, they didn’t work for me. I get to pay a lot of money for health insurance, and then when we get sick, they pay a little bit of the bill.

So those people who are very sick, those people who don’t have health insurance or those people who have crummy health insurance just have to suffer? Very nice. How Christian. How family-values. How Republican.

I’ll be very honest with you - Obama’s plan is not my ideal. It worries me, as does all change. Change is scary, but in this case, SOMETHING has to change. The status quo is not working, and when I hear people say, “Leave it alone. It’s fine,” I think, “Don’t be such a chicken. Let’s make a change. If it doesn’t work, we’ll change it again, but you’re a fool if you think America can’t improve.”

People say, “It’s going to cost too much.” Do you know how much the uninsured already cost us? Homeless people who walk into ER’s every other day? Uninsured people or underinsured people who never make payments?  Or consider the case of a friend of mine. As a hemophiliac, he contracted HIV/AIDS from a blood transfusion when that great Republican hero, Ronald Reagan, refused to act to protect the blood supply from the “gay disease.” (In his wisdom, Reagan chose the stick-my-fingers-in-my-ears-and-hum-loudly approach instead.) My friend was a teenager. His mother, like most mothers I know, could not bear to watch her son die, but his meds were astronomically expensive. Even if she’d been wealthy, she would’ve run out of money on them. So to keep her son alive, she took minimum-wage jobs and lived in poverty on purpose so she could qualify for Medicare. All you folks who think her son should’ve just been allowed to die, would you have done any differently? (Say “yes” and you’ll either be lying or admitting to being the worst parent ever, but feel free.) So we taxpayers paid for most of my friend’s medical bills, and you know what? As a Christian, not to mention his friend, that is okay with me.

Anyway, do you know how many BILLIONS of dollars the health insurance companies make every year? Why do we have to give these paper-pushing middlemen that money? Why couldn’t we just eliminate them and give the money directly to doctors, nurses, lab technicians, researchers and other people who actually DO something? The CEO of United Health Group made $1.6 billion dollars in 2006. That’s one CEO at one insurance company, and that’s disgusting.

The other big point the opposition brings up is somehow the Canadians’ fault. Evidently, Canadians have to wait in long lines for doctors and beg for treatment from their legislators. Of course, I have friends from Canada who have told me that is not true, but what do they know? So all the Republicans point to Canada and say, “Look how awful they have it up there!” Guess what? Canada’s not the only country in the world with universal healthcare. There are other models, better models. Sweden has government-funded health care, and it appears to be working very well. (Have you ever seen a Swedish person? They’re beautiful AND healthy!) Their system is universal, but very decentralized compared to Canada’s. Surely, if the Swedes can put together a universal healthcare system that works, we bright and industrious Americans can too!

The current American system is essentially Social Darwinism. I find it ironic that so many conservatives support it. They hate Darwin’s evolutionary theory; they hate it in school, but in healthcare, they’re all about “survival of the fittest.” If you don’t have the money, die. If you don’t have insurance, watch your kids die. Republicans will, however, fight to let you buy a semi-automatic to off yourself with if you don’t want to suffer a prolonged death. If you don’t have insurance and get pregnant, though, they still want you to have the baby. Good luck with that.

So we’re back where we started. Our healthcare system doesn’t work. It may have worked fifty years ago when people worked for one company all their lives, insurance was simpler, and medicine was more primitive. Nowadays, people change jobs all the time, insurance companies have come up with ingenious ways to make billions of dollars without really covering anything, and we have miraculous cures most patients can’t afford. President Obama wants to do SOMETHING.

You don’t like his plan? Fine. What’s YOUR idea?

Please. We’re all listening.