I’ve learned that I want what I want…and I want a tattoo.

And I want one that you can see without ducking into a dressing room with me. But I’m hesitant because of the stigma attached to body art. I am female. I am a public educator. I will earn a doctorate within the next several years if things go as I’ve planned. Location is a factor. As for design: I have really strong beliefs, several hobbies, and lots of causes that I support. Suffice it to say that I don’t lack ideas.

Anyway, my question: Tattoos..taboo? (If you answer, please explain in as much detail as possible–either way.)

 

I’ve learned that I’m a big fan of awareness.

Found this blog that is pretty interesting. The writer here talks a lot about being productive, training your brain to run a healthy behavior “tape,” etc., etc. Anyway, it’s pretty interesting for its discussions and  explanations of emotions, language, and behavior, among other things. The blog is Chris Crouch’s Blog (not a very imaginitive title, but not worries). Here’s a little blurb on awareness, one of my favorite things. I’m a big believer in the idea that mental health increases exponentially with every pinch of awareness.

“Awareness - You must be aware of the fact that a tape has been activated, is controlling your behavior and is taking you in a direction that is not in your best interest. Here are a few clues that indicate a counterproductive behavioral tape has been activated: You publicly say yes to something but privately would prefer to say no, you publicly say no to something but privately would prefer to say yes, you overreact to a minor or insignificant event, you can’t seem to get closure on an important event, you sense unexplained frustration, restlessness, anger, sadness or fear…in general, something about the situation just doesn’t feel right to you. “

P.S. I always tell my students that Psychology is the class that I’ve used the most in  my practical life. It helps to know what’s going on beneath the surface, I think.

I’ve learned that I’m not the only one who takes pleasure reading seriously!

Okay, admittedly I have been reading a whole lot for graduate school lately…not much time for pleaseure reading. BUT, I am licking my chops thinking about the next book  that I will read. Will it be The Historian? Will it be Gods Behaving Badly? Will it be The Eyre Affair? (Right. That’s cheating because it’s a book that I plan to teach.) Okay, so what will it be, then? Dog Years? Or maybe something by Walter Mosely….The thing is that I miss reading for pleasure. If you, too, are having difficulty making time to read, check out the following list that I found on Ezine Articles. The title of the article is “Finding Time to Read” (by Barbara Winter) and I think the list is priceless. How many of these things do you do to provide for quality reading time?

Per Barbara Winter, “1. Carry a book with you at all times.”

My comment: I do this! In fact, I drove the ladies in Nortstrom crazy when my husband and I were shopping for my birthday present! We invested (I’m afraid to say) in a purse that is just perfect for my obsession with books! 

Winter “2. Eliminate something else that takes your time.”

Me: I rarely watch television anymore. Plus, I avoid laundry and other chores whenever I can:) 

Winter “3. Listen to audiobooks.”

Me: Sorry folks. No can do. My minds wanders. I need the ACT of reading to keep me focused.

Winter “4. Travel by public transportation. “

Me: Don’t really have that option, but I read when my husband’s at the wheel!

Winter “5. Wear your iPod. “

Me: My IPod hurts my ears. Not an issue, anyway, since I can’t listen to books.

Winter, “6. Don’t finish books that you don’t enjoy. “

Me: Not sure about this. It feels like abandonment to  me. Although…I did recently abandon Eat, Pray, Love.  Thought it was a little bit too preachy.

Winter, “7. Learn to skim.”

Me: How else does one read an 800 page book in on sitting? 

Winter, “8. Have a regular reading time daily.”

Me: I promise I’ll try, but one would have to have a regular schedule for that, no? 

Winter, “9. Make reading a high priority. “

Me: I do. Really. There are few other things I would rather do than sit my butt on the couch and curl up with a good book…or a mediocre book…or even a book for graduate school. Maybe that’s why my chores pile up. Oh, well.

 

p.s. Sorry about the italics…I just can’t seem to get them to go away. Do I look sophistocated?

READING QUESTIONS: I’ve learned that reading, more often than not, generates questions without answers.

In the interest of brevity, I’ll say this: Racism as a topic/concern/discussion/problem has been coming up over and over again as of late, in work, at school, in my pleasure reading, in my curriculum, in the hallways and faculty rooms at school, on my blog, and, alas, in my graduate school reading.  

This week’s readings included Color Monitors: The Black Face of Technology in America by Martin Kevorkian. Here, Kevorkian details and exemplifies his theory that media and film representations of both black men and technology seem to depict both black men and technology as arefears that are to be contained: Technology by the skills and cyber “slavery” of the black man and the black man by the distraction of the computer monitor and the inner workings of the modern machine.

I am, at once, torn between two DRASTICALLY DIFFERENT reactions:

1. IS HE SERIOUS? ARE FILM MAKERS AND ADVERTISERS SOMEHOW (EITHER CONSCIOUSLY OR SUBCONSCIOUSLY) SENDING THE MESSAGE THAT BLACK MEN NEED TO BE CONTAINED BY THE COMPUTER? IS MASS MEDIA SUGGESTING, SOMEHOW THAT FEARS OF TECHNOLOGY AND BLACK MEN RESULT IN A BLACK COMPUTER WORKFORCE WITH JOBS THAT SERVE AS A METAPHOR FOR SLAVERY? THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

2. Or, IS KEVORKIAN’S ASSERTION–that the media is casting black men in specific technological roles– OUTRAGEOUS? AFTER ALL, HE DOES PRESENT A PLETHORA OF EXAMPLES THAT SEEM TO SUPPORT HIS THEORIES. (But, I still can’t shake the feeling that he presents ONLY examples that support his theories and that there are equally as many examples that would weaken Kevorkian’s argument.)

So, for anyone who has read or will venture a read of Kevorkian’s Color Monitors, I have a few questions:

1. Is Kevorkian’s theory of mass media’s tendency towards a depiction of technological and black male containment legitimate or is Kevorkian’s book simply full of instances in which the author reaches and stretches to find seemingly racially motivated film producers, advertisements, companies, etc.?

2. Is the black actor as a technologically adept character an insult OR is it a compliment?

3. Is Color Monitors an entirely different book without its last chapter? Why did Kevorkian include a chapter that seems, in part, to refute a good part of his own assertions? Does the idea of white people being “blackened” by the “drudgery” of technology weaken or strengthen Kevorkian’s theory?

4. After having read all of Kevorkian’s film casting examples (black men as techno-nerds), would you say that racism abounds in Hollywood? In America? Does the book translate into reality?

5. What is wrong with, “…gloss[ing] over the casting decision as a well-intentioned attempt to give a black actor exposure in the most positive and talent-affirming supporting part”? (17) …other than the fact that Kevorkian wouldn’t have a book if he did that.

6. Kevorkian writes, “When people hear ‘digital divide,’ they tend to think in terms of black and white” (39), at which time he also mentions that people are stuck on this perception of the digital divide, despite the fact that “…the degree of technological access does correlate to a range of categories, including geography, income, and ethnicity.” To what do you attibute the digital divide?  What other groups are separated by the “digital divide”? I most associate a difference in age with the digital divide–a division between the old and young. What about… Rich and poor? Educated and uneducated? Fearful and fearless? Curious and indifferent? Male and female?

7. The last chapter includes an extensive discussion about technology and creativity, specifically that some see technology as a threat to individual creativity (151). Is technology a threat to individual creativity?

8. As I mentioned at the beginning of this post, racism as a topic and a concern has come to the forefront in so many aspects of my life as of late. I am searching my mind for a solution here, and the best that I can come up with is the idea of everybody treating people like people…the whole John Donne’s “No man is an island” thing…”therefore as not for whom the bells tolls, it tolls for thee” and all that jazz. Human beings are human beings and there it is. We are all alike in more ways than we are different. I am not suggesting permanently ignoring that which makes us different, but I think that if we are going to get to that point ever (the point at which we recognize, accept and celebrate differences), we need to start somewhere. It seems to me that to start with recognizing differences is a bit ass backwards. Maybe we should start by celebrating ourselves as a human race…by treating each other like brothers and sisters…all of us…

I don’t know. That ’s just one of my ideas to help combat racism. My idea is touched upon in the late pages of chapter 5 with the discussion of Ellison’s novel Invisible Man. Kevorkian writes, “In Invisible Man, when the narrator-protagonist makes his first social appearance at a meeting of the progressively minded Brotherhood, one of the white members commits the faux pas of asking him to sing. The politically correct leader of the party becomes furious, proscribing the invitation to the black man as an out-of-bounds stereotype: ‘The brother does not sing!’  But reflecting upon this exchange, the narrator finds that ’something disturbed me: Shouldn’t there be some way for us to be asked to sing?’” (150). And then, on page 151, “The Time of Our Singing offers at least two answers: (1) if he has chosen to pursue that skill; (2) what black man?” THIS IS NOT SO MUCH A QUESTION AS A SOLICITATION FOR COMMENTS/DISCUSSION.

I’ve learned what it feels like to fly.

One short note: While  I was in Epcot, I flew, bodily. One of the rides, called Soarin’, actually gives passengers the feeling that they are flying. WOW. A must see (or should I say must experience?). Anyway, I can check that off my list of things I wish I knew: I now know what it feels like to fly!

I’ve learned that teaching, as a profession, is dis-articulating…but what are the implications of such a move?

So, I’m reading a book for graduate school called Multimodal Discourse,  and the book makes an interesting point about the dis-articulation of such professions as teaching: simply, that teaching is moving from a multimodal practice in which teachers design and implement curriculum, to a monomodal practice in which separate specialists create, design, and implement curriculum. Formerly (i.e. prior to curriculum design specialists getting a hold of our curriculum), teachers both designed and implemented their own curriculum. Teachers created freely, the way I prefer to do it. Now, though, more and more districts are dis-articulating, that is, moving towards a more mainstreamed curriculum, one that is prescribed for all teachers; the teachers implement the curriculum rather than create and implement the curriculum.

My question is this: Are we moving backwards as a profession? Why are teachers being disallowed to create curriculum? State tests maybe? Accountability? Competition? A need for a common knowledge base?

I think that a happy medium can be found in having teachers partner with curriculum specialists and district managers so that no curriculum is ever created without classroom practice and a real working knowledge of students taken into account. To dis-articulate without continuing to take the teachers’ knowlege and experiences into account seems counterproductive.

Of course I can see the value in a core curriculum, but let’s not forget the students and their practical education, okay?

I’ve learned that people are super offended by tattoos…offended!

So I don’t have any REAL tattoos, not that I object to tattooing AT ALL!!!!!!!!!!! Seriously, my husband has three tattoos that I love, and I support any his future ink. I am fascinated and appreciative of tattoos. Tattoos are art. I love the lines and the colors. I love some tattoos as much for their deep meaning and purposefulness. I love other tattoos for their frivolity. And I love that some people are unafraid to ink up their bodies in the most outrageous ways, one of which is the idea of a sleeve (whole arm tattoo situation).

That all being said, I mistakenly conducted a social experiment regarding tattoos. Gerry bought me a shirt that is short sleeved with the exception of a mesh/tattoo treatment on the arms. Essentially, from as close as a few feet, the shirt gives the appearance that the wearer has tattoo sleeves–real ones! So, I put the shirt on yesterday, and did I ever learn a lesson:

When I went to the hardware store, people went silent as I walked by, rolled their eyes at the sight of me, sighed in disgust, even widened their eyes when they were waiting on me!

Next stop, the local pizza shop, where the cashier looked at me in horror when I walked in and then quickly looked back to the customer at the register. A former student said, “Oh, my God!” and then she realized that it was a shirt. (She was surprised but very pleasant even before she realized she’d been tricked.) One ten-year-old boy yelled out to me, “I LOVE YOUR TATTOOS” and was disappointed when I told him the truth–at least there’s some hope for the future of a nonjudgmental society.

My question: What’s everybody’s stinking judgmental problem? Why does anybody else even care if I have tattooed my arms? Is it anyone else’s problem or business if I have “sleeves”? Was I offending people? What was the offense? Why? What did people think I was going to do? Break out into a fist fight with the nearest stranger? I had changed nothing else about my appearance, just the shirt with the funky sleeves.

I  was astounded that everywhere I went, there was an overwhelming majority of folks who clearly had a problem with my choice of body art, fake though it was.

What’s going on here? Are we really all that sensitive and closed minded?

I’ve learned some doggy psychology (the hard way).

So, I wake up Saturday morning with an entire day of productivity ahead of me, and, instead, I end up making an emergency trip to the vet with my 10lb. Jack Russell Terrier, Belle. She had to be put under to have her head sewn shut and her ear put back together. She’s sitting across from me right now with a sad face…looking through her transparent lampshade apparatus (think they call it a collar).

What happened? I’ll tell you what happened. Belle decided to put her head in her brother Benny’s bowl as he was eating. And the rest, as they say, is history. Benny got angry and struck back. Now, before anybody gets all out of control, understand that I am not happy with Benny’s violence towards his sister dog, but the vet explained to me that there is little danger here. What’s going on is a little question of social order in our household. Belle has been acting as the alpha dog this whole time (eight years without sibling rivalry) and, finally, after years of torture from her, Benny realized that he is big enough and strong enough to dominate Belle. So, he has begun to try to dominate, but Belle disagrees. Thus, an argument ensues and Belle gets the shit end of that stick.

My part in all of this? I am now going to have to help Benny assert himself as the alpha dog and return things to a more natural order (with the “in charge” dog being the one who can physically take charge). That means that I will have to feed Benny first, pay attention to him first, let him out first, etc., etc., so that Belle gets the signal from me that Benny is higher up on the chain of command.

The problem? Well, Benny does not have a take-charge personality. He is calm and docile by nature, so he is not very convincing in his alphadom. But we’re trying. Don’t worry. Benny and Belle are both fine. They normally get on very well. It’s just that things are changing around here (apparently) and it’s up to me to make sure that the transition is as painless as it possibly can be.

So, instead of being super productive on Saturday, I spent all day caring for  my wounded little doggie. What mom’s will do for their pups!

I’ve learned that “show condition clean” means sterile.

So, I’m selling my house. Yep, it’s up on the market as of today! Of course, you don’t just list your house and let fly…or at least I don’t. Many of us have seen those home improvement shows about selling, buying, and searching for homes. Well, that’s me on all ends right now. I’ve applied for pre-approval on a mortgage (all done online now–pretty fancy!), we’ve begun our search for a home in Virginia, we’ve even done a good portion of packing.

But, by far, the most amount of time and energy has been spent on tightening up the house…getting it into SHOW CONDITION. As of today, there will be no dishes in the sink (EVER), no blankets on the couch (they’ll be folded neatly and placed in their leather bin), no dust or doggie hairs ANYWHERE, no unmade beds, no exposed laundry, no jackets over chairs, no shoes anywhere but in the closet (or on my feet), no disorganized closets, no junk mail in view, no books left unshelved, no toothbrush by the sink, no brushes on the vanity. None of it. No blinds out of plumb, no mirrors smudged. Well, you get the point. Not that my house was a disaster area before we decided to sell, but, well, let’s just say it was lived in. There was evidence of life in every room in the house. Now? NOTHING. Sterile rooms. It looks like the body snatchers came and plucked the inhabitants right out of the house just as spring cleaning was completed. Crystal clean house. No sign of life.

 Oh, well, we do what we can to ge by, I guess. Hope the house sells, anyway. It’s really nice, ESPECIALLY NOW!

Why are we debating a given right?

As found on Cornell University’s Law School website…

“Amendment II:  A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. “

 My questions/comments:

How did the states ever even get to the point of having “legally” taken away our right to keep and bear arms? Do we really just turn the other way when state laws completely disregard our rights? Do people really believe that breaking our basic rights as U.S. citizens is the perfect way to keep guns off the streets? (News flash: Those who are killing people on the streets are NOT, for the most part, the same people who are trying to protect their rights to bear arms. Hunch: Criminals and sociopaths are not necessarily concerned with whether or not their arms bearing is legal.)