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.