conuly

Until they start squeaking, and then they're the cutest thing you've ever seen! Thank you, Siderea.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBkWhkAZ9ds

Two Cooks and a Cabbage

First you get to see two young girls competently using an open fire to boil half a cabbage each (I should forward this one to Free Range Kids!), and then you get a good piece of advice: Never boil green vegetables in large quantities of water. Truer words were never spoken! As observed, when you do so you only end with tasteless muck and all the vitamins leached away. That goes doubly for brassicas like cabbage and kale. We love kale, but I find nearly every recipe calls for far too much water, even when the writer clearly was trying to aim low! You should have barely enough to cover the bottom of the pot when the pot is full to the brim with kale. Steam it, stir fry it, bake it, eat it raw, but never boil your greens.

(Pokeweed may be the exception to this, but given how much cooking is required to make that safely edible, is it really worth it? I wouldn't know, because I simply assume it is not.)

For decades, the Judge Rotenberg Center in Canton, Massachusetts has been torturing and abusing people with disabilities in the name of treatment. Residents are subject to electric shocks, food deprivation, prolonged restraint and seclusion, and forced witness of these same tactics used against other residents.

This video of Andre McCollins, then-eighteen, who has behavioral and mental health issues, has been sealed by the courts for the last eight years. Yesterday, it played in open court during his trial against the Judge Rotenberg Center.

I haven't watched the video in question. I've heard enough about the JRC that I felt that I didn't need to do so. I would like to keep my food down today. So I'm just going to assume it is triggering and move from there.

N. Korea agrees to suspend uranium enrichment, nuclear tests

Bonobos advertise their same-sex couplings. Apparently.

Filthy Surgical Instruments: The Hidden Threat In America’s Operating Rooms (I have no idea how accurate this one is.)

Little Free Libraries are taking root on lawns

That is SO cool, btw. I want one of my very own! And maybe a few to donate around....

I also have two videos:

One on how Episode 1 could've been made, well, good.

And here's an animation on evolution that's really very nifty.

Fun and Play Are Key to Survival for Bears, Dogs, Humans, Birds and Maybe Even Ants

New Playgrounds Are Safe—and That's Why Nobody Uses The

I've said it before and I'll say it again: playgrounds are designed differently than they were when we were young, and some of that is safety but a lot of it is a totally different idea of how the space should be used. Everybody always mentions "No more seesaws!" as their big bugaboo, but I'm not convinced that seesaws are less common simply for safety reasons. Rather, I suspect they're less common because they take up a lot of space, can really only be used in one or two ways (which don't as easily lend themselves to imaginative play as some newer concepts do, although kids always find a way), and can only be used by a very few children at a time. Safety is probably part of it, but I doubt it's all of it. (Of course, that doesn't mean that boring, uninspiring but "safe" playgrounds using older concepts of isolated structures don't exist. Of course they do. But there were boring playgrounds 50 years ago as well. And the children walked uphill in the snow both ways to play there, in the boring playgrounds, and they liked them anyway, right?)

And finally, a nice long clip about an outdoor "kindergarten" (in the more European sense of "preschool through age 5" rather than in the more American sense of "five year olds' class") in Norway. Many of the comments are in reply to some inane woman who is just terrified at seeing a knife in a 5 year old's hand or watching a small child light a match with guidance and a grown-up right there supervising.

"What could have happened!" Well, I suppose the match could have dropped into the child's clothing and he'd've had to stop drop and roll, as we tell them in America. But nothing did happen, and it's far better to teach a child how to light a fire safely than to risk that they'll get into the matches one day and NOT light a fire safely. "It's so scary seeing a five year old holding a knife!" It's so scary seeing a five year old who is unable to cut her own food at lunchtime. Hell, Ana went to open a can of tuna the other day and, as she didn't immediately see the can opener, hacked at it with a very dull kitchen knife (thank god, because when I heard this I panicked that she'd ruined one of my newly-bought ceramic ones!) until it was open. No, I'm not joking. It was a little frightening to see the can carnage after the fact. (She's very self-sufficient. Of course, she could've saved a lot of effort by simply asking where we'd put the can opener....)

(Also, yes, I know that for most cutting needs sharp knives are much safer than dull ones. I sometimes see people online saying they let their small children cut things "with butter knives". Please don't do this. If your child is old enough to cut anything harder than play-dough, give them a real knife. They're less likely to cut themselves, and if they DO cut themselves they'll do a lot less damage. Trust me. As a clumsy person, I know!

One on a dog who jumped between his owner* and her abusive boyfriend. They both got tossed out a window. The women's shelter didn't accept pets, but when she said she couldn't go without her dog, they not only made an exception but decided to add a whole new wing for pet owners, on the grounds that many women stay in abusive relationships rather than leave their beloved pets with their abuser.

*I've noticed, when buying cat food and watching the occasional TV episode live, that more and more companies are referring to people as "pet parents". If it helps them sell their product, more power to them, but I, for one, refuse. I think it just sounds silly, and the alliteration doesn't help in this case. Are people really that averse to saying they own a cat or dog or ferret or hamster or fish?

Here's an article about the tiniest frog - nay, the tiniest vertebrate - yet discovered. I'm sure it's a good article, but I didn't read it. I was too busy cooing over the picture of the frog perched on a dime, with ample room to spare.

And here's an article with a video of a sledding crow. In the comments are links to more videos of corvids playing around.

One of the comments just bugs me. The guy says that obviously the crow was trying to get food, and obviously, since crows are crows, it's not sledding, and obviously anybody saying it IS doing such a thing is anthropomorphizing with no good reason.

Now, it's possible that the crow is trying to get food. It's also possible that the crow started out trying to get food, and then through serendipity realized that this was a lot of fun. Whee! I don't know, I'm not a crow and I'm certainly not this crow.

No, what bugs me is not the accusation that we're foolishly putting a human perspective on animal's actions, but the assumption that since anthropomorphizing can lead to stunningly wrong conclusions, this means that animals are unlikely to have the same motivations as humans once you move past the basics.

Clearly, saying "Well, if I did that for this reason, it's likely that this random cat/crow/cricket is doing a similar thing for the same reason" is flawed and illogical reasoning, but can "If I did that, it would be for fun, but this is a cat/crow/cricket and obviously it must have another, less human reason for its actions" truly be any better? I don't know why crows do what they do. All I know about them is that they are clever animals and can mimic speech. But it's not that far-fetched to believe that once in a while they might do things for the same reasons we do, is it? (Which isn't to say that the crow was necessarily doing this for fun. I really don't know much about crows and am not about to hazard a guess as to this one's motivations here. But I doubt these guys know either. Yes, that includes Mr. "I've kept pet crows". A pet crow, near as I can tell, is like a human raised by wolves. They may still be clever and friendly, they may be able to survive, but I wouldn't look to them as a guideline for normal behavior.)

that Arthur just had a show on Asperger's!

George meets a rabbit with Asperger's, and after a few rather pathetic comments about "the piece of the puzzle" the show goes on.

( Read more... )

There's also a "Word From Us Kids" that was edited from that episode, despite it being otherwise complete. You can see that clip at the end of the video here.

Bike trailers, child safety and the media's fear agenda

The title pretty much sums it up.

Here's another one. You'll love this... for a given quality of the word "love", that is. Apparently, Houston has a backlog of sexual assault kits that have never been tested. The city now wants money to deal with them. Great, right? Yeah! Except the police department wants that money not to run through the kits and test them, but to study why they have a backlog.

Oh, and I've heard about this Japanese show about sending small children out on their very first solo errands, but I've never seen a clip of it. This is even slightly subtitled! Of course, the comments suck, but that's to be expected. Is it just me or is there a middle ground somewhere between sending two year olds off to do the grocery shopping and not allowing twelve year olds to stay home alone for half an hour?

I had no idea antcolonies could be so... large! (Or so small, as seen in the end.) This is an excerpt of a longer video.

And fully 1000% more awesome than the next guy... especially when the next guy is a hateful illiterate ass.

'I Love My Hair' Video Inspired By Father's Love of Daughter

Here's the video. I'm watching it and wondering - did Muppets always have tongues and uvulas?

After reading the article, I did something I'm a little ashamed of. I... I read the comments. *blush* And some people - wow, do they ever miss the point! So let's get down to that here.

( Read more... )

But there were other comments as well.

I spent all day trying to find this video!

I would love to tell you what it's about, but you absolutely have to experience it firsthand. It's short!



( Don't read on until you watch the video! )

I'm frantically trying to extricate myself from this mess I've tangled myself up in, but it might take a while.

But, while I'm doing so, I'll link you to this video on African fractals.

So, this person doesn't like the Everyday Math curriculum, nor... some other math series.

And she might have a very good point about that - the nieces' school went off Everyday Math because the teachers said they jumped around too much and it was confusing the kids. This is an opinion I can trust - it makes sense to me, and the people saying it presumably know what they're talking about.

Unfortunately, I can't trust this presenter's opinion. Her argument against these two curricula aren't "Kids find them confusing" or "I don't think they're teaching math" but "They aren't teaching math the way I learned it, and I don't understand how they're teaching it, so it's wrong wrong wrong!" So, of course, she demonstrates these methods... and it's obvious to me that she's clearly taking the slowest, most round-about method of doing this in order to prove her point. But she *doesn't* prove it.

The lattice method? That one that everybody derides as "who invented this"? I'd guess that if you know what you're doing and aren't unfamiliar with it (and no, "parents aren't familiar with other methods" is not a good reason to only do what you've always done) it's just about as fast as the more common method. (And it's not exactly new. A method that's been around since the 13th century CE and that appears in the very first printed arithmetic book? I'd say it has some staying power.) She says that her preferred method of division is "the most efficient" method, but it's only, in my view, more efficient when writing with pencil on paper. If you have to work something out in your head? Reasoning - which she thinks is just wrong wrong wrong - is the way to go, and, indeed, is how I do most of my math... and which is why, unlike most people I know, I never *do* reach for a calculator or a pad of paper if I come across a necessary math problem in the course of my day. (And nobody ever yet has explained to me how you can use long division to divide, say, 31 into 2000. Not without memorizing the 31 times table, that is....)

It may be that these two programs aren't teaching kids well. In fact, I've heard a lot of bad stuff about Everyday Math specifically, so I'm inclined to believe that. But unfortunately, she let the facts lie to the side while she spoke about her opinion that one form of problem solving is superior - so much that the others shouldn't be taught.

I was so annoyed by that detail that when she said what really should have been her shocker - a quote from the Everyday Math teacher's guide stating that of course, calculators are readily accessible (and so not all algorithms for basic arithmetic need to be mastered) - I started wondering why she didn't answer that important question - why IS it necessary to know how to do basic calculation? (Judging from the comments, most people don't know. I read a lot of "People who do this method would fail all their tests!!!" or "How can you show math on a test using that method? You wouldn't get any credit!!!!" or "If you don't learn the right method, how can you compete in college?" or "This is why students in other countries do better than our students" but not once did I see a comment explaining when math comes up in day to day life and it's better to use THIS method over THAT method. I find this much more disturbing than the original comment about calculators!)

And, really, thinking it through, I can think of a few ways to justify the calculator comment anyway. One person in the comments went "Well, math is easy when you strip it of the clutter, all those word problems". But who is better at math? The child who can tell you that 12 x 12 is 144 and that 6 x 12 is 72, but has no idea why he's memorized that or that the numbers exist outside of the book? Or the one who needs to use a calculator but who can work out all the right steps to find out how much paint you need to paint the walls (but not the doors or windows) of a given room? (All while the first child absentmindedly fills the room up with paint!)

Actually, what's even worse than the fact that the commenters didn't seem to know what we use math for is the fact that few of them realized she was selling something. They took her deliberately confused approach to these "alternative techniques" and assumed that meant that nobody can do any form of calculation using them. (I'm doubtful many of them understand why the standard algorithms work, to be honest, but I suspect none of them understands why it matters if they understand or not.)

Here's somebody's reply to it.
And here's part two!

Apparently he's since found a copy of (some of) the books to review, so I'm going to look that up to see what he says. It really irked me watching the first video (the firstest one, the one at the top) she talks about how at the end of the 4th grade curriculum there's a "world tour" project and "Where's the math?" Well, I don't know where the math is, honey, you're the one holding the book, you tell us! Off the top of my head I can think of any number of ways applied mathematics could go into planning a world tour, but without a copy of the book I can't tell you if they did that well or flopped miserably. Her implication, of course, was that connecting math to any other subject (such as geography or social studies) was wrong wrong wrong! because, after all, it's not how SHE was taught. (And maybe there IS no math there, I wouldn't know, but I'm interested in seeing another opinion because that first video was so obnoxious.)

http://queenlyzard.livejournal.com/315109.html

Of course, it works well enough no matter what sort of statement so-and-so made - ablist, sexist, racist - whatever! Very good advice to keep in mind.

Isn't that one of the coolest things you've ever seen? I'd love to run across one of his monsters in the flesh (as it were) one day.

( A Duct Tape Madrigal )

BTW, which do YOU say? Duct tape or duck tape? Surprisingly, the duck tape version apparently came first and duct tape is the eggcorn... or so I've heard, anyway. There's some debate, but I think the duck tape version is funny to say, and it gives me an excuse for one of my favoritest icons.

( Here's a video about people who use a zipline to, among other things, send their young kids to school every day. )

Just... wow.

And here's an article about a forest kindergarten upstate.
It comes with pictures

( Read more... )

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hiQYurSJCQ

Why does everybody with a song to sing or a video to link claim it's for "autism awareness"? I'm sure by now we're all aware of autism. (Or maybe not. This video goes on about kids not being able to talk, but then uses the 1 in 150 stat. If you're using that statistic, most of those kids can talk. This isn't to disparage people who do have difficulty speaking, but I can only hope this person is ignorant because otherwise they're deliberately equivocating here.)

So anyway, at around 3:10 they bring up ye olde autism-cancer comparison. Gosh, I haven't seen that in a while. (YOUR KID IS MORE LIKELY TO BE AUTISTIC THAN TO GET AIDS, CANCER, OR DIABETES!!! TELL YOUR FRIENDS!!!) I gave links to the person who gave this to me to explain *why* the cancer comparison is not a very good one, but I know she'll bounce back and say that since this person didn't explicitly *say* "Yup, autism - it's like a deadly disease!" it's not offensive AT ALL.

Except that with the history and the context (especially in Canada, which is where the money from airing this song on the radio is supposed to go) it is offensive. I mean, if they want a shorthand way to say "this is more common than your worst fears" why not say "Hey, it's something that happens a lot more often than kids getting abducted by strangers"? (Oh wait. We did that. It was offensive.) Well, then, why not say it's something more common than... I don't know, something else that affects less than 1% of the population? (Try googling for just "1 in 150"! Yup, I really think we all are aware of autism by now!)

I almost turned off the video right then and there, but I persevered and - hey, in the end there's a plea to nag your local radio station to air the song! Royalties go to "fight autism".

Well, what does that even *mean*? They don't even tell me WHO the royalties go to! I had to dig around and click around and finally I was able to find out that the royalties are going to... build residential centers. Run by an organization nobody's ever heard of yet, so who knows what's going to happen?

Yeah. I know they have their kids' best interests at heart, but I've heard enough about institutions, no matter how well-conceived, that I think I can firmly say I'll pass.

But you know, here's another link, much niftier. Go check it out!

Try this one.

Very unrelated, but it made me think of this. At the library there are (as near as I can tell, and possibly confusing various job titles) two main children's librarians and a number of random staff, many of whom are teens.

For whatever reason, I am unable to identify which librarian is which until they speak. It's like the whole faceblindness thing, but very selective (and incredibly weird). These two look nothing alike - different heights, weights, hair colors, one wears glasses and the other doesn't! - and they don't act that much alike, and I can tell the difference between them easily, but I can't slot them to their identities until they speak and I can hear their voices. I don't confuse them for anybody else or fail to recognize them entirely (though I place no money on my ability to say hi to them if I were to see them on the bus or something unexpectedly), but for whatever reason they conflate in my mind.

Is that a form of faceblindness, or something altogether different? I don't know. It's amusing, though - it never can be a hassle because any time it comes up I just have to wait for them to open their mouths and I know who I'm dealing with.

(Incidentally, the comments to that YouTube video were really useful for a change. Watch the *whole video* before you read on! ( Read more... )

Here's another video on the same subject. For the record, Trinity Church is on Wall Street and Broadway, just off the 5 train. Pretty church, very historic, you should stop by if you visit the city, just to watch their preschoolers cavorting in the graveyard.

And they say such silly things. If you want your preferred writing style to be taught, try not to defend it with gems like "You need it to sign your name". Not only is that not true, but it's easily avoidable - people could learn cursive just for namesigning and not for anything else! Alternatively, learning to type isn't something that you can't do after a certain age. Unless your kid has serious motor control issues they can probably wait until they're 10 or 15 to do it, they really *don't* need to learn when they're six... although this article is fascinating, I must admit!

When I was in elementary school, the other gifted first grade class learned cursive that year. The rest of us learned in the third grade. I guess they sorta re-learned it? I didn't learn it at all, for various reasons. (A word to the wise? Attempting to bully a child into learning by saying they'll "need to know this next year" and "won't pass if they don't know it" is just not helpful. Especially when it's not true. My seventh grade English teacher should note that by high school (her personal benchmark) all my teachers didn't care and liked stuff typed anyway.)

And then we moved to Staten Island, where I became acquainted with a totally different style of penmanship than the one I'd failed to learn in Brooklyn. I'm not sure if the people using it developed it on their own, or if my school in Brooklyn just taught differently than their schools here, but it was different. No slant, and very round. The general shapes of the letters are the same (I'm having a fun time on Google looking at different examples of cursive script as taught for handwriting in different countries), but they're all round. It's very neat, and it's very careful, and it's a pain in the butt to read because all the letters look alike, like variations on os and as. (Picture that as an Ariel a, thanks.)

I think I could spend all day doing this - but! I just woke up (I had intestinal difficulties and didn't make it to bed until the birds started chirping) and wish to go *do* something today.

If you want, though, I'd appreciate images of your own handwriting (cursive or otherwise) and your handwriting if you were writing for a strict teacher. Just for my own edification. Location, times, etc. are useful.

Oh, also, a random video I found on the subject of overcrowding, from the 50s! It's absolutely fascinating for reasons I can't quite articulate, though surely the fact that "classes in boiler rooms" is a popular (and not altogether non-existent) boogeyman in NYC today helps with that.