She's Got that Glow

For those of us not blessed with caramel colored skin year round, and those of us who would rather die than sit under the tanning bed lights, there is hope for some semblance of tan! Minus the UVA/UVB rays of course.

Jergens has a new Natural Glow moisturizer, in a foam instead of a messy, streaky cream! Showing here. It comes in two formulas for Fair to Medium and Medium to Tan skin tones.

I love this stuff because it dries SUPER fast, and doesn't feel tacky afterward. It's a foam so it's easy to spread and smooth. It doesn't make you look orangey if you use a light hand. Plus, the coloring lasts for several days, even after showers and shaving.  If you make a mistake, a little lotion on the spot moves the color around better and evens things out. It's great stuff, inexpensive, and great for those of us who want a Just-Back-From-Cabo tan without the harmful rays!

You can find it at Target, Walmart, or any drugstore.

... And I Slaved All Day.

My dear friend Mrs. M over at Tiers of Joy blogs about her cooking adventures and recipes all the time. I, on the other hand, detest cooking, and usually write about meals I've eaten, not cooked.

However, I was feeling adventurous today, and decided to... wait for it... COOK! I know, I know, she must be ill or something. But I was feeling particularly domestic because I had spent the morning browsing Target for linens, the afternoon planting impatiens in my garden, and doing laundry. I thought, why the hell not, go cook thyself something instead of having leftover pizza for dinner! (That leftover pizza will be breakfast. I'm not Martha Friggin' Stewart, all right?)

I checked my fridge and freezer contents, finding frozen meat (and not quite enough time to defrost them) and settled my eyes on salmon. I used to hate salmon (too much at Roanoke College, where we ate like Kings, my friends!) but I am gradually growing used to it again. Easy to defrost, salmon was my pick.

Now, we just bought a new grill... and I don't know how to light it or make it work. So grilling was out. I'm not a fan of pan-seared salmon so I decided to poach it. I'd read in my various cooking magazines  (and I am a subscriber of quite a few... don't ask me why. It's not like I actually cook the recipes in them!) that poached fish is quite delicious, so I thought I'd give it a try.

I Googled (thank God for Google, right?) how to poach salmon and found a delicious sounding recipe for poached salmon with a Dijon-dill sauce. I liked the sound of it, and began making preparations. I made my poaching liquid and set about preparing my Dijon-dill sauce, when I realize I don't have heavy cream. No problem, I happen to know that if you mix melted butter with milk (and a tablespoon of flour if you're using non-fat milk like I do) and combine, they become the same basic idea as heavy cream. It's just a thickening agent in my sauce anyway. No fear.

Then I realize I don't have dill, either. Well shit, the piece de resistance. Who the hell doesn't keep dill in their kitchen spice pantry? Me apparently. So I scramble through my spices and discover Parisienne, a nice little blend of chives and dill and other things. Ta Da! I make an executive decision that it will have to do (because hell, I've already made the poaching liquid and the fish is poaching along nicely).

Turns out, my executive last minute decisions were spot on, and the dish was a divine success. Served along side some rice pilaf (don't wet yourself, it was from a box, bless it's little Rice-A-Roni heart) it was a tasty treat.

So congratulations to me.


And now I have to clean up. Shit.

Poachedly yours,
Nay

Here is the recipe I used:
Poached Salmon with Dijon-Dill Sauce from cooks.com

A Tome on Why the Virginia SOL's Don't Suck

I tell people that I'm a teacher, and usually the first thing they ask me is "Wow, don't you hate the SOLs?"
Sometimes the first thing they ask me is "Wow, how do you not hate kids after that?", but that is another blog post altogether.

My answer to the first question is usually a resounding "NO!!" And it really irritates me how people who are not in the education field (and some who are) think that the SOLs suck. People, THEY DON'T. And here's why.

1. The SOLs are a standard. They are designed to make life easier by saying "here, this is the skill/idea/concept you should teach at some point in your academic year." That is all they say.
2. NOWHERE in the SOLs is it written "Thou must teacheth this way...." Nowhere. Period. It doesn't say it. So anyone who says they can't be creative because of the SOLs isn't doing it correctly. Either that or they were trying to teach underwater basketweaving and that got nixed by their administration because it's not an SOL. Friends, teaching to the SOL standards is not a bad thing. It means you are aligning your instruction to what the state says the kids must know, understand and be able to do. It doesn't say anywhere in the SOLs that you can't supplement with interesting information or concepts. That's ok too.
3. To reiterate, teaching to the SOL standards is a good thing. Teaching to SOL test is not. But teaching to ANY test is not the way to teach. Good teachers know this. Mediocre teachers think it's the easy way out. DO NOT BE THAT TEACHER.
4. The SOLs leave plenty of room for creativity. If you feel stiffled, it's not the SOLs, it's your districts pacing guide. And the VA Dept of Ed. has NOTHING to do with your county's pacing guide.
5. Using the SOLs as a jumping-off point is a great way to start. Think of them as the backbone of your teaching. Everything else can be muscle and tissue. That's what makes the body have form anyway. And that's what makes your instruction have form- the extras. They are important too. Align them with the standards, and you're golden.
6. Bottom line, the state REQUIRES that you teach them. Why bitch about it? They aren't going to go away. Yes, they change. Change is good. Embrace it. Think of it as an opportunity to start fresh.

Friends, this doesn't mean that I think the SOLs are the be-all-end-all. I don't. They are standards, they are imperfect and flawed. Guess what. So are teachers. You work around the flaws, you teach the big ideas and you align the standards in ways that suit you and your students. That's what good teachers do.
Yes, it's hard work. And yes, it might interrupt your Glee or American Idol time. Guess what. Deal with it. You signed a contract. Now give those kids the best that you can. The standards will be there to back you up.

And no. They don't suck.


Standardly yours,
Nay

The Return of Our 90's Childhood!!

Interesting developments on the book front: They are re-releasing one of my favorite book series: The Babysitters Club!!

Gosh, when I was growing up, I read every single one of those books, some of them over and over. My faves were the books about Claudia and Dawn. I didn't care for Mary Anne much (too goody-goody) and Kristy was pretty bossy and too into sports (which I'm most definitely NOT). But I loved the books anyway, and was always trying to start new "clubs" of my own, though not babysitting clubs.

The Washington Post put out an interesting article about the re-release, showing here. Apparently, the new books are updated to include more modern societal references and technological advances- read: no more Walkmans or VCRs. While I understand that the publishers felt it was necessary to modernize the BSC to suit their more modern audience, the question remains: will these still be the same BSC girls we know and love?

The answer, in my opinion, will be a resounding "yes"! Here's why:

• we are living in a material world and I am a material girl. No joke, it might be awkward to read about Stacy and Claudia listening to a "boom box" or riding to school with their "Walkman". References to iPods or Claudia's new Uggs/Sketchers/insert-popular-shoe-brand-here will make us more comfortable, and won't be a jog back into reality- our current reality will be in-text.
• Updating some content will be refreshing because girls today are MUCH different than girls were in the late 80's and 90's when these books had their (first) heyday.
• In order for a story to be believeable, you have to believe that the story could actually happen- thus the genre "realistic fiction". Keep the books the same as before and you have "historical fiction". Publishers are looking to SELL books, not have old readers experience nostalgia. That's not why they are re-releasing the books.
• The girls are the same girls we love: Kristy, Claudia, Dawn, Stacy, and Mary Anne. They're still the Baby-Sitters Club, and they are still the same. Just had some work done, that's all.

Bottom line?

I'll buy the whole set when it comes out, prequel and all. I loved the books then, and I know I'll love them now. And as a teacher, I know that my students will enjoy the stories because they are easy to read and easy to relate to. And as my students head into middle school, reading something that touts middle school as a fun experience, not a traumatic one that society seems to paint, will ease their minds and give them something to look forward to.

Granted, middle school in America these days is a nightmare. But why scare the kids so early?

Nostalgically yours,

Nay

Getting More Ink Done

In keeping with the family (ok namely my sister's) tradition, I have decided to get another tattoo, and one to match the Shel Silverstein "Giving Tree" one she got. Here's what I am thinking:

On my right shoulder blade, minus the title and author information, just the image with the giraffe facing to the right the way it is in the picture.

Here's why:

Shelley and I grew up reading Shel Silverstein stuff. "The Giving Tree" and "A Giraffe and a Half" were two of our favorites. I've always loved the story and I thought it would be a poignant tribute to our childhood.

Thoughts?


Inkedly yours,
Nay