Last week, I viewed a rather disturbing scene, one that I posted on FB was more disturbing than a scene from a Rob Zombie film. I was driving towards Dover when I passed a twit of a man riding his motorcycle on his front lawn with an infant age child sitting in front of him. Now I must first admit this scene was distracting to my own driving, however, I felt like I was witnessing an accident (the kind where you want to look away but some sick human emotion that lies within you compels you to stay looking on). Well truth be told, it was an accident waiting to happen and I hope this twit realizes the importance of waiting until this child is older to share his love of motorcycles. I mean, this infant age child wasn't even old enough to drive his/her own big plastic tricycle yet. You remember the ones, that as a child you would make the peddles go backwards to brake and eventually by doing so you would wear away a hole in the bottom of the front tire.
Regardless, I felt as if this twit didn't understand that just because he was on his lawn with his motorcycle instead of the street that somehow this would keep him from having an accident. Okay, okay I admit to this twit of a pion of a man, that yes, you are probably not going to have an accident with another car, motorcycle or pedestrian. However, if you could have seen the way that you were mishandling the motorcycle as you tried to manuever it over those tree roots while making a turn in the yard, well you simply would have seen the recklessness of your actions waiting to unfold. What I witnessed was a man trying to bond with his child, who simply could not see that if he misjudged the depth of a tree root at all that infant age child could have easily slipped off the bike, falling to the ground and gotten crushed or run over by the motorcylce. Not to mention depending on which way this child could slip off, the child could also possibly suffer extreme burns from the pipes of the bike. So, as you read this you can imagine why I felt like vomiting.
So please, tell your fellow motorcycle enthusiasts to be smarter than this twit. And the only regret I have during this incident is not reporting what I saw to the police officer parked about a 1/2 mile down the road who was patrolling for people speeding. And I will admit that if I had seen the police officer a mile further I probably would have stopped, but at that current position as a I passed I was trying to keep myself from actually vomiting.
***Furthermore, as a wife of a motorcyclist I ask that everyone watch out for motorcycles on the road. Remember to keep a safe distance between you and the motorcycle(s). ***
Saturday, July 31, 2010
Lost Stories from a Box in the Attic
The following story is a composition created by a 16 year-old boy and his older sister one summer day.
[from the voice of the 16 year-old boy] "I have gone mad and Donald the clown has died along with Mr. Caribu. Now what is left is what is myself, although, I am not myself...
No hate
No love
Nothing but the higher form of Caribu. Eat, sleep, breath, over and over. No frills, no chills, no air hockey.
The Empty, which is what I call my mortal sheel, is a vagabond, the perfect Hobo clown in the most Empty meaning. Because just like a man in a clown suit the empty must hide. The only constant is the image who is God. The image directs The Empty.
The Empty left the home of the Awakening, went down the road to the crossroads. I am not sure which road the Empty took but the image led him down the one he took. THE Empty would graze on weeds and grass but only what the image told him too. For forty days The Empty traveled, directed by the image never meeting a soul. On the day 41..." [the older sister's voice takes over here] "he goes into a bar. He is directed by the image, which is God, and the image tells him what is good, as his mind floods with the image of the peaceful caribu, and what is bad, as his eyes break under the hooves of the bucking bronco. He goes to the edge of the bar and the image directs him to look under a stool, where he finds a quarter. The image directs him to a payphone, he inserts the quarter and the image, which is God, tells him what to dial. Over the phone he hears, 'Congratulations, You're our 9th caller. You've won $5,000 dollars KYLE sweepstakes, as well as, free tickets to an opera.'
He realizes he is no longer The Empty, becuase he's no longer empty. The image, who is not God, but his god, has made him greed incarnate. Shortly after that, he realizes he must have been wrong because he was robbed by a toothless, yellow-bellied strawberry field migrant worker from West Virginia"
(This writing was composed by my husband, Kyle when he was 16 and his sister Rachel.)
[from the voice of the 16 year-old boy] "I have gone mad and Donald the clown has died along with Mr. Caribu. Now what is left is what is myself, although, I am not myself...
No hate
No love
Nothing but the higher form of Caribu. Eat, sleep, breath, over and over. No frills, no chills, no air hockey.
The Empty, which is what I call my mortal sheel, is a vagabond, the perfect Hobo clown in the most Empty meaning. Because just like a man in a clown suit the empty must hide. The only constant is the image who is God. The image directs The Empty.
The Empty left the home of the Awakening, went down the road to the crossroads. I am not sure which road the Empty took but the image led him down the one he took. THE Empty would graze on weeds and grass but only what the image told him too. For forty days The Empty traveled, directed by the image never meeting a soul. On the day 41..." [the older sister's voice takes over here] "he goes into a bar. He is directed by the image, which is God, and the image tells him what is good, as his mind floods with the image of the peaceful caribu, and what is bad, as his eyes break under the hooves of the bucking bronco. He goes to the edge of the bar and the image directs him to look under a stool, where he finds a quarter. The image directs him to a payphone, he inserts the quarter and the image, which is God, tells him what to dial. Over the phone he hears, 'Congratulations, You're our 9th caller. You've won $5,000 dollars KYLE sweepstakes, as well as, free tickets to an opera.'
He realizes he is no longer The Empty, becuase he's no longer empty. The image, who is not God, but his god, has made him greed incarnate. Shortly after that, he realizes he must have been wrong because he was robbed by a toothless, yellow-bellied strawberry field migrant worker from West Virginia"
(This writing was composed by my husband, Kyle when he was 16 and his sister Rachel.)
Monday, September 21, 2009
Georgia Totto O'Keeffe
Georgia O'Keeffe the recently released film depicting the famous artist's marriage and now appearing on the Lifetime Channel is gripping with emotion. The film is just a small fraction into the harsh reality of O'Keeffe's world. Unfortunately, the film does not showcase many of O'Keeffe's friendships, instead it narrows in on O'Keeffe's bohemian marriage to the photographer, Alfred Stieglitz.
Personally I believe O'Keeffe's life was not wholly defined by her marriage to Stieglitz. I imagined the opening scene to be of O'Keeffe's friend, Anita Pollitzer being so moved by Georgia's charcoal drawings that she took them to Stieglitz's 291 gallery. Instead, the opening scene is of O'Keeffe's famous confrontation with Stieglitz at the 291 gallery, where she demands he take the work down. And Stieglitz replies, "You don't know what you've done in these pictures" and she responds, "Do you think I'm an idiot". Although O'Keeffe marriage to Stieglitz is quite important, there are many other relationships that had just as much an impact on O'Keeffe's work and success.
And even though the film depicted Stieglitz's unfaithfulness, it did not show some of the more controversial affairs, such as O'Keeffe's sister, Ida. The film definately showed O'Keeffe's escape and love of the West, but it did not fully depict O'Keeffe's own love affairs; maybe this is because they are too controversial, or there is still too much speculation over their accuracy. Or maybe, the filmmakers did not want to shed such a light on the most successful female artist in America. I think that if that is the case, then they truly missed the importance of O'Keeffe and her work. I believe that Georgia Totto O'Keeffe was a defining figure for the emergence of the 1920s as well as the New Woman. O'Keeffe became a role model for woman and her achievement has continued to give women hope for success. Stieglitz was O'Keeffe's husband, but he is better defined as her marketing director, which the film accurately portrayed. Stieglitz needed O'Keeffe, not as his wife, but as his poster woman for the new art culture in America.
And as the film also states, O'Keeffe was an honest woman who lived by her own set rules, which she clearly defined when she responded to what critics made of her work: "They make me seem like some strange unearthly sort of creature," she complained, "floating in the air-breathing in clouds for nourishment- when the truth is that I like beef steak- and I like it rare at that". O'Keeffe also did not like words: "Words and I- are not good friends at all except with some people," she said. "The painter using the word often seems like a child trying to walk. I think I'd rather let the painting work for itself then help it with the word".
Personally I believe O'Keeffe's life was not wholly defined by her marriage to Stieglitz. I imagined the opening scene to be of O'Keeffe's friend, Anita Pollitzer being so moved by Georgia's charcoal drawings that she took them to Stieglitz's 291 gallery. Instead, the opening scene is of O'Keeffe's famous confrontation with Stieglitz at the 291 gallery, where she demands he take the work down. And Stieglitz replies, "You don't know what you've done in these pictures" and she responds, "Do you think I'm an idiot". Although O'Keeffe marriage to Stieglitz is quite important, there are many other relationships that had just as much an impact on O'Keeffe's work and success.
And even though the film depicted Stieglitz's unfaithfulness, it did not show some of the more controversial affairs, such as O'Keeffe's sister, Ida. The film definately showed O'Keeffe's escape and love of the West, but it did not fully depict O'Keeffe's own love affairs; maybe this is because they are too controversial, or there is still too much speculation over their accuracy. Or maybe, the filmmakers did not want to shed such a light on the most successful female artist in America. I think that if that is the case, then they truly missed the importance of O'Keeffe and her work. I believe that Georgia Totto O'Keeffe was a defining figure for the emergence of the 1920s as well as the New Woman. O'Keeffe became a role model for woman and her achievement has continued to give women hope for success. Stieglitz was O'Keeffe's husband, but he is better defined as her marketing director, which the film accurately portrayed. Stieglitz needed O'Keeffe, not as his wife, but as his poster woman for the new art culture in America.
And as the film also states, O'Keeffe was an honest woman who lived by her own set rules, which she clearly defined when she responded to what critics made of her work: "They make me seem like some strange unearthly sort of creature," she complained, "floating in the air-breathing in clouds for nourishment- when the truth is that I like beef steak- and I like it rare at that". O'Keeffe also did not like words: "Words and I- are not good friends at all except with some people," she said. "The painter using the word often seems like a child trying to walk. I think I'd rather let the painting work for itself then help it with the word".
Sign here "X" please
Last fall I remember being astounded to find out that cursive writing was no longer a part of my local elementary school's curriculum. I simply could not understand why cursive writing would be taken out of school, because to me it is not simply a means of writing. Cursive writing allows each and every one of us to develop our own style. A style that includes our personal signature- something that we use to separate ourselves as a form of identification. So to me it seemed illogical to take cursive writing out of the curriculum of our educational institutions.
Some of my friends and even members of the educational system told me to accept this change, because it was a sign of our times. They implored me to accept the new ways in which children were processing information such as, Text messaging, e-mail, and computers. I simply could not fathom this as an excuse to eliminate cursive writing from the educational process. My head was spinning, my argument to them was the question that popped into my head when I first heard this news, and that was: "If we don't teach our children how to write in cursive, how will they sign their name on important documents, such as, their Social Security card, car loans, bank loans, passport, and even their mortgages?" I was eager for an answer, because the responses I was getting was "They'll pick it up somewhere" or "That is the result of state mandated tests, they are taking up teachers' time so the kids have to pick it up on their own". And my thought was, "Really, really, we are going to leave this educational teaching to ...they will pick it up on their own!?! or blaming it on state tests!?!"
I was not only irritated by these thoughts, but appalled by the lack of understanding for what a loss this is for us as a society. How are we to compare with other nations, when we refuse to teach our children basic concepts? To me, cursive writing was a major part of my education, it was the big important step alongside multiplication tables prior to entering middle school. I mean when you look back at your childhood there are important stages and concepts one remembers learning: tying your shoes,someone reading you a story, how to read on your own, spelling your name, making your first friend, adding numbers, riding your bike without training wheels, calling someone on the phone. Cursive writing was among these, some students of course, dreaded the process, but others practiced until they reached their goals. And honestly, the same can be said for multiplication tables, some of us, hated every moment of the process, while others embraced the concept of numbers. My point is just because some of us despise learning something, does it make it not important to our well-being as a citizen?
Of course, not. Oftentimes the concepts that were harder for us to grasp are the ones we need most. Therefore, I think we should not just replace our well-established technology for new. Does this mean I think we should toss all new technology out, of course, not, but there needs to be a happy medium.
This point was raised in an article written by Associated Press Writer Tom Breen, entitled "Cursive writing may be fading skill, but so what?". In this article, Breen quotes Paula Sassi, a certified master graphologist, "People still have to write, even if it's just scribbling".
Another point, I would like to make is that texting is becoming its' own language. I personally have friends who are younger and grew up with owning a cellphone in their early teen years and I will admit, trying to decipher their encrypted words can be rather challenging. I also have many friends that are college professors and become very irritated when their students turn in essays in a text-language format. And I deeply understand this frustation because many of the words become intangible for instance, bak = back, but if one is reading this as it is written, one might first think this is a shorter version of bake or black. Another one that I have encountered is dis = this, but from slang definitions, this could appear to mean that one is avoiding another person, or disapproving of that person or thing. The other two that I truly just do not get are: bi = by and wit = with. I do not understand using bi in place of by because, it is not any shorter and bi by definition usually means two of something. Nor do I understand wit in place of with, when in writing, texting or emailing it would be just as easy to use w/, to show with. Now with that said, I am not against text-language, but I also admit, I am not totally text-language savvy.
In conclusion I think that we must realize that there need to be foundations, if we want to develop a society, where a majority are sufficiently skilled writers, then we need to teach them how to start with rough drafts and this includes taking notes by hand and transferring them into larger concepts through a word processor.
I originally wrote this piece back in 2009, since then a few more things have occurred to me regarding the need to teach cursive writing. When I first realized this wasn't being taught anymore, my first response was, but people need their own signature as way of identity. I still agree with this thought, I mean every time a new president is elected into office one of the first things we do is have a graphologist interpret what their signature says about them. I was recently told that cursive writing is not critical to one's education. I want to argue this point, it is critical, or we need to admit that by removing something from our education, something else will replace it. Ah! Ha! And just what is going to replace it...have you given much thought to biometric identification? Consider Frank Abagnale on steroids, don't remember who he is, have you seen Catch Me, If You Can?
And this leads me to pose the new things that have occurred to me since I wrote this back in 2009. The first thing that came across my mind when I wanted to argue with the person who told me cursive writing is no longer critical was ,but how are students meant to read and interpret documents? You see, my undergraduate work was in Liberal Studies, which meant I had three concentrations: English, History and Religion. So you can well imagine the types of "old" documents I came across in my studies. And yeah, sure they are often translated in a form of standard English that one can read, but then I am relying on the person(s) that translated those documents. And for me, if we just use the Bible as an example of how relying on someone's translation can lead us to interpreting things in one way is problematic. I chose the Bible because there have been so many translations made, making it clear that certain words simply do not translate from one language to another. It also shows that depending on who is commissioning the work/document to be translated can have it translated with certain meanings swayed to their direction of power. Another point to be made with translating is often words are removed or left out, which also changes the document. When I raised this point to a peer in my education studies, she realized that if her students can't write cursive they may not be able to read it; and therefore, would not be able to read The Declaration of Independence without it being translated. As a teacher, this seems easy enough to tackle, just get a translation of the document and proceed with your lesson. But, yet again, this raised an "ah! ha!" moment for me.
If students are not being taught cursive then are they able to read cursive writing? The answer, probably not. So to all of you teachers who are writing responses on your students' assignments , whether high school or college aged, did it ever occur to you why they may not understand you at all? This raises another point, what type of deprivation is this? Is this print deprivation or something else and how do we shrink the gap that has occurred with the growth of generations without this knowledge and are consumed by the technical age?
This brings me back to Frank Abagnale on steroids and the dawn of the age of biometric identification. Biometric identification will be the future signature of every individual, whether it is our fingerprint or scanning our eye (optimapping). I would like to see us revert back and teaching our children to write in cursive, but sadly I think that time has passed. For me, cursive writing teaches a person to slow down, to pay attention to detail, and to realize the beauty of all languages. Its' dying flame saddens me as it makes me aware that the children of today will not be able to read the letters and diaries of their grandparents, and quite possibly their parents, unless someone is able to translate for them. So yet another chapter closes and we say so long to the discoveries in the boxes in the attic.
As for me, I plan to continue to teach whoever is willing to learn the art of cursive writing, because as my high school journalism teacher, Ms. Bonner taught me, "the pen is mightier than the sword" -Edward Bulwer-Lytton from his play, Richelieu .
Some of my friends and even members of the educational system told me to accept this change, because it was a sign of our times. They implored me to accept the new ways in which children were processing information such as, Text messaging, e-mail, and computers. I simply could not fathom this as an excuse to eliminate cursive writing from the educational process. My head was spinning, my argument to them was the question that popped into my head when I first heard this news, and that was: "If we don't teach our children how to write in cursive, how will they sign their name on important documents, such as, their Social Security card, car loans, bank loans, passport, and even their mortgages?" I was eager for an answer, because the responses I was getting was "They'll pick it up somewhere" or "That is the result of state mandated tests, they are taking up teachers' time so the kids have to pick it up on their own". And my thought was, "Really, really, we are going to leave this educational teaching to ...they will pick it up on their own!?! or blaming it on state tests!?!"
I was not only irritated by these thoughts, but appalled by the lack of understanding for what a loss this is for us as a society. How are we to compare with other nations, when we refuse to teach our children basic concepts? To me, cursive writing was a major part of my education, it was the big important step alongside multiplication tables prior to entering middle school. I mean when you look back at your childhood there are important stages and concepts one remembers learning: tying your shoes,someone reading you a story, how to read on your own, spelling your name, making your first friend, adding numbers, riding your bike without training wheels, calling someone on the phone. Cursive writing was among these, some students of course, dreaded the process, but others practiced until they reached their goals. And honestly, the same can be said for multiplication tables, some of us, hated every moment of the process, while others embraced the concept of numbers. My point is just because some of us despise learning something, does it make it not important to our well-being as a citizen?
Of course, not. Oftentimes the concepts that were harder for us to grasp are the ones we need most. Therefore, I think we should not just replace our well-established technology for new. Does this mean I think we should toss all new technology out, of course, not, but there needs to be a happy medium.
This point was raised in an article written by Associated Press Writer Tom Breen, entitled "Cursive writing may be fading skill, but so what?". In this article, Breen quotes Paula Sassi, a certified master graphologist, "People still have to write, even if it's just scribbling".
Another point, I would like to make is that texting is becoming its' own language. I personally have friends who are younger and grew up with owning a cellphone in their early teen years and I will admit, trying to decipher their encrypted words can be rather challenging. I also have many friends that are college professors and become very irritated when their students turn in essays in a text-language format. And I deeply understand this frustation because many of the words become intangible for instance, bak = back, but if one is reading this as it is written, one might first think this is a shorter version of bake or black. Another one that I have encountered is dis = this, but from slang definitions, this could appear to mean that one is avoiding another person, or disapproving of that person or thing. The other two that I truly just do not get are: bi = by and wit = with. I do not understand using bi in place of by because, it is not any shorter and bi by definition usually means two of something. Nor do I understand wit in place of with, when in writing, texting or emailing it would be just as easy to use w/, to show with. Now with that said, I am not against text-language, but I also admit, I am not totally text-language savvy.
In conclusion I think that we must realize that there need to be foundations, if we want to develop a society, where a majority are sufficiently skilled writers, then we need to teach them how to start with rough drafts and this includes taking notes by hand and transferring them into larger concepts through a word processor.
I originally wrote this piece back in 2009, since then a few more things have occurred to me regarding the need to teach cursive writing. When I first realized this wasn't being taught anymore, my first response was, but people need their own signature as way of identity. I still agree with this thought, I mean every time a new president is elected into office one of the first things we do is have a graphologist interpret what their signature says about them. I was recently told that cursive writing is not critical to one's education. I want to argue this point, it is critical, or we need to admit that by removing something from our education, something else will replace it. Ah! Ha! And just what is going to replace it...have you given much thought to biometric identification? Consider Frank Abagnale on steroids, don't remember who he is, have you seen Catch Me, If You Can?
And this leads me to pose the new things that have occurred to me since I wrote this back in 2009. The first thing that came across my mind when I wanted to argue with the person who told me cursive writing is no longer critical was ,but how are students meant to read and interpret documents? You see, my undergraduate work was in Liberal Studies, which meant I had three concentrations: English, History and Religion. So you can well imagine the types of "old" documents I came across in my studies. And yeah, sure they are often translated in a form of standard English that one can read, but then I am relying on the person(s) that translated those documents. And for me, if we just use the Bible as an example of how relying on someone's translation can lead us to interpreting things in one way is problematic. I chose the Bible because there have been so many translations made, making it clear that certain words simply do not translate from one language to another. It also shows that depending on who is commissioning the work/document to be translated can have it translated with certain meanings swayed to their direction of power. Another point to be made with translating is often words are removed or left out, which also changes the document. When I raised this point to a peer in my education studies, she realized that if her students can't write cursive they may not be able to read it; and therefore, would not be able to read The Declaration of Independence without it being translated. As a teacher, this seems easy enough to tackle, just get a translation of the document and proceed with your lesson. But, yet again, this raised an "ah! ha!" moment for me.
If students are not being taught cursive then are they able to read cursive writing? The answer, probably not. So to all of you teachers who are writing responses on your students' assignments , whether high school or college aged, did it ever occur to you why they may not understand you at all? This raises another point, what type of deprivation is this? Is this print deprivation or something else and how do we shrink the gap that has occurred with the growth of generations without this knowledge and are consumed by the technical age?
This brings me back to Frank Abagnale on steroids and the dawn of the age of biometric identification. Biometric identification will be the future signature of every individual, whether it is our fingerprint or scanning our eye (optimapping). I would like to see us revert back and teaching our children to write in cursive, but sadly I think that time has passed. For me, cursive writing teaches a person to slow down, to pay attention to detail, and to realize the beauty of all languages. Its' dying flame saddens me as it makes me aware that the children of today will not be able to read the letters and diaries of their grandparents, and quite possibly their parents, unless someone is able to translate for them. So yet another chapter closes and we say so long to the discoveries in the boxes in the attic.
As for me, I plan to continue to teach whoever is willing to learn the art of cursive writing, because as my high school journalism teacher, Ms. Bonner taught me, "the pen is mightier than the sword" -Edward Bulwer-Lytton from his play, Richelieu .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)