Here’s a video that can be enjoyed both by younger viewers and older viewers, but in very different ways.

This clip of The Today Show is apparently from January 1994. The hosts ponder over a new entity that seems to be cropping up all over the place, the strange and magical new Internet. If it’s not obvious, the person on the left is Katie Couric, the current anchor of The CBS Evening News.

The point of this is not to make fun of the hosts who, 17 years ago, could hardly have been expected to understand how ubiquitous the Internet would become in our lives. But the clip is intriguing as a frozen moment in time, recalling the days when you had to check the newspaper for movie listings and you had to buy stamps to mail a letter. Back then, the thought of someone like me writing something like this and having someone like you come here and read it would have been unthinkable.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m going outside to do a video chat on my mobile phone.

I was talking to my graduate students about the literacy standards last night, and predictably got pulled off on a tangent about accountability. I found myself making a point that I’ve alluded to before, but it’s worth making explicit now.

Robert Benchley famously said “There are two kinds of people in the world: those who divide the world into two kinds of people, and those who don’t.” I will put myself in the former category when I say that, generally, there are two kinds of people who talk about standards and accountability.

The first believes that anything worth doing is worth doing well. In order to make sure we’re doing the best job we can, it’s important to measure our results, so we can identify areas for potential improvement and apply strategies for intervention where they will do the most good.

The second believes that taxpayer-funded education is one of the evils of socialism and must be eradicated. In order to make the necessary changes, evidence must be gathered that the public education system is a failure, so that arguments to turn education over to the free market will be more persuasive.

And my point was that, when you hear someone talking about standards and accountability, it’s important to know which of these two groups that person is in.

Via the Shakespeare Geek, we learn of a website called Shakespearean Monkey, written by a middle school-aged kid:

Monkeys are smart. Though they haven’t created cars or trains or weapon, they are educated through simplicity. They flourish on what they have, and if something doesn’t work, they don’t give up, but they evolve to overcome it. Like monkeys, Shakespeare had no thesaurus, no dictionary, no laptop and no editor. But when he came to a spot where he was at loss for words, he made up his own words. Through practice, perseverance and certainly trial and error, he created works that will last forever.

I am a 13 year old kid who is trying to read and attend live performances of all 37 Shakespeare plays (plus three possible collaborations) in 2 years. This is a record of my experiences.

One could be forgiven for doubting the veracity of the “13 year old kid” claim, given the fact that the author seems to have an advanced level of writing ability, detailed knowledge of Shakespeare, sophisticated understanding of live theatre, and the wherewithal to attend top-quality theatrical productions in a variety of far-flung cities. But the Shakespeare Teacher has never been one to question authorship, and isn’t about to start now.

Seriously, though, wow. What ever this kid has, I wish I could bottle it. That being impossible, I am left to join Duane in offering this young man or woman a welcome to our online community. The Shakespeare Teacher is now your student.

Over at Shakespeare in a Year, Ashley is making remarkable progress on her goal to work her way through the Complete Works of Shakespeare in just twelve months, and to blog about it. She recently re-read Measure for Measure, and had some harsh words for it, concluding that it “doesn’t work” and that maybe Shakespeare knew it. But this is one of my favorite plays. It works for me!

We can certainly disagree with each other, but I notice that she lists some questions about Measure for Measure that she says do not have even one reasonable answer:

Why does the duke temporarily abdicate? Why does he leave Angelo in charge, rather than the obviously more qualified Escalus? Why does he disguise himself as a friar? Why does he tell Claudio that he must die, when he knows perfectly well that he can fix the problem? Why is Angelo so suddenly and swiftly tempted by Isabella? Why is Isabella so violently angry when Claudio begs her to accept Angelo’s deal? Why is Barnardine able to simply refuse his own execution? Why does the virtuous Isabella consent to a bed trick that creates the same scenario for which her brother is imprisoned? Why does the duke tell her that Claudio is dead, why does he force Isabella to beg for Angelo’s life, and why on earth does the duke propose to Isabella?

And, perhaps most intriguing, does Isabella accept the duke’s proposal?

In my reading of the play, these questions do have answers, and it is my pleasure to share them with you. You may not like the answers, and that can be a discussion of its own, but I will provide textual evidence where it can illuminate. Please do not view this as an attack on her piece, though, and my goal is not to change anyone’s mind. I only offer another perspective to the conversation.

Why does the duke temporarily abdicate?

Duke: ’Twould be my tyranny to strike and gall them
For what I bid them do: for we bid this be done,
When evil deeds have their permissive pass
And not the punishment. Therefore, indeed, my father,
I have on Angelo impos’d the office,
Who may, in the ambush of my name, strike home,
And yet my nature never in the sight
To do it slander.

He’s not really abdicating. He’s just taking a trip and leaving Angelo in charge. His reason is because the laws have gone unenforced too long, and he feels that he no longer has the moral authority to enforce them, having been slack in his duties for so long. By leaving a deputy in charge, it will make the sudden changes in law enforcement seem less arbitrary and unjust.

Why does he leave Angelo in charge, rather than the obviously more qualified Escalus?

Duke: Lord Angelo is precise;
Stands at a guard with envy; scarce confesses
That his blood flows, or that his appetite
Is more to bread than stone: hence shall we see,
If power change purpose, what our seemers be.

He knows that Angelo has the austerity to get the job done. But if you look at the last line quoted, he seems to at least be open to the idea that power may corrupt Angelo.

Why does he disguise himself as a friar?

Duke: And to behold his sway,
I will, as ’twere a brother of your order,
Visit both prince and people:

He wants to keep an eye on his experiment.

Why does he tell Claudio that he must die, when he knows perfectly well that he can fix the problem?

Duke: Be absolute for death; either death or life
Shall thereby be the sweeter.

At this point, he doesn’t have all of the information he needs and he’s not sure what he’s going to do. Claudio is already condemned to death (and for something he actually did), so there’s no sense in raising his hopes for nothing.

Why is Angelo so suddenly and swiftly tempted by Isabella?

Angelo: What! do I love her,
That I desire to hear her speak again,
And feast upon her eyes? What is’t I dream on?
O cunning enemy, that, to catch a saint,
With saints dost bait thy hook! Most dangerous
Is that temptation that doth goad us on
To sin in loving virtue: never could the strumpet,
With all her double vigour, art and nature,
Once stir my temper; but this virtuous maid
Subdues me quite. Ever till now,
When men were fond, I smil’d and wonder’d how.

He is attracted to her virtue, but he is inexperienced with women and doesn’t know how to handle these emotions. In fact, he grows to hate himself for them, and deliberately casts himself as a villain because he sees himself that way. When he is eventually caught, his death sentence seems like a relief.

Why is Isabella so violently angry when Claudio begs her to accept Angelo’s deal?

Isabella: O you beast!
O faithless coward! O dishonest wretch!
Wilt thou be made a man out of my vice?
Is’t not a kind of incest, to take life
From thine own sister’s shame? What should I think?

She is very religious, and sees death as preferable to dishonor. Her brother, she feels, should be more concerned with protecting her honor than with saving his own life. That he allowed himself to feel otherwise shames their family before God.

Why is Barnardine able to simply refuse his own execution?

Duke: We have strict statutes and most biting laws,—
The needful bits and curbs to headstrong steeds,—
Which for this fourteen years we have let sleep;
Even like an o’ergrown lion in a cave,
That goes not out to prey. Now, as fond fathers,
Having bound up the threat’ning twigs of birch,
Only to stick it in their children’s sight
For terror, not to use, in time the rod
Becomes more mock’d than fear’d; so our decrees,
Dead to infliction, to themselves are dead,
And liberty plucks justice by the nose;
The baby beats the nurse, and quite athwart
Goes all decorum.

This is a comic scene, but it underlies a point made earlier in the play (quoted above). The law in Vienna has become a joke, and if Barnardine wants to refuse his own execution, nobody really knows what to do about it.

Why does the virtuous Isabella consent to a bed trick that creates the same scenario for which her brother is imprisoned?

Duke: Nor, gentle daughter, fear you not at all.
He is your husband on a pre-contract:
To bring you thus together, ’tis no sin,
Sith that the justice of your title to him
Doth flourish the deceit.

The Duke explains to Isabella (as he later describes to Mariana here) that Angelo and Mariana have been contracted to each other, and therefore, their union will only consummate the marriage, which is why Mariana is able to address Angelo as her husband in the last scene of the play. Juliet and Claudio had no such contract, and so it’s fornication. I know it sounds silly, but Shakespeare did make the distinction in the text.

Why does the duke tell her that Claudio is dead, why does he force Isabella to beg for Angelo’s life, and why on earth does the duke propose to Isabella?

Duke: Against all sense you do importune her:
Should she kneel down in mercy of this fact,
Her brother’s ghost his paved bed would break,
And take her hence in horror.

He seems to be testing Isabella. My take is that he wants to know how unwavering is the moral code of this woman who judges other so harshly. When she shows mercy to Angelo, even as she believes he has killed her brother, the Duke learns that she’s the real deal. He proposes on the spot.

And, perhaps most intriguing, does Isabella accept the duke’s proposal?

Duke: Dear Isabel,
I have a motion much imports your good;
Whereto if you’ll a willing ear incline,
What’s mine is yours, and what is yours is mine.

She probably does. It’s somewhat jarring for a modern audience, but hey, he’s the Duke. Why wouldn’t she accept? Being the Duchess of Vienna is so much better than being a nun in a convent, am I right?

Seriously, though, there are a few problems with the play, as I admit here, but not an unusual amount for Shakespeare. I actually like that it’s darker than his other comedies, but remember that it ends on a note of hope.

For more Measure for Measure fun, check out Sharky’s single-sentence scene reactions, or my univocalic plot summary that uses U as the only vowel!

I invite comments and criticism.

This makes three in a row from the same play, but Egypt’s in the news. I envision one possible outcome of the protests.

From Antony and Cleopatra:

Some innocents ‘scape not the thunderbolt.
Melt Egypt into Nile! and kindly creatures
Turn all to serpents!

Shift around the letters, and it becomes:

Men end hell. Constant protesting stunts turn Hosni Mubarak to non-entity. People elect leaders directly.

You only really need to watch the first minute of this.

Yeah, she confused the arms race with the space race.

Also, President Obama wasn’t saying we needed to have a Sputnik moment like the USSR had; he was referring to America’s reaction to Sputnik, as a wake-up call.

And did I hear her say that President Obama wanted to “aspire” Americans?

Palin-Bachmann in 2012!

I am crystals of ice when they float to the ground;
On TV with no signal, just white flakes and sound;
I’m to pour on the lies with intent to confound;
And in briefing the press for George Bush I’d expound.

Who am I?

UPDATE: Riddle solved by Asher. See comments for answer.

Today I gave a workshop for Social Studies teachers on teaching our middle school history units. To illustrate the importance of learning history, I showed this clip.

This isn’t about ideology or politics. It’s frightening to me that a member of the United States House of Representatives, of either party, could be so dangerously unaware (deliberately or no) of the history of our nation. But the fact that she is considered a thought leader by so many on the other side gives me ideological concerns as well.

In Russian Roulette, a six-chambered revolver is loaded with one round, the cylinder is spun to place the round in a random position, and participants take turns pointing the gun to their heads and pulling the trigger until one player loses.

Imagine you are playing this game (for whatever reason) with one other person, but do not wish to die.

1. Assume there is one round and the cylinder is spun only once, at the beginning of the game. Is it better to go first or second?

2. Assume there is one round and the cylinder is spun after each player’s turn. Is it better to go first or second?

3. Assume there are two rounds in random position and the cylinder is spun only once, at the beginning of the game. Is it better to go first or second?

4. Assume there are two rounds in random position. The first player shoots an empty chamber. You have the option of shooting the gun as is, or spinning the cylinder first. Which do you choose?

5. Assume there are two rounds in a random position – but you are told that the two rounds are in consecutive chambers. The first player shoots an empty chamber. You have the option of shooting the gun as is, or spinning the cylinder first. Which do you choose?

6. Assume there are two rounds in a random position – but you are told that the two rounds are in consecutive chambers. The cylinder is spun only once, at the beginning of the game. Is it better to go first or second?

These are pure probability questions, for entertainment purposes only. Shakespeare Teacher in no way condones the use of firearms in this manner.

This week’s testing item is a favorite of mine to use as an example, because it illustrates just how careful we need to be when looking at standardized testing data.

We will be looking at Item 16 on the 2009 New York State Grade 6 Exam. The performance indicator is “5.G14 Calculate perimeter of basic geometric shapes drawn on a coordinate plane (rectangles and shapes composed of rectangles having sides with integer lengths and parallel to the axes).” You can click the figure below to enlarge.

What is this question testing? Does it fit the performance indicator? Which of the wrong answers would you predict students would choose the most often? Why? What would students need to know and be able to do to answer this question correctly?