Alone Together

The past months have been instructive as we endure an unforeseen emergency which has yet to show any sign of letting up.  If we believe the more pessimistic predictions, the future will be permanently altered and not for the better.

This is the third major crisis the country has faced in less than twenty years.  First there was 9/11, which itself came on the heels of the tech meltdown.  Next was the bursting of the housing bubble.  Now it’s the wide swath cut by an unseen killer bearing the awkward moniker SARS-CoV-2.

Being slightly north of fifty, I’m alarmed at the increasing frequency of these calamities.  Life in America has never been entirely secure for average people, but the worst thing I witnessed in my first three and a half decades were the stagflation and oil shocks of the 1970s.  Even if you throw in the domestic turmoil over Vietnam and Watergate, the difficulties of that era seem positively quaint in retrospect.

A sense of unity is essential for a society to meet extraordinary challenges.  What that means is a matter of one’s personal worldview, however.  For me, the closest example that comes to mind is Britain during the Second World War.  Confronted with an existential threat and living through years of material hardship, the British people met the challenge with plucky cheerfulness. 

A quick glance at your newsfeed or cable news will show instead that the fissures plaguing us before coronavirus have only deepened.  This should be surprising to no one.  The cultural and economic wars experienced by the past two or three generations have left us so divided the divisions may be irreparable.

Material satiety has done a lot to paper over these differences, but this has become less feasible as time has passed.  After the attacks on New York and Washington, George W.’s advice was to go shopping and visit Disney World.  We did, and the downturn quickly passed.  If you stayed employed through the Great Recession you probably came out okay; many of those who didn’t had yet to fully recover before the COVID-19 anvil landed on them.

Economic pressures are indisputably a factor driving the reopening controversy on the part of laid off workers and small business owners who abruptly lost their incomes.  But the great cultural divide in American life overshadows the coronavirus response as it does everything else.

A closer look at the news since March brings this conclusion into 20/20 focus.  Three and a half years of “fake” news accusations and “alternative facts” has made the discourse (if you can call it that) a bit unreal.  A local news channel interviewed churchgoers defying a closure order a couple of weeks ago.  One worshipper said he wasn’t concerned about the pandemic since for him it signaled the beginning of the End Times.  Another said he wasn’t worried because God would shield him.  Neither wore face masks.

Face masks have become an unlikely bone of contention of late.  If the opinion pieces I’ve read are any indication (and the President’s own statements echo this) it’s that being required to cover one’s face is a sign of weakness.  It is a form of forced submission, and so to go without a mask is an expression of one’s manhood.

Asinine?  Emphatically yes.  But there may be an added dimension to the pushback over masks.  An article in The Atlantic proposes that the reason so many white males on the Right reject masking is that it makes “vice signaling” difficult for them.  Put differently, covering their faces makes it less likely for them to receive credit for any public mischief they commit.

Vice signaling, as you’ve probably surmised, is the flipside of the conservative snarl phrase “virtue signaling.”  The MAGA contingent wants the world to witness its bad behavior and dares us to do something.  In the social media age, however, this can entail blowback as we have seen on recent two occasions.  Sadly, but unsurprisingly, both involve the deaths of black men.

The stalking and murder of Ahmaud Arbery is notable in that the perpetrators were so sure they would suffer no consequences that one of them recorded it on his phone for posterity.  The death of George Floyd at the hands (or, more precisely, knee) of a Minneapolis police officer this week was caught on camera by several onlookers.  One would think that the nauseating procession of public violence against people of color over the years would inhibit would-be race warriors and law-and-order thugs, but no.  Not only have they been emboldened, but they want the notoriety of going viral.

The Arbery and Floyd killings perversely demonstrate that while so much of our world has been upended some things do not change.  But as horrific as these deaths are, the extent to which the pandemic has disproportionately harmed minorities demands even more attention.  Not only are they more likely than whites to have the kind of underlying health issues making them vulnerable to COVID-19, they are less likely to have health insurance and are more likely to work in the essential jobs necessary to keep the country’s head above water.  The soft violence of social inequality will do far more harm to people of color over the pandemic than any random attacks on their young men. 

Throughout it all, I’ve been hunkered down at home.  I am one of the fortunate ones whose bosses have commanded to work from home.  I have ventured out twice since early March, once to the supermarket (before dumping my shopping needs upon gig workers via Instacart) and once to the bank.  Each time the world looked normal albeit with lighter traffic.  Everyone I interact with, few as they are and mostly limited to neighbors and the aforementioned delivery drivers, has been normal and even pleasant. My risk of infection is very low.  By all rights my only enemy should be boredom.

Yet, I continue to look at the world with trepidation. The antics of the Trump administration, its disingenuous minions, and its unhinged supporters have become less amusing and more appalling as this year’s election draws near.  I’ve assuaged my frustration with and distaste for daily life with occasional travel abroad, the future prospects for which are now remote.  Weeks of confinement, while tolerable, has also heightened a state of anxiety that sometimes drifts to the edges of paranoia. 

I thought I was immune to this; who knew?  I can’t be alone.  It’s our new normal.

© 2020 The Unassuming Scholar

Distancing

It looks as if we’ll have to spend a few more weeks holding our distance. 

The White House has extended the social distancing period through the end of April as COVID-19 infection rates soar and the death toll mounts.  So much for business as usual by Easter.

Aside from the drawbacks of “remote instruction,” to use the fashionable euphemism for teaching while campuses remain shut, my day-to-day is similar to that of summer.  It’s no hardship staying in.  I have enough food on hand, I’m getting enough sleep, and I don’t have to commute. 

Which doesn’t mean I’m not following the rapidly developing narrative surrounding COVID-19 or am unaffected by it.  I know I’m okay having self-isolated for over two weeks.  I am very thankful that no students or colleagues have tested positive (at least as far as I’m aware).  Our county of just under 100,000 residents has only a dozen confirmed cases as of yesterday and no deaths to date.  Our community hospital assures us it can meet the challenge posed by the outbreak.  But what we’re reading in the news, not to mention listening to the ominous drumbeat of the 24-hour TV news cycle, is enough to wear the strongest nerves.

A month’s worth of cautious self-assurance that we will weather the crisis and move forward all the stronger is beginning to wane.  My reluctance to venture out is growing.  I’ve postponed shopping for today’s wants in favor of actual needs down the way.  Even a week ago I would have said I wanted to stay home to avoid other people’s craziness rather than the coronavirus itself.  Now I’m planning my next outing to make as few stops as necessary, to buy packaged and canned goods rather than fresh produce, and then to go straight home and wash my hands.  Thoroughly.

And yet, there are many signs of normalcy.  Neighbors come and go.  One story in my newsfeed offered that 2/3 of us are still showing up for their “essential” jobs.  I live near an interstate, and in the middle of the night I can hear semi traffic in the distance.  (Another story in my feed quotes over-the-road truckers as saying they’re working more efficiently now there are fewer cars on the roads.  That means retail outlets are surely being stocked. Someone should tell the toilet paper hoarders.)

But in the midst of all this are the numbers.  Dr. Fauci’s prediction that 200,000 may die in the U.S., the ventilator and testing kit shortages, and the swath the disease is cutting in the hardest hit places like Italy and Iran ratchet anxieties. 

The media provide mixed signals which contribute to the confusion.  Local news broadcasts are as chipper as ever.  Commercials still run for businesses those affected by shelter in place orders can’t patronize, automakers still try to sell us new cars and insurers car insurance, and TV programming remains its inane self.  On the other hand, the “shelter in place” installments of The Daily Show, purportedly recorded from the homes of Trevor Noah and other cast members, fall a bit flat trying to wrest humor from current events.  (The past couple of weeks have reinforced my belief that standup and sketch comedy only work in front of a live audience.)

So, it’s pretty tough right now to know what to think or feel.  Then again, some people are quite certain as to how to react.  Although my mountain resort town has respectfully urged visitors to stay away, feedback from other communities in the region indicates a more aggressive stance.  People in one town are pressuring law enforcement to set up checkpoints on the roads leading in.  A Facebook post suggested slashing the tires of out of town cars.  One local official told a reporter she was afraid someone was going to get shot given the xenophobia prevalent in her county.

As far as they’re concerned, the folks coming uphill won’t be kept from the second homes on which they pay taxes.  One part time resident who couldn’t leave her high-powered gig to shelter out here offered her place on Airbnb, advertising it as a place the prospective guest could wait out the crisis in safety.  The listing was quickly taken down after a backlash.

The official who worried people might get shot isn’t being dramatic or alarmist.  In my state, gun shop owners have demanded the governor classify them as essential workers, with the vocal support of assorted Friends of the Second Amendment.  Firearm and ammunition sales have spiked in the last month.  Soundbites and article quotes give the impression some of the purchasers are eagerly anticipating a breakdown of order.

Fear can be a useful response.  It’s what allowed our prehistoric ancestors to survive, and it can do the same for us.  The important thing is to temper fear with judgment and reason.  Unless you’re directly faced with an existential threat and must act immediately and decisively, there is time for risk analysis. 

Certain habits born of experience help, too.  I’ve been able to stay home for seventeen days and counting because I came home to a full cupboard, fridge, and freezer.  As a kid that was not always the case, so my routine as an adult is to augment my weekly food shopping with staples or household items that haven’t run out but will in coming weeks.  I wasn’t planning on being confined at home and I did not buy in hoarder quantities.  But I had enough to last long enough to minimize outside contact during the first part of the crisis.

Naturally, there were and are a few underlying assumptions.  One was that I would have essentials like running water, electricity, and gas.  (Check, at least so far.)  Another is that retail businesses will stay open and properly stocked.  (We’ll see.)  And so, while I’m naturally cautious I probably would be in a bad place if a full-scale catastrophe struck.

So would you, most likely, though the preppers would be happier than pigs in shit should the unthinkable occur.  There is an unspoken faith in the systems that sustain us.  The COVID-19 pandemic is causing people to question for the first time whether they are robust enough to get us through and not just those on the fringes.  I am very reluctant to entertain the possibility of a disease-driven societal collapse reminiscent of The Stand.  However, even a partial, temporary collapse such as that after Hurricane Katrina multiplied across several regions would shake public confidence to the point where we might see our society permanently transformed and not in the way armchair idealists like me would prefer.

Some of what’s happening was foreseeable and thus preventable, and some of it not.  The New York Times reported this week that the federal government had contracted with a medical device startup back in the late aughts to manufacture a reserve supply of respirators to meet a potential emergency; following a series of corporate acquisitions and mergers and attempted contract renegotiations this never came to pass. That was an attempt at foresight, sabotaged by corporate capitalism though it ultimately was.  The novel coronavirus, as the name implies, was not specifically foreseen and could not have been because we cannot predict evolution.  But if plans had gone as planned, we would have had a better response to COVID-19 than we’ve had.

Past experience with numerous outbreaks affords a roadmap—H1N1 in 2009, SARS and MERS before that, the 1967 Hong Kong flu, not to mention the big daddy of ‘em all, the Spanish Flu pandemic of 1918-19—but hindsight is myopic.  Or if we do remember the epidemic spectre, it tends to be PR embarrassments such as the 1976 swine flu fiasco.  Then there’s the fact that both culturally and a matter of business practice we plan for the short to mid-term but seldom for the long haul.

I don’t know what to make of it all. I’m just holed up in my modest abode waiting for the next development.  There’s some distancing you can’t pull off. 

© 2020 The Unassuming Scholar

Remote

It’s been a week.  I’ve been cooped up indoors for a solid week.

Like so many others, I’m self-isolating in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.  Along with a comparative few lucky enough able to do so, I am working remotely.  I’ve left the house only to check the mail and take out the trash.  So far, I don’t mind.  My habits are solitary, so the social distancing thing is pretty much a given.  Better to stay home than to deal with a paranoid public outside my front door.

I’d said so long to last Thursday’s evening class telling them that we’d interact online for the next two or three weeks, the timespan quoted by the administration.  As of midweek the duration has been extended until semester’s end (right before Memorial Day).  I’ve seen the last of my students; from now on our relationship will be virtual.

I’m ambivalent toward online instruction.  My summer classes are usually distance learning, leaving me free to check in from wherever which means I can travel on my own schedule and not necessarily on semester breaks alone.  (Not that I’ll be traveling anywhere anytime soon…) 

But in person classes work best in my experience.  Liberal arts subjects are narratives, and it’s hard even with recorded lectures to sustain a narrative with any life in it online.  All you’re doing, really, is presenting bare facts, and students are paradoxically more likely to ask questions in a physical classroom than by email or LMS message.  Online discussion boards are stilted and inhibit meaningful dialogue.

The abrupt shift to online only has caused the predictable heartburn among colleagues and students alike.  As one student put it last week, “If I wanted to take an online class I would’ve signed up for an online class.”

It’s for our own good, of course.  And we’re all in it together, albeit in cyberspace.  But it’s not the inconvenience that worries me about my students’ welfare.  There’s the obvious; I want them all well.  But the local economy is heavily dependent on tourism, and my younger learners (and not a few of their elders) typically work in hospitality. While they undoubtedly have lots of time now to devote to my class, they’re not earning what they need to pay the bills.

There’s a lot of that going on.  Daily unemployment claims in my state doubled over the last two days.  Meanwhile surreal headlines commingle the horrible and mundane; one from yesterday’s CNN newsfeed read “U.S. Death Toll Hits 149; Dozens of Malls Close.”  Conflicting messages about the crisis continue to shake confidence.  And when there is uncertainty in a crisis people start to behave unpredictably.

The examples of erratic behavior are mounting so fast you need wings to stay above them.  A middle-aged Brooklynite got in a shouting match with a bunch of twentysomethings congregating outside a bar.  He felt the patrons should have stayed home.  One woman was quoted in a news report as being too scared to buy gas because she might pick up coronavirus from the pump handle, evidently forgetting she could have just gotten a couple of paper towels from the dispenser to avoid skin contact.  People without symptoms insist upon wearing face masks in public despite pleas from health officials to refrain from doing so.

Then there’s the panic buying and hoarding.  Fortunately there hasn’t been any of that locally; on my last trip to the supermarket everyone was shopping normally.  But you hear the stories.  There’s the hoarding of toilet paper and hand sanitizer, of course.  There are the nervous suburbanites clearing shelves of pasta, rice, and beans as if in anticipation of a siege.  Then there are the enterprising folks who roam from store to store buying up scarce items looking to sell them at a premium on Amazon.  Just today a senior citizen was robbed in a parking lot of the bag of groceries she was carrying.  I had to read that last story twice to believe it.

It’s easy to get a laugh out of panic buying when there’s no credible evidence of impending shortages.  But there are vulnerable people already adversely affected by the abrupt economic downturn who could be made to suffer further, people who don’t have the financial resources to meet price increases in household necessities.  At this point there are local food banks forced to cut back on their operations due to the quarantine policies, and the one serving students at my college has closed for the time being.

Economic divides become more evident in crises.  The online editions of the Business Journal ran an article today—behind a paywall, naturally—with the headline, “The Rich Confront the Virus: ‘Do I Quarantine in the Hamptons?’”  The opening line, the only one publicly visible, reads with nary a touch of irony, “Even in an age of inequality, a global pandemic can be a great—and terrible—leveler.”

Normally I’d dismiss such a fatuous pronouncement with a harsh laugh if it didn’t echo a tidbit a student shared with me.  The student works as a livery driver shuttling well-to-do seasonal residents from our small airport to whichever mountain aerie is their home away from home.  That afternoon she had driven a family arriving from the Bay Area.  People with means tend to be unguarded among the servant class, and these were no exception.  It was a younger family with school-aged kids, and one parent remarked to the other that it was a good thing the schools had closed since they could “wait out” the “craziness” seizing San Francisco and other cities.

This student is both observant and perceptive, and she was startled and amazed by their choice of words.  She was disturbed by their obliviousness.  They believed themselves above it all and had decided to take an extended ski vacation while civilization broke down elsewhere.

I’m not so surprised.  We’ve been on a slippery slope toward apocalyptic thinking for a long time.  Whether this is due to the disproportionate cultural influence of evangelical Christianity or plain and simple self-absorbed fear is hard to say.  It’s probably a little of both.  Community is a thing of the past.  As Robert Putnam put it, we’re bowling alone.  COVID is making us even more suspicious of each other than usual.

Returning to the vacationing family, they would surely be indignant at what their driver did once she had safely delivered them at their destination.  She thoroughly cleaned the car’s interior with disinfectant.  It probably never occurred to them that they could possibly pose a threat to anyone; it’s the rest of the world that’s the threat.  Remote, indeed.

© 2020 The Unassuming Scholar 

The Rally Effect Wags the Dog

“The sonuvabitch got what he deserved.”

I sipped my drink and grunted, neither agreeing or disagreeing.

We were sitting in the bar at a local restaurant, watching the TV news.  The place is a little out of the way, and even in the midst of ski season it was devoid of customers except for me and the other guy as we waited for the kitchen to open.

The segment we were watching dealt with the targeted killing of Iranian general Qasem Soleimani in Baghdad.   Soleimani, as you undoubtedly know by now, was the commander of Iran’s elite Quds Force.  In recent years, he has been a key player in Iran’s support of Syrian strongman Bashir al-Assad and a leader of Shiite militias in the war against Islamic State in Iraq. 

President Trump’s justification for ordering the killing was that Soleimani posed a threat to American lives.  The unrest in Baghdad in past weeks, which included an attack on the U.S. embassy in Baghdad on New Year’s Eve, is simply the latest symptom of the power vacuum created by the 2003 invasion and should have been little surprise to anyone.  Similarly, Iran has actively meddled in regional politics as far back as its support of Hezbollah in the 1980s Lebanese Civil War. 

In short, business as usual.  Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon exist at the intersection of a number of religious and ethnic groups making national unity impossible absent a one-party state with a strongman at its apex.  And yet the United States and other Western powers assume they can maintain order and security while fostering Western-style democracy.  In Iraq’s case, the U.S. withdrawal in 2011 practically ensured its Shiite-majority government would become a client of Iran.

Soleimani and the Iranian leadership doubtlessly welcomed the deepening of anti-American sentiment among Iraqis.  Iran has engaged in state-sponsored terrorism in the past and Soleimani’s high-profile presence in Iraq was not encouraging, his role in defeating ISIS notwithstanding.  However, I’m inclined to take Mr. Trump’s assertion with a grain of salt.

This isn’t the first time a U.S. president facing an impeachment trial has leveraged a foreign policy crisis.  Bill Clinton was one lucky so-and-so as 1998 drew to a close.  Saddam Hussein had threatened to expel U.N. weapons inspectors, triggering U.S.-led airstrikes.  The Kosovo War for independence was well under way.  And, over the summer, al-Qaeda made its international debut by detonating car bombs outside our embassies in Nairobi and Dar-es-Salaam. 

You don’t want to change commanders in chief in the midst of a perceived national security crisis.  This is arguably one of the reasons the Senate merely censured Clinton.  (I think, too, that the Republicans would have preferred not to have gone into the 2000 election facing an incumbent President Gore.  But that’s just one of my crank theories.)  It didn’t hurt that Clinton’s approval numbers actually went up before the trial.  I haven’t seen this week’s polls, but the White House is surely counting on the rally effect to further cement Trump’s apparent acquittal whenever the Senate decides to hold the trial.

The timing of Clinton’s sudden emergence as a quasi-war leader didn’t go unnoticed by a skeptical media.  The resemblance to the recently released Dustin Hoffman movie Wag the Dog was uncanny and was frequently invoked as the impeachment trial drew nigh. 

For those of you who have never seen a movie made before the turn of the century, the plot goes like this: An unpopular president facing defeat at the polls cooks up a hoax war with Albania on the advice of his spin doctors.  Hilarity ensues.

Wag the Dog was just okay as a comedy, but the film’s conceit wasn’t lost on the chattering classes.  Even journalists sympathetic to Clinton invoked its title when discussing how foreign policy had suddenly become so important to an administration more concerned with domestic issues.

The killing of General Soleimani was handled in the maladroit, hamfisted fashion typical of the Trump administration’s foreign policy.  It’s so all over the map it doesn’t know which direction it’s going if it ever did.  But I think that makes scant difference to the base.  Something went bang, and a brown-skinned Muslim was dead.

Which was probably what my bar companion meant with his remark.  I guess I could have provoked an argument by pointing out the nuances of Middle Eastern politics, or that if Soleimani had committed war crimes he should have been afforded due process and put on trial.  But why spoil the prospect of a good meal?  I sipped again at my drink and perused the menu.  The news moved on to another story.  Out of sight, out of mind…for now.

© 2020 The Unassuming Scholar

Don Quixote

Here’s an item from today’s newsfeed: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-attacks-windmills-in-speech-to-conservative-group-i-never-understood-wind/ar-BBYfIpV?ocid=spartanntp

Further grounds for impeachment…or commitment?

Unperson

You arrive for your 12:30 section.  As the outgoing class filters out and your section filters in, you make small talk with your colleague Margaret.

“Did you hear about Darrell?” she asks.

“No, what about him?”

“He’s gone.”

“What do you mean, ‘gone’?”

“He’s left.  All of a sudden.  They’ve got a replacement covering his classes.  Have you talked to him?”

Darrell is a casual friend.  “No, we teach on different days,” you say.  Your curiosity turns to unease.

“I’d hoped you knew something.”

“Nope.  It’s news to me.”

“That’s not good,” said Margaret.  “I hope Darrell’s okay.”

“That makes two of us.”

After class, you try to email Darrell only to find he’s no longer in the college email directory.  You don’t have his personal email address or phone number.

A quick glance at the spring and summer class schedules does nothing to assuage your anxiety.  Darrell’s unlisted, an unfamiliar name substituted for his usual sections.

You catch up with Margaret later in the week.

“Any news about Darrell?” she inquires.

“Sorry, no.”

“Let me know if you find out anything.”

Finding out anything is futile.  You obliquely query a classified employee you know in the dean’s office.  She confirms Darrell has left his job.  You suggest that it might have been a family emergency, a sudden illness perhaps.  She smiles nervously and says no.  You don’t press the matter further.  This is not good.

Your confusion mounts.  You don’t see eye to eye with Darrell on some issues, but he’s an all right guy.  He has a good reputation among the students as far as you know.  It occurs to you momentarily, and only momentarily, that Darrell had committed an impropriety with a student.  That doesn’t line up with what you know about him and you reject the idea.

An equally ominous thought comes to mind.  You ask yourself whether it was something he said in class, a student-customer who took exception to an opinion and raised enough of a ruckus to earn Darrell a one-way ticket out of academia.

Days pass.  You make one last attempt to get to the bottom of the Darrell mystery.  You weave it into a chat with a former student who also works in the front office.  She smiles warily.

“He just left all of a sudden.  I’m not sure why.”

“Just thought I’d ask. Thanks.”

Here one day, gone the next….

© 2019 The Unassuming Scholar

This Is a Test

"Good afternoon, everyone.  In a moment, I'll pass out your exam.  You will have the entire class period to complete it.  But, first, does everyone have a Scantron and a No. 2 pencil?"

A forest of hands goes up, belonging to maybe a quarter of the class.

"Is that a yes or a no?"

One of the raised hands speaks.  "No, Mr. Scholar.  We don't have Scantrons."

"Braden, did you hear me mention last class that you needed to bring one for today's exam?"

"I wasn't here last class."

"That's unfortunate.  Did you read the announcement I posted on Whiteboard?"

"I guess."

"So you knew what to bring, correct?"

"I guess. Is it okay if I run to the bookstore and buy one?"

"It's more than okay if you want to take the exam."

"I'll be back."

"I'll be here."  

Braden and the rest of the Scantron-less students file out in a flurry of door-slams.  The prepared students settle into the exam.

Soon, a gaggle of latecomers arrive with the obligatory series of door-slams.  With a rustle of falling bookbags and tearing zippers they settle into their seats.  After a few moments one of them has an epiphany.

"Mr. Scholar, I don't have a Scantron."

"I'm sorry to hear that, Kaden.  Ask one of your neighbors if they have an extra."  

Kaden is fortunate.  Another of his group is not.  "Mr. Scholar..."

"Yes, I know, you don't have a Scantron.  Yes, you can go to the bookstore to buy one."

"Will you still be here when I get back?"

"Yes, indeed, Jaden.  I will be here the entire class period.  If you can make it back within that time, I will be here."

Jaden is relieved to know this and celebrates his good fortune by slamming the door behind him as he leaves.  This is immediately followed by yet another riot of door-slams as Braden & Co. successfully return from their quest for testing supplies.  They take their places with a rustle of falling bookbags and tearing zippers.

The door opens once more, this time with a flourish.  It's Skyler, still another of today's students oblivious to the demands of the clock.

"Hola, Mr. Scholar!"

"Hello, Skyler.  Do you have your Scantron and pencil?"

Skyler gives you a deer-in-the-headlights expression.  He hurriedly turns and exits.  The classroom door slams behind his back.  Without a flourish.  

One exam down.  Two to go.  The semester's end is so, so far away...

© 2019 The Unassuming Scholar