There are so many things that I should be doing right now. Projects to finish. Papers to grade. Manuscripts to revise. Real work, such as laundry or organizing the basement or cleaning off the desk. However, I will find twenty other things to do first. I have been procrastinating for twelve hours now. I'm only delaying the inevitable. The work must get finished, particularly the grading since next week is Finals. But, here I sit on my happy ass browsing the web, blogging, shopping Etsy...anything to avoid reading these papers.
What part of my normally logical mind allows me to do this? It will only stress me more later when I'm in a time crunch to get them all finished, and students are nagging for feedback. Is procrastination really just a form of avoidance?
Some people are the type that stick their heads in the sand and pretend that problems or issues do not exist. Not me! My head is held high while I am pointing out all of the problems I see. I have never been one to back away from a challenge or avoid the inevitable.
Or have I?
I have often said that I work better under pressure, or that I need a deadline to motivate me. Are those just excuses for my avoidant behavior? If I pretend the chores don't exist, then they don't? Why do we do this and have we always been this way? Has procrastination always existed?
It seems to be such a modern phenomenon. I cannot imagine the country's forefathers putting things off. Can you imagine Lincoln, sitting in the White House, smoking his pipe and saying to his crazy wife, "Uggghhh...I really should be writing that Emancipation Proclamation thingy. I guess I will start on it after I finish watching this grass grow"?
(I mean, really, what else did he have to do back then? No tv, no internet...well, I guess there's the theater...).
Maybe that's the issue. Modern humans have so many options for how to spend our time, and yet we still only have the same number of hours in a day as Lincoln did. We have to make choices as to how those hours are spent, and the choices can be really difficult to make. Fun, relaxation, excitement, learning, responsibilities, income, duty...these are all factors in the equation of how to spend our time.
Do we do what we want to do or what we need to do? We feel guilty doing something we want to do when we should be doing something that is needed. Then we end up finding a third option that isn't as pleasurable as the first, but is still better than the work we should be doing. That let's us ease up on the guilt factor. "Yes, I was blogging instead of grading papers...but at least I wasn't shopping!"
Sometimes, I am just so overwhelmed by all of the choices, that I don't do any of them. That's when I just sit and stare out the window, watching the grass grow.
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Sunday, April 17, 2011
A Tiny Splinter of Anger
It's odd that sometimes we don't even realize what is the true cause of an emotion we experience. Sometimes we are angry at someone, and we actually believe that we know why we are angry. The person has done something that hurts, offends or annoys us and we are reacting to it. Right?
Maybe not. Sometimes, those little occurences are simply excuses for us to express our anger. Maybe they are actually masking the real cause. I realized today that things that took place a few years ago that I thought I had moved past are actually the true cause of current squabbles. Just because someone apologizes for a misdeed doesn't erase it from our minds or our hearts. We carry that pain, and with it, insecurities. So the little behaviors that we might have been able to ignore in the past now jump out at us like an alarm screaming, "see? see how he is? I told you that he..."
So for months (maybe even years), that little alarm has been beneath the surface, but not dormant, and it has been nudging my emotions with its subconscious messages. Today, I unearthed it. It was like digging out a massive splinter. The process of removing it was painful; however, once it was out, it felt better; and I began to heal.
And, also like a splinter, I didn't even realize it was in there until it really started causing a lot of pain. I'm so glad it's out.
Maybe not. Sometimes, those little occurences are simply excuses for us to express our anger. Maybe they are actually masking the real cause. I realized today that things that took place a few years ago that I thought I had moved past are actually the true cause of current squabbles. Just because someone apologizes for a misdeed doesn't erase it from our minds or our hearts. We carry that pain, and with it, insecurities. So the little behaviors that we might have been able to ignore in the past now jump out at us like an alarm screaming, "see? see how he is? I told you that he..."
So for months (maybe even years), that little alarm has been beneath the surface, but not dormant, and it has been nudging my emotions with its subconscious messages. Today, I unearthed it. It was like digging out a massive splinter. The process of removing it was painful; however, once it was out, it felt better; and I began to heal.
And, also like a splinter, I didn't even realize it was in there until it really started causing a lot of pain. I'm so glad it's out.
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Whatever happened to the news?
It seems that television has done a complete turn around in terms of what it presents. There was a time when most entertainment programs were completely fictional, and the reality stories were presented on the television news. As one can see now from listings of shows such as "American Idol," "The Apprentice," "What Not to Wear," etc. television viewers want to be entertained by "real" people. Maybe, that is because there are so few stories of "real" people elsewhere.
I can remember as a child, having the news brought to our family through two venues: the newspaper and the six o'clock evening news. The closest thing to reality tv for us was 60 minutes on Sunday nights. At that time, as slowly as news traveled, one could depend on the fact that it was "news."
Today, we are inundated with news stories through the television, computer, radio and even our phones. How much of it is actually news? If one were to flip on Fox News (and I'm not suggesting you should) at any point in time, I predict that what you will see is an angry white man expressing his opinions, which are being reinforced by a stuffy white woman and being argued against by an articulate black man who is never given the opportunity to finish his sentences. They really should change the name of this station to Fox Opinion or Fox Rhetoric...maybe even Fox Propaganda. All of those items appear much more frequently than does news.
So what has happened with television news? Well, regardless of the channel you are viewing, you can, if you have good eyesight and the ability to speed read multiple moving lines simultaneously, find the headlines streaming quickly along the bottom of the screen. These rolling headlines will keep you up to date on the latest celebrity meltdown, Presidential approval rating and weather related disaster.
Speaking of weather...even the Weather Channel has jumped on the entertainment bandwagon. It is no longer enough to simply inform the public of the predicted weather, based on current meteorological trends. Nor is it sufficient to report on the catastrophic weather tragedies, such as earthquakes, tsunamis or tornados, that have ocurred. No, not enough at all. Now, the folks at the Weather Channel also want to report on what "Could Happen Tomorrow" (insert climactic music here). No, it's not enough that those things may have just happened today or yesterday, let's raise the paranoia in the viewers by showing them how much worse tomorrow could actually be. Does anyone really tune into the weather channel to see hypothethical scenarios of the weather? Isn't the forecast speculative enough? Do we have to over-dramatize it by creating additional disaster stories that have not actually taken place?
The great thing about cable channels used to be how specialized they each were. You tuned to gardening channels for gardening, the Movie Channel for movies, CNN for news, MTV for music videos. Now, you can flip to any of those channels and not actually be certain what channel you are watching. The gardening channels also have home makeovers, MTV has movies, the Weather Channel has gardening advice and the HBO has sitcoms. What happened?
Please, television producers of the world, hear my plea. Bring back the old school days where someone sensible like Dan Rather sat with us in the evening and informed us of the events that took place worldwide that day, where MTV played nothing but music videos, where the Weather Channel could be counted on to provide us with an actual forecast of what they truly believe will take place tomorrow and where the distinction between fact and fiction was crystal clear.
I can remember as a child, having the news brought to our family through two venues: the newspaper and the six o'clock evening news. The closest thing to reality tv for us was 60 minutes on Sunday nights. At that time, as slowly as news traveled, one could depend on the fact that it was "news."
Today, we are inundated with news stories through the television, computer, radio and even our phones. How much of it is actually news? If one were to flip on Fox News (and I'm not suggesting you should) at any point in time, I predict that what you will see is an angry white man expressing his opinions, which are being reinforced by a stuffy white woman and being argued against by an articulate black man who is never given the opportunity to finish his sentences. They really should change the name of this station to Fox Opinion or Fox Rhetoric...maybe even Fox Propaganda. All of those items appear much more frequently than does news.
So what has happened with television news? Well, regardless of the channel you are viewing, you can, if you have good eyesight and the ability to speed read multiple moving lines simultaneously, find the headlines streaming quickly along the bottom of the screen. These rolling headlines will keep you up to date on the latest celebrity meltdown, Presidential approval rating and weather related disaster.
Speaking of weather...even the Weather Channel has jumped on the entertainment bandwagon. It is no longer enough to simply inform the public of the predicted weather, based on current meteorological trends. Nor is it sufficient to report on the catastrophic weather tragedies, such as earthquakes, tsunamis or tornados, that have ocurred. No, not enough at all. Now, the folks at the Weather Channel also want to report on what "Could Happen Tomorrow" (insert climactic music here). No, it's not enough that those things may have just happened today or yesterday, let's raise the paranoia in the viewers by showing them how much worse tomorrow could actually be. Does anyone really tune into the weather channel to see hypothethical scenarios of the weather? Isn't the forecast speculative enough? Do we have to over-dramatize it by creating additional disaster stories that have not actually taken place?
The great thing about cable channels used to be how specialized they each were. You tuned to gardening channels for gardening, the Movie Channel for movies, CNN for news, MTV for music videos. Now, you can flip to any of those channels and not actually be certain what channel you are watching. The gardening channels also have home makeovers, MTV has movies, the Weather Channel has gardening advice and the HBO has sitcoms. What happened?
Please, television producers of the world, hear my plea. Bring back the old school days where someone sensible like Dan Rather sat with us in the evening and informed us of the events that took place worldwide that day, where MTV played nothing but music videos, where the Weather Channel could be counted on to provide us with an actual forecast of what they truly believe will take place tomorrow and where the distinction between fact and fiction was crystal clear.
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Dress Codes
My daughter's middle school is considering a more restrictive dress code. They sent home what they were calling a "survey" for parents to complete. It was really just two pages of them describing why they want the dress code, and then a tiny portion where parents can check whether or not they are in support of the code.
As it is, the school is strict about what students wear. It's a public school, but they are not permitted to wear any frays or patches in their jeans, no hoodies...simply because the principal doesn't like the image it presents.
The new dress code would restrict students to wearing only polo style shirts in navy, light blue, gray or white (drab!); solid color pants or skirts (to the knee!); and solid color socks in one of the four colors listed for the shirts. Gross!
Here's the rationale that they gave:
I don't see what the problem is with letting a young teen make a fashion statement. Youth are going to express themeselves, and I would prefer that it be with something as benign as their clothing. I don't think that wearing brightly colored striped socks is going to create a threat to anyone's safety. Children need to be given the opportunity to express themselves. If the school is wanting a level playing field, then they should have uniforms. This current policy will not stop inequality and competition, as some children will have expensive polos and others will not.
And, as for the last item. Well, those are already violations of the current dress code. If they can't enforce that one, what makes them think they will be able to enforce this new one? It's terrible logic. When someone violates the policy, the school just contacts a parent to bring in an acceptable item to wear. In my opinion, they are too easy on the child. Don't punish the parent, send the child home for the day telling him or her simply that they can return when they are capable of making better decisions about their attire. This puts the responsibility back onto the child.
So, since I am not one to keep my opinions to myself, I wrote a letter in response to the "survey" and attached it with my little response showing I am NOT in support of the proposed dress code. I've been around for awhile, so I am savvy enough to know that my letter will probably end up in the principal's trash can. Therefore, I also submitted it to the "Letters to the Editor" of the local paper as well. Hopefully, other parents who also do not want to stifle their children's creativity and freedom of self-expression will read the letter and be motivated to speak up as well.
If not, my daughter has already asked if I would home school her for two years until high school. NOT! I said, no way to that one. She will still have to go to that school, and she would also have to start making sure that her socks match.
As it is, the school is strict about what students wear. It's a public school, but they are not permitted to wear any frays or patches in their jeans, no hoodies...simply because the principal doesn't like the image it presents.
The new dress code would restrict students to wearing only polo style shirts in navy, light blue, gray or white (drab!); solid color pants or skirts (to the knee!); and solid color socks in one of the four colors listed for the shirts. Gross!
Here's the rationale that they gave:
- They want to bring back a more formal standard to the practice of attending school.
- They want to "foster the concept" of a team similar to industries and factories!
- They believe students will be less focused on making fashion statements.
- They believe that they will "have a better chance of dealing with issues like sagging pants, shorts that are too short..."
I don't see what the problem is with letting a young teen make a fashion statement. Youth are going to express themeselves, and I would prefer that it be with something as benign as their clothing. I don't think that wearing brightly colored striped socks is going to create a threat to anyone's safety. Children need to be given the opportunity to express themselves. If the school is wanting a level playing field, then they should have uniforms. This current policy will not stop inequality and competition, as some children will have expensive polos and others will not.
And, as for the last item. Well, those are already violations of the current dress code. If they can't enforce that one, what makes them think they will be able to enforce this new one? It's terrible logic. When someone violates the policy, the school just contacts a parent to bring in an acceptable item to wear. In my opinion, they are too easy on the child. Don't punish the parent, send the child home for the day telling him or her simply that they can return when they are capable of making better decisions about their attire. This puts the responsibility back onto the child.
So, since I am not one to keep my opinions to myself, I wrote a letter in response to the "survey" and attached it with my little response showing I am NOT in support of the proposed dress code. I've been around for awhile, so I am savvy enough to know that my letter will probably end up in the principal's trash can. Therefore, I also submitted it to the "Letters to the Editor" of the local paper as well. Hopefully, other parents who also do not want to stifle their children's creativity and freedom of self-expression will read the letter and be motivated to speak up as well.
If not, my daughter has already asked if I would home school her for two years until high school. NOT! I said, no way to that one. She will still have to go to that school, and she would also have to start making sure that her socks match.
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
What's in a Name?
Shakespeare's Juliet presented this question as she pondered the importance of the Capulet and Montague names. Would Romeo still be Romeo if he had a different last name? Last names continue to have significant meaning to some individuals, and relatively little meaning to others. In American society, we expect females to place little value on their surnames, since they are expected to change them when they marry (and technically become property of their husbands). I refused to do this during my first marriage. I was not about to hand over my identity to someone whose last name had been changed when he was a school child and was adopted by a step-father for whom he had little love and respect. My ex actually was OK with me keeping my name. The shocking part was the reaction of my sisters' husbands. They strongly opposed having a wife who kept her maiden name. So, it is for many that the last name is an important part of the family's history and legacy.
However, I believe that Shakespeare was pointing out more than just the rivalries of families that have lost their relevance. I believe that he was ultimately questioning the importance of labels in general. Words are just sounds created by humans to represent items or concepts. The meaning of these words can only possess that power that a person assigns to it. Personally, I believe it is absurd that we have a list of words that someone has deemed vulgar and unacceptable. But how can it be that a word that can be stated by any school child when describing a four legged equine, cannot be uttered by the same child in reference to his derriere.
All of these musings regarding names and words stem from my recent conversation with my 6-year old stepson regarding what he should call me. I've been around him since before he could even talk, so he naturally calls me "Mom." His biological mother is not fond of this practice. If he accidentally refers to me that way to her, she reprimands him. It was obvious that this issue was putting a strain on our relationship with one another, so I sat with him and explained that he could call me whatever he wants to. I told him that I know the role I play in his life and I know how I feel about him; therefore, whatever name he wishes to use is ok. What's in a name? That which we call a rose, by any other name, would smell as sweet.
However, I believe that Shakespeare was pointing out more than just the rivalries of families that have lost their relevance. I believe that he was ultimately questioning the importance of labels in general. Words are just sounds created by humans to represent items or concepts. The meaning of these words can only possess that power that a person assigns to it. Personally, I believe it is absurd that we have a list of words that someone has deemed vulgar and unacceptable. But how can it be that a word that can be stated by any school child when describing a four legged equine, cannot be uttered by the same child in reference to his derriere.
All of these musings regarding names and words stem from my recent conversation with my 6-year old stepson regarding what he should call me. I've been around him since before he could even talk, so he naturally calls me "Mom." His biological mother is not fond of this practice. If he accidentally refers to me that way to her, she reprimands him. It was obvious that this issue was putting a strain on our relationship with one another, so I sat with him and explained that he could call me whatever he wants to. I told him that I know the role I play in his life and I know how I feel about him; therefore, whatever name he wishes to use is ok. What's in a name? That which we call a rose, by any other name, would smell as sweet.
Saturday, February 19, 2011
Mind over Matter
My daughter and I were discussing how to stop hiccups. I told her that I "think" mine away. I focus on my breathing, relax think about how calm I am, and literally make my diaphragm stop having spasms. I suggested that one can use her mind over matter in dealing with any number of physical pains or conditions.
Then, I realized something. If I am able to do this to overcome physical discomforts, why can't I use the same method to overcome mood related issues? Isn't it even more logical to use the mind to control the mind than to control the physical body?
So I am now trying this out. Just as I refuse to let my body convulse with hiccups, I refuse to let my mind feel depressed, anxious, irritated or angry (unless I have a good reason!). I am in control of my moods - they don't control me. I pride myself on my intelligence and my ability to use logic and critical thinking to solve many of life's issues. So why wouldn't I use these same skills to maintain control over my emotions?
When I have cried during a movie or became sad after hearing a song, it was my mind that created those responses. Just as my mind allows me to be cheered by certain fun happy songs or memories. We have a choice when it comes to our emotions. It's just an issue of reigning in our minds and reminding them who is the boss!
Then, I realized something. If I am able to do this to overcome physical discomforts, why can't I use the same method to overcome mood related issues? Isn't it even more logical to use the mind to control the mind than to control the physical body?
So I am now trying this out. Just as I refuse to let my body convulse with hiccups, I refuse to let my mind feel depressed, anxious, irritated or angry (unless I have a good reason!). I am in control of my moods - they don't control me. I pride myself on my intelligence and my ability to use logic and critical thinking to solve many of life's issues. So why wouldn't I use these same skills to maintain control over my emotions?
When I have cried during a movie or became sad after hearing a song, it was my mind that created those responses. Just as my mind allows me to be cheered by certain fun happy songs or memories. We have a choice when it comes to our emotions. It's just an issue of reigning in our minds and reminding them who is the boss!
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
When did I get old?
It's silly, but I still think of myself as being at least ten years younger than I actually am. I earned my Ph.D. at age 26. I began an academic career teaching graduate courses to persons who were much older than I was. In my mind that is still the case. However, as I near the monumental milestone - four - o - my delusions are becoming increasingly more apparent.
Nowhere does this reality slap me harder than in my classroom. I'm still teaching graduate students, but now they are YOUNG. Wow. The jokes that once had students in stitches now leave nothing but crickets in the room. Even worse than thinking that I'm no longer funny is the realization that they really have no idea what I am talking about. Reagan was in his second term when they were born! They have no idea what Land Shark is. They don't know the Brady's or Gilligan and the Skipper. They know my music because they listen to the oldies on "Retro Night." When did Nirvana become classic rock? The clothes I wore in high school are now officially vintage.
A student who prefers to use her digital camera rather than the one on her smart phone referred to herself as "old school." Old school? Seriously? Old school would be the Polaroid that you have to place in the sun for awhile and wait for it to develop! Or, old school to me was the creepy people who went under a black sheet to take your picture with a camera that blew a puff of smoke. You didn't have to say, "did you get it?" back then, because the smoke signal indicated the picture was taken.
Old school was photocopies that were purple and smelled funny. It was being tethered to the wall during a phone call. It was having one television set that was controlled by your father - and you were the remote. I can still here the sound of that knob as it turns softly to the next station - 4, 6, 8, 13, U! Four turns and we were right back to where we started!
I took my daughter to Chicago for a weekend trip. It's a six hour drive, but we were armed with entertainment. Between the two of us we had a cellphone, an iphone, a netbook, a Nintendo DS, two iPods and a Garmin. We were hooked up. What surprised me, however, was how much she enjoyed pushing the elevator buttons at our hotel. She would rush in ahead of me and ask what floor. It took me awhile to realize why these buttons were such a curious novelty. There are no actual three dimensional buttons anywhere else in her life. We are a touch screen world. She selects things with a stylus or the tip of her finger. She hasn't pushed buttons that large since she was a toddler playing with her baby toys. How much longer until those are also extinct. Will we have elevators in which you just have your room key scanned and it takes you to your floor? No need to contaminate your hands by actually touching something that another human has touched. I'm surprised that kids today aren't allergic to the buttons, since they now seem to be allergic to everything. What is happening to us?
As I reflect on all of that I have written, I realize that there is a very familiar tune that my words are humming. My parents used to sing this song to me when I was young. It usually started with, "Well, when I was a boy..." I would roll my eyes as I was disgusted by such primitive society. Outhouses, ooh. Milking your own cow and drinking it warm. Double ooh. Is that what my students are thinking about me when I tell them how lucky they are that they can do their library research from the comfort of home, wearing their jammies and simultaneously texting their friends? When I explain to them how I actually had to walk (uphill both ways) to the campus library and pull journals and books off of the shelf to read them, are they disgusted by the thought of touching dusty old books? Maybe they are even disgusted by me!
So, I return to my original question. When did I go from being the young, hip professor to being the dinosaur who has told the same stories for 12 years? When did I stop listening to popular music? When did my way of doing things become "old school?" When did I get old?
Nowhere does this reality slap me harder than in my classroom. I'm still teaching graduate students, but now they are YOUNG. Wow. The jokes that once had students in stitches now leave nothing but crickets in the room. Even worse than thinking that I'm no longer funny is the realization that they really have no idea what I am talking about. Reagan was in his second term when they were born! They have no idea what Land Shark is. They don't know the Brady's or Gilligan and the Skipper. They know my music because they listen to the oldies on "Retro Night." When did Nirvana become classic rock? The clothes I wore in high school are now officially vintage.
A student who prefers to use her digital camera rather than the one on her smart phone referred to herself as "old school." Old school? Seriously? Old school would be the Polaroid that you have to place in the sun for awhile and wait for it to develop! Or, old school to me was the creepy people who went under a black sheet to take your picture with a camera that blew a puff of smoke. You didn't have to say, "did you get it?" back then, because the smoke signal indicated the picture was taken.
Old school was photocopies that were purple and smelled funny. It was being tethered to the wall during a phone call. It was having one television set that was controlled by your father - and you were the remote. I can still here the sound of that knob as it turns softly to the next station - 4, 6, 8, 13, U! Four turns and we were right back to where we started!
I took my daughter to Chicago for a weekend trip. It's a six hour drive, but we were armed with entertainment. Between the two of us we had a cellphone, an iphone, a netbook, a Nintendo DS, two iPods and a Garmin. We were hooked up. What surprised me, however, was how much she enjoyed pushing the elevator buttons at our hotel. She would rush in ahead of me and ask what floor. It took me awhile to realize why these buttons were such a curious novelty. There are no actual three dimensional buttons anywhere else in her life. We are a touch screen world. She selects things with a stylus or the tip of her finger. She hasn't pushed buttons that large since she was a toddler playing with her baby toys. How much longer until those are also extinct. Will we have elevators in which you just have your room key scanned and it takes you to your floor? No need to contaminate your hands by actually touching something that another human has touched. I'm surprised that kids today aren't allergic to the buttons, since they now seem to be allergic to everything. What is happening to us?
As I reflect on all of that I have written, I realize that there is a very familiar tune that my words are humming. My parents used to sing this song to me when I was young. It usually started with, "Well, when I was a boy..." I would roll my eyes as I was disgusted by such primitive society. Outhouses, ooh. Milking your own cow and drinking it warm. Double ooh. Is that what my students are thinking about me when I tell them how lucky they are that they can do their library research from the comfort of home, wearing their jammies and simultaneously texting their friends? When I explain to them how I actually had to walk (uphill both ways) to the campus library and pull journals and books off of the shelf to read them, are they disgusted by the thought of touching dusty old books? Maybe they are even disgusted by me!
So, I return to my original question. When did I go from being the young, hip professor to being the dinosaur who has told the same stories for 12 years? When did I stop listening to popular music? When did my way of doing things become "old school?" When did I get old?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)