Firsts

This past year has been a series of firsts: first child, first terror for the child, first night home with the baby, first full nights' sleep after the baby's birth...you get the picture.

Last week saw two more firsts with Danny: his first birthday, and his first time pulling up onto his knees on something.

His first birthday was a lot of fun. We started the day taking a different route to visit his paternal grandparents, because he won't sleep in the car--at all, no matter how tired he is--if he knows we're going there. So, we had to trick him into taking his hour-long morning nap.

He refused his cake, at first. I'd given him his lunch, then handed him a slice of homemade bread to gnaw on while everyone else ate lunch. And he refused--refused-- to give up that slice of bread. Even for cake. It wasn't until that was gone that he was willing.

Then again, after we'd gone to Bella Peppers the week before, we knew he liked bread. Especially garlic bread.

After lunch and playtime with Grandma and Grandpa, we tricked him into taking another nap, by taking a country highway from Andrew's parents' home to my mother's. He got a little bitty burger patty that my mom made (and put through the blender) especially for him, and fries. He loves fries. And then we realized, as we watched him demolish two cupcakes (instead of eating them), that we'd forgotten our camera.

We tried to get a good monkey picture to compare with the ones I'd previously posted, but he wouldn't stay still. I'm posting one where he'd rolled against the monkey, and gotten up on his hands and knees next to it. Should show just how big he's gotten, in contrast to the four day old picture.


The other big first comes with a funny little story. My husband and I have watched the baby watch the cat with delight (it's furry, and soft, and I want it!), and the cat watch the baby with horror and revulsion (it screams! and it moves! and it's bigger than me!) for the past year. The cat laying on the floor is what spurred Danny into rocking forward and learning to crawl. My husband and I joked that it would be the cat, asleep on the couch, that would get him to pull up.

Well, not quite. The cat was asleep on my lap, not on the couch. But it was Danny's desperate desire to get his hands on the cat that prompted him to walk his little hands up the front of my chair, and get up onto his knees.

And the cat promptly ran up my chest, up the back of the chair, down the other side of the back of the chair, and through the baby gate and the kitchen, all the way back to the den. It's the only place she knows the imp can't get to her.

It's been a hectic year, and a hectic week, and I wouldn't trade most of it for anything.

In case you're all curious...

My son, Daniel Marcus Chism, was born eight weeks early, right in the middle of last fall semester. I had to switch the class from being a traditional classroom class, with Blackboard enhancement (i.e., all handouts on Blackboard, with the students responsible for printing the ones they needed for class--which were listed in the schedule, and I'd remind them the class period before they needed them), to being solely online starting October 6. He was 17 inches long, and 3 pounds 13.3 ounces at birth.

He spent his first five weeks in Freeman Hospital's NICU, or Neo-natal Intensive Care Unit. I can't say enough good things about the staff there. When we brought him home, he was 5 pounds 7 ounces.

He's nearly a year old, now. He's gone from teeny-tiny to nearly as big as he should be for his calendar, rather than adjusted, age: 28 inches, and 18.5 pounds. He eats about 6-8 ounces of baby food every day, and one 4 ounce snack, besides nursing. He's crawling (and getting into everything), but not pulling up, yet. He doesn't seem confident in standing even when I'm holding on to him, but the doctors did tell me he'd probably be delayed on some things.

One thing he doesn't seem to be delayed on is talking: he's already calling me "mama" and my husband "daddy," rather than applying one name to both of us. He says "kitty" (pronounced "giddy"), and tries to call the cat, who looks at him like he's lost his mind.

He's a happy boy that very much likes girls. In fact, there are very few people he doesn't like. It seems like the only way to get on Danny's bad side is to baby-talk to him.

Here are some pictures, to show how he's grown. In the first one, he's four days old. The monkey he has with him for size comparison is about 10 inches long. In the second picture, he's three months old, with the same monkey for size comparison. In the third, six months; in the last, nine. I'll post his 12 month picture next month.

A teachable moment: Facebook isn't private.

An individual wrote to New York Times ethicist Randy Cohen, discussing a friend who teaches eighth grade, and whose class all "friended" her on Facebook, which led to her learning about questionable activities the kids engaged in (such as drinking, drug use, academic dishonesty. He or she asks Cohen what the teacher should do about what they learn. Cohen responds with suggestions that, rather than turning the kids in, she should use the knowledge of what they're doing to teach them that Facebook isn't like a diary left on the kitchen table, that anyone can see what they're doing, should they choose to look. He goes on to suggest several ways she can act as a teacher, not a "cop," as he feels her role should be.

Beyond the obvious oxymoron of being an ethicist for The New York Times (where was he when Jason Blair was making up sources and plagiarising?), I see several issues with his suggestion, both as an educator, and as a student.

First off, I heartily disagree with his statement that she shouldn't really do anything but mention that incriminating photos of students drunk or high might cost them opportunities later in life. Hello, this woman isn't a college instructor. She teaches eighth grade. That's kids that are 12, 13 years old. Maybe 14, at most. Cohen says

"...the most significant peril you describe may not be a little teenage drinking or recreational drug use but the public exposure of this “mischief.” Your friend has a chance to teach these students about Internet privacy or the lack of it. She should carpe that diem. Were she simply to bust these online doofuses, she would squander a chance to convey something of lasting importance and leave them feeling that she had betrayed their trust.

To them, Facebook and the like occupy some weird twilight zone between public and private information, rather like a diary left on the kitchen table. That a photo of drunken antics might thwart a chance at a job or a scholarship is not something all kids seriously consider."

WhileI agree that they, and all Facebook users, need to think about how pictures they take and post now might affect their chances later, I'm horrified that he seems to brush off kids not far into puberty altering their body chemistry on a regular basis. That, right there, seems as if it could pose a serious threat to their health and development that he simply doesn't address. It's almost as if he thinks that kids cannot be expected to learn self-restraint about anything, so why punish them for putting themselves in danger?

As a teacher, I think the eighth grade teacher definitely should make sure these kids understand that, by "friending" her, they've given her the key to their "private" diary. She should warn them once, in general terms, that they've got one chance to remove any photos or mentions of illegal or academically dishonest activities from their pages, and that, should she see it the next time she logs on, she's required--by law--to report the underage drinking and drugs (which she is).

As a teacher, I think she was absolutely in the wrong to accept "friend" requests from her eighth grade students. She needs to remember that, as a young and popular female teacher, she's going to be coming under more and more scrutiny in her interactions with her students, thanks to young, popular female teachers like Deb Lefave.

And, as a student who never cheated, and never plagiarized, I'd really resent her if she didn't take a strong stance against academic dishonesty by making sure those who cheated and plagiarized were punished, when convicted by their own words.

Via Joanne Jacobs' blog.

We don't need no thought control.

The University of Delaware has done some things that go way beyond the pale. They've not only invaded the privacy of students living in the dorms, but trampled their rights to think for themselves, not to mention sent a message of "You'll believe what we tell you is right to believe."

The program, later dropped because of the publicity brought to bear by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, or the FIRE (linked over at the left), and the huge outcry that publicity created.

So, what was so wrong with the program? Well, for one thing, it redefined racism:

"A RACIST: A racist is one who is both privileged and socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist (racist) system. 'The term applies to all white people (i.e., people of European descent) living in the United States, regardless of class, gender, religion, culture or sexuality. By this definition, people of color cannot be racists, because as peoples within the U.S. system, they do not have the power to back up their prejudices, hostilities, or acts of discrimination….'"

In other words, the designers of the program are well aware of the link between language and thought: that thought is so dependent upon language for its shape that, if you control the language, you control the thoughts of the people using the language. Politically correct speech seems to be another example of this type of thought control.

Further, the program attempted to stamp out any type of intolerance, whether based on sexual orientation, gender roles, socioeconomic standings, or anything else their fertile senses of offense could come up with.

But stomping out intolerance is a good thing, right?

Maybe. Are you supposed to tolerate violence? Are you supposed to tolerate anti-Christian sentiment? Are you supposed to tolerate drug use?

Maybe. It probably depends on the race of the violent, anti-Christian drug abuser.

In any case, they went too far in trying to root out the attitudes of intolerance. Pushing people about their opinions is a form of intolerance in and of itself; however, the program in question likely pushed that thought aside in the pursuit of the greater good of making sure their students were open minded and mulitculturally literate. And if the student wasn't initially multicultural and open minded, they provided retraining to become the model University of Delaware student.

World Net Daily provides an example case that they, and the FIRE say demonstrates the attempt at thought control and reeducation:

"A female freshman arrives for her mandatory one-on-one session in her male RA's dorm room. It is 8:00 p.m. Classes have been in session for about a week. The resident assistant hands her a questionnaire. He tells her it is 'a little questionnaire to help [you] and all the other residents relate to the curriculum.' He adds that they will 'go through every question together and discuss them,'" according to the report.

When the student is asked, 'When did you discover your sexual identity?' she responds, 'That is none of your d*** business.'

Because she did not respond correctly, the residence assistant 'becomes so appalled by her resistance that he writes up an incident report and reports her to his superiors,' the report said."

Telling. I don't think I need to explain much about how wrong this is. How it tramples students' rights to their own thoughts and beliefs.

I believe that you have the right to think what you want. I believe you have the right to express those beliefs in the way you want to express them as long as you don't cause physical harm to others.

In other words, I believe it's my job to teach you that you already think, and how to express those thoughts, not teach you how and what to think.

Please, feel free to comment on this story. Just click on the word "comments" below the post, type in your thoughts, and follow directions. If you like, you can even choose to be anonymous.

Neat!

I had no idea that a local business was so necessary to NASA! Turns out EaglePitcher Technologies makes the batteries for NASA's satellites, as well as the International Space Station.

Absolutely cool!

Why isn't it the adults that have the common sense in these situations?

I found, on Joanne Jacobs' blog, a story that just irritated the heck out of me. It reminded me of all of the "zero tolerance" policies that are carried out without regard to common sense.

Basically, a bunch of girls at a slumber party took pictures of themselves in their bras with their cell phone cameras. Like any stupidity, the pictures got out. The prosecuting attorney in the county decided that it was child pornography, despite the bras covering more than some bikinis, and decided he was going to bully the girls into taking a class on pornography and sexual violence. With adults. Who had been on the edge of sexual offense.

Two of the girls refused. And the prosecuting attorney says he's going to charge them with sexual molestation and child pornography.

I know that "sexting" is a dangerous trend among our young teens, potentially damaging their self-image and leaving them vulnerable to predatory adults. I know that, when the pictures that these kids take of themselves get out, that the pictures are out there forever.

I do not, however, consider it on the same level as an adult taking nude pictures of a child. It's stupid, not criminal.

This sounds like a public official whose puritanical* bent, combined with his personal political power, went to his head and deleted his common sense. This sounds like a major case of bullying.

Honestly, where's the common sense?

*Puritanism: the fear that someone, somewhere, is having fun.

As Thoreau says, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."

He did not, however, have to deal with Missouri politicians.

Recently, Missouri law enforcement released a report about the dangers posed by modern militias. And by "modern militias," they meant any political group that the current national administration might not like too much--like anti-abortionists, like fiscal conservatives, like pretty much any truly traditional values that the nation was built upon. In fact, that particular office of law enforcement suggested that these individuals might well be potential terrorists.

Some citizens didn't really care for that idea. And our Lieutenant Governor, Peter Kinder, among others, set up such a fuss that the report has been rescinded. In fact, Nixon backpedaled so fast that, to an unbiased observer, he resembled a small, freshwater crustacean distantly related to lobsters. He said

"Under a previous system, MIAC would prepare and distribute these reports to law enforcement agencies without review or approval from the colonel of the Highway Patrol or the director of Public Safety. ... That’s simply not acceptable."

In other words, "I didn't do it. It wasn't my fault. It was the other guy's fault. And even if it wasn't, you can't prove a thing."

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds," said Thoreau. However, I don't think he ever meant that one should become a wind sock when opinion blew against one's beliefs.