Obituary update

As a dabbler in obituaries, I was intrigued by today's offering in the SF Chronicle about Dr. Lawrence Mathers, an anatomy professor at Stanford.

"As an anatomy teacher, Dr. Mathers would honor the cadavers in the dissection lab with a moment of silence to pay tribute to those who had donated their body to science." And good on him.

I did have a passing thought, wondering if Dr. Mathers donated his body for dissection. I suspect not for the practical reason that too many students would know him. It would be disconcerting to do a dissection on a former professor. But I think it would be disconcerting to do a dissection on almost anybody. One would have questions: who was this person? What did he do? Who are her children?

Also ironically, given Dr. Mathers' profession, "No cause of death has been determined."

Let us pause for a moment of silence for Lawrence Mathers, "a teaching legend at the Stanford University School of Medicine who taught anatomy to nearly 30,000 students over more than three decades."

Pause

Another question arises: did that mean 30,000 cadavers as well?

Happy International Women's Day

I just learned that today is International Women's Day and I'm trying to think of an appropriate way to celebrate.

For one, I signed a petition to support the GROWTH act, which stands for the Global Resources and Opportunities for Women to Thrive act (a bit of a stretch, there, acronymically).

http://www.democracyinaction.org/dia/organizationsORG/edge/petition.jsp?petition_KEY=321

To be honest, I have problems with legislation designed to make Other Countries Do Something About It, but I'm all for women having property rights.

But what to do that's close to home? I will look around and see what sounds promising.

"The Higher Power of Lucky"

I just finished reading the 2006 Newberry Award book The Higher Power of Lucky after hearing of the kerfuffle it caused amongst teachers and school librarians everywhere for its use of the word "scrotum." Since it was a dog's scrotum, I'm not sure it was as scandalous as folks made it out to be, but when our hero, Lucky, asks her guardian at the end of the book what a scrotum is, you can hear in the character's answer the threat that this question implies.

After answering, Brigitte, the guardian, asks Lucky why she wants to know.

"'It was just something I heard someone say,' said Lucky.

"For some reason, Brigitte said, 'You know if anyone ever hurt you I would rip their heart out.'"

And for this reader at least, the reason Brigitte said that is clear. Is she asking because a man's scrotum has appeared in Lucky's life? And throughout the book Lucky seems on the cusp of discovering something about her sexuality. It's lurking just behind the text, but is never stated outright. I suspect that also had something to do with the disapproval this book received.

That and the emphasis on evolution. This whole book works on the assumption that evolution is a scientific fact. There's much mention of adaptation as well as evolving. A schoolteacher (imagine!) teaches about how polar bears adapted to their environment. And there's more mention of Charles Darwin in this book than in any other I've seen, much less a children's book. Lucky's dog is HMS Beagle and Charles Darwin is her favorite scientist. I didn't hear any mention of this in the press, but I wonder how much this affected the attitudes of some teachers and parents.

Personally, I liked the book. I liked the tone and the language. But can I just say, no more orphans! Lemony Snicket can do it because he is being ironic, but why the endless appeal of the parentless child in children's literature? I have grown tired of the convention, but then, I'm not a child any more.

The TeaBag's first cup

Because what I need is something else to distract me, I have started a blog, right around teatime on a Monday afternoon. Why? Because I'm just as opinionated as anybody and because I want to see what happens. I want to see what's rattling around in my own head and see what readers (if any) come this way and what they think as well.

Why "The TeaBag"? Because it takes me a little while to steep and get the flavor out of a thing. I don't respond instantly to input. Don't expect to see flash responses to most major news of the day. I'm a savoring kind of a person who likes to settle down and sip at something. I'm not trendy or fashionable or even fancy. No extra double shots with foam. Just a cup of tea. Though I do like to add a little sweetener.

And if this all sounds unbearably fey, I apologize. I hope it won't be. Although I like a good cup of herbal at the end of the day to calm me down, first thing in the morning I take my tea black with a full dose of boiling water. We'll see what happens. Thanks for sitting down with me for a bit.