The Acceptable Meal Planner

For breakfast each day I eat one container of low-fat yogurt, one whole grain bagel with peanut butter, and a container of coffee, iced or warm, depending on the weather. This is basically an "it's good for ya" breakfast. I'm not big on yogurt; it's only O.K., but it's "good for ya." Whole grain bagels are "good for ya" but taste a lot like roof shingles no matter what is spread on them. Coffee's not particularly "good for ya," but I love it. So, flavor and food value considered, this is an acceptable breakfast for me.

Now that I am back to blogging, I decided it would be an interesting blog topic to figure a formula of sorts with which to judge an "acceptable" meal. My two criteria for an acceptable meal are decency of taste and decency of nutritional/health value. I feel that a scale of 1 to 10 is acceptably accurate with 10 being the best in either taste or nutrition. So if I give yogurt a 5 on flavor and a 8 on nutrition, by multiplying those numbers, I rate a cup of ACTIVIA or whatever brand I might choose, with a 40. A peanut-buttered whole grain bagel receives a 4 and 8, creating a 32 rating. The coffee receives a 9 on flavor and a 2 for food value, creating an 18 rating. I must state that these rating are totally subjective and must be decided upon by the person rating his or her meal. So an acceptable meal of three items for me can be rated at 40+32+18 which equals 90.

I decided to test my lunch today with this formula. Often I have "Cheerios" for lunch, but today was special. I had an amazing meal. I had one slice cold pizza, one 8 oz. glass of skim milk, and one beautiful peach. Working backward, I judge the peach at 9 and 8 totaling 72, the milk gets a 9 and a 6 because of the sodium in milk. for 54, and the pizza gets 9 and a 2, for an 18. My lunch total was 144. A score of 144 marks a meal for me as way more than acceptable flavor wise and acceptable nutritionally.

ERGO, a meal scoring in the 80-100 area will be acceptable but uninspiring for me, and a meal in the 150 to 170 range is outstanding and still acceptably healthy. Subjectivity remains the key to this formula. Let me outline an absolutely horrible meal for me. It would have to begin with broccoli. Broccoli, so I am told, is wonderful for one. If it's so damn wonderful then I will grant it the only nutritional "10" in all of my food rating, but I'll also give it the only "1" for flavor. I hate what it tastes like, and I hate its texture, and no matter what you do with it still tastes like its got dirt on it. That's a "10" for broccoli. For the main course, I choose that flavorless free range chicken the health gurus rave about it. It gets a 3 for taste and and 8 for nutrition, totaling 24. For a beverage, I will have a glass of white wine. I know wine has its health benefits, so it gets 5 for nutrition and 3 for flavor, totaling 15. So a perfectly disgusting but extremely healthy meal for me totals "49." Strangely, if I had the delightful lunch of pizza, Buffalo wings, and draft beer, I would award the pizza with 18, the wings with the same 9 and 2, and the draft beer with an 8 and 3 for 24. The total of this delightful meal is "60," very close to my disgusting meal total. For another person the rating could be completely different. I've heard many people claim to love broccoli and white wine. I don't know how anyone could love that tough, stick-in-your-throat bird, but I can imagine a person of a different palate rating my disgusto meal with 200 points or more.

Try this test on your own meals being completely subjective to your taste buds. The lesson to be learned is old and wise: "Moderation in all things." You have to balance the flavor with the food value. I often wonder though, why God didn't make things that are good for you taste better.

Teacher Dreams

Earlier today I read on my FB wall a comment by a current teacher about the imminent arrival of the "teacher dream." These dreams often recur in the waning days of August but can come at any time of the years. Those who have experienced the famous college dream, in which the dreamer is taking a final test for a class which they never attended, can appreciate the terror of "teacher dream." The college dream can be hair raising, and it's one of those dreams that even though you are aware it is a dream, you just can't make yourself wake up from it. Now the college dream is burned into our subconscious by 4 years of study. Just imagine, then, non-teachers, how deeply a dream can burrow into that part of your brain where such things are stored, when you have been toiling at it for 5, 10, 15, 20, 30, or even 33 years.

Three of my standard and recurring "teacher dreams" for your consideration:

1. The Where's My Damn Classroom Dream: I am wandering the halls of school trying to find the classroom that I misplaced somewhere. Everywhere I turn is another familiar hall, but for some reason, not the one I am looking for. I pass my fellow teachers in these halls and I swear they are looking meet as if they know that I am not where I am supposed to be. If I ever find the room in my dream, then all hell is breaking loose inside upon my arrival.

2. The Bad Kids Dream: In this dream, I am teaching and not a single kid is paying attention to what I am saying. They aren't kids who I know or have ever taught before. They're a bunch of mystery snots! And no matter how I scream or rant, they barely look at me. I had one of my favorite variations of the Bad (Good) Kid Dream when I was still teaching. In the dream, I arrived late to a class in Room 209 in the high school. It contained 30 wonderful students, who I was crazy about. I walked into the room, and they were huddled around the windows looking out. One of them turned to me and said soberly, "We didn't like the man who came in here to see you. So we threw him out the window." I raced to window, pushing through the throng, and looked down the one story to the sidewalk where the man's battered body rested. The body was surrounded by police and firemen. One of the cops looked up and said, "God, he must have fallen 20 stories!" This statement shocked me awake before I could thank my class for protecting me from the "man" or figure how he could fall 20 stories from a 2 story building.

3. The Extracurricular Dream: Mine, of course, involves the plays and musicals. It's always the same. It's 45 minutes to curtain, and we haven't rehearsed once. In some, I am just then handing out the scripts. I, of course, am beside myself with worry, but in every replay of the dream, my student actors always tell me, "Don't worry, Mr. Ellstrom. It'll be fine. We'll make it up as we go along."

Guess what active teachers! Retiring doesn't retire the teacher dreams. Linda and I still have at least one teacher dream each every month, and it has been nine years since we retired. Teaching is such an all-encompassing, 24/7 kind of profession, with so much emotional investment, that it continues to remind you of what you did for all those years in a sort of comic/ironic way.

I saw a clip on Yahoo of a libertarian TV commentator asking Matt Damon if he thought that teacher's didn't care or worry about their jobs after 3 years because they had been granted tenure. The esteemed Mr. Damon bit her head off and her cameraman's head as well. Tenure making things easier!? Tenure has no effect on degree of difficulty. Some people just don't frickin' get how hard and wonderful the job of teaching is! How teachers lose sleep because they fret when their students do poorly and lose sleep because they are elated when their students do well. And when they do fall asleep, their dreams continue to remind them of the stress of their cherished job.

I wonder if people from libertarian TV stations have commentator dreams! Or cameraman dreams.

My Favorite Fanatic or In Defense of Fanaticism

Thomas Paine

"damned be his name,

and lasting his shame"

Post debt ceiling crisis, the U.S. continues to ride a financial roller coaster, and I continue to feel that the actions of the tea party legislators and other strict conservatives and their refusals to compromise were wrong. Still, I hope that the methods these fanatics chose will eventually aid in a positive change. Many people won't agree with my labeling of the tea party as a fanatical group. Well, to me a fanatic is someone who closes his ears to everyone and who refuses to compromise. A fanatic, despite a firestorm of criticism, rolls on as he or she sees fit. Actually, when stated that way, there is the suggestion of nobility in fanaticism.

The anti-war and the civil rights movements were certainly aided by the efforts of fanatics. The loose cannons of the 60's and 70's irritated people but forced them to look at problems they would rather have avoided. Their fanatical acts often kept their causes in the headlines and on the nightly news. As a result the thinking of many Americans, young and old, was altered.

The United States exists in great part because of the mind and pen of my favorite fanatic, Thomas Paine. Not only was Paine a founding father but a founding fanatic, as well. Between 1776 and 1807, he wrote four pamphlets, "Common Sense" in 1776, designed to stir Americans to revolution; "The Crisis" in 1777, to raise the spirits of American soldiers; "The Rights of Man" in 1791 and 1792, in support of the French Revolution and against monarchies; and "The Age of Reason" in 1794, and '95, and 1807, a three part attack on the church of the time. Of Paine's "Common Sense," John Adams wrote, "Without the pen of the author of 'Common Sense,' the sword of Washington would have been raised in vain." His words stirred and moved people and nations. It was Paine who said in "The Crisis," "These are the times that try men's souls." Of the importance of the American revolution to the world, he wrote in "Common Sense," "The sun never shone on a cause of greater worth . . . 'Tis not the concern of a day, a year, or an age; posterity are virtually involved in the contest, and will be more or less affected, even to the end of time, by the proceedings now." So powerful were his words, that in the colonies, people wanted to give credit for them to Franklin or Jefferson or Adams. Adams readily admitted that he wasn't capable of writing with such heart and strength.

Paine's words not only inspired, but they also angered virtually everyone in power at the time. Having gone back to England from where he had emigrated, he wrote "The Rights of Man," a pamphlet designed to rail against the criticism of the French Revolution. As a result, he became even more hated by the British monarchy and would have been arrested if he hadn't fled to France. The British tried him in absentia, anyway, and found him guilty. Then, despite his authorship of "The Rights of Man," he was arrested in France for not supporting the execution of Louis the XVI. While in prison, he worked on "The Age of Reason," a pamphlet that he stated was not against God but against the profitability of the church. As a result he was in deep trouble with both the politicians and the clerics. Politics and religion are the two things you don't discuss at dinner, but the fanatic Paine dove into both wherever his voice could be heard.

He might have lost his head to Monsieur l'Guillotine if not for the intervention in 1794 of James Monroe, America's Ambassador to France, but it was not until 1802, that he returned to America on the invitation of Thomas Jefferson. But America, the country he had worked so hard to create, did not welcome him. His great achievements were all but eradicated because of his anti-religious views. He was virtually friendless.

There is a wonderful play called "Tom Paine" written by Paul Foster that I and probably a few hundred other people have seen. I saw it twice, in fact, in the summer of 1970. In his experimental drama, Foster posits other reasons that people chose to hold Paine in distaste. He, like so many great writers, liked his liquor too much. He wasn't very good looking, and personal hygiene wasn't a priority for him. Also, unlike most of the other Founding Fathers, he was not a man of wealth. Paine was a bastard and the son of a bastard corset-maker. When upon returning to the country he had helped birth, he tried to vote and was summarily turned away. He died in 1809 in New York City and few people attended his funeral.

I am now back to my original thought: that perhaps the fanaticism of the tea party movement will eventually help shape a better America. It's kind of ironic to discuss them in the same essay with Thomas Paine, though, because way back in the 1790's, Paine endorsed, among other non-tea party things, a worldwide peace organization and a system of social security.

A caveat for tea party members and others who would change the world through fanaticism: As I mentioned before, Paine was found guilty in absentia for his treasonous behavior in England. When he died the British wanted his bones back. In the final speech in Foster's play, the audience is told, "with iron hammers they broke the stone above his head, and dug up his very bones and they shoveled them into a sack and they threw them aboard a ship bound for London to hang upside down before the jeering mobs. And when they were done, the raw stuff that moved the pen, were thrown into the street. And nobody knows where they are today. So went Tom Paine who shook continents awake."

Some information from USHISTORY.com.