To my CLASS

Hey class!!!

Those class presentations we good. I really enjoyed watching y'all do your thing. And they were effective. I'd find it very interesting to read your articles and stuff. So, if you read this, I'd love it if you'd send me stuff, either the collaborative work or individual pieces. Here's my email

radditts2000@yahoo.com

Thanks all,

Patti

The Crucible

I have to say, I was really glad I went to see the Crucible. Naci was reading it in her high school class when it opened at the college, so both of us were able to get extra credit for attending.

Unfortunately, I just commented on Swen's blog about the Crucible, and now I'm out of things to say without being redundant.

The play was comprised of true historical characters from the Salem Witch Trial period. Each cast member did research on their character before doing the play. There is so much more to the story, I hope everyone who saw it was inspired to learn more about this tragedy.

The Crucible was written during the McCarthy Era in direct relation to the communistic "witch hunts" that prevailed during this time period, another puzzling piece of history.

I also find the title of the play intriguing. I contemplated that for some time after watching the play. Very appropiate, and stirring.

Virtue!

I appreciated D'souza's view and information in his (her) article "America the Beautiful: What We're Fighting For." Interestingly, I've never truly understood why we, as a country, are singled out by these nations as targets for hatered and violence. D'souza did a great job of explaining the deep heritage of conflict between their beliefs and our way of life.

Americans as a whole, I think, take this country for granted constantly. Many curse and betray the very freedoms that allow them to speak so boldly againt there country. In regard to the multiculturalists who think this country is based solely on it's diversity and that the only thing we have in common is our differences. I say give it a rest. In my class of 4 and 5 year olds, when we stand two children side by side and ask what is the same or what is different about the two children, they don't even see the color of the skin. I think it's something that we are teaching our children. I submit that children would grow up unbiases if they weren't being inundated by it from time they're babies (that's my tangent).

I think I respect most his comments in his conclusion about how these countries enforce virtue. People who are being forced to live imposed virtues are not really virtuous at all...just obedient. Only when a person chooses to incorporate virtuous attributes into their lives do they become more virtuous. But then, that would be allowing freedom, and they can't have that (that was sarcasm). It seems such a paradox; I can't imagine how they can live so contradictive and not even notice. The amount of wreckless power that they give themselves, over the entire world, in the name of religion, is inconceivable.

Let's be sure we're never found lacking in appreciation and loyalty to our country. While I'm all for Americans adopting and practicing a purer and more virtuous way of life, our collective patriotism may be the only thing standing between us....and "virtue."

Check it out!

In case any of you are interested, Saturday evening at 7 pm there will be an event at the Eccles Fine Arts building, but in the gallery, not in the theatres. It's a brand new musical written by the Dean of the theatre department about Nathan Hale. Sounds like there'll be music and other stuff. And...it's FREE! I think it'll be great.

110 in the Shade

My daughter, Naci, and I went to 110 in the Shade last week. It was so enjoyable I didn't even realize how late it was when we left. (I've been guilty of sleeping through some productions.) One of the lead roles, File, was played by one of my world's favorite people, Travis Cox and Lizzy was played by his own wife, Whitney. I'm never disappointed while watching them perform and this one was even more of a treat as it was a musical. I found the scenery to be great...the moon looked real, the story was meaningful, and the rain was refreshing!

I hope lots of you took the opportunity to see the play.

A day late...here ya go, Kate.

I got on the computer yesterday with full intent of getting this done but got caught up in email and such until I just forgot until now.

I was headed into the vast sphere of Health Care Reform or Universal Health Care. I think I've narrowed it to something like:

What is going to be the impact of Universal Healthcare on the job market?

So I'd be considering things that might effect jobs that include doctors, nurses, insurance agents and adjusters, etc.

Let me know if you've got great ideas to help out.

(Again, sorry I missed yesterday.

TWO ways a woman can get hurt?

I really appreciated reading in print the way I've felt about much of what I've seen for many years. Jean Kilbourne hit the nail right on the head with her no nonsense way of getting to the point in her article, Two Ways a Woman Can Get Hurt.

While I realize that her title is refering specifically to an advertisement, she really understated the ways a woman can get hurt. I found her article intriguing, one that you can't put down. I guess I live in a somewhat sheltered life, and I can't even imagine what goes on in some places in the world. But the way that the media is "normalizing" this kind of behavior and treatment of one another is demoralizing!

I was shocked and disgusted by the adds placed in her article, and this is just a smattering of what is out there. Not only does it leave me feeling sickened, but somewhat helpless. How can simple people with standards combat huge companies who are only after the big buck (not THAT big buck, Swen). And the worst of the repercussions is yet to come as the future generations are bombarded with this ever increasing cancer.

And to think, it all started with, "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn."

Jean Kilbourne...you go girl!

Playing 20 questions

I'm leaning toward the aspect of universal health care in the health care field. Twenty questions that might lead to better delving into the subject...(this is gonna be difficult, I think.)

1. How much is health care costing companies who provide now?
2. How much will these companies save or spend in a universal health care system?
3. Are insurance companies going to benefit or be hurt in such a system?
4. Will individual be able to choose their own doctors or have to choose from whoever is available at the time?
5. Will the quality of care be diminished?
6. Will the medical profession be as sought after as it is now? Or, 7. Will people prefer other professions because of lack of control over their own clientele?
8. Will the wealthy still recieve the preferred treatment while the poorer patients receive poorer treatment?
9. Will health care be available when people are in need or will the line be so long that they have to wait inconceivable periods of time?
10. Will families be able to receive treatment from the same doctor for everyone if they choose, or from different doctors for different members of the family if they'd rather?
11. Who stands to gain the most from the proposed system?
12. Who stands to lose the most?
13. How long will it take to implement this system?
14. How much will it cost to get this whole thing started?
15. Where will the funds for this come from?
16. Is it really effective where it is being used now?
17. What other alternatives have been considered?
18. Who makes the ultimate decisions about what parts will be used and what parts will be changed?
19. Will there be job security for those already in the health care business?
20. Will it really make America a healthier place to live?

David Lee's Poetry

Storm of Silence (The Poetry Reader)

Outside the sirens call out, I’m coming, help is on the way.
I leave it there, outside, with the brisk spring breeze
to carry the sound to anothers' ears who may want to listen.
But here I sit, legs and feet wrapped tightly, trying to hold cold at bay,
here I sit in a hot desert storm. I smell the rain. I feel the heat.

His words roll in heavy, like the storm in his hands.
He reads with arms flailing, fingers knarled or stretched tight
Emphasizing each phrase with pointed voice and tone
A choreographed song
A rhapsody of emotion.
I could close my eyes and feel the steam on my face
but I would miss the illustrations. I watch, unblinking
Mesmerized by the lightening, awaiting the thunder,
Ominous.
His poem is looming in the clouds, hanging low
Anticipating…waiting, silent.
It begins with a single word, dripping carefully
onto anxious ears
Then another and another.

The storm rages full,
all of the jumbled letters squish together
Forming huge drops of words
Raining down in sheets as though a thesaurus
Evaporated, was captured by the torrent
and escaped, gushing undisciplined upon our unsuspecting heads.
No umbrella to shield. No need. The torrential drench
feels…good,
fills souls.

His thick eyebrows building lines in his forehead
Line upon line, rising and falling
like the ebb and flow, the waves of words
Flooding, unstoppable down the gully,
Falling deep into the caverns between the rocks
Rising high, with a gush of power, climbing the cliff,
it’s ascent stopped abruptly, with a crash,
slapping painfully and holding tight to the sheer, steep side.
Sliding, defeated, clawing at the debris to bring like a souvenir
back to the traveling wall. Pacing.
It turns and bends, seeking the floor of the dry valley.

He bows. I can breathe again.

Is it fair to feed us dessert and not the meal?
One more poem? One more verse?
One more line? One more title?
One more bite?
Alas, no. For there is no quenching the thirst
of a dry desert.
The rain fell too fast.
The storm moved along,
was gone.
Patti Tippetts

Using a Wider Socialogical Lens

I'm amazed at the power we've given to all of these influences mentioned in "Framing Class." I know that I've always been somewhat aware of the undeserving clout that these institutions bear, but I've never heard it put specifically into words and numbers.

It seems that the American people in general could use a course in critical thinking just like this one.

Sometimes I get really ticked about the amount of money that is spent in behalf of these "jobs" that are so outragiously paid. Take professional athletes, for instance. Allof this is propagated by us (the American people) because of the amount of importance we esteem it.

We have given people who influence and sway the attitude of the entire nation the power to tell us what to think and when to think it, based mostly on how much money they will make in deciding that for us. Ridiculous! Author, Diana Kenndall suggests the idea of civic journalism as the media being "more than neutral storytelling devices." I like the idea. What ever happened to bringing us the truth rather than finding a way to pad their pockets?

I was bothered also a lot by the less than positive connotation of this piece. It's not that I don't appreciate what Ms. Kendall saying, per say. I was disgruntled that we (a people as a whole) have ALLOWED it to happen. I'm grateful that there are forces out there trying to battle the process as it stands. I'm also glad that she's given the responsibility back to us to put things into perspective. I hope we're up to the challange and that these feelings of hoplessness disintegrate with greater results as time goes on.

The View Through the Eyes of Another

Having been a dining room supervisor once upon a time, I had some personal interpertations of the experience Barbara Ehrenreicht expressed in her story, Serving in Florida. I know that I have been blessed enough in life to have never experienced the depths of poverty or not having enough to get by. But I have learned some things in life through the experiences I have had:

1. People usually do the best they can at the time. If they could do better, they would. I think that sometimes people are limited by their education, of course. But as situations arise where they can make a choice that will improve things, they do it. One step at a time people evolve into what they decide, by the decisions they make. Some people are stuck in dead end jobs because they haven't been given the chance to change things, or they missed the chance when it was there. It is possible that it is where they want to be. And while I can't imagine existing for nothing more than to pay the bills for the next month of life, if one has never done anything else, do they even miss it?

2. Much of the time they don't know how to do better, or maybe, that there is anything better. When a person has functioned at the same level their entire life, it may be where they are comfortable. If someone lives in a small trailer or apartment, and always has, do they miss the comforts of a jaccuzi, or hot tub, or large spacious yard, or plenty of floor space in a oversized house? Maybe not. These things could all appear cumbersome to a person with so little time, things that require time, maintainance, and work. Possibly they appreciate commodities such as time, money, and possesions more than the rest of us.

3. Often, people without choices or options learn to be happy with what they have. Like we discussed with the poem Seven Floors Up, Sometimes people choose the lifestyle that makes them happiest, even though we, through our limited vision, can not understand the decision. Our country, such as it is right now, couldn't even function without those in the service industry. When I go to a restaraunt, I expect someone to wait on me. When I stay at a hotel, I expect someone to clean up after me. They will be treated respectfully, and their service will be appreciated. Shouldn't those people be able to take pride in their job just as much as the lawyers, doctors, and teachers? They may not get paid like those who have gone to school and received a degree in one thing or another, but they should be able to hold their head up when a job is well done.

I have had a plethora of jobs in my days. I was a maid as a very young teenager. I worked at A&W after that. At some point I started work at a local bakery and ended up marrying the bakers son. (I worked there way tooooo long.) I was fortunate enough at that point to be able to quit working and raise my family for many years until just before my divorce, when I had to return to the working class again. I started over again as a homemaker for home health. I then was offered a job as a server in a retirement community. That rolled over into the dining room supervisor. I stayed there until I got a job for 2 years as a cook for the preschool where I have now taught for nearly 11 years. I've never been embarrassed about a job. Rather, I enjoy whatever it is I've been given the opportunity to do; building new friendships, gaining new skills, learning about what makes businesses tick. Some jobs have exhausted me and I was grateful to leave them behind for something new, while others caused some heart ache when my time was up.

I don't think Ms. Ehrenreicht gained any kind of an accurate view of the life she discribed. It was her view as a priviledge lady trying to experience something that had no baring on her life, because she could, and would, walk away. These jobs were life to these people. She even discribed it well; the waitress that was thrilled when her boss gave her permission to park the truck in which she was living in the parking lot, the foreign boy who whithered away at the prospect of losing his job. These people needed their job whereas she just wanted an experience to compare to her life. Her view was distorted by a reality that had never been experience by this class of people. She has, however, an amazing talent of painting a picture and using words to create emotion in her readers.

I liked and agreed with Chance (I think it was) who talked a lot about how circumstance is often the dictator of our life. While I'm a huge advocate of education (duh, I teach), not everyone has the opportunity to gain an education. Those who do gain an education don't always use it to their advantage, while others who didn't get a degree of any sort make great money at a profession that suits them fine.

I guess what I'm saying is...it's all attitude.

Either it works, or it doesn't

I found an interesting thing called parallelism. I wasn't sure what it refered to so I went ahead and checked it out. Parallelism is actually quite a detailed little grammar function, a bit too complicated to put into a simplified rule, but it entales making sentences cohesive by using like language throughout a sentence that has several different parts. (Ick...that was messy.) Anyway, let me show an example or two.

Wrong...
A time not for words, but action
Right...
A time not for words, but for action

Using the word for each time makes it sound better.

Wrong...
The French, the Italians, Spanish, and Portuguese
Right...
The French, the Italians, the Spanish, and the Portuguese

You wouldn't use the in front of just some of the list but each word.

Wrong...
In spring, summer, or in winter
Right...
In spring, summer, or winter (or) In spring, in summer, or in winter

Again, you wouldn't use in before some of the list, either each word or just the first.

There are other ways to bring sentences together for more cohesiveness by just rearranging them.
Wrong...
It was both a long ceremony and very tedious.
Right...
The ceremony was both long and tedious.

Check out a bunch more at:
http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/parallelism.htm

The Truth Beyond the Conflict

Having grown up under the loving care of parents who incorporated religious beliefs into our upbringing, contention was just simply not allowed, nor did I allow it in my children as I raised them. As I read Deborah Tannen's article, The Roots of Debate in Education and the Hope of Dialogue (a lengthy title), I initially felt to challenge her pursuit of debate. As I read on I realized, "Ah ha, I've fallen right into the very premise of her notion. It is easy to argue and disagree with another's point of view."

I particularly liked the sections where she discussed the variety of teaching and it's effectiveness or lack there of. It made me want to go out and sit in classrooms and just observe to witness this scale for myself. Very intriguing.

Ms Tannen concluded with the supposition that truth should be and the root of our contrary nature, and that we should look at the whole picture rather than the this-vs-that attitude of most debate oriented discussion. It reminded me of the picture of Gaston, from Beauty and the Beast, that Ms Sutton used recently in one of her power points..."You're either with us or you're against us." What about those of us who want to know the rest of the story before we take a stand, either with or against or in another line altogether. Looking for more truth than lies at the surface is a much better motive than just proving someone is wrong.

All in all, I enjoyed Ms Tannen's remarks and found her style of writing easy to follow. She flowed easily from one point to another and the information was assimilated without too much conflict. I did have to look up a few of her vocabulary words, but I like that.

Did you check out the Doonesbury at the end of the article? I liked.

The PRICE of Education

I know it's not on our list of things to do, but I was browsing through our RA book and hooked into "The Achievement of Desire", an intriquing piece by Richard Rodriguez. His story is a retrospective autobiography on how he attained his level of success.

Without retelling the whole story, I will tell you that the part of his story that caught my attention deeply was how, being rised by an immigrant family, he lost his roots and relations with his family in persuit of his quest to be educated. Mr Rodriguez was embarrassed by his parents' heavy spanish accent and their lack of literary knowledge. As he became more and more educated, he distanced himself further and further away from his family and heritage. It wasn't until many years and awards into his adulthood that he recogized the loneliness of a scholar, hiding and living within the pages of someone elses ideas and concepts. He admits that his quest for education was mostly and merely a mimicing and parroting of others, and that he rarely, if ever, had a thought of his own but waited for others to tell him what to read and then what to think about it. He joined a literary community who met together in a museum and studied or read...but never conversed and built relationships with each other. This gave him an urgent yearning to "go home".

I found Rodriguez' writing just a little difficult to read, sometimes rereading the same sentence several times. Although he has a fabulous literary style, it's just a little upside down for me. I really enjoyed his story and just wanted to share, I guess.

NOW...to the real assignment!

I Don't Know How To Add Fancy Stationery to my Posts

So, I went to a grammar page to just meander through some grammarish stuff and I picked "confusing words". As I ran through the list looking for some that might be confusing to me I came across one that I didn't even know existed! Woo hoo! I love it when that happens.

Stationary and stationery. Did you know they were two different words? Anyway, it goes like this:
Stationary is to stay in one place.
We cemented the post so it would remain stationary.

Stationery is like fancy writing paper (or not fancy).
She wrote her letter on stationery she'd received for her birthday.

I knew there were the different meanings but I don't think I'd ever realized there were two different spellings. I hope I remember this in the future.

I found it at www.grammarbook.com/homonyms/confusing-words-4.asp

Not very useful, I suppose, but I liked finding something totally new to me.

Woo Who?

One of my favorite people in the whole world, Travis Cox, aka Bass, is an avid member of the theatrical community here at DSC. He often encourages me to polish my culture at the theatre. Not long ago he informed my daughter of an intriguing play not to be missed. Naci, and I stole a night away to enjoy "Ways to Woo, or How to Steal a Penny."

Unlike any of the other performances I've seen anywhere, this play was based on improv. There was a basic story line that must be followed, but there were no rehearsed lines. I felt unfortunate that I only attended one night. People who watched it multiple times said it was different each time.

The cast opened with some interaction with the audience to get their "creative juices flowing". It was really funny and gave you a feel for the personality of the cast. Likewise, during the play itself, the cast continued to interact with the audience giving them ample opportunity to create new lines and different outcomes. It was hilarious.

Well done, and bravo to the cast!

Whatever it takes

I can remeber two specific teachers that did something to make a considerable difference in my education.

Fourth grade. I had Mrs. Gentry. I didn't want Mrs. Gentry. She was just an ordinary teacher. She seemed oldish. (Looking back now I realize she was really quite young. Prospective of youth.) But we weren't far into the school year when a genuine misfortune helped me understand how to appreciate. We were playing fruit bowl, I believe, in the gym. Mrs. Gentry was the kind who would actually play with us instead of sitting around on a chair or on the stage. We were running and laughing and having a blast when Mrs. Gentry was accidently kicked in the back of the leg by one of the students. She rolled to the ground and cried out in pain. I'd never seen an adult in pain before. It turned out she'd broken her Achilles tendon, something that would require a LONG recovery period. She was replaced for the next 2 or 3 months with Mrs. Nelson. Up until this point I had taken my shy, quiet nature for granted. Education was easy for me and I was content to just sit back and learn...if I felt like it. Teachers rarely, if ever, called on me to participate in class and I NEVER volunteered. Much much to shy. Times tables, however, were a struggle and so I just figured it'd come when it came. No need to worry. Mrs. Nelson, shorter, older, rounder, and meaner than Mrs. Gentry, had no intentions of letting anyone slide through her class. Her first day there she walked up and down the rows, to each individual child and asked them a times table. Even me! I was horrified! And then she did it again the next day! My dred and terror turned to evasive action immediately...that very day. I went home and studied and learned my times tables just so I could breath easier with Mrs. Nelson at the helm.

It was in the 7th grade that I had Miss P. She was my English teacher. One fortuitous morning she decided to read us a book. She picked up, prefaced and began reading The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe (LONG before there was a movie). It was entrancing. I couldn't wait for my class the next day where she read chapter 2. Day three you won't believe what she did. After the typical lesson, whatever it was, she picked up the book, turned it around a few time in her hands, eyed it carefully while watching our anticipation. Then...she put it back down!!! "I don't think I'm going to finish reading this book," she said. "If you want to find out what happens you'll have to read it yourself." WHAT!? It was the first book I ever check out from that library, but not the last. I read that and every other book in the series. Then I moved on to The Hobbit, which gave me nightmares. So I found some other books that piqued my interest, and have never quit finding books since she aroused my interest as to what lies beneath the cover of the next tale.

Thank you Mrs. P. Thank you Mrs. Nelson. (And thank you, too, Mrs. Gentry.)

AHHH...I STILL DON'T GET IT!

Good grief! I picked a doozie this time! Affect vs effect, do you get it? I know I never really have so I decided to make it my grammar post this week, so here you have it.

Apparently affect means to INFLUENCE something rather that cause...and effect means to CAUSE or to bring about or accomplish (or when preceded by A, AN, ANY, THE, TAKE, INTO, and NO.) Whatever! Have you got it? I peruse a bunch of sites and came up with the same thing over and over, which means we all pretty much agree on it's definition. But I still don't get it. I can kinda see the difference but each time they used it in an example, I was still confused.

For instance:
1. The family dialogue effected a positive atmosphere. (The family dialogue brought about a positive atmosphere.)
2. How long will we have to wait before the drugs take effect? (In this sentence, "effect" is preceded by "take".)

3. Will the campaign contributions affect his voting? (Will the contributions influence his voting?)
4. Her affect was greatly subdued when she made her decision. (Her emotion was subdued.)

The site I found helpfulish (not a real word) was http://hubpages.com/hub/Grammar_Mishaps__Affect_vs_Effect

Go ahead, check it out for more precise confusing details. And if you get it, take a minute to explain it in terms I can recognize.

A Discussion of Platitudinous Melee

I don't know that I've ever said I just want to be average, or nomal, or anything else of that nature. In Mike Rose's article, "I Just Wanna Be Average," he tells the stories of his classmates and his journey through the school system. Will all it's ups and downs, not to mention the plethora of attitude and personality, he makes it seem unbelievable that any of us make it through with anything that resembles an education. Were it not for one singular teacher of regard, his time spent would've been wasted entirely.

It appears that he grew up in LA going to a religious school, Catholic I supposed, where many of the teachers were underprepared, unstable, and/or lacked the authority nessecary to attain and deserve the respect required to hold the attention of a bunch of irreverent teenagers. At some point in his article, Mr Rose relinquishes complete blame on the educational system and agrees to accept some himself. At some point, however, he is presented with an unorthodox, but hip and befitting teacher that managed to pique his interest in things that matter and save him from his vocational training. This one fortunate happenstance made him into the person he would eventually become.

Mr Rose's style of writing is the kind that I appreciate most; the kind that tells a relevant story, that is flowery and full of detail, that makes me think about his perspective as well as my own, and appears to come from a different enough point of view than my own, that I get to travel to another destination and time. I appreciated his talent for diction.

I regret that I seemed to have lost what I thought was his objective somewhere early in the story, but it may be that I had a misunderstanding of where we were going.

Bye bye!

There are three words that frequently get misused. Buy, bye, and by. It's another one of those things you just have to learn and remember, there's really not a trick to it that I'm aware of.

The first buy means to purchase something.
The second bye is a farewell (abbreviated goodbye), or it's a sports term meaning not playing this game or match or whatever.
The third by is a preposition in relation to.

Examples:
I'm going to buy a new car.
When I got that on sale it was a really good buy.
Say bye, I'm leaving.
Our team isn't playing this week because we have a bye.
I left my sweater by the tree.
That was told to my by a friend.

Pretty much, it goes like this, if it isn't the buy that has to do with purchasing, the bye that means goodbye or the sports term, it's going to be the other by.

http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/by.html

Just for kicks and giggles...
http://www.esldesk.com/common-errors-in-english/-buy-by-bye.aspx

It's a fun little quiz to see if you've got it.

You--Detention!!

Going into this reading and assignment, I expected a much bumpier ride. Taking into consideration the generator of this article made me wonder how biased the outcome of my lesson would be. I was suprised. Although I found many rude and critical points in his article Idiot Nation, I was able to locate and appreciate several of Michael Moore's points and that's what I opt to focus my comments on.

In as much as I am in the teaching profession, albiet preschool, I took a particular interest in Mr. Moore's admiration of educators. He dwelt a lot on his negative experiences in the system and I found it amazing that he respects teachers after the struggles he delt with. As a student in my younger days, I loved school. It wasn't without its trials and set backs, but learning came easy for me and studying was not drudgery. I especially enjoyed the sociality school provided. My instructors we pleasant, kind, and helpful for the most part, and that is where the rest of my friends and interests were. So, yeah, I liked going to school. In fact, I only missed a half of a day in all 3 of my high school years together! But his statistics and stories made me glad I didn't go to school in New York.

On the other side of the nickel, as a teacher, I love my students. I really do. I know it's considered unethical, but I tell them I love them. I hug them, I kiss them on the head, I put them on my lap and sing them songs, hold their hands, tickle them silly, and cry when they leave at the end of each school year. Having a "degree" to teach doesn't make a teacher "good", it just says they know what they need to know. But do they have what it takes to get that into the heads of their students? I believe a child learns best if he knows you love and care about him. As I sat across from two little boys at lunch two weeks ago, I reminded Steven several times to use good manners. Just before I lost my patience, the other boy, Justin, turned to his friend and said, "You're supposed to tell her that you love her." Steven asked why. "Because she'll love you back," Justin replied. Steven tried it out... "I love you, Teacher Patti." I pushed back the irritability and clenched my teeth, and through a force but convincing smile, "I love you, too, Steven." It worked, for both of us.

I also scold them, reprimand them, put them in time out, and teach them that harsh words and actions hurt others. Not my favorite part.

Books! Ah, yes...BOOKS! I don't think it's possible to over expose children (and adults) to good literature. Over pressure, yes. Over expose, no. Libraries need to be taken seriously. And then kids (and adults) need to be encouraged to go, rewarded for going, and maybe even lured into them. Years ago, on the popular sitcom, Happy Days, an amazing thing happened. The coolest character on the program, possibly of all time, The Fonz got a LIBRARY CARD. According to legand of the times, applications for library cards increase 300 percent the week after the show aired! I hope they all utilized them.

I completely disliked his suggestions on causing trouble in the school. I think there could be better, more constructive ways to get points across and make your agenda heard.

All in all, I enjoyed the article and was suprised by my own reaction. I can't agree with all of what he said, but surely I can consider how I feel about it.

Guy, chair, three-way lamp

Unlike most of the rest of you, I found the reading, Changing American Family fascinating. I suppose the reason is that I have another dimension of which to compare, having a family of my own. It was interesting to read about the dynamics of the different classes and cultures and compare them to my own family; "We do that", "We would never do that", "Sometimes that has happened but I didn't like it". I noticed as I read the variety of reactions to situations and how I myself would've reacted to the same things. I am one who has always been intrigued by statistics and facts. I don't ususally remember them exactly, but I remember what the point was.

The Moynihan Report sounded like an unresearched biased opinion expressed to further the agenda of those who published it. Although Aulette seemed to write matter of factly about the report, it's arbitrary findings, and Slack's rebuttle, I could tell right away that she had a distaste for the report before she even got to the part that affirmed it. Using words like blamed, argued, and caused left a distinct perception of how she felt about it.

The opinion of the Moynihan Report seemed to be completely partial leaning to the only understanding they had of the "typical American family."

To add another more personal dimension, I grew up in a time where the humor on TV was largly based on these stereotypes. Shows like All in the Family, The Jeffersons, Good Times (with JJ DYNOMITE Walker), What's Happening, Sanford and Sons, and Chico and the Man just to name a few, were full of racial slurrs and words of reference I don't even dare use today. Many of the portrayals of the black community and other cultures come to life in these old shows. I remember when I got a little older and viewed these as reruns, I was amazed that these actors were willing to characterize themselves and their race as stupid, illiterate, and crude. But then, I didn't really understand the implications of the times and the impact of history on their position. I imagine I could make all sorts of suppositions, but the reality is the difference between now, then, and the past before that.

The last part of the article delt with the impact of immigration of the family dynamic. I especially liked how they expressed how their adversity often created greater opportunity for growth and change.

Who's who?

In my last grammar post, I talked about who vs whom. But as I perused through the rules and examples, I came across a related but different problem: Who's vs whose. I don't know that I'd really ever given it much thought.

I knew that who's is a contraction of who is or who has. But whose? Where do you use that? It actually made bunches of sense when I read it carefully.

The possessive of who is whose.
Correct: Who's coming with me? (Contraction)
Correct: Whose book is this? (Possessive)

Whose is showing possesion. I wonder how many times I've used it wrong. (It makes me cringe!)

A great site...

http://englishplus.com/grammar/00000136.htm

Twinkie, anyone?

This cartoon hit several notes with me, so I chose it. I grew up with a mother who somehow managed to teach me to love healthy food; fresh vegetables, fruit, homemade dinners rather that processed junk. We never worried about e coli or salmonella etc. probably because we grew much of what we ate or got it from friends and family. Well, actually, it was because it just wasn't a prominent concern in those days.

This cartoon is using sarcasm to indicate that junk food is safer than healthy food because of the dangerous bacteria and so forth that is becoming so common. Also, if you watched the movie "Wally", it also alludes to Twinkies lasting FOREVER. When we saw that part of the movie, we laughed relentlessly! It is an unfortunate and hysterical truth.

I'm fine, thank you.

I particularly liked the statement made by this illustration. So often we find that the people making the rules are not the ones who are subject to living with them. Unfortunately, when governments and other such agencies inflict their "plans" on us, they themselves do not actually live within the standards they've set for the rest of us.

My interpretation of this cartoon depicts Uncle Sam as the people who comprise the government. He is exaggerated in size to depict that he is well and fine on HIS health care plan, while the other old, broke and sick people are not well and have little options for help. I don't know if you can see the little "Kilroy" at the top corner of the bench says, "Sam, of course, gets congressional health care."

An Indian Story

Nothing To Be Alarmed About

The American Indian life was so abruptly different than that of the white man that pushed his way through this land so many moons ago. However, in "An Indian Story" the author, Roger Jack (I was disappointed to never learn of an Indian name for him) traded so easily between tradition and life as a modern American, pointing out incidences like going into a sweathouse and tossing in a coin. That can't be an Indian tradition. How about pow wows and carnivals? Another one that struck me was an old Indian woman who taught her native culture and language and loved Elvis, not that I blame her. All through the story I found things of this nature to be ironic, but not unnatural.

The family bonds and respect are something curious. There may have been some things there to be envious about. And some other things, maybe not.

My favorite part, "She always said good Indians remember two things: their humor and their history. These are the elements that dictate our culture and our survival in this crazy world. If these are somehow distroyed or forgotten, we would be doomed to extinction. Our power gone." How true for all of us, if we don't leave a piece of ourselves in the past when we have passed, we are truly extinct. Hopefully the piece we leave will be from our better part.

To Whom This May Concern,

Who vs. Whom

For some reason, even though I've always been an English buff, who and whom have always made me wonder. When using who...or whom...I have to stop and think. And then I remember, "Oh yeah! I don't know when to use which." When ever it was explained to me, I just didn't get it. Maybe it was a preconceived notion that I didn't get it, so I didn't get it. Or maybe it was always poorly explained.

According to wikiHow, "They are both pronouns but who is used as the subject of a sentence or phrase and whom is used as the object of a verb." K, got it? Me neither.

Further investigation lead me to the simplest answer yet. Check it out at: http://www.betterwritingskills.com/tip-w023.html

Put simply, you can rephrase the sentence to use either him or he. If it would require a "he" it's who. If it fits best with "him", use whom. ( The M's go together, get it? Him, whom.)

Apparently, people just simply don't use whom any more because it's too confusing to figure it out. But, by George, I think I've got it!

...As Though Intelligence Were Contagious.

Can We Miss Somewhere We've Never Been?

Not having participated in the fifties myself, believe it or not, reading both "Looking For Work" and "What We Really Miss About the 1950s" was enlightening and engaging. From vivid skips down memory lane to intriguing and suprising data filled statistics, these articles were fascinating and well worth reading.

It wasn't until the tenth comment in the section"extending the critical context" that I even remembered the title of the first article was "Looking For Work". As the author, Gary Soto, spun his tale through the haze of days long ago spent in the warm sun of California, I found myself relaxing into the story, obsorbing the details and graphics he so skillfully illustrated. Gary shared his family and neighbors with us, and led us through his adventure of becoming just rich enough to enjoy the day. I personally found it interesting, having raised five children of my own, that it never occured to him to ask his mother for the money. In fact, I consider it relavent to the story. Once his wealth is gained, it is appreciated almost immediately. Gary is eager to share his new found fortune in order to more fully enjoy the fruits of his labors. While our stroll through a day in his life was not free from images less pleasurable and disturbing, it did create a sense of cheerful gratitude for lessons learned from these days spent growing up in the fifties.

In my opinion, Stephanie Coontz' details about the decades leading up to and subsequent to the fifties were stimulating and essential to her final supposition. It's much more understandable, now, why the fifties are revered as a time of abundance, growth, and progression. The statistics on such things as household occupants, teen and single mother pregnancies, parenthood, job market and economics of multiple periods of time put things into perspective not comprehended previously. It created greater cohesion of how each era related and contributed to the next and the next, etc.

Each author of these articles had a style which best suited their purpose. While one used story telling to create a sense of the time period stated, the other was an information based piece. Each article was informative and interesting within it's own element, and could be appreciated for it's contribution to the opinions considered about the era of the 1950s.

Thinking Critically and Forming Opinions

Intro: Thinking Critically, Challenging Cultral Myths

As I meander through history, I recognize it is full of countries and civilizations where the people who were living within them were punished, imprisoned, or even put to death for thinking outside the box. Yet here we are, paying money to be taught to think critically about the foundations upon the very freedom to do so is based. Amazing! Having an opinion is a inherent; being able to express that opinion is a right, if you live in the right time and circumstance; being listened to and appreciated is conditional.

But what about someone who has a differing opinion than your own? Does having a wrong opinion mean that you shouldn't be allowed express it? Even in this land of freedoms and rights our right to our own opinion is being squelched by violence, discrimination, misunderstanding and closed minded authority. A girl who chooses to dress her own style is teased, shunned, and rejected for her opinion of fashion. A guy who chooses to dance instead of fix cars is considered messed up, is labeled and disregarded by beefier boys.

According to this book, our way of thinking has been ingrained in us, not since we were babies, but for generations into the past. Does the baby get a pink blanket or a blue one? Our minds are inundated with media, parental influence, friendships, traditions, and folk tales until an opinion expressed several hundred years or more ago is "just the way it is".

When does an opinion stop being an opinion and become a reality? Do all opinions even need to attain that level of significance? And who are the authors of this book, to claim the traditions and realities of our past and present as myths? Many of what they label "myth" made sense at the time they were adopted as a reality.

I am a person of intense opinion and conviction. I also recognize that just because it's mine, my opinion is not always right, not always informed and sometimes unorthodox in society. I value others' opinions and know that there is always something to learn in their method of formulating their convictions. I'm looking forward to discussions and analysis of the topics chosen in this book and maybe other topics that weasel themselves in.