The start of summer gives me a good chance to see how my kids have grown. And the report . . .
Sam no longer needs a nap.
Caroline still does.
Caroline is fearless at swimming lessons.
Sam should've been riding a bike a year ago.
They are good at entertaining themselves.
They need Dad to prompt them to challenge themselves.
That is all.
Monday, June 20, 2011
Sunday, June 19, 2011
The not-so-secret-secret-savings-account
Sorry. Time for a foray into consumer economics.
It's something I created five years ago. As I became more budget conscious, I decided to create a savings account to save up for fun stuff. Here's what I put in:
Problem is, I can think of four things I'd really love to have. I'm burning to buy a Nook, even though I'm not a super-avid reader. An SLR digital camera would be cool. Oh, a new laptop would even be nice. And, let's not forget, nav system for my car.
Yet there's an adage in sports: if you have two #1 goal tenders, you have no #1 goal tenders. I think this applies to my savings quandry. If I have four things I really want to buy, I don't have anything I really want to buy. So, it's time to apply the 30-day rule: If July 19 arrives and I still want any of the items, maybe then I should act.
Or, I can limp along in my life of abundance and do without the four items: we have a new iPad that I'm just untapping as well as a library card. We have a point-and-shoot camera that's pretty nifty. I signed out my work laptop for the summer. I'm good with maps. Besides, my wife has said a nav system would diminish my usefulness.
Maybe it's time to get away from things and saving up for events. Maybe it's time to lock away that money for 6 months in low-yield-CD purgatory.
It's something I created five years ago. As I became more budget conscious, I decided to create a savings account to save up for fun stuff. Here's what I put in:
- spare change
- any five dollar bill I receive
- reimbursements
- birthday / Christmas money
- side job money (admittedly a small stream of revenue, at least right now it is)
Problem is, I can think of four things I'd really love to have. I'm burning to buy a Nook, even though I'm not a super-avid reader. An SLR digital camera would be cool. Oh, a new laptop would even be nice. And, let's not forget, nav system for my car.
Yet there's an adage in sports: if you have two #1 goal tenders, you have no #1 goal tenders. I think this applies to my savings quandry. If I have four things I really want to buy, I don't have anything I really want to buy. So, it's time to apply the 30-day rule: If July 19 arrives and I still want any of the items, maybe then I should act.
Or, I can limp along in my life of abundance and do without the four items: we have a new iPad that I'm just untapping as well as a library card. We have a point-and-shoot camera that's pretty nifty. I signed out my work laptop for the summer. I'm good with maps. Besides, my wife has said a nav system would diminish my usefulness.
Maybe it's time to get away from things and saving up for events. Maybe it's time to lock away that money for 6 months in low-yield-CD purgatory.
Saturday, June 18, 2011
A Sunny Saturday in June
My father is turning 80 today. He wants little fuss. No gifts. What do we do?
I think that will work perfectly.
By the time one is 80, I guess there is little in the way of things one wants. But a true gift would be the fact that all the kids are happy, healthy, and nearby. That there are three grandkids who weren't here at age 70.
- Clam Bake
- Get whole family together in one spot
I think that will work perfectly.
By the time one is 80, I guess there is little in the way of things one wants. But a true gift would be the fact that all the kids are happy, healthy, and nearby. That there are three grandkids who weren't here at age 70.
Friday, June 17, 2011
June 17, part II
I'm a high school social studies teacher. To do my job well I must closely follow the news. The experience has made me pretty savvy. I've become a voracious reader of political opinion and analysis. But I need a break.
Therefore, I will limit myself to news reports and boxscores for the next week. No commentary. No analysis. I think the world will still be here one week from today. A break like this in August 2008 did me a world of good.
If you're interested in picking up the slack for me while I check out, may I recommend the following?
This resolution should fit nicely with my vow to not read anything related to the NFL until the two sides in that spat decide to talk nicely to one another.
Wonder how much free time I'll uncover.
Therefore, I will limit myself to news reports and boxscores for the next week. No commentary. No analysis. I think the world will still be here one week from today. A break like this in August 2008 did me a world of good.
If you're interested in picking up the slack for me while I check out, may I recommend the following?
This resolution should fit nicely with my vow to not read anything related to the NFL until the two sides in that spat decide to talk nicely to one another.
Wonder how much free time I'll uncover.
June 17
At last summer has arrived. I'll blog every day. I promise.
Many weeks ago a friend sent me a link to an essay by John Volkmer in The Chronicle of Higher Education. In it, Volkmer mused on teachers' perennial struggle dealing with students who are, in his words, "full of it." This essay resonated with me more than most pieces on our profession.
Ironically, the design of this profession has teachers aging but the age of our students remains static. As a result we wonder "Am I getting old?" (or the converse, "My, they're getting younger?") while we face behaviors that seem increasingly juvenile. As the world changes, our students adopt and adapt to fashions increasingly foreign to those we knew from our youth.
Volkmer's piece reminds us that youth remains youthful. That the behaviors our predecessors struggled with are, at the core, little different from what we confront. Children often have to challenge. Children often have to try out "adult" ways of solving problems, and the results are often messy. Children often have to resist, for we are working with human beings who are breaking away from bonds with parents and friends that have lasted their entire lives.
To what extent Volkmer's piece demands that we hold the line on courteous, civil, and modest conduct is a subject for another post. But wherever one feels on how stingy or permissive we need to defend boundaries of behavior, the job we have working with youth who are "full of it" is a grueling one. It means as teachers we have to withstand a lot of barbs while remaining objective. It's our job to help them grow despite behaviors that can repel, and that will wear on you.
The grueling nature of this job necessitates the summer break that, for me, is starting today. We need to be fresh for the campaign we must wage with (but not against) our new students.
One other nature of my job which is grueling needs to go on vacation for a week . . . I'll save that for the next post.
Many weeks ago a friend sent me a link to an essay by John Volkmer in The Chronicle of Higher Education. In it, Volkmer mused on teachers' perennial struggle dealing with students who are, in his words, "full of it." This essay resonated with me more than most pieces on our profession.
Ironically, the design of this profession has teachers aging but the age of our students remains static. As a result we wonder "Am I getting old?" (or the converse, "My, they're getting younger?") while we face behaviors that seem increasingly juvenile. As the world changes, our students adopt and adapt to fashions increasingly foreign to those we knew from our youth.
Volkmer's piece reminds us that youth remains youthful. That the behaviors our predecessors struggled with are, at the core, little different from what we confront. Children often have to challenge. Children often have to try out "adult" ways of solving problems, and the results are often messy. Children often have to resist, for we are working with human beings who are breaking away from bonds with parents and friends that have lasted their entire lives.
To what extent Volkmer's piece demands that we hold the line on courteous, civil, and modest conduct is a subject for another post. But wherever one feels on how stingy or permissive we need to defend boundaries of behavior, the job we have working with youth who are "full of it" is a grueling one. It means as teachers we have to withstand a lot of barbs while remaining objective. It's our job to help them grow despite behaviors that can repel, and that will wear on you.
The grueling nature of this job necessitates the summer break that, for me, is starting today. We need to be fresh for the campaign we must wage with (but not against) our new students.
One other nature of my job which is grueling needs to go on vacation for a week . . . I'll save that for the next post.
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Toting a Gun
One of the more compelling pieces of talk radio I have recently heard involves the tale of a man named Mark Fiorino. Fiorino openly carries a holstered handgun. Recently, while walking in Philadelphia, he was challenged and then put under arrest by police suspicious of his gun possession. The police were pretty rough with him, and he captured the dialogue (or, rather, confrontation) on a voice recorder.
I've heard Fiorino interviewed and he sounds very well spoken and very knowledgeable of the law. Even the city's police commissioner has stated that Fiorino had the right to carry his firearm and that the police were wrong.
Unfortunately, the incident that transpired between Fiorino and the police sounds like a civilian looking for a fight and a police officer too quick to become aggressive with a potential problem. There's good coverage of it on The Daily News website and on Michael Smerconish's website.
I'm not opposed to one's right to own a handgun. I can't say, however, that I find the open carrying of a firearm tactful and comforting. Toting firearms is something I'd rather see law enforcement and the military do. So few of us have training in the use of them, and when one is not comprehensively trained, the likelihood of something bad occurring multiplies.
I'm glad I don't feel compelled to walk around with a gun on my hip. It seems more important to trust one's neighbors, one's police, and one's faith to protect them rather than instinct and lethal force.
I've heard Fiorino interviewed and he sounds very well spoken and very knowledgeable of the law. Even the city's police commissioner has stated that Fiorino had the right to carry his firearm and that the police were wrong.
Unfortunately, the incident that transpired between Fiorino and the police sounds like a civilian looking for a fight and a police officer too quick to become aggressive with a potential problem. There's good coverage of it on The Daily News website and on Michael Smerconish's website.
I'm not opposed to one's right to own a handgun. I can't say, however, that I find the open carrying of a firearm tactful and comforting. Toting firearms is something I'd rather see law enforcement and the military do. So few of us have training in the use of them, and when one is not comprehensively trained, the likelihood of something bad occurring multiplies.
I'm glad I don't feel compelled to walk around with a gun on my hip. It seems more important to trust one's neighbors, one's police, and one's faith to protect them rather than instinct and lethal force.
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Due Process
It would appear as if the 24/7 news cycle has moved on to debating the ethics of what President Obama ordered last week when he sent in American armed forces personnel to kill Osama bin Laden. On Michael Smerconish's afternoon show, for instance, I heard of how Rosie O'Donnell has held forth that the assassination of bin Laden was unethical in that it denied him his due process rights.
I'm not admitting that O'Donnell is a journalist.
However, her viewpoint has been expressed by others.
Bin Laden represented a threat that occupies a gray area between crime and war. Criminals are deserving of due process. A police officer who has an alleged criminal in his crosshairs can't just drop him if there is any chance of apprehending the subject. To do so would be criminal, ammoral, and a violation of . . . due process.
Meanwhile, we don't normally wage assassination campaigns against the heads of state of nations with which we are at war. The nations of the West agreed on standards, some codified and some unwritten, about conduct in times of war. Heads of state are, for some reason, off limits. Perhaps to prevent a descent into barbarity. Enemy soldiers captured in uniform are accorded specific rights. Enemy combatants not in uniform are not. Though war is savage, war has custom that in some ways, ironically, protects some life.
Bin Laden, meanwhile, committed an act of war against the U.S. but did not represent or lead a state. He led an amorphous entity that carried out policy and war, but has no recognizable population, borders, or government. It claims no sovereignty.
But Al Qaeda was, without doubt, a threat. And citizens of a nation look to its head of state to protect them from threats. When threats aren't recognized and met, more threats emerge. President Obama had a moral obligation to the American people to confront the threat bin Laden represented. Bin Laden did not lead (or even pretend to lead) a state. He did not claim U.S. citizenship and he was persona non grata through most of the world. Obama had no choice. The American people can't afford hesitation over resolving a threat that so defies the customs of international relations and the life of American citizens.
Though I believe our president did the right thing, there's a sadness that he had to do it. One doesn't like wishing ill (or death) on another. One of the grave responsibilities our presidents take on is the power to order the likely death of others. In some ways, what President Obama did last week was no lighter than what Truman decided to do in August 1945 or Lincoln in April 1861. A somber awakening for me is that one of many prices one must pay to be president is that as president one is tasked with dilemmas that push the boundaries of what is ethical and just. Perhaps this is why churches often pray for our elected leaders.
I'm not admitting that O'Donnell is a journalist.
However, her viewpoint has been expressed by others.
Bin Laden represented a threat that occupies a gray area between crime and war. Criminals are deserving of due process. A police officer who has an alleged criminal in his crosshairs can't just drop him if there is any chance of apprehending the subject. To do so would be criminal, ammoral, and a violation of . . . due process.
Meanwhile, we don't normally wage assassination campaigns against the heads of state of nations with which we are at war. The nations of the West agreed on standards, some codified and some unwritten, about conduct in times of war. Heads of state are, for some reason, off limits. Perhaps to prevent a descent into barbarity. Enemy soldiers captured in uniform are accorded specific rights. Enemy combatants not in uniform are not. Though war is savage, war has custom that in some ways, ironically, protects some life.
Bin Laden, meanwhile, committed an act of war against the U.S. but did not represent or lead a state. He led an amorphous entity that carried out policy and war, but has no recognizable population, borders, or government. It claims no sovereignty.
But Al Qaeda was, without doubt, a threat. And citizens of a nation look to its head of state to protect them from threats. When threats aren't recognized and met, more threats emerge. President Obama had a moral obligation to the American people to confront the threat bin Laden represented. Bin Laden did not lead (or even pretend to lead) a state. He did not claim U.S. citizenship and he was persona non grata through most of the world. Obama had no choice. The American people can't afford hesitation over resolving a threat that so defies the customs of international relations and the life of American citizens.
Though I believe our president did the right thing, there's a sadness that he had to do it. One doesn't like wishing ill (or death) on another. One of the grave responsibilities our presidents take on is the power to order the likely death of others. In some ways, what President Obama did last week was no lighter than what Truman decided to do in August 1945 or Lincoln in April 1861. A somber awakening for me is that one of many prices one must pay to be president is that as president one is tasked with dilemmas that push the boundaries of what is ethical and just. Perhaps this is why churches often pray for our elected leaders.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
