This has absolutely nothing to do with anything, but I love Sir Digby Chicken Ceasar from That Mitchell and Webb Look. It's utterly absurd, darkly humorous, and poignantly tragic. And it pokes fun at BBC. Don't get me wrong, I love BBC costume dramas, love the Sherlock Holmes stories, etc. But that doesn't mean I can't laugh at them.
This is my collection of favorite quotes from each Sir Digby episode.
Episode 1 quotes
"On a lonely planet spinning its way to damnation amid the fear and despair of a broken human race, who is there to fight for all that is good and pure and gets you smashed for under a fiver? Yes, it's the surprising adventures of me, Sir Digby Chicken Ceasar."
When a coin is tossed at him... "At last! My grant from the foreign office. Now we'll finally crack this mystery."
"The story so far: As usual, Ginger and I are engaged in our quest to find out what the hell is going on and save humanity from my nemesis, some bastard who is presumably responsible."
On being caught by police "...One of my nemesis's henchmen, wearing a cunning disguise, tries to foil our plan."
While bumming a cigarette... "I'm indebted to you, madam. Write to my club for full remuneration."
After Ginger has spent a night in jail... "Forgive me, you must be tired. Have a sip from my can."
Episode 2 quotes
"It's been very fine to see you, Great Aunt Marigold."
"In a city gripped by fear and greed, on streets greased with blood and tears, who is there to look out for the little guy and see if he's got any money on him? Yes, it's the surprising adventures of me, Sir Digby Chicken Ceasar."
"The story so far: I've successfully couriered the top secret machinery back to its rightful owners at the heart of government... But now my thoughts inevitably return to my trusty companion Ginger, who is not so lucky at the hands of our pursuers."
"It's going to be an Easter weekend to remember!"
Episode 3 quotes
"In a time future historians will one day call 'the past,' in a place I wish I could name but it's been a confusing week, who is there to look out for the man in the street in case he wants his mobile back? Yes, it's the surprising adventures of me, Sir Digby Chicken Ceasar."
"The story so far: In my continuing quest to find out just who is behind it all, and by 'all' I do mean ALL, Ginger and I have been invited to an evening at Her Majesty's pleasure, but we can't get there because we're in prison."
Episode 4 quotes
"Look Ginger, my nemesis has left a calling card -- a single monogrammed glove. Pick it up, Ginger! Look Ginger, my nemesis has left another calling card -- a single monogrammed panty liner. Pick it up, Ginger! ... Look Ginger! My nemesis has left another calling card ... there on that fat man's wrist. Quick pick it up before the police bungle onto the scene and contaminate the evidence."
"Excellent use of the monogrammed pantyliner!"
"We must make good our escape, Ginger! I'll drive."
Sir Digby: "I believe we are looking for menstruating child who is waterproof to a depth of fifty meters. Where can he be hiding in such a fiendish disguish?"
Ginger: "I smell sausage rolls."
Sir Digby: "You mean, something fishy?"
Ginger: "No, I -- I smell sausage rolls."
Sir Digby: "You mean, you detect the dread hand of my nemesis's arch-rival, Viscount Von Sausage Roll?"
Ginger: "No, I can smell sausage rolls!!!"
Sir Digby: "Fucking what?"
Ginger: "I can smell sausage rolls."
Sir Digby: "Stop saying that, Ginger!" (sniffs) "Can you smell sausage rolls?"
Ginger: "Sometimes."
Sir Digby: "Gadzooks! He must be hiding amongst these cake-eating dwarfs."
"How did my nemesis shrink himself? When will Ginger find a better method for discovering waterproof dwarfs? Why don't kids parties have real booze any more, like they did when I was a dwarf? Find out in the next enthralling installment of the surprising adventures of Sir Digby Chicken Ceasar."
Episode 5 quotes
"We're not having sex!"
"In a country lacerated by the sharp shards of broken brown-eyed promises, in a world bent low by the burden of disease and war and the price of thunderbird, who is left to make a full account to god of Britain's depleted moral minibar? Yes, it's the surprising adventures of me, Sir Digby Chicken Caesar!"
"This bears all the hallmarks of ... the Countess!"
"Ginger, beat the crap out of her!"
Episode 7 quotes
"Quick, get the copper out of the walls!"
"In a society whose toothy fake smile is ravaged by the plaque of debt and the vodka burp of sub-prime mortgages, who will floss into the darkest cavities of our despair, and see if there are any gold fillings you can swap for a can of peppermint-flavored antifreeze? Yes, it the surprising adventures of me, Sir Digby Chicken Ceasar."
"Excellent work, Ginger. You've infiltrated my nemesis's lair."
"In a world where it's important to know who your friends are, rather than who your daughter is, who will prise open the fist of international conspiracy and see if it's got a 2p in it? Find out next week in the surprising adventures of Sir Digby Chicken Ceasar."
"Keep up, Ginger, you little turd!"
Red Nose Day episode quotes
"Would a mustache on a stick help?"
"Lady Annabelle... has the skin of a lovely angel's bottom."
"Christ's whiskers, Ginger! It's Sir Rupert Dubair, and his man, Badger."
Ginger: "Robots, sir!"
Digby: "Metal bastards! Run the other way!"
Friday, April 02, 2010
Monday, August 10, 2009
Exercise won't help you lose weight
When I was in college about 20 years ago, I started going to a gym because I was dating a guy who thought my 5-foot 9-inch body wasn't thin enough at 145 pounds. That was in California, the state of body-image and food issues, and he was an asshole. But I learned something interesting from a muscle-bound personal trainer who took it upon himself to mentor me because he wanted to get into my nylon exercise pants: Working out won't make you thin and lean; eating low or non-fat is what lets your ripped abs show.
Recently, TIME published an article called "Why Exercise Won't Make You Thin" by John Cloud. Cloud cites several studies which indicate that excessive, intense exercise, the kind so often recommended for losing weight, doesn't actually help you lose weight at all.
The personal trainers, the grueling runs, the countless classes and ridiculous equipment, might be doing more harm than good, especially if you don't understand the relationship between food, body, and exercise.
Basically, if you exercise more, if you exercise harder, you get hungrier. A half a muffin or a sports drink is all it takes to fuel all the calories you just burned in an hour at the gym.
Yes, muscle burns more calories than fat, but if you worked out hard enough to convert ten pounds of fat to muscle, you would still only be able to eat just an extra 40 calories per day. Which is one Oreo cookie or a tablespoon of mayonnaise.
Plus, if you tire yourself out with a burst of rigorous activity, you are much less likely to move around any more for the rest of the day.
Moving around is good for the human body and mind. Studies indicate that exercise is not only good for the heart, and prevents several diseases, but also helps maintain cognitive function and reduces the disabling effects of chronic back pain.
But we don't necessarily need to stress out our bodies at the gym. The "sweaty, exhausting, hunger-producing bursts of activity" are not any more useful than just regular movement during our waking hours.
The problem is the way we've come to define "exercise." Frequent, low-level activities, the sort that humans have been doing for thousands of years before leaf-blowers, Roombas, and corporate farming, may actually work better for us.
What about the sacred exercise truths, such as raising heart rate and sweating as necessary to strengthen the cardiovascular system, or getting "ripped" in order to build muscle? Vigorous exercise isn't necessarily any more beneficial than carrying groceries or climbing stairs at a moderate pace.
And, get this, people who are obese already burn more calories than everyone else, anyway. This chart shows that a 100-pound person will burn 57 calories walking a mile. While a 275-pound person will burn 156 calories in the same distance. So, hell with the gym, I'm going for a walk. It's certainly cheaper.
By the end of the article, Cloud writes, "In short, it's what you eat, not how hard you try to work it off, that matters more in losing weight."
That personal trainer I mentioned, he recommended lean protein, fruits and veggies, and low or non-fat foods. In just a few months, I'd dropped to 124 pounds and a size 4, and had a raging six-pack. Unfortunately, it took me several more months to drop the stupid boyfriend.
Recently, TIME published an article called "Why Exercise Won't Make You Thin" by John Cloud. Cloud cites several studies which indicate that excessive, intense exercise, the kind so often recommended for losing weight, doesn't actually help you lose weight at all.
The personal trainers, the grueling runs, the countless classes and ridiculous equipment, might be doing more harm than good, especially if you don't understand the relationship between food, body, and exercise.
"People who regularly exercise are at significantly lower risk for all manner of diseases — those of the heart in particular. They less often develop cancer, diabetes and many other illnesses. But the past few years of obesity research show that the role of exercise in weight loss has been wildly overstated."
Basically, if you exercise more, if you exercise harder, you get hungrier. A half a muffin or a sports drink is all it takes to fuel all the calories you just burned in an hour at the gym.
Yes, muscle burns more calories than fat, but if you worked out hard enough to convert ten pounds of fat to muscle, you would still only be able to eat just an extra 40 calories per day. Which is one Oreo cookie or a tablespoon of mayonnaise.
Plus, if you tire yourself out with a burst of rigorous activity, you are much less likely to move around any more for the rest of the day.
"Exercise, in other words, isn't necessarily helping us lose weight. It may even be making it harder."
Moving around is good for the human body and mind. Studies indicate that exercise is not only good for the heart, and prevents several diseases, but also helps maintain cognitive function and reduces the disabling effects of chronic back pain.
But we don't necessarily need to stress out our bodies at the gym. The "sweaty, exhausting, hunger-producing bursts of activity" are not any more useful than just regular movement during our waking hours.
"(T)he Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says our leisure-time physical activity (including things like golfing, gardening and walking) has decreased since the late 1980s, right around the time the gym boom really exploded."
The problem is the way we've come to define "exercise." Frequent, low-level activities, the sort that humans have been doing for thousands of years before leaf-blowers, Roombas, and corporate farming, may actually work better for us.
"You cannot sit still all day long and then have 30 minutes of exercise without producing stress on the muscles," says Hans-Rudolf Berthoud, a neurobiologist at LSU's Pennington Biomedical Research Center who has studied nutrition for 20 years. "The muscles will ache, and you may not want to move after. But to burn calories, the muscle movements don't have to be extreme. It would be better to distribute the movements throughout the day."
What about the sacred exercise truths, such as raising heart rate and sweating as necessary to strengthen the cardiovascular system, or getting "ripped" in order to build muscle? Vigorous exercise isn't necessarily any more beneficial than carrying groceries or climbing stairs at a moderate pace.
And, get this, people who are obese already burn more calories than everyone else, anyway. This chart shows that a 100-pound person will burn 57 calories walking a mile. While a 275-pound person will burn 156 calories in the same distance. So, hell with the gym, I'm going for a walk. It's certainly cheaper.
By the end of the article, Cloud writes, "In short, it's what you eat, not how hard you try to work it off, that matters more in losing weight."
That personal trainer I mentioned, he recommended lean protein, fruits and veggies, and low or non-fat foods. In just a few months, I'd dropped to 124 pounds and a size 4, and had a raging six-pack. Unfortunately, it took me several more months to drop the stupid boyfriend.
Monday, May 04, 2009
The secret of life
Over at The Sneeze, Steven's son Lux, age 9, decided he could answer any question. With his dad's help, the aspiring life coach took his act to Twitter. My favorite:
Q: What is the secret to life, the universe and everything?
A: "Everybody is here to be themselves. And mostly play video games."
Amen.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Parental Public Service Post
For all those parents who are desperately looking for the lyrics to the Barney "Cookie Song," because they're tired of their 4-year-olds singing just "COOKIE COOKIE..." at the top of her lungs ... over and over and over ... and would like to at least add a few more words, like "lookie" and "lookie."
This doesn't seem to be posted anywhere else on the internet. I've lookie lookie-ed.
Lookie lookie it's a cookie cookie
A cookie that I'm going to eat
Lookie lookie it's a cookie cookie
Yummy and nummy and sweet
First we make 'em
Then we bake 'em.
I can hardly wait until they're done!
Lookie lookie it's a cookie cookie
Cookies are wonderful fun!
Lookie lookie it's a cookie cookie
With a glass of milk and a plate
Lookie lookie it's a cookie cookie
Smelling and tasting great
First we make 'em
Then we bake 'em
Then we decorate them one by one.
Lookie lookie it's a cookie cookie
Cookies are wonderful fun!
They might be chilly
They might be gooey
Maybe crunchy and munchy when they're done.
Lookie lookie it's a cookie cookie
Cookies are wonderful fun!
Cookies are wonderful fun!
Yum yum!
This doesn't seem to be posted anywhere else on the internet. I've lookie lookie-ed.
Lookie lookie it's a cookie cookie
A cookie that I'm going to eat
Lookie lookie it's a cookie cookie
Yummy and nummy and sweet
First we make 'em
Then we bake 'em.
I can hardly wait until they're done!
Lookie lookie it's a cookie cookie
Cookies are wonderful fun!
Lookie lookie it's a cookie cookie
With a glass of milk and a plate
Lookie lookie it's a cookie cookie
Smelling and tasting great
First we make 'em
Then we bake 'em
Then we decorate them one by one.
Lookie lookie it's a cookie cookie
Cookies are wonderful fun!
They might be chilly
They might be gooey
Maybe crunchy and munchy when they're done.
Lookie lookie it's a cookie cookie
Cookies are wonderful fun!
Cookies are wonderful fun!
Yum yum!
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Best crap-hole to raise kids
BusinessWeek.com recently created a list of "Best Cities to Raise Kids" and they chose Jacksonville in North Carolina.
You have got to be fucking kidding me. I've lived in Jacksonville. It's the LAST place I want to raise kids.
Yes, I met my husband there (and he hated the place). We spent most of our time SOMEWHERE ELSE while we were dating. We held our wedding SOMEWHERE ELSE -- down the road in Wilmington. Our first child was born SOMEWHERE ELSE -- again, in Wilmington -- because it was the closest place with certified nurse-midwives willing to support me in a natural, non-invasive childbirth.
When our baby was only three months old, we relocated SOMEWHERE ELSE -- to Raleigh, the capital of North Carolina.
Jacksonville had way too many strip clubs, massage parlors, bars and pawn shops, and way too few opportunities.
We wanted to live in a place with excellent medical facilities, birth centers, doctors and dentists. A place where there's a diverse population. Where racism wasn't rampant, families didn't disown their daughters for "dating a colored boy," confederates weren't still flying their flag, political and social views weren't Bible-thumping right-wing and narrow, and the population, on average, was much better educated (Raleigh is the 3rd highest educated city in America). And we did not want our daughter growing up in a town where, as one person put it, "The crack of dawn ain't safe," due to the significant population of rowdy, randy young men from the military bases.
In Raleigh, we are within a few miles of history museums, historic sites, art galleries and museums, world-class restaurants, theaters, festivals, several parks and greenways, and science museums. We have Peace, Meridith, St. Augustine's, and NCSU, and are close to Duke and UNC-Chapel Hill. There's a wide range of educational choice at the lower grades, as well, with a large number of charter, magnet, and private schools, and several large homeschooling support groups.
Jacksonville is surrounded by wonderful local farms, and has a lot of fresh fruits and veggies. But, we have that here in Raleigh, too. Plus, we have the state fairgrounds, and the state farmer's market, Whole Foods Market, and tons of restaurants and shops which aren't found in Jacksonville's chain stores and strip malls.
The job opportunities here, versus Jacksonville, are so much better, too. If parents are happy and stable, that has a huge impact on children. Choices for employment in Jacksonville are basically between various low-paying retail establishments, or the military. The Triangle, however, is a thriving spot for the tech field and medical research, among other things. Raleigh ranks #1 on the Forbes "Best List for Business and Careers." It's #1 on MSNBC's "Best Places to Live" list. As of June 2008, Raleigh has appeared on at least 22 different "Best Of" lists.
I cry SHENANIGANS, BusinessWeek!
Look at what BusinessWeek wrote about Jacksonville:
"Population: 71,922... Jacksonville, a former farming town, is now a commercial hub and home to Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune and Marine Corps Air Station New River."
Now look at the Jacksonville city website:
"Jacksonville is the commercial hub of Onslow County and home to Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune and Marine Corps Air Station New River. Some 72,254 people make the city their home. The once quiet farming community has grown into the business, retail, medical, banking and cultural center for Onslow County."
BusinessWeek looked up a few statistics, copied from the Jacksonville city website, and voila, chose a crap-hole as "the best place to raise a kid" in North Carolina.
You have got to be fucking kidding me. I've lived in Jacksonville. It's the LAST place I want to raise kids.
Yes, I met my husband there (and he hated the place). We spent most of our time SOMEWHERE ELSE while we were dating. We held our wedding SOMEWHERE ELSE -- down the road in Wilmington. Our first child was born SOMEWHERE ELSE -- again, in Wilmington -- because it was the closest place with certified nurse-midwives willing to support me in a natural, non-invasive childbirth.
When our baby was only three months old, we relocated SOMEWHERE ELSE -- to Raleigh, the capital of North Carolina.
Jacksonville had way too many strip clubs, massage parlors, bars and pawn shops, and way too few opportunities.
We wanted to live in a place with excellent medical facilities, birth centers, doctors and dentists. A place where there's a diverse population. Where racism wasn't rampant, families didn't disown their daughters for "dating a colored boy," confederates weren't still flying their flag, political and social views weren't Bible-thumping right-wing and narrow, and the population, on average, was much better educated (Raleigh is the 3rd highest educated city in America). And we did not want our daughter growing up in a town where, as one person put it, "The crack of dawn ain't safe," due to the significant population of rowdy, randy young men from the military bases.
In Raleigh, we are within a few miles of history museums, historic sites, art galleries and museums, world-class restaurants, theaters, festivals, several parks and greenways, and science museums. We have Peace, Meridith, St. Augustine's, and NCSU, and are close to Duke and UNC-Chapel Hill. There's a wide range of educational choice at the lower grades, as well, with a large number of charter, magnet, and private schools, and several large homeschooling support groups.
Jacksonville is surrounded by wonderful local farms, and has a lot of fresh fruits and veggies. But, we have that here in Raleigh, too. Plus, we have the state fairgrounds, and the state farmer's market, Whole Foods Market, and tons of restaurants and shops which aren't found in Jacksonville's chain stores and strip malls.
The job opportunities here, versus Jacksonville, are so much better, too. If parents are happy and stable, that has a huge impact on children. Choices for employment in Jacksonville are basically between various low-paying retail establishments, or the military. The Triangle, however, is a thriving spot for the tech field and medical research, among other things. Raleigh ranks #1 on the Forbes "Best List for Business and Careers." It's #1 on MSNBC's "Best Places to Live" list. As of June 2008, Raleigh has appeared on at least 22 different "Best Of" lists.
I cry SHENANIGANS, BusinessWeek!
Look at what BusinessWeek wrote about Jacksonville:
"Population: 71,922... Jacksonville, a former farming town, is now a commercial hub and home to Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune and Marine Corps Air Station New River."
Now look at the Jacksonville city website:
"Jacksonville is the commercial hub of Onslow County and home to Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune and Marine Corps Air Station New River. Some 72,254 people make the city their home. The once quiet farming community has grown into the business, retail, medical, banking and cultural center for Onslow County."
BusinessWeek looked up a few statistics, copied from the Jacksonville city website, and voila, chose a crap-hole as "the best place to raise a kid" in North Carolina.
Thursday, November 06, 2008
Incredibly pointless junk fails to fly off shelves as Americans forced to focus on things that matter
The Associated Press reports that retail sales took a steep decline in October, "as the financial crisis and mounting layoffs left shoppers too scared to shop."
I don't know if I'd call it "scared." How about "Forced Reassessment of Junk I Don't Really Need"?
The article goes on to state that prices are being slashed on everything, including holiday ornaments, and that luxury merchants and teen retailers are suffering deep declines. Linens 'N Things has been forced to liquidate. Saks and Gap both recorded 16 percent drops.
Only Wal-Mart seems to be treading water, which is good, because they are the largest private employer in the country.
"Even teens stayed away from malls. American Eagle Outfitters Inc. reported a steeper-than-expected 12 percent drop in same-store sales, while Abercrombie & Fitch Co. had a 20 percent drop," AP reports.
While it is unfortunate that the retail sector will be forced to lay off workers, I can't say I'm surprised or dismayed that Americans' once seemingly limitless appetite for pointless shit is coming to an end. How many fondue pots and matching bathroom sets do we really need? That snowman ornament there is cute, in all it's shiny sugar-glaze looking goodness, but is it $30 cute? I don't fucking think so.
I'm no financial expert, but are retail sales truly the only basis for our economy? To the extent that, if we all stop buying incredibly stupid shit, then our nation collapses?
If so, that's a problem which needs immediate attention. Considering all the infrastructure which needs repairing, alternative energy which needs developing, aging boomers needing health care, and schools needing improvements, that fact that our economy is tied so precariously to whether or not I need a new set of holiday ornaments and an over-priced shirt is just so WRONG.
Friday, October 31, 2008
Are you horny, baby?
My husband and I have a long-running disagreement (approaching 10 years, now) over the fact that women are just as sexual as men. He says they're not.
He points out that pornography is much more popular among men. I counter that, in our culture, a "right of passage" is having your uncle or father or older brother give you your first porn mag at age 12. Do we do that with girls? Heck no. Women are forced to keep things to themselves more than men due to centuries of double standards, social pressures and persecution. Never forget that even now there are places in the world where women are maimed and murdered for committing adultery or losing their virginity. That threat kind of puts a damper on sexual expression.
I also contend that women have better imaginations, and better memories. Men like to have a picture right in front of them. Women can recall perfectly what Matt Damon looks like.
Continuing the ongoing argument, I sent my husband a little tidbit I came across on Wikipedia today:
Malleus Maleficarum
The Malleus Maleficarum (Latin for "The Hammer of Witches", or "Hexenhammer" in German) is a famous treatise on witches, written in 1486 by Heinrich Kramer and Jacob Sprenger, two Inquisitors of the Catholic Church, and was first published in Germany in 1487. The main purpose of the Malleus was to systematically refute arguments claiming that witchcraft does not exist, refute those who expressed skepticism about its reality, to prove that witches were more often women than men, and to educate magistrates on the procedures that could find them out and convict them.
The bit of the article I found particularly interesting was this: The Devil’s power is greatest where human sexuality is concerned, for it was believed that women were more sexual than men. Loose women had sex with the Devil, thus paving their way to become witches. To quote the Malleus “all witchcraft comes from carnal lust, which is in women insatiable.”
"Insatiable," eh?
Monday, October 20, 2008
A history lesson
Anyone remember the 1960 presidential election? Well, unless you're in your 60s or older, you probably don't, because you weren't even old enough to vote for John F. Kennedy or his opponent Richard Nixon.
One interesting thing about that election was that, up until then, there had NEVER been a Catholic president of the United States. So what, right? Well, that was a HUGE deal, back then.
Here's a little context. Anti-Irish/Anti-Catholic racism was a powerful force in Victorian Britain and 19th-century United States. The Irish were stereotyped as violent, impoverished, and prone to substance abuse, and they were accused of monopolizing certain (usually low-paying) job markets. It was common for Irish people to be discriminated against in social situations, and intermarriage between Catholics and Protestants was uncommon. "No Irish need apply" (NINA) signs were familiar to the Irish.
And they continued to be discriminated against in various professions into the 20th century. While the Irish dominated such occupations as domestic service, building, and factory work, they were not present in large numbers in the professions, finance, and other "white collar" businesses.
Kennedy was only the second Catholic to become a major-party presidential candidate (the first was a few decades earlier, in the 1920s). During his campaign, Kennedy said that under the Republicans, America was falling behind, both militarily and economically, and that as President he would "get America moving again." Nixon responded that Kennedy was too young and inexperienced to be trusted with the Presidency.
Does all of this sound kind of familiar?
A key factor which hurt Kennedy during his presidential campaign was widespread prejudice -- against his religion. Some Protestants believed that, if he were elected president, Kennedy would take orders from the Pope in Rome. It was widely believed that Kennedy lost some heavily Protestant states because of his Catholicism. Kennedy was the last candidate to win the presidency without carrying Ohio and was the only non-incumbent in the 20th century to do so.
In West Virginia, Kennedy visited a coal mine and talked to mine workers to win their support. Most people in that conservative, mostly Protestant state were deeply suspicious of Kennedy's Roman Catholicism. His popularity in West Virginia cemented his credentials as a candidate with broad appeal.
To address fears that his Roman Catholicism would impact his decision-making, he told the Greater Houston Ministerial Association on September 12, 1960, "I am not the Catholic candidate for President. I am the Democratic Party's candidate for President who also happens to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my Church on public matters — and the Church does not speak for me." Kennedy also brought up the point of whether one-quarter of Americans were relegated to second-class citizenship just because they were Roman Catholic.
Still sounding familiar?
Yesterday, I found out that someone I know (who is, yes, white) is "afraid that, if Obama becomes president, he'll be assassinated and that will start a race war." Which makes me wonder whether they remember the religious war sparked by the JFK assassination. This country's been a regular Northern Ireland ever since, right?
Personally, I eagerly await the day this country elects its first black president. Because then another minority group will have what author Bob Considine called, in his 1961 book It's the Irish, "full membership":
At exactly 12:51 p.m. on January 20, 1961, America's Catholic Irish reached the end of a long and difficult journey. When John Fitzgerald Kennedy took the oath of office as the 35th President of the United Sates, and delivered an address hailed as an eloquent classic, they finally pulled abreast of the Protestant English majority that had run the nation since its founding.
Over the previous half-century, Catholic Irishmen had won prestige and prominence in every field of honorable endeavor. But, ... they had not been able to elect one of their number President. That one final achievement eluded them; the White House still was off-limits to Catholics.
Kennedy changed all that -- and he changed it despite a continuing though dwindling mass of anti-Catholic prejudice. With his election, the Catholic Irish -- despised, derided, denied even the most menial jobs a century and a quarter before -- at long last reached the ultimate political and social pinnacle.
In the balloting of 1960, American did more than elect John Fitzgerald Kennedy President; it also elected the Catholic Irish to full membership.
Sources: Wikipedia.org and "It's the Irish" by Bob Considine (out of print). Photo from Harper's Weekly, December 1876
Friday, October 17, 2008
Crap service competition: AT&T vs. Blockbuster
At this point, I'm not sure which is worse, AT&T or Blockbuster. Let's examine:
AT&T
I used to have Bellsouth for local and long-distance phone service. Then AT&T bought Bellsouth. Things were alright for awhile, until I decided to sign up for AT&T's bundle plan for local, long-distance and Internet.
When I called AT&T, I was told I'd have to lose some of my calling features, things like call waiting, 3-way calling, and voice mail. A little fact they left out of their promotional material. But I never used those features, anyway, so, no problem.
Then I was told I'd have to pay for a special modem (another fact left out of the promotional material), which they would send to me, but hooking up our service would be easy. Just plug in the modem and follow the instructions. No technicians needed to visit. Yay.
We received the modem, and my husband went to hook it up. We needed a password which we didn't have. The modem came with some discs, which we figured out we were supposed to use to access said password and activate our online service. But the discs only worked for Windows.
We run Linux.
After spending a considerable amount of time on the phone with AT&T customer service, the bottom line was that we could not connect to the Internet using AT&T. You'd think that the AT&T rep might have said, "You must have Windows in order to connect," when I signed up. But, no.
AT&T told us to box everything back up, and they would send us a return label. Meanwhile, we had to scramble to reconnect our previous internet service, which can be used with Linux, and which required I stay home half a day and wait for a technician to come out to our house. We got the return label, we sent the modem back to AT&T. All done, right?
Wrong. After that, I got a bill from AT&T which included a charge for the modem we were never able to use, and charges for internet service, even though we were never able to connect. I spent a half-hour on the phone, being shuffled between various AT&T departments, and explaining my circumstances to no fewer than 4 different people, before the connection charges were dropped.
The modem charge of $75, however, would only be dropped when the modem was received by AT&T.
That was in September.
Come October, I get another bill from AT&T for the $75 unused modem.
"If you have any questions," said the bill, "you may call 1-888..." So, I call, I work my way through the automated system, wait on hold for several minutes, and finally get a human being. I explain that I just got a bill charging me for a modem I never used. And he says, "I'll need to transfer you to customer service." Really? Well, then who are you? "Billing." Right. So, why can't you answer a question about my bill? "I don't have the information about your modem, I'll need to transfer you." OK.
So, I'm put on hold, again. I wait several minutes, then I get to explain my story to the next person. She says, "I'll need to transfer you to the DSL department. They handle that."
I was put on hold a third time. When the DSL department picked up, the connection was crap and I could only hear every other syllable. I was able to confirm my home phone number with him, and I told him I could barely hear so could he please call me back for a better connection. He agreed.
A few minutes later, I received his call, and I explained my story again. He said, "I'm sorry, you'll need to talk to someone in billing about that."
I shit you not. That's what he said.
"No. No way. I talked to billing, that's who I called to begin with. They transferred me to customer service, and customer service transferred me to you, and now you're telling me I've got to go back to billing? You've got to be kidding me!"
He reassured me that he would find someone who could answer my questions. I was transferred to a "Ms. Fitzpatrick," who said, yes, AT&T did indeed receive the returned modem, and she would credit my account the $75 right now.
Which begs the question, why didn't they credit my account before I called?
BLOCKBUSTER
The same day I called AT&T, I had to deal with Blockbuster. I'd noticed a charge of $7.92 from Blockbuster on my bank statement. I called the store and asked what the charge was for. "Max and Ruby." Oh, yeah, I'd rented that for the kids a month or two ago, but we have piles of DVDs, so maybe it got lost and we forgot to take it back.
"Was it returned?" I asked. Yes, it was. In fact, I hadn't kept the movie very long, maybe 2 weeks tops. "Then what's the charge for?" Late fees. "But I thought Blockbuster didn't charge late fees like that any more."
At that point, I was told that "Blockbuster hadn't really decided what it was going to do about late fees," and that my city is a test market for reinstating the fees.
Then he told me that I'd received some automated phone calls telling me to return the movie. Wow. Charging late fees AND hiring psychics now? I don't remember receiving any automated phone calls, and even if I had, I probably wouldn't have paid attention because I used to receive automated reminders all the time, back when Blockbuster WASN'T charging late fees.
At that point, I was mad. I hung up and went to Blockbuster.com. From there, I clicked "Contact Us" and got an online form. The form had a drop-down menu for selecting a subject, and I chose "Store Feedback" and "Extended Viewing Fees." I gave my name, email, etc, and explained what happened. Then I explained that Blockbuster has lost me as a customer.
What kind of reply, if any, did I expect? I figured they would say something like, "Blockbuster is examining its current fee structure and we are very sorry to hear that you are disappointed with our level of service. We will take your comments into consideration when determining our nationwide late-fee policies and hope that you will return again to Blockbuster."
What I did receive, later that day, was this reply from "Paula":
I have carefully reviewed your billing information and I have not seen any $8.00 charge for movie rental. The only billing I saw was on last January 9, 2005 which has the billing amount of $16.00 for Total access subscription. I would suggest that you contact your bank and check if there is overdue fee of $8.00 from Blockbuster.
If in future you would like to reinactivate your account, you may write down your current e-mail address and password.
Always here to help,
Paula
Blockbuster Customer Care
Yeah, real helpful, Paula. First, I already know for a fact that I was charged an overdue fee by Blockbuster, not for a movie I kept over a month but for a movie I kept about a week and a half, I talked to the store, and now you're trying to tell me it didn't happen? Second, how the hell would my BANK know it's an overdue fee and not just a rental fee or purchase? And third, what the hell is "reinactivate"?
I emailed Paula and said:
I don't know what account you're looking at, but I was charged exactly $7.92 by Blockbuster for a movie I rented -- a "Max and Ruby" kids dvd -- and did not return by a particular date. I called the store in question (here I provided the store's address and phone number) and I talked to someone, I think he said his name was "----." He told me I was charged for keeping the rental for one week past the due date, and when I said I thought that Blockbuster got rid of overdue charges, he said that (my city) was a "test market" for re-instating the fees again.
The whole point here is that I DO NOT nor will I ever again choose Blockbuster as my "entertainment provider." What prescription meds are these people on? I have no idea what email address is associated with my account, if not this one. And I don't have a "subscription plan" nor do I have any other email address that would be connected to Blockbuster.
I wrote back to Eliza today:
I do NOT choose Blockbuster as my entertainment provider, and I never complained about charges on my subscription program. I was complaining about charges to my movie rental account at a Blockbuster store location.
I submitted my complaint through Blockbuster.com, assuming this was how to contact the Blockbuster company which controls the Blockbuster stores. If I am incorrect, could I please have the correct contact info for the Blockbuster company? Thank you.
And I got this reply from "Vian":
I understand that you would like to know why you have been billed. I reviewed your account and I see that there was no $8.00 charge. I believe you have rented it in a store in (my city). It would be best if you could drop by at the store so we could assist you better. Please let me know If there is anything I can help you with. It is my pleasure serving you today.
Always happy to help,
Vian
Blockbuster Customer Care
Are these people even reading my messages?
To Vian, I reply:
No, I do NOT want to know why I've been billed. I KNOW why I was billed, I already called and talked to the store. They told me that they are now charging late fees again. SO WHAT I'M TELLING BLOCKBUSTER is that, as a result, they have LOST ME AS A CUSTOMER. That's all I've been trying to say all along. I don't need any explanations, credits, or confirmations. I'm submitting a complaint. THE END. It is not necessary to contact me again.
And then I received an email inviting me to take the "Blockbuster online support survey," which only had a few questions about the speed of their response, the courtesy and professionalism of the response, and whether I felt that customer support actually understood my inquiry. So, they've GOT to know, already, that their customer support system is ass or else why would they ask?
"Much like the print media and retail stores refusing to change, Blockbuster has been a victim on an online company finding new and inventive ways of bringing a product to a customer. And due to its size and outdated corporate culture, there really is no salvation for Blockbuster at this point. Try as it might, the future of Blockbuster is bleak, at best."
"Blockbuster reported a loss of $44.7 million, or 23 cents a share, in the second quarter, ended June 30, compared to a $34.2 million loss in the same period last year. But same-store revenue rose 9%, and the company reaffirmed that it expects a profit for the year." (09-2008)
Well, yeah, if they spring a bunch of new late fees on people, and raise rental fees, they'll definitely show a profit. For a little while. Until all of those folks remember that's why they were sick of Blockbuster, before, and go somewhere else.
AT&T
I used to have Bellsouth for local and long-distance phone service. Then AT&T bought Bellsouth. Things were alright for awhile, until I decided to sign up for AT&T's bundle plan for local, long-distance and Internet.
When I called AT&T, I was told I'd have to lose some of my calling features, things like call waiting, 3-way calling, and voice mail. A little fact they left out of their promotional material. But I never used those features, anyway, so, no problem.
Then I was told I'd have to pay for a special modem (another fact left out of the promotional material), which they would send to me, but hooking up our service would be easy. Just plug in the modem and follow the instructions. No technicians needed to visit. Yay.
We received the modem, and my husband went to hook it up. We needed a password which we didn't have. The modem came with some discs, which we figured out we were supposed to use to access said password and activate our online service. But the discs only worked for Windows.
We run Linux.
After spending a considerable amount of time on the phone with AT&T customer service, the bottom line was that we could not connect to the Internet using AT&T. You'd think that the AT&T rep might have said, "You must have Windows in order to connect," when I signed up. But, no.
AT&T told us to box everything back up, and they would send us a return label. Meanwhile, we had to scramble to reconnect our previous internet service, which can be used with Linux, and which required I stay home half a day and wait for a technician to come out to our house. We got the return label, we sent the modem back to AT&T. All done, right?
Wrong. After that, I got a bill from AT&T which included a charge for the modem we were never able to use, and charges for internet service, even though we were never able to connect. I spent a half-hour on the phone, being shuffled between various AT&T departments, and explaining my circumstances to no fewer than 4 different people, before the connection charges were dropped.
The modem charge of $75, however, would only be dropped when the modem was received by AT&T.
That was in September.
Come October, I get another bill from AT&T for the $75 unused modem.
"If you have any questions," said the bill, "you may call 1-888..." So, I call, I work my way through the automated system, wait on hold for several minutes, and finally get a human being. I explain that I just got a bill charging me for a modem I never used. And he says, "I'll need to transfer you to customer service." Really? Well, then who are you? "Billing." Right. So, why can't you answer a question about my bill? "I don't have the information about your modem, I'll need to transfer you." OK.
So, I'm put on hold, again. I wait several minutes, then I get to explain my story to the next person. She says, "I'll need to transfer you to the DSL department. They handle that."
I was put on hold a third time. When the DSL department picked up, the connection was crap and I could only hear every other syllable. I was able to confirm my home phone number with him, and I told him I could barely hear so could he please call me back for a better connection. He agreed.
A few minutes later, I received his call, and I explained my story again. He said, "I'm sorry, you'll need to talk to someone in billing about that."
I shit you not. That's what he said.
"No. No way. I talked to billing, that's who I called to begin with. They transferred me to customer service, and customer service transferred me to you, and now you're telling me I've got to go back to billing? You've got to be kidding me!"
He reassured me that he would find someone who could answer my questions. I was transferred to a "Ms. Fitzpatrick," who said, yes, AT&T did indeed receive the returned modem, and she would credit my account the $75 right now.
Which begs the question, why didn't they credit my account before I called?
BLOCKBUSTER
The same day I called AT&T, I had to deal with Blockbuster. I'd noticed a charge of $7.92 from Blockbuster on my bank statement. I called the store and asked what the charge was for. "Max and Ruby." Oh, yeah, I'd rented that for the kids a month or two ago, but we have piles of DVDs, so maybe it got lost and we forgot to take it back.
"Was it returned?" I asked. Yes, it was. In fact, I hadn't kept the movie very long, maybe 2 weeks tops. "Then what's the charge for?" Late fees. "But I thought Blockbuster didn't charge late fees like that any more."
At that point, I was told that "Blockbuster hadn't really decided what it was going to do about late fees," and that my city is a test market for reinstating the fees.
Then he told me that I'd received some automated phone calls telling me to return the movie. Wow. Charging late fees AND hiring psychics now? I don't remember receiving any automated phone calls, and even if I had, I probably wouldn't have paid attention because I used to receive automated reminders all the time, back when Blockbuster WASN'T charging late fees.
At that point, I was mad. I hung up and went to Blockbuster.com. From there, I clicked "Contact Us" and got an online form. The form had a drop-down menu for selecting a subject, and I chose "Store Feedback" and "Extended Viewing Fees." I gave my name, email, etc, and explained what happened. Then I explained that Blockbuster has lost me as a customer.
What kind of reply, if any, did I expect? I figured they would say something like, "Blockbuster is examining its current fee structure and we are very sorry to hear that you are disappointed with our level of service. We will take your comments into consideration when determining our nationwide late-fee policies and hope that you will return again to Blockbuster."
What I did receive, later that day, was this reply from "Paula":
I have carefully reviewed your billing information and I have not seen any $8.00 charge for movie rental. The only billing I saw was on last January 9, 2005 which has the billing amount of $16.00 for Total access subscription. I would suggest that you contact your bank and check if there is overdue fee of $8.00 from Blockbuster.
If in future you would like to reinactivate your account, you may write down your current e-mail address and password.
Always here to help,
Paula
Blockbuster Customer Care
Yeah, real helpful, Paula. First, I already know for a fact that I was charged an overdue fee by Blockbuster, not for a movie I kept over a month but for a movie I kept about a week and a half, I talked to the store, and now you're trying to tell me it didn't happen? Second, how the hell would my BANK know it's an overdue fee and not just a rental fee or purchase? And third, what the hell is "reinactivate"?
I emailed Paula and said:
I don't know what account you're looking at, but I was charged exactly $7.92 by Blockbuster for a movie I rented -- a "Max and Ruby" kids dvd -- and did not return by a particular date. I called the store in question (here I provided the store's address and phone number) and I talked to someone, I think he said his name was "----." He told me I was charged for keeping the rental for one week past the due date, and when I said I thought that Blockbuster got rid of overdue charges, he said that (my city) was a "test market" for re-instating the fees again.
I received another reply, but this time from "Eliza."
Thank you for contacting Blockbuster Customer Care!
I sincerely apologize for the confusion regarding the charges on your Subscription plan.
Using your email address I was not able to see any charges on this account not even for any non returned DVDs. It would be helpful if you can give us the email addres associated with this account or the account number itself. So that we are able to pull up the right account and give you an efficient answer.
Please let me know if there is anything else I can do for you. It was a pleasure serving you today.
You have a great weekend! Thank you for choosing Blockbuster as your #1 entertainment provider.
Sincerely,
Eliza
BLOCKBUSTER Customer Care
The whole point here is that I DO NOT nor will I ever again choose Blockbuster as my "entertainment provider." What prescription meds are these people on? I have no idea what email address is associated with my account, if not this one. And I don't have a "subscription plan" nor do I have any other email address that would be connected to Blockbuster.
I wrote back to Eliza today:
I do NOT choose Blockbuster as my entertainment provider, and I never complained about charges on my subscription program. I was complaining about charges to my movie rental account at a Blockbuster store location.
I submitted my complaint through Blockbuster.com, assuming this was how to contact the Blockbuster company which controls the Blockbuster stores. If I am incorrect, could I please have the correct contact info for the Blockbuster company? Thank you.
And I got this reply from "Vian":
I understand that you would like to know why you have been billed. I reviewed your account and I see that there was no $8.00 charge. I believe you have rented it in a store in (my city). It would be best if you could drop by at the store so we could assist you better. Please let me know If there is anything I can help you with. It is my pleasure serving you today.
Always happy to help,
Vian
Blockbuster Customer Care
Are these people even reading my messages?
To Vian, I reply:
No, I do NOT want to know why I've been billed. I KNOW why I was billed, I already called and talked to the store. They told me that they are now charging late fees again. SO WHAT I'M TELLING BLOCKBUSTER is that, as a result, they have LOST ME AS A CUSTOMER. That's all I've been trying to say all along. I don't need any explanations, credits, or confirmations. I'm submitting a complaint. THE END. It is not necessary to contact me again.
And then I received an email inviting me to take the "Blockbuster online support survey," which only had a few questions about the speed of their response, the courtesy and professionalism of the response, and whether I felt that customer support actually understood my inquiry. So, they've GOT to know, already, that their customer support system is ass or else why would they ask?
"Much like the print media and retail stores refusing to change, Blockbuster has been a victim on an online company finding new and inventive ways of bringing a product to a customer. And due to its size and outdated corporate culture, there really is no salvation for Blockbuster at this point. Try as it might, the future of Blockbuster is bleak, at best."
"Blockbuster reported a loss of $44.7 million, or 23 cents a share, in the second quarter, ended June 30, compared to a $34.2 million loss in the same period last year. But same-store revenue rose 9%, and the company reaffirmed that it expects a profit for the year." (09-2008)
Well, yeah, if they spring a bunch of new late fees on people, and raise rental fees, they'll definitely show a profit. For a little while. Until all of those folks remember that's why they were sick of Blockbuster, before, and go somewhere else.
Sunday, January 13, 2008
Montessori vs. Home School UPDATED
I home schooled my oldest daughter, Tara, through second grade, but we placed her in a private Montessori school for third grade in August. I continue to have my 3-year-old daughter, Amber, at home with me (meaning, she does not attend pre-school or daycare, though the Montessori school would accept her). I also work from home.
Several people have asked me about the differences between Montessori and home schooling; why we decided to put Tara into Montessori school; and why we decided to return to home schooling again at the end of this 2007-2008 school year.
First, I think I should talk about why we chose to home school in the first place. The short answer is: because public schools suck. However, if you want the long answer:
* We want our children to be able to experience more than they would in public school. In addition to the basics (reading, writing, math), we explore science, economics, computers, yoga, art, history, languages, psychology, world cultures, mythology, poetry, sports, music, dance, logic, politics, archeology, sociology, and more.
* We want them to learn by doing, living, talking, researching, and interacting, and to be able to pursue whatever knowledge interests them, instead of just sitting there receiving whatever the teacher or textbook decides to tell them.
* They are not animals. They don't need to be trained to follow ringing bells, or beg to go to the bathroom, or be generally treated like inmates.
* We want our children to be able to meet and interact with people of ALL ages and backgrounds, not just the same 30 children of the same age and from the same neighborhood every day.
* While we are not Christians, we do want our children to know about all religions and holidays. In public school, religious expression, discussion and celebration is forbidden, (or, in the case of the bible-belt area where we live, one-sided).
* Our children are very bright. Children with high intelligence have special needs. Public schools in our area are not equipped to deal with these types of children.
Other reasons we chose a non-traditional method of education include: the inefficient waste of time in public schools; our belief in the importance of family bonds and activities; the negative social environment of public schools; and several points of disagreement with "traditional" teaching methods.
So, why did we put Tara in a Montessori school? The short answer here is that Tara is a very difficult and demanding child. The "terrible twos" came on when she was only 10 months old, and didn't go away until ... ummmm... yesterday. Mommy needed a break.
We also felt that Amber would benefit greatly, at this point in her development, from having mommy all to herself for a few hours a day.
And Tara was becoming aware of the fact that most other children in our society go to public school, and that school is (according to children's television shows) a magical place of talking dinosaurs, dancing blue dogs, shiny happy people, and playing all day long. She kept asking questions about school, and was curious what it would be like.
There was no way in hell-o operator that we were going to put her in public school, so we began investigating private schools. I'd read quite a bit about the Montessori method five years ago, when I began Tara's pre-school education, and was already using some of the ideas and techniques.
For some humor on this topic, check out "Something Weird Going On In That Montessori School, Neighbor Reports" from The Onion spoof newspaper.
From wikipedia.org: "The (Montessori) method is characterized by an emphasis on self-directed activity on the part of the child ... It stresses the importance of adapting the child's learning environment to his developmental level, and of the role of physical activity in absorbing academic concepts and practical skills."
After four months with the Montessori school, here are some of the differences I've noted between Montessori and public school.
Montessori classrooms do not have assigned seating, and there are only a few desks. Children work on the floor, or at various tables. The classroom is full of accessible plants, animals, learning tools, folders, worksheets, books, and other materials. There is also a kitchen and bathroom in Tara's classroom.
Our Montessori school is much smaller than most public schools. Students range in age from 3 to 15. Administrators get to know all of the students. Teachers and administrators are available via phone and email all the time. Parents can request conferences at any time. Tara's class takes at least two field trips a month. The school is very flexible, and does not classify any absence as "unexcused."
Family obligations are always considered more important than anything else. Parents are actively involved in the school and classroom. Students are not given much homework, only about 20-30 minutes a night, and that includes 15 minutes of reading from any book of their choice. They never receive homework over the weekends or holidays.
Here's a little story that illustrates another difference. We went to dinner last night with a family whose daughter attends public school. The mom asked Tara, "So, do you like your teacher?" And Tara responded, "Which one? We have four classroom teachers, plus a Spanish teacher, art teacher, drama teacher, yoga teacher, gymnastics teacher, PE teacher, and music teacher." And that's all for a classroom of just 26 students.
Another big difference, one which we like very much, is the lack of grading and testing. Students are given workbooks and assignments appropriate to their needs (there are several different ages and achievement levels within Tara's class). But students are not expected to work on the same thing at the same time, or to complete assignments within the same time-frame. And if they do something incorrectly, they are helped until they can do it correctly, not just handed back a paper marked "C" and then moved on to the next assignment.
Children are also not separated strictly by age or ability. Tara is in what's called "lower elementary" and there are children ages 6-9 in her class. Older students help tutor and mentor younger students. Students, even at this age, are expected to be responsible for their education, and are taught organizational, time management and self-discipline skills.
"Although there are many schools which use the name 'Montessori,' the word itself is not recognized as a trademark, nor is it associated with a single specific organization. Thus it is legally possible to use the term 'Montessori' without necessary adherence to a particular training or teaching method." Which is probably why I've heard people accuse "Montessori" public schools of not actually following all - or even most - of the Montessori method.
Now, about that topic which is thrown in the face of every home-schooling family: socialization.
Tara never comes home in tears because anyone is making fun of her. She does not generally talk about things like popularity, clothes, or bullies. She comes home with things like a necklace someone made her to apologize for treating her poorly on the playground. Or stories about someone hurting someone else's feelings and how they all talked it out. I have tried asking questions such as, "Do kids ever make fun of you, or each other?" "Who is the most popular person in class?" etc. These questions don't seem to relate to her experiences.
The Montessori school promotes the attitude that the entire class is a team. They are expected to help each other, work together, to forgive, and to accept each others' differences. Much emphasis is placed on conflict resolution and creating a safe environment, emotionally and physically. They use such techniques as the Peace Rose to work out problems between students. Feelings are not ignored or belittled, no one is expected to put up with bullies or to just ignore a problem until it goes away. Compliments are encouraged, teasing not tolerated.
Children are taught to shake hands, make eye contact, clean up after themselves, tidy up their classrooms and playgrounds, be polite, and other manners which are often lacking in "socialized" public school students.
Diversity is also embraced at the Montessori school. Children are allowed to dress any way they want to, and I've seen several students (and parents) with colored hair. Children wear clothing styles of all kinds. Families are invited to share all of their cultural and religious practices with the school. For instance, recently an email went out to all of the parents asking if they wanted to share their holiday traditions in the classroom - whether that be Christmas, Hanukkah, Diwali, Ramadan, Winter Solstice, Kwanzaa, or whatever.
All of that said, however, I'm not saying things are perfect. She is starting to struggle a little with feeling awkward, sad, shy, and insecure, and the dark part of "socialization" -- the realization that some people can't be trusted, some people aren't nice, some people can be lying and manipulative, and there's some things you just can't fix no matter how hard you try. But these have all been good lessons for her to learn.
So why are we going back to home schooling? One of the main reasons is because Tara requested it. Science is her favorite subject, but one which is not pursued to her satisfaction in the Montessori school. She misses the variety of educational topics and experiences she had while home schooling. Tara recently told us that she also wants to home school again because it gives her more time to think. The noise and constant distractions during lessons are bothering Tara. She said last night, "You know, mom, after being at that school for several weeks now, I've realized that most of the other kids don't care at all about learning anything."
I think Montessori has been, overall, a good experience for Tara, but I don't feel that she's able to work up to her full academic or creative potential. Our Montessori school has done very well with the basic academics** and some of the extracurriculars (such as Spanish, art and music) but it still has its limitations. And I lean toward the unschooling philosophy enough to keenly feel them.
I hope this has explained our experiences with Montessori. I have taken for granted that my audience has an intimate understanding of home schooling. If not, I highly recommend further online research. If you have any questions about our particular experiences with Montessori vs. Home School, I'd be happy to answer them.
** UPDATE MAY 2008: Tara recently finished mandatory standardized testing and did very well.
** UPDATE OCT 2018: Tara is now attending college. She's doing great.
Several people have asked me about the differences between Montessori and home schooling; why we decided to put Tara into Montessori school; and why we decided to return to home schooling again at the end of this 2007-2008 school year.
First, I think I should talk about why we chose to home school in the first place. The short answer is: because public schools suck. However, if you want the long answer:
* We want our children to be able to experience more than they would in public school. In addition to the basics (reading, writing, math), we explore science, economics, computers, yoga, art, history, languages, psychology, world cultures, mythology, poetry, sports, music, dance, logic, politics, archeology, sociology, and more.
* We want them to learn by doing, living, talking, researching, and interacting, and to be able to pursue whatever knowledge interests them, instead of just sitting there receiving whatever the teacher or textbook decides to tell them.
* They are not animals. They don't need to be trained to follow ringing bells, or beg to go to the bathroom, or be generally treated like inmates.
* We want our children to be able to meet and interact with people of ALL ages and backgrounds, not just the same 30 children of the same age and from the same neighborhood every day.
* While we are not Christians, we do want our children to know about all religions and holidays. In public school, religious expression, discussion and celebration is forbidden, (or, in the case of the bible-belt area where we live, one-sided).
* Our children are very bright. Children with high intelligence have special needs. Public schools in our area are not equipped to deal with these types of children.
Other reasons we chose a non-traditional method of education include: the inefficient waste of time in public schools; our belief in the importance of family bonds and activities; the negative social environment of public schools; and several points of disagreement with "traditional" teaching methods.
So, why did we put Tara in a Montessori school? The short answer here is that Tara is a very difficult and demanding child. The "terrible twos" came on when she was only 10 months old, and didn't go away until ... ummmm... yesterday. Mommy needed a break.
We also felt that Amber would benefit greatly, at this point in her development, from having mommy all to herself for a few hours a day.
And Tara was becoming aware of the fact that most other children in our society go to public school, and that school is (according to children's television shows) a magical place of talking dinosaurs, dancing blue dogs, shiny happy people, and playing all day long. She kept asking questions about school, and was curious what it would be like.
There was no way in hell-o operator that we were going to put her in public school, so we began investigating private schools. I'd read quite a bit about the Montessori method five years ago, when I began Tara's pre-school education, and was already using some of the ideas and techniques.
For some humor on this topic, check out "Something Weird Going On In That Montessori School, Neighbor Reports" from The Onion spoof newspaper.
From wikipedia.org: "The (Montessori) method is characterized by an emphasis on self-directed activity on the part of the child ... It stresses the importance of adapting the child's learning environment to his developmental level, and of the role of physical activity in absorbing academic concepts and practical skills."
After four months with the Montessori school, here are some of the differences I've noted between Montessori and public school.
Montessori classrooms do not have assigned seating, and there are only a few desks. Children work on the floor, or at various tables. The classroom is full of accessible plants, animals, learning tools, folders, worksheets, books, and other materials. There is also a kitchen and bathroom in Tara's classroom.
Our Montessori school is much smaller than most public schools. Students range in age from 3 to 15. Administrators get to know all of the students. Teachers and administrators are available via phone and email all the time. Parents can request conferences at any time. Tara's class takes at least two field trips a month. The school is very flexible, and does not classify any absence as "unexcused."
Family obligations are always considered more important than anything else. Parents are actively involved in the school and classroom. Students are not given much homework, only about 20-30 minutes a night, and that includes 15 minutes of reading from any book of their choice. They never receive homework over the weekends or holidays.
Here's a little story that illustrates another difference. We went to dinner last night with a family whose daughter attends public school. The mom asked Tara, "So, do you like your teacher?" And Tara responded, "Which one? We have four classroom teachers, plus a Spanish teacher, art teacher, drama teacher, yoga teacher, gymnastics teacher, PE teacher, and music teacher." And that's all for a classroom of just 26 students.
Another big difference, one which we like very much, is the lack of grading and testing. Students are given workbooks and assignments appropriate to their needs (there are several different ages and achievement levels within Tara's class). But students are not expected to work on the same thing at the same time, or to complete assignments within the same time-frame. And if they do something incorrectly, they are helped until they can do it correctly, not just handed back a paper marked "C" and then moved on to the next assignment.
Children are also not separated strictly by age or ability. Tara is in what's called "lower elementary" and there are children ages 6-9 in her class. Older students help tutor and mentor younger students. Students, even at this age, are expected to be responsible for their education, and are taught organizational, time management and self-discipline skills.
"Although there are many schools which use the name 'Montessori,' the word itself is not recognized as a trademark, nor is it associated with a single specific organization. Thus it is legally possible to use the term 'Montessori' without necessary adherence to a particular training or teaching method." Which is probably why I've heard people accuse "Montessori" public schools of not actually following all - or even most - of the Montessori method.
Now, about that topic which is thrown in the face of every home-schooling family: socialization.
Tara never comes home in tears because anyone is making fun of her. She does not generally talk about things like popularity, clothes, or bullies. She comes home with things like a necklace someone made her to apologize for treating her poorly on the playground. Or stories about someone hurting someone else's feelings and how they all talked it out. I have tried asking questions such as, "Do kids ever make fun of you, or each other?" "Who is the most popular person in class?" etc. These questions don't seem to relate to her experiences.
The Montessori school promotes the attitude that the entire class is a team. They are expected to help each other, work together, to forgive, and to accept each others' differences. Much emphasis is placed on conflict resolution and creating a safe environment, emotionally and physically. They use such techniques as the Peace Rose to work out problems between students. Feelings are not ignored or belittled, no one is expected to put up with bullies or to just ignore a problem until it goes away. Compliments are encouraged, teasing not tolerated.
Children are taught to shake hands, make eye contact, clean up after themselves, tidy up their classrooms and playgrounds, be polite, and other manners which are often lacking in "socialized" public school students.
Diversity is also embraced at the Montessori school. Children are allowed to dress any way they want to, and I've seen several students (and parents) with colored hair. Children wear clothing styles of all kinds. Families are invited to share all of their cultural and religious practices with the school. For instance, recently an email went out to all of the parents asking if they wanted to share their holiday traditions in the classroom - whether that be Christmas, Hanukkah, Diwali, Ramadan, Winter Solstice, Kwanzaa, or whatever.
All of that said, however, I'm not saying things are perfect. She is starting to struggle a little with feeling awkward, sad, shy, and insecure, and the dark part of "socialization" -- the realization that some people can't be trusted, some people aren't nice, some people can be lying and manipulative, and there's some things you just can't fix no matter how hard you try. But these have all been good lessons for her to learn.
So why are we going back to home schooling? One of the main reasons is because Tara requested it. Science is her favorite subject, but one which is not pursued to her satisfaction in the Montessori school. She misses the variety of educational topics and experiences she had while home schooling. Tara recently told us that she also wants to home school again because it gives her more time to think. The noise and constant distractions during lessons are bothering Tara. She said last night, "You know, mom, after being at that school for several weeks now, I've realized that most of the other kids don't care at all about learning anything."
I think Montessori has been, overall, a good experience for Tara, but I don't feel that she's able to work up to her full academic or creative potential. Our Montessori school has done very well with the basic academics** and some of the extracurriculars (such as Spanish, art and music) but it still has its limitations. And I lean toward the unschooling philosophy enough to keenly feel them.
I hope this has explained our experiences with Montessori. I have taken for granted that my audience has an intimate understanding of home schooling. If not, I highly recommend further online research. If you have any questions about our particular experiences with Montessori vs. Home School, I'd be happy to answer them.
** UPDATE MAY 2008: Tara recently finished mandatory standardized testing and did very well.
** UPDATE OCT 2018: Tara is now attending college. She's doing great.
Monday, December 17, 2007
My hero today is Alexis Goggins
From online news reports:
DETROIT - As the gunman was about to open fire, 7-year-old Alexis Goggins lunged from the back seat of the SUV and threw herself across her mom, crying, "Don't hurt my mother!"
Six bullets from the 9 mm handgun slammed into Alexis, one piercing her right eye. Two slugs hit her mother.
The events started when Alexis Goggins, her mother Selietha Parker, 30, and family friend, Aisha Ford, were taken hostage by Parker’s boyfriend, Calvin Tillie, 39. A man she had been dating for only 6-months. Forcing Ford to drive them to a location, Ford stalled for time by stopping at a gas station, and calling 911 on the way in to pay for the gas. Stating that Ford was taking too long, he opened on Parker. It is at that point that Alexis scrambled over the seat and got between her mother and Tillie, begging him to stop. Without hesitation, Tillie unloaded into the little girl.
When police arrived, Tillie surrendered without incident. Alexis was found underneath the steering wheel, bleeding profusely. She was surrounded by bullet casing and broken glass and there were teeth on the seat of the vehicle. Her mother suffered a gunshot wound to the side of the head and bicep.
I would just like to go on record to say that Mr. Tillie should be beaten with a pipe and then fed to dogs. You pull a gun on a mother in front of her child (which is bad enough), and then you go ahead and shoot the child... well, as far as I'm concerned, you have just relinquished all claims to being human and should be tossed in the nearest landfill with the rest of the garbage.
Thanks, I needed to get that off my chest.
A fund has been set up for Alexis. Checks should be made out to the Alexis Goggins Hero Fund and sent to Campbell Elementary School in care of the Alexis Goggins Hero Fund, 2301 E Alexandrine St, Detroit, MI 48207. For information, call (313) 494-2052.
AP article
DETROIT - As the gunman was about to open fire, 7-year-old Alexis Goggins lunged from the back seat of the SUV and threw herself across her mom, crying, "Don't hurt my mother!"
Six bullets from the 9 mm handgun slammed into Alexis, one piercing her right eye. Two slugs hit her mother.
The events started when Alexis Goggins, her mother Selietha Parker, 30, and family friend, Aisha Ford, were taken hostage by Parker’s boyfriend, Calvin Tillie, 39. A man she had been dating for only 6-months. Forcing Ford to drive them to a location, Ford stalled for time by stopping at a gas station, and calling 911 on the way in to pay for the gas. Stating that Ford was taking too long, he opened on Parker. It is at that point that Alexis scrambled over the seat and got between her mother and Tillie, begging him to stop. Without hesitation, Tillie unloaded into the little girl.
When police arrived, Tillie surrendered without incident. Alexis was found underneath the steering wheel, bleeding profusely. She was surrounded by bullet casing and broken glass and there were teeth on the seat of the vehicle. Her mother suffered a gunshot wound to the side of the head and bicep.
I would just like to go on record to say that Mr. Tillie should be beaten with a pipe and then fed to dogs. You pull a gun on a mother in front of her child (which is bad enough), and then you go ahead and shoot the child... well, as far as I'm concerned, you have just relinquished all claims to being human and should be tossed in the nearest landfill with the rest of the garbage.
Thanks, I needed to get that off my chest.
A fund has been set up for Alexis. Checks should be made out to the Alexis Goggins Hero Fund and sent to Campbell Elementary School in care of the Alexis Goggins Hero Fund, 2301 E Alexandrine St, Detroit, MI 48207. For information, call (313) 494-2052.
AP article
Monday, October 02, 2006
WTF?
On September 13, 2006, Kimveer Gill opened fire at Dawson College in Montreal, killing Anastasia De Sousa and injuring 19 other people. He apparently blogged about his violent tendencies on a vampire website, but had no previous criminal record.
Not long after that, Shannon Torrez slit the throat of young mother Stephenie Ochsenbine and kidnapped her newborn baby, all while Stephanie's 1-year-old child was also in the home. Fortunately, Stephanie lived, her 1-year-old was not hurt, and the baby was returned unharmed.
Unfortunately, around the same time in nearby in St. Louis, Tiffany Hall cut an unborn baby from her good friend Jimella Tunstall's womb, and drowned Jimella's children before stuffing their bodies into a washer and dryer. Hall claimed Jimella's baby as her own and tried to have a funeral before her boyfriend turned her in.
Sept. 27, 2006, in Colorado, homeless 53-year-old petty criminal Duane Morrison took six teen girls hostage in a high school English class, molested them, then shot Emily Keyes in the head before shooting himself. Morrison may have researched the victims on myspace.
Sept. 29, 2006, 15-year-old Wisconsin teen Eric Hainstock shot and killed his school principal John Klang. Apparently the teen was angry after being disciplined for bringing tobacco to school. He was also angry about some kids at school who were teasing him and he felt that the teachers and administrators were not helping him.
On October 2, 2006, in Pennsylvania, a milk truck driver Charles Roberts took a schoolroom of Amish children hostage and shot the girls, ages 6-12. He may have called his wife from a cell phone and told her he was "acting out in revenge for something that happened 20 years ago."
These acts were not just committed by loners and outcasts. Hall was a mother herself, and Roberts a husband and father of three. Or, perhaps, in some way, this society has made us all into loners and outcasts, adrift and helpless and disconnected, and more likely to fall apart?
I struggle to understand all of this violence, so much of it against women and girls, within the past month. Why did it happen? Do we blame parents? But, the killers ranged in age from 15 to 53, most of them well beyond the age of parental supervision.
Do we blame easy access to guns? Hall and Torrez did not use guns, they used common, everyday sharp objects, or water.
Do we blame a world in which war is nothing more than just another video game? Gill did like violent video games, but I don't think Morrison was playing them while he lived in his car.
Readers' choice: It's a failure to breastfeed? It's because women don't stay home with their children? Absent fathers? Too much spanking? Not enough spanking? Music? Culture? TV? Lack of religion? Religious nuts? Ritalin? Prozac? Or just plain evil?
Could it be that in times of societal turmoil, more people simply snap? We do live in stressful times. The largest private employer in the country Wal Mart is forcing people into low-wage, part-time jobs without medical benefits or even time off to be with their families. We are struggling with a lot of things and we can't seem to win - the War in Iraq, the War on Drugs, failing schools, too much sex and violence on TV, obesity ...
While the institutions we would normally fall back upon are faltering ... governments and churches are full of perverts and greed ... tens of thousands of people die each year from mistakes made by doctors and medical professionals ... families are driven apart by long working hours, high debt, drugs, too many hours of homework required by public schools leaves little family time ... and of course there's always the perennial divorce rate ...
At the end of the day, I think it boils down to isolation. We don't know who our neighbors are, we hardly know who our spouses are, do we even know who we are? Kimveer Gill was contemptous of his fellow humans. Torrez unsuccessfully struggled with her grief over not being able to have a child of her own. God alone knows what was going through Hall's mind, but she had several boyfriends and was a single mom, which isn't exactly what I would call stable and secure. Morrison was homeless. Hainstock was allegedly teased at school and angry that no one would do anything about it. Roberts acted out because he was dealing with some kind of demons from something that happened 20 years ago.
It's even been said that the victims in Colorado were found and targeted through myspace. Teen girls reaching out into the void for something, and getting evil. It's so sad.
Not that I want to excuse the horror and evil committed by Gill, Torrez and the others. But I am trying to figure out - trying to comprehend - where things go terribly wrong.
I was struck by something I heard on TV this morning: An expert on Amish culture said that the Amish would recover quickly from the tragedy because they have a deep social and spiritual network of extended family and community. Maybe that's the key.
I don't know. There's no point to this post, no point except that I am confronted by terrible evil every time I look at the news, and it upsets me.
John Donne said in 1624, "No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were. Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee."
The bell is tolling. It's tolling hard.
Not long after that, Shannon Torrez slit the throat of young mother Stephenie Ochsenbine and kidnapped her newborn baby, all while Stephanie's 1-year-old child was also in the home. Fortunately, Stephanie lived, her 1-year-old was not hurt, and the baby was returned unharmed.
Unfortunately, around the same time in nearby in St. Louis, Tiffany Hall cut an unborn baby from her good friend Jimella Tunstall's womb, and drowned Jimella's children before stuffing their bodies into a washer and dryer. Hall claimed Jimella's baby as her own and tried to have a funeral before her boyfriend turned her in.
Sept. 27, 2006, in Colorado, homeless 53-year-old petty criminal Duane Morrison took six teen girls hostage in a high school English class, molested them, then shot Emily Keyes in the head before shooting himself. Morrison may have researched the victims on myspace.
Sept. 29, 2006, 15-year-old Wisconsin teen Eric Hainstock shot and killed his school principal John Klang. Apparently the teen was angry after being disciplined for bringing tobacco to school. He was also angry about some kids at school who were teasing him and he felt that the teachers and administrators were not helping him.
On October 2, 2006, in Pennsylvania, a milk truck driver Charles Roberts took a schoolroom of Amish children hostage and shot the girls, ages 6-12. He may have called his wife from a cell phone and told her he was "acting out in revenge for something that happened 20 years ago."
These acts were not just committed by loners and outcasts. Hall was a mother herself, and Roberts a husband and father of three. Or, perhaps, in some way, this society has made us all into loners and outcasts, adrift and helpless and disconnected, and more likely to fall apart?
I struggle to understand all of this violence, so much of it against women and girls, within the past month. Why did it happen? Do we blame parents? But, the killers ranged in age from 15 to 53, most of them well beyond the age of parental supervision.
Do we blame easy access to guns? Hall and Torrez did not use guns, they used common, everyday sharp objects, or water.
Do we blame a world in which war is nothing more than just another video game? Gill did like violent video games, but I don't think Morrison was playing them while he lived in his car.
Readers' choice: It's a failure to breastfeed? It's because women don't stay home with their children? Absent fathers? Too much spanking? Not enough spanking? Music? Culture? TV? Lack of religion? Religious nuts? Ritalin? Prozac? Or just plain evil?
Could it be that in times of societal turmoil, more people simply snap? We do live in stressful times. The largest private employer in the country Wal Mart is forcing people into low-wage, part-time jobs without medical benefits or even time off to be with their families. We are struggling with a lot of things and we can't seem to win - the War in Iraq, the War on Drugs, failing schools, too much sex and violence on TV, obesity ...
While the institutions we would normally fall back upon are faltering ... governments and churches are full of perverts and greed ... tens of thousands of people die each year from mistakes made by doctors and medical professionals ... families are driven apart by long working hours, high debt, drugs, too many hours of homework required by public schools leaves little family time ... and of course there's always the perennial divorce rate ...
At the end of the day, I think it boils down to isolation. We don't know who our neighbors are, we hardly know who our spouses are, do we even know who we are? Kimveer Gill was contemptous of his fellow humans. Torrez unsuccessfully struggled with her grief over not being able to have a child of her own. God alone knows what was going through Hall's mind, but she had several boyfriends and was a single mom, which isn't exactly what I would call stable and secure. Morrison was homeless. Hainstock was allegedly teased at school and angry that no one would do anything about it. Roberts acted out because he was dealing with some kind of demons from something that happened 20 years ago.
It's even been said that the victims in Colorado were found and targeted through myspace. Teen girls reaching out into the void for something, and getting evil. It's so sad.
Not that I want to excuse the horror and evil committed by Gill, Torrez and the others. But I am trying to figure out - trying to comprehend - where things go terribly wrong.
I was struck by something I heard on TV this morning: An expert on Amish culture said that the Amish would recover quickly from the tragedy because they have a deep social and spiritual network of extended family and community. Maybe that's the key.
I don't know. There's no point to this post, no point except that I am confronted by terrible evil every time I look at the news, and it upsets me.
John Donne said in 1624, "No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were. Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee."
The bell is tolling. It's tolling hard.
Monday, July 17, 2006
"Where never kings connive nor tyrants scheme"
I came across this poem today and wanted to keep it.
Let America Be America Again
Let America be America again.
Let it be the dream it used to be.
Let it be the pioneer on the plain
Seeking a home where he himself is free.
(America never was America to me.)
Let America be the dream the dreamers dreamed--
Let it be that great strong land of love
Where never kings connive nor tyrants scheme
That any man be crushed by one above.
(It never was America to me.)
O, let my land be a land where Liberty
Is crowned with no false patriotic wreath,
But opportunity is real, and life is free,
Equality is in the air we breathe.
(There's never been equality for me,
Nor freedom in this "homeland of the free.")
Say, who are you that mumbles in the dark?
And who are you that draws your veil across the stars?
I am the poor white, fooled and pushed apart,
I am the Negro bearing slavery's scars.
I am the red man driven from the land,
I am the immigrant clutching the hope I seek--
And finding only the same old stupid plan
Of dog eat dog, of mighty crush the weak.
I am the young man, full of strength and hope,
Tangled in that ancient endless chain
Of profit, power, gain, of grab the land!
Of grab the gold! Of grab the ways of satisfying need!
Of work the men! Of take the pay!
Of owning everything for one's own greed!
I am the farmer, bondsman to the soil.
I am the worker sold to the machine.
I am the Negro, servant to you all.
I am the people, humble, hungry, mean--
Hungry yet today despite the dream.
Beaten yet today--O, Pioneers!
I am the man who never got ahead,
The poorest worker bartered through the years.
Yet I'm the one who dreamt our basic dream
In the Old World while still a serf of kings,
Who dreamt a dream so strong, so brave, so true,
That even yet its mighty daring sings
In every brick and stone, in every furrow turned
That's made America the land it has become.
O, I'm the man who sailed those early seas
In search of what I meant to be my home--
For I'm the one who left dark Ireland's shore,
And Poland's plain, and England's grassy lea,
And torn from Black Africa's strand I came
To build a "homeland of the free."
The free?
Who said the free? Not me?
Surely not me? The millions on relief today?
The millions shot down when we strike?
The millions who have nothing for our pay?
For all the dreams we've dreamed
And all the songs we've sung
And all the hopes we've held
And all the flags we've hung,
The millions who have nothing for our pay--
Except the dream that's almost dead today.
O, let America be America again--
The land that never has been yet--
And yet must be--the land where every man is free.
The land that's mine--the poor man's, Indian's, Negro's, ME--
Who made America,
Whose sweat and blood, whose faith and pain,
Whose hand at the foundry, whose plow in the rain,
Must bring back our mighty dream again.
Sure, call me any ugly name you choose--
The steel of freedom does not stain.
From those who live like leeches on the people's lives,
We must take back our land again,
America!
O, yes,
I say it plain,
America never was America to me,
And yet I swear this oath--
America will be!
Out of the rack and ruin of our gangster death,
The rape and rot of graft, and stealth, and lies,
We, the people, must redeem
The land, the mines, the plants, the rivers.
The mountains and the endless plain--
All, all the stretch of these great green states--
And make America again!
- Langston Hughes
Let America Be America Again
Let America be America again.
Let it be the dream it used to be.
Let it be the pioneer on the plain
Seeking a home where he himself is free.
(America never was America to me.)
Let America be the dream the dreamers dreamed--
Let it be that great strong land of love
Where never kings connive nor tyrants scheme
That any man be crushed by one above.
(It never was America to me.)
O, let my land be a land where Liberty
Is crowned with no false patriotic wreath,
But opportunity is real, and life is free,
Equality is in the air we breathe.
(There's never been equality for me,
Nor freedom in this "homeland of the free.")
Say, who are you that mumbles in the dark?
And who are you that draws your veil across the stars?
I am the poor white, fooled and pushed apart,
I am the Negro bearing slavery's scars.
I am the red man driven from the land,
I am the immigrant clutching the hope I seek--
And finding only the same old stupid plan
Of dog eat dog, of mighty crush the weak.
I am the young man, full of strength and hope,
Tangled in that ancient endless chain
Of profit, power, gain, of grab the land!
Of grab the gold! Of grab the ways of satisfying need!
Of work the men! Of take the pay!
Of owning everything for one's own greed!
I am the farmer, bondsman to the soil.
I am the worker sold to the machine.
I am the Negro, servant to you all.
I am the people, humble, hungry, mean--
Hungry yet today despite the dream.
Beaten yet today--O, Pioneers!
I am the man who never got ahead,
The poorest worker bartered through the years.
Yet I'm the one who dreamt our basic dream
In the Old World while still a serf of kings,
Who dreamt a dream so strong, so brave, so true,
That even yet its mighty daring sings
In every brick and stone, in every furrow turned
That's made America the land it has become.
O, I'm the man who sailed those early seas
In search of what I meant to be my home--
For I'm the one who left dark Ireland's shore,
And Poland's plain, and England's grassy lea,
And torn from Black Africa's strand I came
To build a "homeland of the free."
The free?
Who said the free? Not me?
Surely not me? The millions on relief today?
The millions shot down when we strike?
The millions who have nothing for our pay?
For all the dreams we've dreamed
And all the songs we've sung
And all the hopes we've held
And all the flags we've hung,
The millions who have nothing for our pay--
Except the dream that's almost dead today.
O, let America be America again--
The land that never has been yet--
And yet must be--the land where every man is free.
The land that's mine--the poor man's, Indian's, Negro's, ME--
Who made America,
Whose sweat and blood, whose faith and pain,
Whose hand at the foundry, whose plow in the rain,
Must bring back our mighty dream again.
Sure, call me any ugly name you choose--
The steel of freedom does not stain.
From those who live like leeches on the people's lives,
We must take back our land again,
America!
O, yes,
I say it plain,
America never was America to me,
And yet I swear this oath--
America will be!
Out of the rack and ruin of our gangster death,
The rape and rot of graft, and stealth, and lies,
We, the people, must redeem
The land, the mines, the plants, the rivers.
The mountains and the endless plain--
All, all the stretch of these great green states--
And make America again!
- Langston Hughes
Saturday, June 10, 2006
The Wedding Invitation From Hell
My husband received a wedding invitation from a colleague. No, wait -- first he received a "save the date" refrigerator magnet, many months prior. Which, in my opinion, is silly. If I know you well enough to want to come to your wedding and buy you a gift, shouldn't I also know you well enough to know when the date is coming? And if I don't know you that well, and I don't really want to come, I resent being held hostage. "What do you mean you can't make it? We sent you a save-the-date magnet months ago!"
Then, the wedding invitation itself came along. In a 9x12 envelope. Inside the 9x12 envelope:
1) Another envelope, not addressed but featuring a printed return address for the couple (yes, they already live together). Inside that envelope, an embossed printed invitation, wrapped in fancy paper and tied with a ribbon.
2) A small envelope with the RSVP card inside. Not pre-stamped (I have received RSVP cards already stamped), but pre-printed with their address.
OK, pretty standard so far, I guess. Not that I had any fancy printed invitations for my wedding, or any RSVP cards, but I've seen it done before. Alrighty.
3) A card with their Bed, Bath & Beyond registry number.
Again, I know there are many couples who register at their favorite stores. Sure. Makes it easier for friends and family to shop for a wedding gift. Plus, for an older, professional couple who already lives together, there are probably a lot of things they already have, right?
But then we get:
4) The 8.5x11 12-page "Survival Guide." Yes, Survival Guide. That's what it says on the front cover. Along with a picture of the mansion where the wedding will be held, 30 miles from the couple's house.
This survival guide includes:
- A table of contents. Table of contents? For a wedding invitation?
- A list of contact information. Why would they be inviting anyone who didn't already know their phone numbers or email?
- The complete list of suggested gifts and registries. Topping the list, of course, is CASH. I quote the Survivial Guide: "This is our preferred gift-giving method." Well, no shit. Every human being's "preferred" gift is cash, so do we really need to say it? I think that's in really poor taste. I mean, you don't say, "Hey, grandma, thanks for the card you sent me on my last birthday, but my PREFERRED GIFT-GIVING METHOD is cash." "Mom, I appreciate that you spent 3 hours trying to find just the right gift for last Christmas, but, y'know, my PREFERRED GIFT-GIVING METHOD is money..." Or, well, maybe these people do. And that's just sad.
But, then, wait, if you can't bring yourself to just cough up the money, they do accept GIFT CARDS. And they are kind enough to include, in the Survival Guide, a list of 10 stores from which they will accept gift cards.
So, I have to ask, are they inviting that many people who are A) complete morons, and/or B) know the couple so very little as to have no idea which stores they might enjoy? And, does this mean that if I get them a gift card from Sears instead of Kohls, then these ingrateful shits won't be our friends any more?
- Travel and Lodging. OK, this is nice of them. They provide airport info and local hotels. But, did this really need to be in the Survival Guide and sent to all 100-200 (300?) guests? Couldn't this just be told, via phone or email, to the people flying in? Are most of the guests flying in from somewhere else? Must be nice to have such a huge group of people willing to take time off work and drop so much money on flying in for your shindig. I couldn't even find 15 people to come to my wedding, and that's including the wedding party, my coworkers, the minister and her husband.
- A list of everyone in the wedding party, parents, grand-parents and "special guests." Meaning, I guess, that all other guests are not special. Just cough over the cash and gift cards, please.
- Rehearsal itinerary. Now, call me crazy, but I thought that the rehearsal dinner was a nice little tradition started as a way for the close friends/family in the wedding party to unwind and bond between practicing the wedding at the church and then actually doing the wedding. We never had a rehearsal for our wedding, and thus never a rehearsal dinner, but I can see why some folks would. Some weddings are complicated, and it helps to run through it with the minister, at the location, once. Apparently this couple's wedding is VERY complicated, as they say that the rehearsal will take up to 3 hours. Whew.
Then they say that EVERYONE is welcome to the rehearsal dinner, the night before the wedding. Um, then what's the point of the dinner after the wedding? Oh, well, I guess the dinner after the wedding is the nice one. The dinner before the wedding will be Subway and Smithfield's in a local hotel meeting room.
Y'know, subs and BBQ in a hotel meeting room is considered a "reception" by a lot of folks (the kind who maybe don't get hitched in mansions nor expect lots of cashy money). But, get this, if you are coming to this couple's rehearsal dinner, be prepared to PAY! Yup, "All others are welcome to come with a donation of $3/person."
- An explanation of their BIG DAY, including dress code and wedding itinerary.
"July 15th is a very special day for us." Well, no shit.
"We have spent countless days researching and planning for this special occasion." You and everyone else who ever has a wedding. Even my own small wedding took several days-worth of planning and researching. I've had a few friends get married in Las Vegas, and even that takes some time and planning. You're not special.
"As such, below you will find some helpful information for how things will occur." So, because you are apparently the only people to ever consider a wedding a "special day," and because you spent a lot of time planning for it, you get to be arrogant assholes. Got it.
"Dress code: No jeans or t-shirts please!" Um, are you actually inviting people who don't already know this? Or is this simply more condescension?
"Itinerary: 2:30 - Arrive promptly." No, actually, I was hoping to wander in sometime around the "I do," in my jeans and t-shirt.
Itinerary continued:
"3:00 - Ceremony Begins in the Garden
3:30 - Cocktail Hour by the pool
4:30 - Reception in the ballroom
4:45 - First Dance
5:00 - Dinner is served
6:00 - Cake Cutting/Toasts
6:30 - Dancing/Mingling
9:00 - Garter/Bouquet Toss
10:00 - Bride & Groom Exit, Guests Depart."
I am SO glad they included this in the Survival Guide. Now I know exactly when I can start mingling, and when I'm allowed to leave. And when to tell the strippers and clown to arrive.
And, may I just say: Seven hours. That's SEVEN fucking hours. Oh, my.
- Finally, they have 5 pages of maps and directions and info about the local hotel. Again, did this really need to be in the Survival Guide sent to all guests?
All told, I estimated that if you include gas and travel time, the appropriate clothing my husband would have to buy (he doesn't own any suits) and the wedding gift, he'd be spending as much as we spent during our wedding. For an aquaintance who thinks we're too stupid to show up on time, not wearing a t-shirt, and too inept to shop for a nice gift.
This invitation was received just a few days after I got an invitation to my friend Melanie's wedding. Her invitation was a handmade 4x6 postcard, printed on a computer, embellished with some scrapbooking stickers. It was very pretty. Melanie also has a website where people can go to RSVP. Her website does have some info about locations, accommodations, how the couple met, who is in the wedding party. But no 12-page guide. No cards to mail back. No gift registries. No dress code. No demands.
Melanie and her man do ask for monetary gifts, but this is how they say it: "With our combined households, and a brand new house we really don’t need anything most newlyweds would need. What we have decided to do is ask for monetary gifts to our trailer fund. With Kevin’s race schedule we really need housing for our family of five out in the dirt. We are currently setting our sites on a used model which is $28,000.00. So any and all wedding gifts will be put toward a deposit on this travel trailer. We thank you in advance for any contribution you can make."
I bet the snotty Survival Guide couple spent more than $28K on their wedding.
Then, the wedding invitation itself came along. In a 9x12 envelope. Inside the 9x12 envelope:
1) Another envelope, not addressed but featuring a printed return address for the couple (yes, they already live together). Inside that envelope, an embossed printed invitation, wrapped in fancy paper and tied with a ribbon.
2) A small envelope with the RSVP card inside. Not pre-stamped (I have received RSVP cards already stamped), but pre-printed with their address.
OK, pretty standard so far, I guess. Not that I had any fancy printed invitations for my wedding, or any RSVP cards, but I've seen it done before. Alrighty.
3) A card with their Bed, Bath & Beyond registry number.
Again, I know there are many couples who register at their favorite stores. Sure. Makes it easier for friends and family to shop for a wedding gift. Plus, for an older, professional couple who already lives together, there are probably a lot of things they already have, right?
But then we get:
4) The 8.5x11 12-page "Survival Guide." Yes, Survival Guide. That's what it says on the front cover. Along with a picture of the mansion where the wedding will be held, 30 miles from the couple's house.
This survival guide includes:
- A table of contents. Table of contents? For a wedding invitation?
- A list of contact information. Why would they be inviting anyone who didn't already know their phone numbers or email?
- The complete list of suggested gifts and registries. Topping the list, of course, is CASH. I quote the Survivial Guide: "This is our preferred gift-giving method." Well, no shit. Every human being's "preferred" gift is cash, so do we really need to say it? I think that's in really poor taste. I mean, you don't say, "Hey, grandma, thanks for the card you sent me on my last birthday, but my PREFERRED GIFT-GIVING METHOD is cash." "Mom, I appreciate that you spent 3 hours trying to find just the right gift for last Christmas, but, y'know, my PREFERRED GIFT-GIVING METHOD is money..." Or, well, maybe these people do. And that's just sad.
But, then, wait, if you can't bring yourself to just cough up the money, they do accept GIFT CARDS. And they are kind enough to include, in the Survival Guide, a list of 10 stores from which they will accept gift cards.
So, I have to ask, are they inviting that many people who are A) complete morons, and/or B) know the couple so very little as to have no idea which stores they might enjoy? And, does this mean that if I get them a gift card from Sears instead of Kohls, then these ingrateful shits won't be our friends any more?
- Travel and Lodging. OK, this is nice of them. They provide airport info and local hotels. But, did this really need to be in the Survival Guide and sent to all 100-200 (300?) guests? Couldn't this just be told, via phone or email, to the people flying in? Are most of the guests flying in from somewhere else? Must be nice to have such a huge group of people willing to take time off work and drop so much money on flying in for your shindig. I couldn't even find 15 people to come to my wedding, and that's including the wedding party, my coworkers, the minister and her husband.
- A list of everyone in the wedding party, parents, grand-parents and "special guests." Meaning, I guess, that all other guests are not special. Just cough over the cash and gift cards, please.
- Rehearsal itinerary. Now, call me crazy, but I thought that the rehearsal dinner was a nice little tradition started as a way for the close friends/family in the wedding party to unwind and bond between practicing the wedding at the church and then actually doing the wedding. We never had a rehearsal for our wedding, and thus never a rehearsal dinner, but I can see why some folks would. Some weddings are complicated, and it helps to run through it with the minister, at the location, once. Apparently this couple's wedding is VERY complicated, as they say that the rehearsal will take up to 3 hours. Whew.
Then they say that EVERYONE is welcome to the rehearsal dinner, the night before the wedding. Um, then what's the point of the dinner after the wedding? Oh, well, I guess the dinner after the wedding is the nice one. The dinner before the wedding will be Subway and Smithfield's in a local hotel meeting room.
Y'know, subs and BBQ in a hotel meeting room is considered a "reception" by a lot of folks (the kind who maybe don't get hitched in mansions nor expect lots of cashy money). But, get this, if you are coming to this couple's rehearsal dinner, be prepared to PAY! Yup, "All others are welcome to come with a donation of $3/person."
- An explanation of their BIG DAY, including dress code and wedding itinerary.
"July 15th is a very special day for us." Well, no shit.
"We have spent countless days researching and planning for this special occasion." You and everyone else who ever has a wedding. Even my own small wedding took several days-worth of planning and researching. I've had a few friends get married in Las Vegas, and even that takes some time and planning. You're not special.
"As such, below you will find some helpful information for how things will occur." So, because you are apparently the only people to ever consider a wedding a "special day," and because you spent a lot of time planning for it, you get to be arrogant assholes. Got it.
"Dress code: No jeans or t-shirts please!" Um, are you actually inviting people who don't already know this? Or is this simply more condescension?
"Itinerary: 2:30 - Arrive promptly." No, actually, I was hoping to wander in sometime around the "I do," in my jeans and t-shirt.
Itinerary continued:
"3:00 - Ceremony Begins in the Garden
3:30 - Cocktail Hour by the pool
4:30 - Reception in the ballroom
4:45 - First Dance
5:00 - Dinner is served
6:00 - Cake Cutting/Toasts
6:30 - Dancing/Mingling
9:00 - Garter/Bouquet Toss
10:00 - Bride & Groom Exit, Guests Depart."
I am SO glad they included this in the Survival Guide. Now I know exactly when I can start mingling, and when I'm allowed to leave. And when to tell the strippers and clown to arrive.
And, may I just say: Seven hours. That's SEVEN fucking hours. Oh, my.
- Finally, they have 5 pages of maps and directions and info about the local hotel. Again, did this really need to be in the Survival Guide sent to all guests?
All told, I estimated that if you include gas and travel time, the appropriate clothing my husband would have to buy (he doesn't own any suits) and the wedding gift, he'd be spending as much as we spent during our wedding. For an aquaintance who thinks we're too stupid to show up on time, not wearing a t-shirt, and too inept to shop for a nice gift.
This invitation was received just a few days after I got an invitation to my friend Melanie's wedding. Her invitation was a handmade 4x6 postcard, printed on a computer, embellished with some scrapbooking stickers. It was very pretty. Melanie also has a website where people can go to RSVP. Her website does have some info about locations, accommodations, how the couple met, who is in the wedding party. But no 12-page guide. No cards to mail back. No gift registries. No dress code. No demands.
Melanie and her man do ask for monetary gifts, but this is how they say it: "With our combined households, and a brand new house we really don’t need anything most newlyweds would need. What we have decided to do is ask for monetary gifts to our trailer fund. With Kevin’s race schedule we really need housing for our family of five out in the dirt. We are currently setting our sites on a used model which is $28,000.00. So any and all wedding gifts will be put toward a deposit on this travel trailer. We thank you in advance for any contribution you can make."
I bet the snotty Survival Guide couple spent more than $28K on their wedding.
Saturday, January 07, 2006
More evidence supporting my Stonehenge/King Arthur theory!
In college, for an archaeology class, I wrote a paper suggesting that the King Arthur legend has its origins long before the Dark Ages. All the way back, in fact, to the dawning of the bronze age and the building of Stonehenge. I drew connections between certain key elements of the King Arthur myth, and what we know about the megalithic monument on England's Salisbury Plain.
In brief, the earliest surviving written reference to Arthur is in a Welsh poem from around 594 AD. Another early reference to Arthur is in the Historia Britonum, attributed to the Welsh monk Nennius, who is said to have written this compilation of early Welsh history around the year 830 AD. In this work, Arthur is referred to as a "leader of battles" rather than as a king. Nennius is also the first to mention Merlin.
It's in the 11th and 12th centuries that several more references to Arthur pop up in Welsh tales and stories about the lives of saints. Also, Geoffrey of Monmouth's fictional Historia Regum Britanniae, c. 1138, was a medieval "bestseller" that attracted other writers to expand upon the tales of Arthur. Over the centuries, chivalry, knights, Celtic mythos, magic, fairies, and other elements were added.
I suggested that the story -- the seeds of the story -- were in fact much older. Just as the tale of Arthur has remained popular for the past 15 centuries, perhaps it goes back even further? Perhaps 2000 years or more before being referenced by that Welsh poet Aneirin? After all, people didn't write much down back then, and oral tradition was to them what the internet is to us.
The area where Stonehenge is located has been used as a sacred or special area since about 4000 BCE. Neolithic farmers built long barrow communal burial chambers in the vicinity. They also built circular enclosures and causeways, which are forerunners of the Stonehenge monument.
Between 3000 and 2000 BCE, however, long barrows went out of use (the use of long barrows without grave goods gave way to individual burials accompanied by wealth - or what would have been wealth to the people of the time). The first phase of construction on Stonehenge itself began c. 2800 BCE, and Silbury Hill was also built (the largest man-made mound in Europe).
The appearance of grave goods/individual burials and this mobilization of resources/manpower is interpreted as the shift from an egalitarian farming community to a chieftain society.
My idea: The "once and future king" of British legend may be an ancient king, the first "king" in England, the chieftain who set himself apart as a leader among men. A leader who was the first to wield metal weapons, the first Excaliburs, at the dawn of the Bronze Age. This magic of pulling a sword from a stone may be an echo of the wonder felt by those first farmer folks who witnessed this forging of a metal tool on a stone anvil (aha! the "sword in the stone"?). Such a power may have enabled a man to become chief, to mobilize the moving of even larger stones into what is sometimes called "The Giants' Round" - the earliest Round Table, perhaps?
The prosperity of this golden age went on for centuries, and perhaps left its mythic mark in the oral traditions of those first residents of the Neolithic Camelot, then passed on to the Celtic bards and druids who came later.
Having proposed all this about 10 years ago, I was so excited to read in Smithsonian magazine that in 2002 archaeologists found the graves of two men just a few miles from Stonehenge. This find turned out to be the richest Bronze Age burial ever discovered in Great Britain.
One of the men, dubbed the "Amesbury Archer" or "King of Stonehenge," was buried with a wrist guard, arrows, and almost 100 other artifacts, including tiny copper knives and a cushion stone - a hand-sized piece of rock used as an anvil.
And, interestingly, this King of Stonehenge did not come from the locals. Based on a tooth enamel analysis (I know, isn't it amazing what we can do, nowadays?) they think the Archer (the Arthur?) grew up in Central Europe.
"The archers would have been at the vanguard of the flashy new trade," says the Smithsonian article. "Carbon dating, and the absence of metal objects from earier graves, suggest the archer's arrival roughly coincides with the arrival of metalworking to the British Isles."
"The knowledge in his hands and in his head," archaeologist Andrew Fitzpatrick said, "was the key to his status. He brought a unique or exceptionally rare skill. You can think of the archer as a kind of magician."
OK, so maybe they didn't find Arthur, just Merlin.
The archer's arrival not only coincided with the bronze age arriving in Britain, but also of the erection of 20- and 30-ton stones at Stonehenge. "And it's even possible the archer may have provided the catalyst to get the project started... Perhaps he exploited his position as a charismatic outsider... to forge alliances among the region's cheiftains." (Smithsonian)
It's as if they found the very person I suggested in my paper. Isn't that wild?
Another interesting bit of info: My Welsh dictionary tells me that "arth" means "bear," and most name lists will say that Arthur means "bear" or derives from the Latin name Artorius. But, I just discovered that in Old Irish art means stone. Hmmm...
Mystery Man of Stonehenge article in Smithsonian Magazine
Wikipedia King Arthur article
In brief, the earliest surviving written reference to Arthur is in a Welsh poem from around 594 AD. Another early reference to Arthur is in the Historia Britonum, attributed to the Welsh monk Nennius, who is said to have written this compilation of early Welsh history around the year 830 AD. In this work, Arthur is referred to as a "leader of battles" rather than as a king. Nennius is also the first to mention Merlin.
It's in the 11th and 12th centuries that several more references to Arthur pop up in Welsh tales and stories about the lives of saints. Also, Geoffrey of Monmouth's fictional Historia Regum Britanniae, c. 1138, was a medieval "bestseller" that attracted other writers to expand upon the tales of Arthur. Over the centuries, chivalry, knights, Celtic mythos, magic, fairies, and other elements were added.
I suggested that the story -- the seeds of the story -- were in fact much older. Just as the tale of Arthur has remained popular for the past 15 centuries, perhaps it goes back even further? Perhaps 2000 years or more before being referenced by that Welsh poet Aneirin? After all, people didn't write much down back then, and oral tradition was to them what the internet is to us.
The area where Stonehenge is located has been used as a sacred or special area since about 4000 BCE. Neolithic farmers built long barrow communal burial chambers in the vicinity. They also built circular enclosures and causeways, which are forerunners of the Stonehenge monument.
Between 3000 and 2000 BCE, however, long barrows went out of use (the use of long barrows without grave goods gave way to individual burials accompanied by wealth - or what would have been wealth to the people of the time). The first phase of construction on Stonehenge itself began c. 2800 BCE, and Silbury Hill was also built (the largest man-made mound in Europe).
The appearance of grave goods/individual burials and this mobilization of resources/manpower is interpreted as the shift from an egalitarian farming community to a chieftain society.
My idea: The "once and future king" of British legend may be an ancient king, the first "king" in England, the chieftain who set himself apart as a leader among men. A leader who was the first to wield metal weapons, the first Excaliburs, at the dawn of the Bronze Age. This magic of pulling a sword from a stone may be an echo of the wonder felt by those first farmer folks who witnessed this forging of a metal tool on a stone anvil (aha! the "sword in the stone"?). Such a power may have enabled a man to become chief, to mobilize the moving of even larger stones into what is sometimes called "The Giants' Round" - the earliest Round Table, perhaps?
The prosperity of this golden age went on for centuries, and perhaps left its mythic mark in the oral traditions of those first residents of the Neolithic Camelot, then passed on to the Celtic bards and druids who came later.
Having proposed all this about 10 years ago, I was so excited to read in Smithsonian magazine that in 2002 archaeologists found the graves of two men just a few miles from Stonehenge. This find turned out to be the richest Bronze Age burial ever discovered in Great Britain.
One of the men, dubbed the "Amesbury Archer" or "King of Stonehenge," was buried with a wrist guard, arrows, and almost 100 other artifacts, including tiny copper knives and a cushion stone - a hand-sized piece of rock used as an anvil.
And, interestingly, this King of Stonehenge did not come from the locals. Based on a tooth enamel analysis (I know, isn't it amazing what we can do, nowadays?) they think the Archer (the Arthur?) grew up in Central Europe.
"The archers would have been at the vanguard of the flashy new trade," says the Smithsonian article. "Carbon dating, and the absence of metal objects from earier graves, suggest the archer's arrival roughly coincides with the arrival of metalworking to the British Isles."
"The knowledge in his hands and in his head," archaeologist Andrew Fitzpatrick said, "was the key to his status. He brought a unique or exceptionally rare skill. You can think of the archer as a kind of magician."
OK, so maybe they didn't find Arthur, just Merlin.
The archer's arrival not only coincided with the bronze age arriving in Britain, but also of the erection of 20- and 30-ton stones at Stonehenge. "And it's even possible the archer may have provided the catalyst to get the project started... Perhaps he exploited his position as a charismatic outsider... to forge alliances among the region's cheiftains." (Smithsonian)
It's as if they found the very person I suggested in my paper. Isn't that wild?
Another interesting bit of info: My Welsh dictionary tells me that "arth" means "bear," and most name lists will say that Arthur means "bear" or derives from the Latin name Artorius. But, I just discovered that in Old Irish art means stone. Hmmm...
Mystery Man of Stonehenge article in Smithsonian Magazine
Wikipedia King Arthur article
Tuesday, August 23, 2005
Two moms? That's nothing new...
"SAN FRANCISCO - In the latest ruling to recognize rights of same-sex couples, the California Supreme Court has said gay and lesbian couples who raise children are lawful parents and must provide for their children if they break up."
Good! A responsible parent is a responsible parent, regardless of sex.
" 'Today's ruling defies logic and common sense by saying that children can have two moms,' said attorney Mathew Staver of Liberty Counsel. 'That policy establishes that moms and dads as a unit are irrelevant when it comes to raising children.' "
The policy establishes that having both a mom and a dad is irrelevent? I thought society had established that on its own, several decades ago. Single moms and single dads, grandparents, extended family and unrelated custodians have been raising children for quite awhile now - where's this guy been?
And the ruling says that children can have two moms? That's nothing new. There have been children with two moms for decades, if you count stepmoms and grandmoms, aunties, adoptive moms and close family friends. Centuries, if you count all of the cultures which have practiced (and still practice) polygamy.
"Several child-advocacy organizations filed friend-of-the-court briefs taking the same side."
Exactly. This has much less to do with the "rights" of same-sex parents than it has to do with the rights of the children to be cared and provided for.
Good! A responsible parent is a responsible parent, regardless of sex.
" 'Today's ruling defies logic and common sense by saying that children can have two moms,' said attorney Mathew Staver of Liberty Counsel. 'That policy establishes that moms and dads as a unit are irrelevant when it comes to raising children.' "
The policy establishes that having both a mom and a dad is irrelevent? I thought society had established that on its own, several decades ago. Single moms and single dads, grandparents, extended family and unrelated custodians have been raising children for quite awhile now - where's this guy been?
And the ruling says that children can have two moms? That's nothing new. There have been children with two moms for decades, if you count stepmoms and grandmoms, aunties, adoptive moms and close family friends. Centuries, if you count all of the cultures which have practiced (and still practice) polygamy.
"Several child-advocacy organizations filed friend-of-the-court briefs taking the same side."
Exactly. This has much less to do with the "rights" of same-sex parents than it has to do with the rights of the children to be cared and provided for.
Friday, April 01, 2005
The Tao of Poo
We have a variety of words to describe my baby girl's poo. "Like the Eskimo and snow," my husband said.
There are the Poop Cookies. These are the most common. Look like little flattened pancakes o' poo.
Not quite as common are the Poop Cakes. These are larger versions of the Poop Cookies, not quite as flat.
Depending on what she eats, there may be the Peanut Butter Poop. Or the Vegetable Soup Poop. I don't think I need to explain those.
Once in awhile we get a Baby Ruth Poop. Which looks just like the Halloween-size candy bar of the same name.
And finally, my favorite, the Poobles. These are little marbles of poop that like to roll out of the diaper during changings. I once found one of my younger sister's Poobles outside her playpen when we were kids. I thought it was Play Doh, at the time. Which was not such an odd mistake to make, considering I had just been playing with the clay in the livingroom the day before and mixing up all the colors of the rainbow. Fortunately, I just put the Pooble on the end table by the couch, rather than in the jar with the clay. I'm sure my parents wondered how a tiny turd got there where my dad set his Pepsi, and now they know.
I have a college education and I'm spending my days classifying poo. Sometimes I think there's something wrong with that. Then other times I think that, in the vast expanse of the universe, perhaps ambition and ego are no more nor less significant than the flapping of a butterfly's wing or the falling of a sparrow. Perhaps they are illusions, and it is only necessary to do what is necessary. Like changing a diaper.
There are the Poop Cookies. These are the most common. Look like little flattened pancakes o' poo.
Not quite as common are the Poop Cakes. These are larger versions of the Poop Cookies, not quite as flat.
Depending on what she eats, there may be the Peanut Butter Poop. Or the Vegetable Soup Poop. I don't think I need to explain those.
Once in awhile we get a Baby Ruth Poop. Which looks just like the Halloween-size candy bar of the same name.
And finally, my favorite, the Poobles. These are little marbles of poop that like to roll out of the diaper during changings. I once found one of my younger sister's Poobles outside her playpen when we were kids. I thought it was Play Doh, at the time. Which was not such an odd mistake to make, considering I had just been playing with the clay in the livingroom the day before and mixing up all the colors of the rainbow. Fortunately, I just put the Pooble on the end table by the couch, rather than in the jar with the clay. I'm sure my parents wondered how a tiny turd got there where my dad set his Pepsi, and now they know.
I have a college education and I'm spending my days classifying poo. Sometimes I think there's something wrong with that. Then other times I think that, in the vast expanse of the universe, perhaps ambition and ego are no more nor less significant than the flapping of a butterfly's wing or the falling of a sparrow. Perhaps they are illusions, and it is only necessary to do what is necessary. Like changing a diaper.
Monday, March 14, 2005
The Terrifying Peace of Motherhood
I thought I knew everything there was to know about Motherhood.
After all, I had a mother. I had several grandmothers. I had friends who were mothers.
But no one ever told me... not only would I subsist, but I would grow fat on the dregs of my children's meals: burnt french fries, PB&J crusts, the last spoonful of yogurt, the grape that fell on the floor.
No one told me... that my shirt would be used as kleenex, and I might even go to the store afterward without changing it.
I never knew... that I could love so much and want to kill at the same time.
I never imagined... that I would suddenly understand why the cult of the Holy Mother persists amongst the estimated 1 billion Catholics on the planet today. I am god to my children. If they are sick, they want my comfort. If they are hungry, they want my body. When I lift them from their beds, they look at me with ecstatic faces. When they are scared, hurt, sad, they want only me. They shower me with kisses and little pictures of hearts and flowers.
A friend without children recently said that having the girls must bring a "wonderful peace" to my life. Should I tell her?
Should I tell her that it's actually a terrifying peace. It's terrifying to think of all the things that could happen to these little people, no matter what I do. That every time I read a newspaper article or see a TV report about a child being hurt or killed, I cry. That my mind constantly invents all of the things that could go wrong in the course of a day - falling and hitting their heads, accidentally poking their eyes out with their spoons or pencils, car accidents, choking on food, kidnapping, wars, a meteor hitting the Earth...
It's a sense of peace only in that it's a sense of perspective. You change enough diapers, clean up enough barf, have your tits gnawed on enough, kiss enough soft baby cheeks, and nothing else really seems all that important, anymore. Pretenses disappear. As do vanity and modesty. Which is a sort of peace.
After all, I had a mother. I had several grandmothers. I had friends who were mothers.
But no one ever told me... not only would I subsist, but I would grow fat on the dregs of my children's meals: burnt french fries, PB&J crusts, the last spoonful of yogurt, the grape that fell on the floor.
No one told me... that my shirt would be used as kleenex, and I might even go to the store afterward without changing it.
I never knew... that I could love so much and want to kill at the same time.
I never imagined... that I would suddenly understand why the cult of the Holy Mother persists amongst the estimated 1 billion Catholics on the planet today. I am god to my children. If they are sick, they want my comfort. If they are hungry, they want my body. When I lift them from their beds, they look at me with ecstatic faces. When they are scared, hurt, sad, they want only me. They shower me with kisses and little pictures of hearts and flowers.
A friend without children recently said that having the girls must bring a "wonderful peace" to my life. Should I tell her?
Should I tell her that it's actually a terrifying peace. It's terrifying to think of all the things that could happen to these little people, no matter what I do. That every time I read a newspaper article or see a TV report about a child being hurt or killed, I cry. That my mind constantly invents all of the things that could go wrong in the course of a day - falling and hitting their heads, accidentally poking their eyes out with their spoons or pencils, car accidents, choking on food, kidnapping, wars, a meteor hitting the Earth...
It's a sense of peace only in that it's a sense of perspective. You change enough diapers, clean up enough barf, have your tits gnawed on enough, kiss enough soft baby cheeks, and nothing else really seems all that important, anymore. Pretenses disappear. As do vanity and modesty. Which is a sort of peace.
Friday, February 18, 2005
Viagra sales limp
The Chicago Tribune reports that sales of erectile dysfunction drugs did not rise as anticipated between 2003 and 2004. In fact, Viagra saw its US performance drop 20% in 2004.
But what disturbed me most was the quote from David Pernock, senior vice president of sales and marketing for Glaxo. "It takes a while before you can re-establish your brand as the 'it' product to take."
"It" product?
I thought drugs were created to treat health problems, not to be trendy. I thought that drugs were for chronic or moderate-to-severe health problems which don't respond to other treatments/therapy/lifestyle modification - not for fashion statements.
But, apparently, I was wrong. It's amazing to me that a country which sends people to prison and confiscates their property for a little pot is doing...
* Hormone replacements (invasive breast cancer, blood clots, and heart attacks),
* Pain killers (heart attacks, stroke, cardiovascular injuries, addiction, ulcers, liver and kidney problems and more)
* Diet pills (heart problems, stroke, headaches and more)
* Alcohol (more than 17,000 driving-related deaths per year in the US, its related health problems - trauma, cirrhosis, pancreatitis, high blood pressure, irregular heartbeat, cancer, heart disease and brain damage - also cost the country billions of dollars)
* Heartburn pills (headache, diarrhea, abdominal pain and more)
* Antidepressants (anxiety, insomnia, impotence, nausea, diarrhea, suicide and more)
* Antibiotics (longterm use linked to breast cancer and drug-resistant strains of bacteria)
Why are pills so popular? Because "everyone is doing it"?
But what disturbed me most was the quote from David Pernock, senior vice president of sales and marketing for Glaxo. "It takes a while before you can re-establish your brand as the 'it' product to take."
"It" product?
I thought drugs were created to treat health problems, not to be trendy. I thought that drugs were for chronic or moderate-to-severe health problems which don't respond to other treatments/therapy/lifestyle modification - not for fashion statements.
But, apparently, I was wrong. It's amazing to me that a country which sends people to prison and confiscates their property for a little pot is doing...
* Hormone replacements (invasive breast cancer, blood clots, and heart attacks),
* Pain killers (heart attacks, stroke, cardiovascular injuries, addiction, ulcers, liver and kidney problems and more)
* Diet pills (heart problems, stroke, headaches and more)
* Alcohol (more than 17,000 driving-related deaths per year in the US, its related health problems - trauma, cirrhosis, pancreatitis, high blood pressure, irregular heartbeat, cancer, heart disease and brain damage - also cost the country billions of dollars)
* Heartburn pills (headache, diarrhea, abdominal pain and more)
* Antidepressants (anxiety, insomnia, impotence, nausea, diarrhea, suicide and more)
* Antibiotics (longterm use linked to breast cancer and drug-resistant strains of bacteria)
Why are pills so popular? Because "everyone is doing it"?
Sunday, February 13, 2005
If it was really the first time...
I'm sitting here listening to Foreigner's "Feels Like the First Time" and thinking, if it were really the first time, the song would be over in about 45 seconds.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)