The Coat

My mother gave Chris my grandfather's bomber jacket. It was only a few years old, and in immaculate condition. She couldn't bear to bring it to Goodwill, even though she had no use for it. Knowing Chris needed a new jacket, and Mom had it in the closet for nearly 4 years, unused, I suggested he take it. She liked this idea.

Recently, he found a receipt in the coat.

It was from the grocery store. It listed, a bouquet of roses, a bouquet of "seasonal flowers," a greeting card, and a newspaper. It was dated February 15, 2005. My grandparent's anniversary.

That was the last anniversary they spent together.

Needless to say, I am sentimental enough to want to keep this receipt.

Blogging for a Cause

... at least, this post is.

Many of my regular readers know how much HOBY means to me. Please see the below regarding a fundraiser we're holding this holiday season.

Hello Everyone!!

You're invited to the HOBY (Hugh O'Brian Youth Leadership Organization) Fundraiser Show!! We'll raise funds two ways:

1. Donation of up to 15% of the fundraiser's total sales
2. $3 contribution for each Show booked from my fundraiser PLUS an additional $5 donation donated by the Pampered Chef Consultant with a Free Cooking Show. (If you book a show with the Pampered Chef Consultant any time in the next year - any ingredients needed for the cooking show, the consultant will provide. It's a win win!)

Please see the attachment for the November Specials. 20% off Simple Additions Collection Select Pieces - Get as many as you like!

To order, please visit http://www.pamperedchef.biz/danalynn
Click on "Our Products", Click "How to Purchase", Enter Host First Name: HOBY, Last Name: NYE.
If you're local, shipping can be sent to Cara Tromans to distribute OR have the products shipped anywhere in the United States!!
Products will arrive in time for the Holidays; perfect way to get your Holiday shopping done!!

Payment information: Visa, Mastercard, Discover, American Express, Cash, Check (Made out to Dana Herchenroder)

Orders and payment due by Monday, November 30th.

If there are any questions regarding the products, please contact the Pampered Chef Consultant: (518) 421-2381 (day), (518) 630-5151 (eve), E-mail: danaburg4@aol.com

Make sure you forward this email onto everyone you know to help us raise money for HOBY. Remember - orders can be placed anywhere in the US.


Thank you!

I've got a big problem with Twilight

1. Twilight lovers, just hear me out. I'm not bashing it for the reasons that you THINK I'm bashing it.

2. The thing that inspired me to write this? "Just Dance," by Lady Gaga. Trust me, there is a correlation.

For those of you who are unaware of the Twilight phenomenon ... wait, no. If you are not aware of what Twilight is, you have been living in a cave. Google it, and then come back when you are finished.

All set to go? Okay, then.

Last year, a friend of mine bought me the first book for my birthday. Another friend had been telling me that I "had to read" these books, that they were "better than Harry Potter," etc. etc. Whatever. The book sat on my shelf for some time. At first, it was because I hadn't had a chance to read it. Then, however, I became more skeptical. I heard others' accounts of the book, and wondered, was this REALLY something that I was going to enjoy? The book continued to sit on my shelf.

Months later, I finally decided to "give it a shot." Granted, at this point, I'm pretty sure my opinion was not unbiased, as I had formulated many judgments about the series by then. Even still, I thought, I'll try it.

I read 30 painful pages.

I then read the summaries online.

To be fair, what I read was not necessarily terrible writing (my boyfriend, the English professor, might disagree, but I digress). It was a bit overwrought, but not terrible. I've read terrible writing that is not nearly as unreadable as Twilight was, for me. No, Twilight is unreadable because Bella is an insufferable, spoiled brat. Now, granted, so is (for example) Daisy Buchanan, but the reader is not supposed to sympathize with, or even like Daisy. However, the reasons I found the book unreadable have little to do with the problems I have with the story. Even if I liked the book(s), I would have this problem, and probably feel much more conflicted and be less preachy about the subject. Fortunately for my own moral standing, I don't like the books. :)

To sum, the books chronicle the romance of Bella and Edward. Bella is a spoiled rotten brat relatively typical teenage girl, who falls in love with Edward, a vampire. The books tell the story of their romance, and I won't spoil it for those who haven't read, but it ends predictably. However, the romance itself is not the issue at hand, but rather Stephanie Meyer's approach to the romance. Throughout the series, Bella indicates a strong desire to become a vampire so that she can be with Edward forever. There is, apparently, a theme in one of the books about how on Bella's 18th birthday she is particularly upset as now she is officially "older" than Edward (when she met him, she was "younger" than him). Yet, throughout all of this is a not-so-subtle abstinence-only message.

In other words, Ms. Meyer, what you're trying to tell us, is that an 18-year-old girl quite literally dying for her high school sweetheart is A-OK, but having sex outside of marriage is not. I understand there are varying opinions on sex outside of marriage, however I find it hard to believe that the majority of parents would want their children given glorified suicidal themes, provided those themes included an abstinence-only message.

Aside from the abstinence-only topic, I have a problem with the underlying message this sends young girls: That your life is meaningless and void of happiness because a boy dumps you. Nothing about these books are empowering to young women. Now, as an adult, I can recognize these themes, and therefore I see nothing wrong with them as "guilty pleasures," but I feel pretty icky that young women are idolizing these books - wanting to be Bella, wanting a boyfriend like Edward. Teenagers have raging hormones, and in women this manifests into simpering, romantic notions about boys and relationships (and we've all been there, much as we would like to forget this). While I don't think most of the young women reading these books are foolish enough act on these particular messages, I still don't like that they've been presented as viable options to begin with.

And, now, I segue into Lady Gaga.

For those of you familiar with the song, Just Dance, it, essentially, glorifies binge drinking. This, I find, to be more troublesome even than Twilight, as young people already think binge drinking is A Good Idea (clue: it's not), and certainly don't need any more encouragement in this arena. There's a part where it alludes that the woman will go home with some stranger she's dancing with that night. Yes, this is so empowering to young women.

As far as this society has come in regards to how women are treated and perceived, there are still so many uphill battles. Before, the battles were obvious - voting, equal opportunities, women in the workplace, etc. Now, the battles are much, MUCH more subtle. There's a fine line between female empowerment and female objectification - almost to the point where the line is so blurred that it is almost subjective.

Almost.

Yankees Magic Number

I just have to say ...

Ted Kennedy having done one really really awful thing in his life (and, yes, it was really, really awful - both what he did and how he handled it afterward), does not negate all of the good things he's done since.

Perhaps this is the idealist in me, but I would like to think that his penchant for doing good was part of his atonement for what he did in 1969. Maybe I'm wrong, but the way he dedicated his life to service in the best way he knew how - he did not have to do that. He could have been a silver spoon playboy, hiding in the shadows, not putting himself out there time and again to still be crucified for his actions 40 years ago. But, he felt the need to make a difference in this country.

I could be all wrong, but then again I like to see the best in people.

May he rest in peace.

The Happy Menagerie

As you all know, I try to post more often than, say, once a month (no, really, I DO!).

I am embarking on a project. The Boyfriend and I adopted a puppy last weekend, and it seems like a good place to start.

Because the theme will be totally separate from this blog, you can find it here:
inagainoutagainfinnegan.blogspot.com

There are no posts. Yet. :)

ETA - I wrote the first post. I think we're off to a good start ... :)

Unexpected feminism

I am obsessed with Mad Men.

For those of you unfamiliar with the television show, it is an original cable series on American Movie Classics, set in a 1960's Madison Avenue advertising agency. The agency itself is an independent, scrappy type, which has a number of moderately big clients, but does not quite have the juice to run with the big boys. This in itself would endear me to the series, however there's so much more to like and appreciate.

Whether or not the office dynamics are an exaggeration (and, I imagine to an extent, they are), it opens one's eyes to the difference a half century has made in the workplace, and not just the sheer absence of women anywhere other than the steno pool: smoking, liquid lunches, workplace affairs, and blatant nepotism were commonplace and accepted. Not so anymore (well, perhaps, except for liquid lunches - I would not know, as I work in the public sector and am barred from participating in such endeavors). It is a fascinating - if, perhaps, theatricized - look at the office environment from another generation.

Too, it is interesting to look at family life. Were successful men really so unfaithful to their wives? Looking at 2009, perhaps this is not so difficult to swallow, as that hasn't changed much. I think, though, it is difficult to picture our grandfathers so cavalierly cheating on our grandmothers. We idolize "the Greatest Generation," and in many respects this is deserved. However, some aspects of human nature are timeless - the only difference between then and now is that women no longer are in a position where they have to tolerate this treatment. The reason half of all marriages fail in 2009 is not because couples live together before marriage, or people enter into the commitment too lightly, but because women - whether they are the cheater or the scorned - are not ostracized from society in the way they were in 1960, nor are they as dependent on their husbands to provide for them, and they don't have to suffer in an unhappy marriage. And Don Draper, though he does truly care for his wife, is in an unhappy marriage.

Michael Weiner, though making quite a few caricatures of the men, has created the women with surprising depth, which is one of the things I like best about the series. There is the female lead, Peggy Olsen, played by Elisabeth Moss (you'll remember her as Zoey Bartlett from The West Wing), who is my favorite character in the show. She is somewhat quiet and reserved - not because it is her personality, per se, but more because she has been nurtured to believe she should be. She is kindhearted and intelligent, and despite the rampant sexism has managed to climb the ladder of success, by slowly chipping away at the glass ceiling, as opposed to trying to smash into it like some of her counterparts. There is Joan Holloway, who, as the office manager, uses her sexuality to her advantage, and is threatened by any woman who she views as competition - either sexually OR professionally. She clearly cannot stand Peggy, though is saccharine to her on the surface. Their dynamic reminds me very much of the dynamic I had with a coworker in my first job out of college, and perhaps that's why I like Peggy so much (and, conversely, want to slap Joan in the face).

Then, of course, there is Betty Draper, the quintessential housewife. She is depressed, as she knows her husband is unfaithful (though, she does not want to know), and though he cares for her, he does not love her or view her as an equal. I do not know if this was a common dynamic between successful men and their wives in the 1960s, but it is nevertheless fascinating to watch. Betty does much of what she does because she is "supposed" to. She lives in the suburbs, because she is "supposed" to. She married well, because she was "supposed" to. She had children, because she was "supposed" to. However, none of these things make her happy, and it is clear she longs for the days of living in Manhattan, working as a model. There is a scene where she and Don are out to dinner for Valentine's day, and she runs into an old friend from her modeling days. The friend is a call girl, and while she laughs it off and speaks of how "lucky" she is to not have that life, you can see from her face that she's a bit jealous of her friend - not in a a mean spirited way, or even an conscious way, but more of a subconscious longing for something other than what she has, which is the contributing factor to her Generalized Anxiety Disorder.

Then, of course, is Don's string of mistresses. They are all very different in so many ways, but all have one very important characteristic in common - they are strong, intelligent women. There is the Greenwich Village artist, who is a beatnik hippie; the daughter of a Jewish department store mogul; and the wife of a comedian with whom she has an open, all-business marriage (she is his agent more than she is his wife). All of them, while not necessarily against marriage, have a much more cavalier attitude toward it - they do not see it as something necessary, as they can provide for themselves, but they do crave companionship. They like Don, because, despite seeming somewhat chauvenist on the surface (no doubt because of societal expectations more than anything else), he respects their confidence and intelligence and treats them as equals. He could not see himself marrying any of these women, not because he would not want to, but rather because he views marriage as something different. He is a guardian and protector of his wife. He loves her like he would a daughter, or a younger sister, and his interactions with her speak to that, as he often treats her like a child (which she seems to like and, in fact, crave). He does not treat these other women that way. He KNOWS it is wrong, and you can see often he feels guilt for his actions, but he is not sure, exactly, what he is supposed to do about it.

It is because of this, in part, Peggy finds an unlikely mentor in Don. He treats her, too, in a daughterly fashion. She is somewhat of a combination of his wife and these women he lusts for - independent, intelligent, but also sweet and naive. When she refers to him as "Don" for the first time (as opposed to "Mr. Draper", in an assertion that she is now his peer, not his secretary), he seems taken aback initially, but pleased once he settles into the idea. It seems, too, that while in some ways her colleagues do not view her as an equal, when she demands it in a non-shrewish way (for example, by showing up at a "meeting" at a burlesque show dressed sexily - but tastefully - in a jovial manner), they accept it and even embrace it.

In a sense, it is showing an evolution of the times - the women who want and embrace the housewife role, and are resentful of women who are standing aside from it; the women who use their sexuality to assert their independence, being somewhat leery at best (and disgusted at worst) by the housewife role; the women who want nothing to do with the conditioned chauvenism rampant throughout, and assert against it in a caustic manner; and then, the women like Peggy, who quietly take the best of all of these roles, and, in an unassuming way, make their paths.

It seems odd, at first, that one might think a show with distinctly chauvenist undertones would have so many feminist themes, but then again, how could it not?

I suggest you start watching this show, which airs at 10pm Sundays on AMC, if not for the feminism aspect, for the fact that it is one of the smartest, well-written shows currently on television.

AP is a waste of your life.

It is no secret, to many who know me, my outright disdain for the Advanced Placement program. It's funny, too, because at one point the College Board's governmental affairs office in Albany offered me a paid internship that I strongly considered taking. I had challenged the director on the AP program, and he liked my perspective, despite his disagreement. I ultimately couldn't take the job, as my conscience would have gotten the better of me.

Anyhow, what has piqued this conversation yet again is an article in the Times Union discussing how The College Board lost a number of AP exams from Colonie High School. As you can see from the article, this sort of careless mismanagement of paper is not uncommon for this company. I've heard horror stories from friends who are guidance counselors that deal with the central offices misplacing various paperwork of students. This, obviously, is more egregious than most cases, but is nonetheless pretty horrific.

Yet, regardless, there are still a number of kids who too - and "passed" - the AP Biology exam. Many of these kids will be granted credit for this at the schools they later attend. Many will also be granted nothing. Because, what they glaze over when registering for these classes - if they even tell you at all - is that many colleges will not accept these credits. What they DON'T tell you is, the colleges that do accept these credits accept them for junk and/or remedial classes that one would not need to take anyway. For example, when I was attending, SUNY Oswego would offer up to 6 credits for AP English - 3 for English 101, 3 for English 102. English 101 was remedial, and was not required for the large majority of students. English 102 was a basic requirement, however if one was accepted into the Honors Program, you were exempted in favor of English 204, the more rigerous version of 102. If one was not accepted into the Honors Program, there was an examination offered at orientation to new students. If you passed, you were exempt from the requirement. Surely anyone who could potentially take AP English would be able to pass this exam. So, you essentially get 6 junk credits. That is, you got 6 junk credits if you got a "5" on the AP exam. If you got a "3" on the exam (regardless of your overall grade in the class), you got nada.

And this is my problem with the program. The College Board has found a way to market this program as this great way for overachievers to "save time" once they get to college by getting rid of gen eds so they're free to take "other classes," or, if they're exceptionally savvy, graduate early. However, a truly savvy overachiever who wants to graduate early can do so without the aid (or, for that matter, the hassle) of AP credits. Parents like it, because they think their kids will save money and time (they won't); administrators like it, because it makes their schools "look good" if they have a lot of AP classes; college admissions offices like it, because it gives them a standardized curriculum in which to rate applicants (much like the SAT program, also run by the College Board - noticing a pattern?); and teachers like it because they can both sound superior by teaching an AP class, while not actually having to develop any curriculum themselves.

I remember being in "honors" classes in high school (that were not AP classes), that were not really any different than the regular "regents" level, except that they were "harder." Not that the curriculum was more challenging, mind you, but that we were simply graded on a different scale, and given more work. Not DIFFERENT work, just more of the same. It was completely inane. It was right around then that AP started to catch on, and they latched onto it with great enthusiasm. Yes, the curriculum was different and more challenging, and there was that canned test that the teachers could model their classes after. Another class where talented students were taught how to take - and pass - exams, but not actually challeged or taught how to think. This is not to say that all teachers are like this - there are plenty of AP classes taught by phenomenal teachers. However, these teachers - and these classes - are not phenomenal because it's AP.

Aren't we doing a disservice to our youth by offering ways for students to "test out" of general liberal arts curriculum? College classes are different from high school classes. I don't want to say they're necessarily harder, particularly at the lower level, but they are different. College professors teach differently than high school teachers. High school is regimented and structured, by design, and to an extent it should be. College classes, though structured to an extent, offer a much different learning atmosphere. This atmosphere is what AP purports to mimic, but it doesn't. They're just high school classes for smart kids that maybe, if you're lucky, a college will award you junk credits for. But you're fooling yourself if you think that you're being given some sort of peek into "the college experience." In truth, it's nothing like any college class you will take, and most professors find the program to be insulting and worthless. Not to mention the fact, perhaps you're doing yourself a disservice by electing to "test out" of these entry level classes. For example, one of the best classes I took in college was a Western Civilization class - one that might have been "covered" had I taken and passed the AP European History test. I had a fantastic professor - Dr. Johanna Moyer, who no longer teaches at Oswego - who encouraged her students to think and present new ideas, and challenged us to challenge her. I remember the class fondly as not being difficult, but being interesting and stimulating. I didn't learn anything new about Western Civilization, but I did learn some of the core skills that I took with me throughout my college career. I easily got an A, but I did so because I wanted to do the work and challenge myself. Good gen ed liberal arts classes will do that to a student, and far too many of the students who will appreciate those classes are being fed a line that AP is the Way to Go, and, indirectly, that liberal arts gen eds are a waste of your life. No, no. In the words of Dr. Moyer, "AP is a waste of your life."