Somehow, they never turn out the way you envision. Expectations are funny like that. If you set the bar low, you'll surely be pleasantly surprised; expect a lot and you get let down. It's not rocket science, but life still throws me curve balls on occasion. Really, I think the lesson is to just stop trying to expect anything and allow life to happen as it will, without preconceptions. Which all sounds great in writing but seems very hard to do in reality. And has also gotten me in trouble, with accusations of being callous. Gah.
I recently made the mistake of forgetting everything I wrote above, and set my expectations too high. I was swiftly reminded that the world does not care what expectations little old me might have of life, and that humility is a positive trait. Whoops a' daisy. Hopefully I'll remember that lesson for a bit longer this time, so my pride had a bit of time to heal.
OK, admittedly it's happened twice lately, but the one instance I didn't feel any unreasonable expectations were being laid out. Just show up on time for the class that you're supposed to teach, and I'll be happy. Meh, whoever thought that that would be an unrealistically high expectation for some people? Oh well. Once again I learned.
Don't make expectations, and you won't be disappointed. Or at least not as much as you would have been if you had made those expectations. Now I have to go bang my head against the wall a bit and scream about why can't things just work the way they're supposed to. Good evening, all!
Showing posts with label Teaching. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Teaching. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Doctoral Disturbances
This is a very pregnant post, I'm afraid, with lots of meaning to these two little words. First, I got the go ahead to start showing my prospectus outside of my committee. If you suffer insomnia, let me know, I can help. With 35 pages of schlock. Thereabouts.
Second, I am pursuing my doctoral degree. I will be addressed as Dr. Regula Meyer at the end of this. Or at least it'll read that on my gravestone, if only in recognition of the pursuit that killed me. Physicians are those in the medical field who oversee the care of patients, diagnose, and prescribe medication. Doctor is Latin for "I teach" not "I cure" so the next person that calls an individual with their PhD uppity for asking to be addressed as Doctor, is asking for a stoving. The primary job of a doctor is as teacher, not medicine man. Get over it. We had the title first.
Thirdly, after reading the introduction notes from my class, I have to ask- why aspire to medical school if you have no interest in biology? Is there something I'm missing? How do you expect to save lives if you don't value the study of life? Yes, chemistry is critical to life, but is that not secondary to the big picture of biology when talking about the treatment and cure of individuals? Or is the plan just to prescribe lots of drugs? At least I have a functional list of doctors not to consult. Physicians. Gah! Even I'm doing it.
Finally, the title of doctor is significantly lower than that of God. Stop acting like you're best buds. Ask Graduate Coordinator at Kent State University, and he will give you a wonderful discussion of positions and authorities of various members of the department. Even department chair (yes, you, idiot) is not the same as God. Or Goddess, as your religion prefers. So freaking pay for benefits that are due to graduate students, as is required of you, and find other places to save in the budget. I, for one, use the REC and will fight this issue. You just pissed off the wrong chica, buddy.
Second, I am pursuing my doctoral degree. I will be addressed as Dr. Regula Meyer at the end of this. Or at least it'll read that on my gravestone, if only in recognition of the pursuit that killed me. Physicians are those in the medical field who oversee the care of patients, diagnose, and prescribe medication. Doctor is Latin for "I teach" not "I cure" so the next person that calls an individual with their PhD uppity for asking to be addressed as Doctor, is asking for a stoving. The primary job of a doctor is as teacher, not medicine man. Get over it. We had the title first.
Thirdly, after reading the introduction notes from my class, I have to ask- why aspire to medical school if you have no interest in biology? Is there something I'm missing? How do you expect to save lives if you don't value the study of life? Yes, chemistry is critical to life, but is that not secondary to the big picture of biology when talking about the treatment and cure of individuals? Or is the plan just to prescribe lots of drugs? At least I have a functional list of doctors not to consult. Physicians. Gah! Even I'm doing it.
Finally, the title of doctor is significantly lower than that of God. Stop acting like you're best buds. Ask Graduate Coordinator at Kent State University, and he will give you a wonderful discussion of positions and authorities of various members of the department. Even department chair (yes, you, idiot) is not the same as God. Or Goddess, as your religion prefers. So freaking pay for benefits that are due to graduate students, as is required of you, and find other places to save in the budget. I, for one, use the REC and will fight this issue. You just pissed off the wrong chica, buddy.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Ecological Philosophizing
Purpose - the reason for which something exists or is done, made, used, etc. or an intended or desired result;end;aim;goal
Role - proper or customary function: the teacher's role in society.
Worth - usefulness or importance, as to the world, to a person, or for a purpose: Your worth to the world is inestimable or value, as in money.
Humans have this need to assign these values to things, and we often do so unthinkingly. Far too often, these three words are used interchangeably, when in fact they all have subtly different meanings and implications. Whether we talk about an organism, another person, a job, or an item, we make decisions about them based on their purpose, role, and worth.
Take, for example, a person. In most cases, we allow a person's purpose to be self-ascribed because their purpose is their reason for existence. Only an individual knows or has a feeling about why they exist, although we may joke that a certain person's purpose is to annoy or something similar. There's a certain thought process and evaluation behind a purpose. A person's role (or roles) are defined by themselves and society. A person can be a parent, child, sibling, worker, boss, volunteer, whatever. It's what they *do* in their life, and sometimes gives insight to their purpose. A cleric has the purpose of living for their deity, and expresses that by joining the clergy. Another might have the purpose of helping others, and so becomes a doctor or social worker. A person's worth is a tricky matter, possibly the trickiest of all. There is their inherent worth as a human, for which many philosophers have tried to ascribe a dollar value, since (especially in the US) we measure worth with monetary units. There is the added value they bring to society, in the form of earnings, consumption, savings, and investment. All of those are pretty straight forward. And then there is one's worth in relationships- as a friend, mentor, parent, partner, etc. Again, difficult to quantify.
Inanimate objects are easy to evaluate using these criteria. We humans ascribe the purpose for which they were designed, the role they will play, and their worth. There is a creator, or re-creator in the case of re-purposed goods, that assigns the values of these various traits.
But what about ecosystems and non-human organisms? An ecosystem can't think as it's not a single organism, so it can't self-ascribe a purpose, leaving the other option to let a creator ascribe the ecosystem's purpose. But who or what is the creator of an ecosystem? Ecologically speaking, the "creator" of an ecosystem is a function of the environment and the communities within that ecosystem. Here I feel I should point out that I am speaking from a scientific-philosophical approach, not a theological-philosophical approach because proof of an ultimate Creator is scientifically impossible- there is no test to prove or disprove one's existence- and thus it's a matter of faith, which varies from person to person and is not objective. The role of an ecosystem can be ascribed be humans, as roles can be defined by not just the item to which the role refers, but others whom share a relationship with said thing, and humans most definitely share many deep relationships with ecosystems. Worth is still difficult to ascribe, as it is partly subjective, and difficult to quantify the many areas in which an ecosystem has worth (ecological services, recreation, aesthetics, etc.).
On to other non-human organisms. They are living, and may have the sentience to ascribe their own purpose, but would have no way with which to communicate said purpose to us. Not to mention the fact that we, as not-their-creators (except in the case of GMO's) and as not the organism, don't have the right to ascribe a purpose to another organism. The argument that an organism's "purpose" is their place in the food web is a fallacy of logic, as an organism evolves in the direction of maximum fitness. This means that organisms evolve away from predation in most cases, and would be evolving away from their "purpose" if food chain position were a true purpose. An organism's place in the food chain, can however be considered a role, as roles are not just self-ascribing but also circumscribed by others, and those roles may or may not be something that we desire (consider the worker in a fast food service trying to pay their way through college to become a nurse, e.g.). An organism's worth, as with all worth, is difficult to quantify and hard to assess.
Thus, when we consider endangered species protections, to which organisms are they granted, the protection of ecosystems and the environment, and other ecological quandaries, "purpose" should rarely, if ever, enter the equation, although role and worth are definitely things to consider.
So what's the purpose to this post? I, as the creator of said post, have ascribed it the purpose of "productive waste of time." Cheerio!
Role - proper or customary function: the teacher's role in society.
Worth - usefulness or importance, as to the world, to a person, or for a purpose: Your worth to the world is inestimable or value, as in money.
Humans have this need to assign these values to things, and we often do so unthinkingly. Far too often, these three words are used interchangeably, when in fact they all have subtly different meanings and implications. Whether we talk about an organism, another person, a job, or an item, we make decisions about them based on their purpose, role, and worth.
Take, for example, a person. In most cases, we allow a person's purpose to be self-ascribed because their purpose is their reason for existence. Only an individual knows or has a feeling about why they exist, although we may joke that a certain person's purpose is to annoy or something similar. There's a certain thought process and evaluation behind a purpose. A person's role (or roles) are defined by themselves and society. A person can be a parent, child, sibling, worker, boss, volunteer, whatever. It's what they *do* in their life, and sometimes gives insight to their purpose. A cleric has the purpose of living for their deity, and expresses that by joining the clergy. Another might have the purpose of helping others, and so becomes a doctor or social worker. A person's worth is a tricky matter, possibly the trickiest of all. There is their inherent worth as a human, for which many philosophers have tried to ascribe a dollar value, since (especially in the US) we measure worth with monetary units. There is the added value they bring to society, in the form of earnings, consumption, savings, and investment. All of those are pretty straight forward. And then there is one's worth in relationships- as a friend, mentor, parent, partner, etc. Again, difficult to quantify.
Inanimate objects are easy to evaluate using these criteria. We humans ascribe the purpose for which they were designed, the role they will play, and their worth. There is a creator, or re-creator in the case of re-purposed goods, that assigns the values of these various traits.
But what about ecosystems and non-human organisms? An ecosystem can't think as it's not a single organism, so it can't self-ascribe a purpose, leaving the other option to let a creator ascribe the ecosystem's purpose. But who or what is the creator of an ecosystem? Ecologically speaking, the "creator" of an ecosystem is a function of the environment and the communities within that ecosystem. Here I feel I should point out that I am speaking from a scientific-philosophical approach, not a theological-philosophical approach because proof of an ultimate Creator is scientifically impossible- there is no test to prove or disprove one's existence- and thus it's a matter of faith, which varies from person to person and is not objective. The role of an ecosystem can be ascribed be humans, as roles can be defined by not just the item to which the role refers, but others whom share a relationship with said thing, and humans most definitely share many deep relationships with ecosystems. Worth is still difficult to ascribe, as it is partly subjective, and difficult to quantify the many areas in which an ecosystem has worth (ecological services, recreation, aesthetics, etc.).
On to other non-human organisms. They are living, and may have the sentience to ascribe their own purpose, but would have no way with which to communicate said purpose to us. Not to mention the fact that we, as not-their-creators (except in the case of GMO's) and as not the organism, don't have the right to ascribe a purpose to another organism. The argument that an organism's "purpose" is their place in the food web is a fallacy of logic, as an organism evolves in the direction of maximum fitness. This means that organisms evolve away from predation in most cases, and would be evolving away from their "purpose" if food chain position were a true purpose. An organism's place in the food chain, can however be considered a role, as roles are not just self-ascribing but also circumscribed by others, and those roles may or may not be something that we desire (consider the worker in a fast food service trying to pay their way through college to become a nurse, e.g.). An organism's worth, as with all worth, is difficult to quantify and hard to assess.
Thus, when we consider endangered species protections, to which organisms are they granted, the protection of ecosystems and the environment, and other ecological quandaries, "purpose" should rarely, if ever, enter the equation, although role and worth are definitely things to consider.
So what's the purpose to this post? I, as the creator of said post, have ascribed it the purpose of "productive waste of time." Cheerio!
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Sharing
Lately, for some reason, I've been thinking a lot about sharing. It may be because I have a three and a half year old, it might be because of the economy, it might just be my brain stuck on one song. Whatever.
Our society has possibly the oddest relationship with sharing that I've ever seen. It's a trait we teach our children (or at least try) from a very young age. It's something that we stress over- kids sharing toys, playing nice, being fair, not leaving others out.
And then we hit adulthood. And it's totally OK to be anti-sharing. It's normal to be opposed to many forms of redistribution of wealth. We don't expect everyone to have a slice of the pie. We praise those who can get (or take, depending on your perspective) a huge portion of the wealth. We see no moral qualm with the disfranchisement of millions from our health care system, safe housing, adequate nutrition, and decent schooling.
What happened to sharing? When did the emphasis become "me" not "us"? Or the definition of "us" become so contracted? Does no one now believe that a society is judged by how it treats the least among them? Do we teach by example only when it serves us?
Maybe we all need to step back, take our hand out of the cookie jar, and make sure everyone has at least one treat before going back for seconds. We've created a mess with our greed, self-indulgence, and desire to get something for nothing. Why don't we make sure that every one has a few basic "somethings" before adding to our growing mass of stuff? Can we do that? Can we share?
Oh, yeah, if you hadn't noticed- socialist is a fair label for me, and possibly a bit generous.
Our society has possibly the oddest relationship with sharing that I've ever seen. It's a trait we teach our children (or at least try) from a very young age. It's something that we stress over- kids sharing toys, playing nice, being fair, not leaving others out.
And then we hit adulthood. And it's totally OK to be anti-sharing. It's normal to be opposed to many forms of redistribution of wealth. We don't expect everyone to have a slice of the pie. We praise those who can get (or take, depending on your perspective) a huge portion of the wealth. We see no moral qualm with the disfranchisement of millions from our health care system, safe housing, adequate nutrition, and decent schooling.
What happened to sharing? When did the emphasis become "me" not "us"? Or the definition of "us" become so contracted? Does no one now believe that a society is judged by how it treats the least among them? Do we teach by example only when it serves us?
Maybe we all need to step back, take our hand out of the cookie jar, and make sure everyone has at least one treat before going back for seconds. We've created a mess with our greed, self-indulgence, and desire to get something for nothing. Why don't we make sure that every one has a few basic "somethings" before adding to our growing mass of stuff? Can we do that? Can we share?
Oh, yeah, if you hadn't noticed- socialist is a fair label for me, and possibly a bit generous.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
May, Can, Should
This past Wednesday was the fourteenth anniversary of my dad's death, so I've been thinking about him quite a lot. The annual funk has mostly past, thanks to my sometimes awesome husband and kiddo, and some amazing music at the Kent Stage. One think that pops up about my dad at odd times is everything he taught me about the importance of semantics and words. They matter. In a world where new words are created frequently and by simple usage (think "incentivize"), and where grammar is falling by the wayside at an alarming rate, the words we use and their definitions continue to mean a great bit.
One of dad's sticking points was the use of may/can/should. If I were to ask "Can I go to Tiffany's?" I would undoubtedly get the answer "I don't know- can you?" Until I finally learned to ask "May I?" It was frustrating beyond belief to my child-like brain that thought the thirty second delay on my sleepover would mark the end of the world. I eventually learned, and I now find myself doing the same to my Ken, although he's less receptive to the nuances of language.
Of late, I've been wanting to lecture some of the adults in my life about may/can/should, although I typically let it go with just a glare and arms crossing. Let's review. "Can" implies the ability to do something. There is only physical/mental/social ability in this definition; it speaks nothing to legality or otherwise. I can hear, see, and speak because I have all of these abilities. Most of the population in the US can also do these things, excepting of course those who are deaf, blind, or mute, respectively. If I so choose, I can strangle the person next to me that won't get of his cell phone and insists on talking at approximately 90 db.
"May" is the permission or the allowance to do something. As a citizen of the US, I may speak, write, think, and gather as I choose because all of these things are protected rights. That same person whom I can strangle I refrain from doing so, because according to the law I may not kill another person. And I'm a just-cause pacifist- I swear- although his level of annoying may soon hit "justifiable" by some measures. By this same token, in places like China many people who can speak out against the government don't because they are not allowed. Regarding human and civil rights, what one person may do should in no way be different from what another person may do, and especially this difference should not be based on minority or majority status.
"Should" implies a moral obligation to do something. Exceptions can be made for "should" due to inability. Should also depends on priorities and necessity. Everyone should help to provide for those not able to provide for themselves, but sometimes people can't due to lack of funds, e.g.
Consider for a moment the environment. What can you do to help? What are you able to do? Can you recycle, pull invasive weeds, lower your resource usage, compost, grow some of your own food, buy organic/local/fair trade/natural, drive less or re-use more?
Of those things that you have thought, what may you do? Does your locality have any restrictions on compost bins, clotheslines, or solar panels? Do you have access to bike lanes, sidewalks, public transit, close shopping places, recycling, thrift stores and rental places (including libraries)?
Now, what should you do for the environment? This is the tricky one. Realistically speaking, our environment is such that you should do as much as you can and may. Our planet needs the help. It's failing. Some will tell that if we don't change our ways, there is an environmental crisis coming. I'm telling you- it's here. Just like those economists said a recession was coming when we were already seeing significant downturns, while others waited for "more proof." You might not notice the crisis- it's easy to ignore when it's not you that has to walk five miles for water, disregarding potability. In fact, if you happen to live in a locality with arcane laws- the first thing you should do is attempt to get laws/infrastructure changed to more environmentally friendly options.
One of dad's sticking points was the use of may/can/should. If I were to ask "Can I go to Tiffany's?" I would undoubtedly get the answer "I don't know- can you?" Until I finally learned to ask "May I?" It was frustrating beyond belief to my child-like brain that thought the thirty second delay on my sleepover would mark the end of the world. I eventually learned, and I now find myself doing the same to my Ken, although he's less receptive to the nuances of language.
Of late, I've been wanting to lecture some of the adults in my life about may/can/should, although I typically let it go with just a glare and arms crossing. Let's review. "Can" implies the ability to do something. There is only physical/mental/social ability in this definition; it speaks nothing to legality or otherwise. I can hear, see, and speak because I have all of these abilities. Most of the population in the US can also do these things, excepting of course those who are deaf, blind, or mute, respectively. If I so choose, I can strangle the person next to me that won't get of his cell phone and insists on talking at approximately 90 db.
"May" is the permission or the allowance to do something. As a citizen of the US, I may speak, write, think, and gather as I choose because all of these things are protected rights. That same person whom I can strangle I refrain from doing so, because according to the law I may not kill another person. And I'm a just-cause pacifist- I swear- although his level of annoying may soon hit "justifiable" by some measures. By this same token, in places like China many people who can speak out against the government don't because they are not allowed. Regarding human and civil rights, what one person may do should in no way be different from what another person may do, and especially this difference should not be based on minority or majority status.
"Should" implies a moral obligation to do something. Exceptions can be made for "should" due to inability. Should also depends on priorities and necessity. Everyone should help to provide for those not able to provide for themselves, but sometimes people can't due to lack of funds, e.g.
Consider for a moment the environment. What can you do to help? What are you able to do? Can you recycle, pull invasive weeds, lower your resource usage, compost, grow some of your own food, buy organic/local/fair trade/natural, drive less or re-use more?
Of those things that you have thought, what may you do? Does your locality have any restrictions on compost bins, clotheslines, or solar panels? Do you have access to bike lanes, sidewalks, public transit, close shopping places, recycling, thrift stores and rental places (including libraries)?
Now, what should you do for the environment? This is the tricky one. Realistically speaking, our environment is such that you should do as much as you can and may. Our planet needs the help. It's failing. Some will tell that if we don't change our ways, there is an environmental crisis coming. I'm telling you- it's here. Just like those economists said a recession was coming when we were already seeing significant downturns, while others waited for "more proof." You might not notice the crisis- it's easy to ignore when it's not you that has to walk five miles for water, disregarding potability. In fact, if you happen to live in a locality with arcane laws- the first thing you should do is attempt to get laws/infrastructure changed to more environmentally friendly options.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Kissy Kissy, Fishy-Fishy!
,
This is a Central Stone Roller. Campostoma anomalum, to be exact. We caught this little guy at Jenning's Wood today. And by "we" I mean my class. Me, Justin and Mark (the other teaching assistant and the instructor) and 14 undergraduate students. My vertebrate Zoology class for this term. Great kids, one of the best classes I've had the luck of teaching. Hard-working, willing to go the extra mile, and always up for a little fun.
Unfortunately for this poor boy, they're not so great at animal handling. He was crushed by a student. Oops. "He won't stop wriggling! How can I identify it when he's wiggling?! Oh, now he stopped!" Yep, they usually stop wiggling when you squeeze the puddin' out of them, hon. And by "pudding" I mean intestinal tract, as in "prolapsed intestinal tract." Not the way I want to go, I can tell you that much. Well, the student felt horrible, and learned her lesson about fish handling, but it didn't help the fish much. Maybe cleared some stupid fish genes out of the, um, pool (damn punny phrases), I can at least hope. Try to find some good in everything, right?
Other than dead fish, the day went really well. Seining in 35 degree weather wasn't nearly as bad as they thought it would be, we got to see some great species including greenside darters and silver-jaw minnows, and my personal favorite the Central Mottled Sculpin. A big one. But not predation, like the Thursday class got to see a couple weeks ago. Skunk cabbage and ramps were out in full force, I think I'm going to take Ken ramp collecting this weekend just because I haven't had fresh in, oh, about a year. The poor trout lilies were also out pretty well, but not holding up to the snow that great. It's supposed to warm up again by Thursday, so I'm hopeful that they'll make it. This will be the year we take Ken out on a wildflower walk, garlic mustard pulls, and morel hunting, whether he likes it or not. He loves the outdoors, so he'll probably like all that stuff too.
I finally had the garden tilled, and plan on putting seeds in towards the end of this week or this weekend. For once, my procrastination paid off- I know of at least one over-achiever friend who's garden was already in and is now in peril. Am I a horrible person for laughing while seedlings are dying?
In other news, we started up another round of swim classes. Mr. Nathan will not be teaching the pre-schoolers this time, but I'm sure that has nothing to do with Ken and his craziness. Right? Ms. Olivia seems nice as well, so it's all good. And, yes there are other kids in his class, even though the picture doesn't show them. He spends a reasonable amount of time wandering around the pool, usually to the chorus of "Kenny, come back here!" from Ms. Olivia. He hasn't led any insurrections at swim class yet, though, which is more than I can say for daycare. The staff at the Rec were kind enough to peruse all my photos before we left today and erase all pictures with children other than Ken in them. It's good to know that they're so interested and protective of my child's safety, in this age when child pornography and whatnot are *so* rampant. I know the guy meant well, but it was a tad over-kill in my opinion. And not very thorough, I just noticed a non-Ken face-side in this shot anyway. C'est la vie.
The boy has been demanding a trip to the chocolate and ice cream store ever since we went to Dietsch's last week. I think I'll have to cave and go to Malley's with him while we're visiting Rocky River this weekend. Grandma Ruth has plans for another grand Easter dinner. Maybe she'd like some fresh ramps to go with it? I could show up with a wild dish (all wild edible plants) and see what happens.
This is a Central Stone Roller. Campostoma anomalum, to be exact. We caught this little guy at Jenning's Wood today. And by "we" I mean my class. Me, Justin and Mark (the other teaching assistant and the instructor) and 14 undergraduate students. My vertebrate Zoology class for this term. Great kids, one of the best classes I've had the luck of teaching. Hard-working, willing to go the extra mile, and always up for a little fun.Unfortunately for this poor boy, they're not so great at animal handling. He was crushed by a student. Oops. "He won't stop wriggling! How can I identify it when he's wiggling?! Oh, now he stopped!" Yep, they usually stop wiggling when you squeeze the puddin' out of them, hon. And by "pudding" I mean intestinal tract, as in "prolapsed intestinal tract." Not the way I want to go, I can tell you that much. Well, the student felt horrible, and learned her lesson about fish handling, but it didn't help the fish much. Maybe cleared some stupid fish genes out of the, um, pool (damn punny phrases), I can at least hope. Try to find some good in everything, right?
Other than dead fish, the day went really well. Seining in 35 degree weather wasn't nearly as bad as they thought it would be, we got to see some great species including greenside darters and silver-jaw minnows, and my personal favorite the Central Mottled Sculpin. A big one. But not predation, like the Thursday class got to see a couple weeks ago. Skunk cabbage and ramps were out in full force, I think I'm going to take Ken ramp collecting this weekend just because I haven't had fresh in, oh, about a year. The poor trout lilies were also out pretty well, but not holding up to the snow that great. It's supposed to warm up again by Thursday, so I'm hopeful that they'll make it. This will be the year we take Ken out on a wildflower walk, garlic mustard pulls, and morel hunting, whether he likes it or not. He loves the outdoors, so he'll probably like all that stuff too.
I finally had the garden tilled, and plan on putting seeds in towards the end of this week or this weekend. For once, my procrastination paid off- I know of at least one over-achiever friend who's garden was already in and is now in peril. Am I a horrible person for laughing while seedlings are dying?
In other news, we started up another round of swim classes. Mr. Nathan will not be teaching the pre-schoolers this time, but I'm sure that has nothing to do with Ken and his craziness. Right? Ms. Olivia seems nice as well, so it's all good. And, yes there are other kids in his class, even though the picture doesn't show them. He spends a reasonable amount of time wandering around the pool, usually to the chorus of "Kenny, come back here!" from Ms. Olivia. He hasn't led any insurrections at swim class yet, though, which is more than I can say for daycare. The staff at the Rec were kind enough to peruse all my photos before we left today and erase all pictures with children other than Ken in them. It's good to know that they're so interested and protective of my child's safety, in this age when child pornography and whatnot are *so* rampant.
The boy has been demanding a trip to the chocolate and ice cream store ever since we went to Dietsch's last week. I think I'll have to cave and go to Malley's with him while we're visiting Rocky River this weekend. Grandma Ruth has plans for another grand Easter dinner. Maybe she'd like some fresh ramps to go with it? I could show up with a wild dish (all wild edible plants) and see what happens.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)