My New Job

Last month, I stopped working at The Library and am now working at The School. I made the switch for cash money reasons, since I was working at the library part-time without benefits, but I don't begrudge the decision on professional-fulfillment grounds, because I think it's going pretty well.

I'm a special education assistant at an elementary school. Specifically, I help this little bro who is in the fourth grade and has autism. He's extremely interesting, fitting stereotypes about autism in some ways and not at all in others. I don't want to talk about him too much on the internet (although I'll probably answer questions if you have them in the comments), but I will say that he's almost nonverbal, meaning that there are some ways that I draw on my past experience of babycare to work with him; at the same time, there's plenty he can do and understand. (And he is just as physically able as any of his classmates.) We're working on fundamentals of math and reading, and he's learned a noticeable amount in both areas just since I started working with him. Needless to say, that's really awesome.

I also work some with the other kids in my lad's class, either generally trying to help when he's with the group, or during a segment in the middle of the day where the special ed teacher works with my lad. And I have to say, it's so much more challenging to work with the big groups of "regular" kids. Fourth graders, man, they don't like to sit still, much less sit still and learn stuff. Not that I don't enjoy it. I help out in the social studies part of the day, and this month they've been working on presidents. You know I've been dropping some presidential trivia knowledge on those kids. Click here to read more . . .

I Have a Question for You

Would you consider James Monroe a Founding Father?

I'm reading this book (The Faiths of the Founding Fathers, which I'll tell you about when I finish) that includes Monroe as a Founding Father along with Franklin, Adams, Washington, Jefferson, and Madison. Those other five guys: no question. But Monroe? It made me figuratively raise an eyebrow. (I lack the ability to literally raise one eyebrow, which causes me no end of sadness.) I asked Neal about this last night, and we decided that a guy can only be a Founding Father if he was in the Continental Congress (and I was thinking specifically of the Second Continental Congress, c 1776) or was at the Constitutional Convention.

(Your definition can, of course, be different. Wikipedia, for instance, lists him under "Other Founders" along with guys I wouldn't contest, like Patrick Henry.)

Here's Monroe's deal:

• was 18 years old in July 1776
• fought with distinction in the Continental Army during the Revolutionary War (I can't find anything saying whether he was an officer or not)
• served in the Continental Congress, but not until 1783-86 (Cornwallis's surrender at Yorktown happened in 1781; 1783 saw the signing of the Treaty of Paris and the removal of the last British troops from the US; also, Monroe's stint in the Continental Congress in mentioned on Wikipedia, but not on his official White House biography page; finally, according to a different Wikipedia page, by '83 it was technically the Confederation Congress anyway)
• was not part of the Constitutional Convention; was part of the Virginia Ratifying Convention that ratified the Constitution for that state (I can't find whether he voted for the Constitution or not--he was an anti-Federalist, so I'd guess he didn't. Not that being an anti-Federalist disqualifies a guy, but just so you know.)
• fifth President of the United States and hey, five is a pretty low number

So, what do you think? James Monroe = Founding Father, yea or nay? Click here to read more . . .

Maybe Millard Would Win in a Fistfight

I just read this story about a bunch of Abraham Lincoln's letter that are going to be auctioned next month. The writer thought (as you can tell by her putting it first, natch) the most compelling part of the story was Lincoln's reply to a group of boys and girls in Massachusetts who petitioned him to free the "little slave children." That is precious but, I would say, not as awesome as this:

An 1862 letter from former President Millard Fillmore excoriates Lincoln for expanding his war powers, calling him a "tyrant" who "makes my blood boil."

It's not that I don't know what Fillmore was referring to (suspension of habeas corpus, etc.) But still. The idea of Millard Fillmore reprimanding Abraham Lincoln on his skills of a president is hilarious. Lincoln should have been all, "Yeah . . . let's talk about that later. You know, as soon as your major accomplishments aren't A: having been the only major (yet still unsuccessful) presidential candidate fielded by the Know Nothing Party (the Know Nothing Party!) and B: being the archetypal Totally Boring, Indistinguishable President. Seriously, dude. Come on."

Now THAT is a letter I would buy. Click here to read more . . .

Let Me Tell You about Snood

I don't mean to brag, but I can waste time with the best of them. And perhaps no single activity, besides of course my good friend television, has been to helpful to me in the pure wasting of time (that is, time which is by no accounts productive--it does not include, for example, doing the dishes when you ought to be doing homework or doing something rewarding like talking on the phone to friends or reading for pleasure) than Snood.

When you want to do something completely mindless, Snood is a great candidate. It requires less thought than computer card games and is brighter and more cheerful than Minesweeper. It's the whole package.

You see, you have this board full of Snoods

And you try to clear them all away by shooting like-colored Snoods at them, like so:

You can download Snood for yourselves if you want to, but--as much mindless joy-like emotion as I personally derive from it--I don't recommend it. First of all, there is the addictiveness that I have alluded to, and then of course there's the fact that it isn't free. Oh, of course, it's free to begin with, but like all good drug dealers, the Snood guys make you pay after you've played so many rounds. Sad to say, I did go ahead and get the deluxe version. . . . I had to see the cool features.

You see, with the super deluxe non-free version, you don't have to use those regular Snood shapes if you don't want to. They have others, like dinosaurs and presidents. (You know without me telling you that it was the promise of presidential Snoods that lured me in, don't you?) But frankly, they're lame. The dinosaurs looks stupid, and the presidents are all in shades of tan, making it well nigh impossible to see what you're doing. But.

You can make your own Snoods.

Yes, that's right, I made British monarch Snoods.

There are two of each because the Snoods kind of blink and move, so we have:

Charles II, regular/winking at some fine ladies

Charles I, not decapitated/decapitated

Henry VII, glaring/smiling with pound signs for eyes

Henry VIII, pious and grumpy/heathen and happy

Elizabeth I, benevolent/yelling

Richard III, regular Joe/crazy evil hunchback

James I, with/without kicky feather in his cap

and, in place of skulls in the original set, the ghosts of the Princes in the Tower.

Man, I'm a nerd.

Click here to read more . . .

Today's Story of Disappointment (Currency Edition)

Well, I dropped in at the bank today--thought I'd get me a little cash and maybe one of those presidential dollars. Or two. I mean, if I'm going to get some John Adams dollars (and I am), I might as well get a Washington, just in case I feel like having the complete set.

However.

I ask the cashier, "Do you have any of those George Washington dollars?"

"No," he says. "The government made a big deal about releasing them, but then they didn't give us a way to order any."

I expressed my disappointment, and he commiserated. Apparently, none of the branches of my bank have any clue as to how to get any of the new coins, nor do they have any idea of when they might get some idea.

I think the cashier put it well: "Good one, government." Click here to read more . . .

Exciting Development in the World of Numismatics!

(I will admit that I had to look up the word "numismatics" on wikipedia.)

Today, the US Mint unveiled their newest coin, a dollar that features George Washington.

Yes, what I said when I first saw a headline to that effect was, "Uh, he's on the quarter. Duh."

But not so fast!

A la state quarters, these babies are going to feature each president in the order they served in office. It's as if I were working at the US Mint! I love the presidents in order!

Here are my favorite aspects about this plan:

1. John Adams Dollar!

2. Two Grover Cleveland dollars, one for each non-consecutive term! (I hope the picture is different on each one, though. Not like in that presidential knives set, where there were two identical Grover Cleveland knives. I mean, really, who needs two identical Grover Cleveland knives?)

3. I do enjoy my state quarters. There's just something satisfying about having them all in my little book, as a set.

These are the things about which, however, I am skeptical:

1. It's a good idea to try something new to get a dollar coin to work, but I don't know if even this is sufficient. As the article I linked to above says, for most governments successfully introduce a higher-value coin, the paper version of the same denomination has to get phased out. That is still not a step the US government wants to take.

2. Since people don't use dollar coins, how am I supposed to get dollar coins? Am I going to have to go to the bank and get a whole roll every time a new president comes out? I mean, clearly I'm willing to do that for John Adams, but James Monroe? The same enthusiasm just isn't there.

In short, I am enthusiastic about this development, but doubtful that we're ever actually going to see the highly anticipated Rutherford B. Hayes dollar.

EDIT: I've done a little more research on this and, quite unfortunately, it turns out that the portraits are . . . awful.

I mean, is it just me, or does John Adams look like he has a terrible little French-type mustache? And James Madison kind of resemble an angry donkey hand-puppet? Washington is definitely angry; Jefferson merely has bad bangs.

Concept? Great. Execution? . . . Questionable.

Click here to read more . . .

My Mind is Completely Boggled Right Now.

So my roommate brings me her laptop and says, "This is what your baby is going to be like." And then showed me this video on YouTube. Click here to read more . . .

Ridiculous Boyfriend Spotlight On . . .

John Adams!

But first, some explanation about the Ridiculous Boyfriend Spotlight. Each week, I will bring information to you about someone ludicrous that I have a crush on. It will be ludicrous because said person and I are in different places, different times, or different planes of reality. There are three basic categories:

1. Celebrities

2. Fictional characters

3. Historical figures

As you may have noticed, the very first Ridiculous Boyfriend hails from category 3, subcategory: American presidents. Now, John Adams--let's be real, here--didn't really do that much earth-shattering while he was president. I'll admit that. I'll also cop to his responsibility for the Alien and Sedition Acts. (In his defense, though . . . Abigail wasn't there to tell him what a dumb idea that was.) Once you get past that, though, and especially if you look at his pre-presidentin' (and pre-vice-presidentin') record, John Adams was totally awesome!

Short version: wrote the Massachusetts constitution, the oldest still-used written constitution in the world and the blueprint for much of the US Constitution; was on the Declaration of Independence committee (and, according to his version of the story, got Jefferson to write it); nominated George Washington to lead the Continental Army; was integral in getting the Treaty of Paris signed; single-handedly secured important loans and official governmental recognition from the Netherlands (which was the first place to recognize the US as a nation); acted as the defense lawyer for the British soldiers in the Boston Massacre, because no one else would and he believed everybody deserved justice; was the first ambassador to Britain.

Plus, he and Abigail could not have been ANY cuter a couple. (If there's one thing I look for in my historical crushes, it's . . . ok, it's unbending principles or determination or an efficient wielding of vast amounts of power. But if there are four, then the next one is the adorable doting on of the wife. It shows an underlying squishy cuteness.)

As John Adams himself claimed, he was kind of an obnoxious guy. Also vain and arrogant, but underneath it all was insecurity and a longing to do the right thing. As Thomas Jefferson told James Madison (I say as if I know, like James was all, "Hey, Rachel, did you hear what Tom said about Adams? Dude."): "He is vain, irritable, and a bad calculator of the force and probable effect of the motives which govern men. This is all the ill which can possibly be said of him. He is as disinterested as the Being who made him. He is profound in his views and accurate in his judgment, except where knowledge of the world is necessary to form a judgment. He is so amiable that I pronounce you will love him, if ever you become acquainted with him. He would be, as he was, a great man in Congress."

My John Adams love is often spurred on by watching my fav-o-rite movie, since William Daniels did a very accurate (and foxy) job of portraying John Adams on stage and screen in 1776. Do I love 1776 so much because of my undying affection for John Adams, or do I love John Adams so much because of my undying affection for 1776?

Actually, that's a really easy question. Undying affection for John Adams, hands down.

Woo!

Click here to read more . . .