Harry Potter Personality Quiz by Pirate Monkeys Inc.

Thanks to NinjaNun for the link.

Via Feministe, I came across this.

Edutopia asked its readers: What five things would you do to save public education?

1. Raise teacher salaries.
2. Reduce class size.
3. Decrease standardized testing.
4. Increase parental involvement.
5. Educate the legislators about the schools.

Read the detailed answers here.

Those five points could make for an entire series of posts. The first two are a given…teacher salaries are scandalously low, especially when I look around at my local SDs to see that they’re asking candidates to hold a MASTER’S degree. Insane.

The standardized testing is what I just don’t get…and one of the worst legacies of the Bush administration to date. Even my (conservative, republican, evang christian) teacher mother agrees that NCLB is just a bad idea — even if well-intentioned.

When will “they” figure out that while what kids learn is important, teaching them how to learn is even more vital?

Several site I frequent have reported a deluge of comment spam within the past couple weeks. Until today, I thought the only recourse was for them to turn off the “anonymous” option. I learned from Orac’s site today that this isn’t the case.

Blogger now has a word-recognition feature that blog owners can switch on to require posters to enter letters into a field before the post is accepted. It’s not a perfect solution, and it requires more work for each comment, but if it kills the spam, it’s likely worth it!

Here’s the background: a gal joined a playdate group I participate in from time to time, and we discovered that we live relatively close to each other. Granted, I’m in a teeny-tiny condo, and she’s up on the hill behind Garden of the Gods in a neighborhood that is VERY high end. The money was obvious from the time we met (big-as-a-house Lexus SUV, perfectly understated — yet fashionable — clothing in a size 2, beautiful and tasteful enormous rock set in platinum on her left hand, bugaboo frog stroller, etc), and I found it intimidating at first — but then learned that she’s going through a potentially nasty divorce from her (abusive) husband and realize that perhaps I needed to give her the benefit of the doubt and get over myself. (After all, the Buffies and Biffs of the world have problems too.)

This part is MY issue, and I know it — but as much as I like money, I find myself alternately jealous and disdainful of the “moneyed” types. (rolling eyes at myself)

Anyway, she and I have talked about getting together some weekday for a playdate at her house for our girls — hers is 18mo, then of course, mine is 11 months. Really, it would be more about letting the moms hang out, I suppose. All was good…but this comment in a last email SCORCHED me. I’d posted something about trying to figure out daycare and asking for recommendations — I had a job interview, then a second interview for a job that would have started very quickly. (The job is a no-go, by the way, and thoughts about work are another post that I may or may not write soon.)

I understand about the daycare. Since I have always been home with (daughter), it would kill me to have her with strangers during the day. But I do realize some parents need that break. And if you’ve been doing it alone all of this time then you are probably one of them!

WTF???

Chances are, the comment was innocent, but really…what the hell was she thinking? The more “base” part of me keeps thinking well, maybe in YOUR world, people only work for entertainment? Or perhaps she’s one of these snobs about SAHM versus WOHM? After a few days, I replied this morning:

FirstName,

You seem like a nice woman, so I’d like to give you the benefit of the doubt. I seriously doubt you intended to say something offensive, rude, or presumptuous.

What in the world ever gave you the idea that I’m looking for work to “get a break” from my daughter?

Allison

So, am I was off-base here? Guess it’s too late if I am, but at this point, I don’t really give a sh*t about having a playdate.

Follow up:
She responded, and quickly — and as I suspected, her intentions were good (trying to find a silver lining on leaving Maya in daycare), but her choice of words wasn’t the best. If she’d mad the same comment, but phrased it that I’ll enjoy interaction with other adults (as opposed to needing time away from Maya), I know I wouldn’t have thought twice about it. I’m relieved, but also glad that I brought up the question, because I would have resented it otherwise. As it stands, I still have a new potential friend — one with whom I can be straight and know that she’ll do the same to me. This is a good thing. Of course, a playdate in Buffy-land sounds fun too, grin.

Brandon wrote about Ingrid’s insistance that Donald Miller and Anne Lammot are clearly not truly Christian — because they curse.

Good fucking God. (Is that enough for a start?)

Caveat: I have not read Ingrid’s site. Probably won’t, since I’m just not in the mood to get THAT pissed off.

The one that bothers me the most about the whole “cursing thing” is the application of the commandment to not take God’s name in vain. In most churchy circles, that means avoiding phrases like my lead-in.

To me, I think that proclaiming yourself as a servant/messenger of God, then saying that we should “take out” another country’s leader is taking God’s name in vain.

So is saying “God hates fags.”

So is saying “Allah says to kill the Westerners.”

I could go on. And on. Fuck yeah. ;)

All of that said, I still try (but don’t always succeed) to not curse in front of my daughter — you know, the one who has three or four words under her belt so far. It’s not that I think cursing is wrong, but it does come across as inappropriate and lacking in class. So, for me, it’s not so much a choice I make as a Christian, but one I make as… a snob. There, I admitted it.

The top 10 “most conservative cities” in the U.S. according to the Bay Area Center for Voting Research:

1. Provo, Utah
2. Lubbock, Texas
3. Abilene, Texas
4. Hialeah, Florida
5. Plano, Texas
6. Colorado Springs, Colorado
7. Gilbert, Arizona
8. Bakersfield, California
9. Lafayette, Louisiana
10. Orange, California

No big surprises there, LOL. See the rest of the list here.

This isn’t a post bemoaning the Religious Right’s careful control of what may be said/not said on a local radio station (although I learned a bit about the “Kingdom Watchers” from a local TV personality who works out at my gym and recently guest-hosted on a local Christian station).

This isn’t about the politically-correct left and how some factions are so cautious about not offending anyone that they breeze by the truth in the process.

Nope…this is about the worst kind of censorship: self-censorship.

Before I go on, I have to admit that’s a bit overstated. A little bit of self-censorship is a good thing. It helps us keep friends. It keeps us from getting punched in the nose. It keeps peace within the family. When it’s on my own blog — you know, the one I created to be a free outlet for my thoughts — that’s not so good.

Why am I censoring myself? I find myself wondering that tonight, as I realize that I have a million thoughts on my mind — and that I’ve had just as many thoughts over the past week or two while I’ve studiously avoided blogging anything serious. The lack of blogging doesn’t speak to a lack of bloggable material; I have plenty to talk about. So why the holdup?

Without meaning to, I realize I’ve fallen into the trap of writing for an audience instead of for myself. While the audience may or may not be there, it’s not the reason for writing…it’s secondary. Sitting here thinking about something that I should “journal,” but not wanting to write it on the web…that just got my gears turning.

So what’s the point of this blog, anyway?

I’m thinking about this question, and starting to come up with a few answers…

• It’s an outlet for all the thoughts that dance in my head — for those moments when the dancing turns into moshing, and I need to get them out before a headache starts.
• It’s a space where I can think out loud about my feelings and thoughts on religion…and “try things on for size.” Sounds a little silly (when I look at it in writing), but it’s just another way of saying that I need to put new ideas into words then come back to them to see if they still make sense hours — or days — later.
• Life cracks me up. People amuse me. The thoughts I have when I see people out on the street aren’t always nice, but they’re always REAL.

That’s a decent start. So why do I censor?

• There’s a community of “progressive” Christian bloggers out there…and I feel that in some respects, I’m supposed to “look” Christian (even though I’ve questioned that before here). Heaven forbid I stay real. But then, what’s the point of writing if I’m NOT being real (that is, authentically myself) while doing it?
• I’ve been frustrated with myself a lot lately. There are still places where I keep beating my head against a wall. I’m aware of these spots in my life, and want to do better, but the dent in the sheetrock keeps getting deeper. As much as it pains me to admit it, I have no qualms with sharing my own issues if they’re in the past. Any idiot can question my actions and motives and, because I’ve resolved my own thoughts on myself, I’m okay with it. But dear lord…if I threw current issues out there, and someone tried to skewer me? I’d be crushed. Ouch, you don’t even know how much I hate admitting that.

What’s weird about all of this is that I’m not trying to appear to have it “all together” — I know that no one actually does. So what is it I’m doing?

They are drawn as if by magnetic forces; they speak of Colorado Springs, home to the greatest concentration of fundamentalist Christian activist groups in American history, both as a last stand and as a kind of utopia in the making.

This is how an article called Soldiers for Christ (part 1) begins in Harpers. For anyone who asks why I laugh about the uber-conservative right here, doesn’t that say it all? I’m still reading the rest of the article, and chances are that I’ll groan at parts and roll my eyes at other parts. As someone who’s visited New Life Church before, I should actually be able to get a general idea of whether this article is accurate at all.

I came across this from another blog’s link to Soldiers for Christ (part 2)…which I just couldn’t stomach to finish reading.

Before I had my daughter, I was pleased to learn that I could feed her wherever I deemed appropriate (or necessary) — that my ability to provide nourishment for my child was protected by state law. Effective April 23, 2004, Colorado protected a woman’s right to breastfeed anywhere she has the right to be. Here’s just a snippet of the legislation:

C.R.S.25-6-302. Breastfeeding.
A mother may breastfeed in any place she has a right to be.

from C.R.S.25-6-301:
(2) The general assembly further declares that the purpose of this [legislation] is for the state of Colorado to become involved in the national movement to recognize the medical importance of breastfeeding, within the scope of complete pediatric care, and to encourage removal of societal boundaries placed on breastfeeding in public. (emphasis added)

Read the full legislation text on La Leche League’s state-by-state summary of breastfeeding law.

I’m not a lactivist by any means. I have many friends who feed formula to their babies, and I don’t acuse them of poisoning their children. While I question the wisdom of Nestle’s big move into Africa telling mothers that formula was *superior* to breastfeeding (yeah, right), I also don’t think that the big formula companies are evil and out to destroy humanity.

I have frequently nursed my daughter in public — or at least I did, until she became adept enough at solid food that she didn’t NEED breastmilk while we were out. And (gasp!) I didn’t even use a blanket to cover her up. I quickly learned that covering my daughter’s head (and thus, being less vigilant about the placement of my shirt) was a recipe for flashing the public, as she *hated* to have her head covered. Perhaps some people saw me and scorned, but if so, no one ever approached me about it. In fact, many (older women especially) praised me for nursing my daughter.

All of this lead-in is to point out two recent news stories here in my great state.

1. A woman was breastfeeding her child at a park. I don’t know the specifics — was she exposing her breast openly (which, btw, is LEGAL), or was she covered. She was issued a ticket by a park ranger for public exposure of genitalia. Leaving aside the fact that she was protected by law, since when are breasts genitalia? The ticket was later reversed, but the parks never did issue an apology. Story here.
2. A young couple tours the state capital. The couple’s five-month-old son becomes hungry, so the mother finds a sofa, settles in, covers herself and the baby with a blanket and feeds her child. The receptionists (the only other people in the room) suggest that she might be “more comfortable” feeding her baby in the basement — the basement that lacks air conditioning, happens to be under construction, and is thus *filled with construction workers*. Story here.

In this second case, the reception area in question happened to be for the governor’s office. Now, this part makes me wonder if the family set this up as a test after the other recent hoo-hah about nursing in public (god, I love that the acronym for that is “NIP”). But, even if it were a set up…whaaaaa?

As I said, I’m not a “lactivist” (Hathor will have a field day with this one), but FTLOG…let the woman feed her baby!