THE DULLARD REVISITED

A REVIEW OF THE FIRST DAY OF THE HSST’S

ORIENTATION COURSE AT KOTTAKKAL RAJA’S HSS ON MAY21, 2007

A Teacher is a philosopher.

Somebody has said,

“a philosopher in one who is

searching for a black cat in a dark room

while the thing is not there!”

The same predicament was seen as usual on the first day of the training course. The teachers were found searching for the black cats of cognitive psychology and social constructivism,but at a wrong place. It was once again, to use a moderate adjective, useless- a sheer waste of time and public wealth.

Nothing is achieved. Nothing is oriented

Nobody is inspired to go with something unusual or different.

It’s better to say less about everything. Brevity is the soul of wit.

The forenoon session started at 11.30 (2 hours late!) lacked concrete blue print, preface, on the 3-day programme. Without much beating about the bush the esteemed Rps (the resourceful persons!!) made several desperate attempts to trigger a cold discussion. Neither the circulated handouts of student’s erroneous answer sheets nor the miserable attempt of the Rps help command response from the idle HSSTs in English. They miserably failed to generate the desired interaction. The stimulation rendered by the Rps and the response of thefacilitators reflected the very experience and reaction the teachers get in our classrooms.

Who is to be blamed here? The subject or object?

Nobody knows and nothing happens.

In the afternoon session, the next task was a discussion of the curriculum objectives of the First Block of the Second-year text. It also reached nowhere but some of us had reached home by then! That was the first day.

But being a teacher I should be very positive: let us go back to the cat, the philosopher’s black cat. Quoting Achumama, “regardless of the color and creed, the cats recruited ought to catch the rats. That’s all.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ptsalam123@gmail.com

GLARING FACTS ABOUT F-DRESSING

While worrying about moral policing,

why don’t they consider some glaring facts about feminine dressing.

Socially and biologically, women require more safety and security than men.

A feminine body is more vulnerable to violence. It’s more susceptible to danger.

It should be carefully protected from sun, dirt, men’s stare and glare.

But ironically her body is more exposed to those harmful things than that of men’s.

More open to evil things. Why? Some biological reasons?

Is it for her convenience and comfort?

Because of simplicity, modesty, humility?

Neither of these factors!

Who’s responsible to this contradiction?

Who designed the female dress code and style?

She is ordered (?) to wear light, transparent, tight wears whereas men wear stiff, opaque,

loose-fitting outfits! Tight-fit, transparent clothes, blouse, pants and other feminine garments

definitely enhance sex appeal and to attract the opposite sex.

Isn’t the weaker sex deliberately creating an environment inviting sexual motivation and

violence with their provocative appearance?

Who decided that the man should be decently dressed covering almost all the body except the face

and the woman should be with some very nice transparent, tight-fit attires?

Feminists, never turn a blind eye on these findings.

ptsalam123@gmail.com

WHAT' PARTIALITY

Impartiality
Is most often Dishonesty
To be partial is a matter
Of evaluation, of merit and of quality.

Consider every one equally
But don't say
In everything and
Everywhere...

* * * *
Ingratitude
In some students is by birth
Let the dogs bark
The Caravan goes ahead...

A few hate the one
Who is loved my most
A few love the one
Who is hated my most