Sirens of Stirling at a Renaissance Faire:
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Favorite Resources on Fantasy Reading
(Credenda Agenda has an article about the value of reading fairy tales called Imaginative Succession by Douglas Jones. You can look for that article from their homepage or try here http://www.credenda.org/issues/13-2poetics.php)
Northrup Frye, The Educated Imagination
G.K. Chesterton's book Orthodoxy Chapter 4 - read online.
Tending the Heart of Virtue: How Classic Stories Awaken a Child's Moral Imagination by Vigen Guroian
Northrup Frye, The Educated Imagination
G.K. Chesterton's book Orthodoxy Chapter 4 - read online.
Tending the Heart of Virtue: How Classic Stories Awaken a Child's Moral Imagination by Vigen Guroian
A Few Links
Lisa Jackson, head of the EPA, doesn't seem to know what free enterprise means.
In the jaw-dropping, is this for real, tell me it isn't so department, blogger says Texas legislature is introducing a bill reducing the penalty for murdering a child under 2 years of age:
Chrysler to file for bankruptcy.
Hans Rosling- 20 minutes or so of riveting, entertaining presentation debunks nearly everything you thought you knew about the third world. Basically, what we think we know is from the 70s.
In the jaw-dropping, is this for real, tell me it isn't so department, blogger says Texas legislature is introducing a bill reducing the penalty for murdering a child under 2 years of age:
This bill, HB 3318, reduces the crime of murder against a child the age of 0-12 months, to only a state jail felony, with a maximum of 2 years and a minimum of 180 days. So the mom that murdered her child could be set free with only six months time served.
Chrysler to file for bankruptcy.
Hans Rosling- 20 minutes or so of riveting, entertaining presentation debunks nearly everything you thought you knew about the third world. Basically, what we think we know is from the 70s.
Swine Flu Perspective
To keep this in perspective, though, every flu outbreak causes deaths, even in the US. The CDC told the media yesterday that 36,000 people die in the US each year from flu-related illnesses. I had no idea that number was so high. To put it in perspective, the CDC’s 2001 statistics showed 10,800 deaths from alcohol-related traffic accidents — and almost 6,000 alcohol-related homicides.
Via Hotair
The Headmaster is sick, very sick. The Boy was sick for ten days straight. Strider is feeling awful. The HG isn't feeling so hot. And all the common sense in the world isn't going to stop me from worrying some about my two girls in New Mexico right now.
How do you tell which version you have? Swine flu or regular flu?
What are the signs and symptoms of swine flu in people?
The symptoms of swine flu in people are similar to the symptoms of regular human flu and include fever, cough, sore throat, body aches, headache, chills and fatigue. Some people have reported diarrhea and vomiting associated with swine flu. In the past, severe illness (pneumonia and respiratory failure) and deaths have been reported with swine flu infection in people. Like seasonal flu, swine flu may cause a worsening of underlying chronic medical conditions.
That doesn't seem to be much help.
Why We Didn't "Cry it Out" with Ours
We thought it was important that babies should have their needs met, and we recognized the need for companionship, touch, and comfort as legitimate needs. Equally importantly, we realized that a baby's ability to communicate that he is not satisfied with the status quo is fairly limited. Crying is not being 'spoiled,' 'demanding,' or 'selfish' when you are totally dependent on the adults around you for your every need and you haven't learned to speak yet.
So we didn't let our babies fuss, and we did pick them up when they cried, unless it couldn't be avoided. These are the sorts of things I mean by 'couldn't be avoided:'
In a moving vehicle where there was no place to pull over.
If the baby started crying and I was in the shower, I hastily finished my shower, dried off, got dressed, and then got the baby.
If I was in the middle of something that simply could not be dropped instantly- say, making mayonnaise, or working with raw meat.
Otherwise, I dropped what I was doing and took care of the baby. This means my house wasn't as clean as somebody else's, and that it took me longer to unload the car after a trip sometimes, or that I got dressed one-handed while holding the baby with the other. I realize this seems silly to some people, but it was the way that worked for us.
So we didn't let our babies fuss, and we did pick them up when they cried, unless it couldn't be avoided. These are the sorts of things I mean by 'couldn't be avoided:'
In a moving vehicle where there was no place to pull over.
If the baby started crying and I was in the shower, I hastily finished my shower, dried off, got dressed, and then got the baby.
If I was in the middle of something that simply could not be dropped instantly- say, making mayonnaise, or working with raw meat.
Otherwise, I dropped what I was doing and took care of the baby. This means my house wasn't as clean as somebody else's, and that it took me longer to unload the car after a trip sometimes, or that I got dressed one-handed while holding the baby with the other. I realize this seems silly to some people, but it was the way that worked for us.
ON China
There is an excellent article here, two pages of hard, tragic reading. Actually, the first page is about China, and a specific family there. The second page expands to communism in general.
Goodwill Outlet
We visited two Goodwill outfits yesterday. It was pretty overwhelming, and also amazing. You pay 1.39 a pound for all the clothes, toys, and housewares you buy if you buy 25 pounds or less. Get over 25 pounds and it's .59 a pound.
At the first Goodwill, I didn't have 25 pounds worth, and the older couple in line ahead of me asked the cashier to put my things with theirs so that I got the cheaper price, and she did, so I did, and it was pretty amazing.
Another older couple saw the Boy drooling over a bike, and they bought it for him. They insisted, and would not take 'no' for an answer- finally bowling over any objection I had by saying, "Ma'am, just accept it as an act of Christian kindness." So I did, and it was pretty amazing.
At the next Goodwill Outlet, the Boy scored a ton of legos and bionicles and he's totally stoked. I got fireplace tools for the woodstove that is not hooked up yet, but will be some day, and another small, round plant table, numerous baby blankets and some sweatpants for the burgeoning Equushick.
Oh... speaking of the Equuschick, she had a midwife appointment yesterday, too, and all is well.
Here's a series of phone messages the oldest two girls and I exchanged:
My cell phone rings. It's the HG saying: "Mom? EC had a midwife appointment today, right?
Me: Yes, why?
HG: Because while I was napping she called my cell phone and left a rather cryptic message. She said, "Hey, we found something very exciting today, call me back and I'll tell you about it!" But when I called back, I had to leave a message.
Me: Good-bye.
HG: Huh?
Me: I'm calling her right now and I'll keep calling until she answers. Then I'll call you back to tell you what it was.
We hang up, and I call. No answer. Later, the EC returns my call. The exciting discovery?
EC: We were just driving around the town where the midwife is, and we came across a sign for a 'colored cemetery,' established 1832, and there are post-civil war graves there, too, and I just thought that was a very interesting bit of history the HG would like to know.
And yes, for history buffs, that is quite fascinating and interesting, but you know, I was expecting to hear something like " The midwife heard two heartbeats," or "She moved my due date up three weeks."
At the first Goodwill, I didn't have 25 pounds worth, and the older couple in line ahead of me asked the cashier to put my things with theirs so that I got the cheaper price, and she did, so I did, and it was pretty amazing.
Another older couple saw the Boy drooling over a bike, and they bought it for him. They insisted, and would not take 'no' for an answer- finally bowling over any objection I had by saying, "Ma'am, just accept it as an act of Christian kindness." So I did, and it was pretty amazing.
At the next Goodwill Outlet, the Boy scored a ton of legos and bionicles and he's totally stoked. I got fireplace tools for the woodstove that is not hooked up yet, but will be some day, and another small, round plant table, numerous baby blankets and some sweatpants for the burgeoning Equushick.
Oh... speaking of the Equuschick, she had a midwife appointment yesterday, too, and all is well.
Here's a series of phone messages the oldest two girls and I exchanged:
My cell phone rings. It's the HG saying: "Mom? EC had a midwife appointment today, right?
Me: Yes, why?
HG: Because while I was napping she called my cell phone and left a rather cryptic message. She said, "Hey, we found something very exciting today, call me back and I'll tell you about it!" But when I called back, I had to leave a message.
Me: Good-bye.
HG: Huh?
Me: I'm calling her right now and I'll keep calling until she answers. Then I'll call you back to tell you what it was.
We hang up, and I call. No answer. Later, the EC returns my call. The exciting discovery?
EC: We were just driving around the town where the midwife is, and we came across a sign for a 'colored cemetery,' established 1832, and there are post-civil war graves there, too, and I just thought that was a very interesting bit of history the HG would like to know.
And yes, for history buffs, that is quite fascinating and interesting, but you know, I was expecting to hear something like " The midwife heard two heartbeats," or "She moved my due date up three weeks."
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Still Learning
I've learned -
that you cannot make someone love you. All you can do is be someone who can be loved. The rest is up to them.
I've learned -
that no matter how much I care, some people just don't care back.
I've learned -
that it takes years to build up trust, and only seconds to destroy it.
I've learned -
that it's not what you have in your life but who you have in your life that counts.
I've learned -
that you can get by on charm for about fifteen minutes. After that, you'd better know something.
I've learned -
that you shouldn't compare yourself to the best others can do.
I've learned -
that you can do something in an instant that will give you heartache for life.
I've learned -
that it's taking me a long time to become the person I want to be.
I've learned -
that you should always leave loved ones with loving words. It may be the last time you see them..
I've learned -
that you can keep going long after you can't.
I've learned -
that we are responsible for what we do, no matter how we feel.
I've learned -
that either you control your attitude or it controls you.
I've learned -
that regardless of how hot and steamy a relationship is at first, the passion fades and there had better be something else to take its place.
I've learned -
that heroes are the people who do what has to be done when it needs to be done, regardless of the consequences.
I've learned -
that money is a lousy way of keeping score.
I've learned -
that my best friend and I can do anything or nothing and have the best time.
I've learned -
that sometimes the people you expect to kick you when you're down will be the ones to help you get back up.
I've learned -
that sometimes when I'm angry I have the right to be angry, but that doesn't give me the right to be cruel.
I've learned -
that true friendship continues to grow, even over the longest distance. Same goes for true love.
I've learned -
that just because someone doesn't love you the way you want them to doesn't mean they don't love you with all they have.
I've learned -
that maturity has more to do with what types of experiences you've had and what you've learned from them and less to do with how many birthdays you've celebrated.
I've learned -
that you should never tell a child their dreams are unlikely or outlandish. Few things are more humiliating, and what a tragedy it would be if they believed it.
I've learned -
that your family won't always be there for you. It may seem funny, but people you aren't related to can take care of you and love you and teach you to trust people again. Families aren't biological.
I've learned -
that no matter how good a friend is, they're going to hurt you every once in a while and you must forgive them for that.
I've learned -
that it isn't always enough to be forgiven by others. Sometimes you have to learn to forgive yourself.
I've learned -
that no matter how bad your heart is broken the world doesn't stop for your grief.
I've learned -
that our background and circumstances may have influenced who we are, but we are responsible for who we become.
I've learned -
that just because two people argue, it doesn't mean they don't love each other. And just because they don't argue, it doesn't mean they do.
I've learned -
that we don't have to change friends if we understand that friends change.
I've learned -
that you shouldn't be so eager to find out a secret. It could change your life forever.
I've learned -
that two people can look at the exact same thing and see something totally different.
I've learned -
that no matter how you try to protect your children, they will eventually get hurt and you will hurt in the process.
I've learned -
that your life can be changed in a matter of hours by people who don't even know you.
I've learned -
that even when you think you have no more to give, when a friend cries out to you, you will find the strength to help.
I've learned -
that credentials on the wall do not make you a decent human being.
I've learned -
that the people you care about most in life are taken from you too soon.
I've learned -
that it's hard to determine where to draw the line between being nice and not hurting people's feelings and standing up for what you believe.
Author Unknown
that you cannot make someone love you. All you can do is be someone who can be loved. The rest is up to them.
I've learned -
that no matter how much I care, some people just don't care back.
I've learned -
that it takes years to build up trust, and only seconds to destroy it.
I've learned -
that it's not what you have in your life but who you have in your life that counts.
I've learned -
that you can get by on charm for about fifteen minutes. After that, you'd better know something.
I've learned -
that you shouldn't compare yourself to the best others can do.
I've learned -
that you can do something in an instant that will give you heartache for life.
I've learned -
that it's taking me a long time to become the person I want to be.
I've learned -
that you should always leave loved ones with loving words. It may be the last time you see them..
I've learned -
that you can keep going long after you can't.
I've learned -
that we are responsible for what we do, no matter how we feel.
I've learned -
that either you control your attitude or it controls you.
I've learned -
that regardless of how hot and steamy a relationship is at first, the passion fades and there had better be something else to take its place.
I've learned -
that heroes are the people who do what has to be done when it needs to be done, regardless of the consequences.
I've learned -
that money is a lousy way of keeping score.
I've learned -
that my best friend and I can do anything or nothing and have the best time.
I've learned -
that sometimes the people you expect to kick you when you're down will be the ones to help you get back up.
I've learned -
that sometimes when I'm angry I have the right to be angry, but that doesn't give me the right to be cruel.
I've learned -
that true friendship continues to grow, even over the longest distance. Same goes for true love.
I've learned -
that just because someone doesn't love you the way you want them to doesn't mean they don't love you with all they have.
I've learned -
that maturity has more to do with what types of experiences you've had and what you've learned from them and less to do with how many birthdays you've celebrated.
I've learned -
that you should never tell a child their dreams are unlikely or outlandish. Few things are more humiliating, and what a tragedy it would be if they believed it.
I've learned -
that your family won't always be there for you. It may seem funny, but people you aren't related to can take care of you and love you and teach you to trust people again. Families aren't biological.
I've learned -
that no matter how good a friend is, they're going to hurt you every once in a while and you must forgive them for that.
I've learned -
that it isn't always enough to be forgiven by others. Sometimes you have to learn to forgive yourself.
I've learned -
that no matter how bad your heart is broken the world doesn't stop for your grief.
I've learned -
that our background and circumstances may have influenced who we are, but we are responsible for who we become.
I've learned -
that just because two people argue, it doesn't mean they don't love each other. And just because they don't argue, it doesn't mean they do.
I've learned -
that we don't have to change friends if we understand that friends change.
I've learned -
that you shouldn't be so eager to find out a secret. It could change your life forever.
I've learned -
that two people can look at the exact same thing and see something totally different.
I've learned -
that no matter how you try to protect your children, they will eventually get hurt and you will hurt in the process.
I've learned -
that your life can be changed in a matter of hours by people who don't even know you.
I've learned -
that even when you think you have no more to give, when a friend cries out to you, you will find the strength to help.
I've learned -
that credentials on the wall do not make you a decent human being.
I've learned -
that the people you care about most in life are taken from you too soon.
I've learned -
that it's hard to determine where to draw the line between being nice and not hurting people's feelings and standing up for what you believe.
Author Unknown
On torture
Mark Thompson has a very thoughtful read on the recent release of the torture memos:
[...]
He's not defending torture, just pointing out the context in which these decisions were made.
I’ve had time to give the Bybee memo a good read, and I’ve gotten pretty far into the first Bradbury memo. First, let me say that I think my position on the techniques stated therein has been made pretty clear over the last several years I’ve been blogging. My moral outrage is undiminished.
[...]
I think it’s really difficult to read that memo in April 2009 and conclude that its authorizations are well-reasoned or are accurate depictions of the law of torture. I also think that it would have been really difficult to write that memo in July/August of 2002, knowing that its findings would be applied solely to the single most significant terrorist then in custody, and come to the correct legal conclusion.
He's not defending torture, just pointing out the context in which these decisions were made.
Somebody Explain Gift Giving To the First Couple
Updated to add missing links.
Seriously. They do not get it.
Sidwell Friend's School, where the Obama girls attend, has a benefit auction every year. This is what the Obama's donated:
Sidwell is the school of choice for D.C. politicians' children, and the Democrats just killed a voucher program for it.
Here's another link about their tacky gift giving.
Seriously. They do not get it.
Sidwell Friend's School, where the Obama girls attend, has a benefit auction every year. This is what the Obama's donated:
This past weekend was the Obamas’ first chance to participate in the Sidwell Friends School Dollars for Scholars benefit, and some families who remember the Clintons’ support are disappointed in the Obamas’ first showing.
According to a source with ties to the school, the only items up for bid from the Obamas included a signed copy of the Rolling Stone issue featuring the president and a signed copy of the January Vogue that featured the first lady.
Sidwell is the school of choice for D.C. politicians' children, and the Democrats just killed a voucher program for it.
Here's another link about their tacky gift giving.
Today...
Last night we talked with some friends about going in together to buy some three day old calves from a local dairy farm and raise them for grass-fed beef. This morning they called to say the calves were arriving today.
They are keeping them for the first several weeks while they are bottle fed. Then we hope to have our meadows properly fenced and the watering situation figured out, and they'll come here. As we understand it, it'll take a year and a half to raise them to butchering weight. Two of the calves (five total) will be sold in the fall at an auction for some extra cash.
We've been offered the chance to buy some laying hens (already laying, which is handy), but would have to scramble to get a place ready for them to live.
We'd also like to figure out (but it seems impossible) how to get the Rattery fixed up enough for somebody to actually live in it, but it's in pretty sad shape and we'd need to get it fixed up without spending too much money, so it looks to be a busy summer, for these and other reasons, and we need to figure out how to bring in some extra cash. This has been the subject of some intense prayers on my part the last couple of weeks.
We're taking Pip and Jenny to the airport today- they're flying to New Mexico for a friend's wedding. Yes, I am a wee bit concerned about swine flu, and I'll miss them dreadfully (they'll be gone five days, and they bought their tickets themselves or theyd' not be going).
I'm also hoping to convince the HM to take me to a Goodwill outlet where clothing is sold by the pound.
Strider's car is in the shop, so he wasn't able to come out to visit last night, which is, frankly, a big hole in everybody's lives, and the car in the shop is also a big hole in his budget. The HG's car died a couple of weeks ago, and he had been taking her to school and home again. In a serendipitous series of events, a friend of a friend of the HG's is out of the country for three months and has loaned her car to the friend of the first part, who has loaned it this week to the HG, which couldn't have happened at a more convenient time.
The HG's school stuff is going swimmingly- she doesn't have to take the Portuguese final because her professor is a swell guy. You earn points for assignments and test scores, get enough points and you don't have to take the final, and she was one point short of the cut-off mark- she emailed asking if she could skip the final and just take her current B grade, and he wrote her back saying of course he would give her an A for the class and she could skip the final. She still has one more large paper to do in the class she entered just a couple weeks ago and so had a lot of 'make-up' work to do, but she's gotten A's on her other completed work for that course. In Spanish, she could skip the final and get a C. This is all pretty amazing considering the level of distraction from her studies she's been experiencing, but I think that distraction has been good for her.=)
We had a grand weekend, I think around 10 people came up for the bonfire and stayed the night Friday, plus the 2 and 5 year old we babysat this weekend. Another group came up on Saturday for singing and playing in the creek. About 8 stayed over Saturday night and we drove in to church together. We had our usual delightful company last night. Friday we have another family coming to dinner, and Saturday we're going to a potluck (they call them 'pitch-ins' around here), which should be fun.
Monday it's back to the airport to pick up our ewe lambs- and then we begin again.
Ideas for old house restoration done cheaply would be most welcome.
They are keeping them for the first several weeks while they are bottle fed. Then we hope to have our meadows properly fenced and the watering situation figured out, and they'll come here. As we understand it, it'll take a year and a half to raise them to butchering weight. Two of the calves (five total) will be sold in the fall at an auction for some extra cash.
We've been offered the chance to buy some laying hens (already laying, which is handy), but would have to scramble to get a place ready for them to live.
We'd also like to figure out (but it seems impossible) how to get the Rattery fixed up enough for somebody to actually live in it, but it's in pretty sad shape and we'd need to get it fixed up without spending too much money, so it looks to be a busy summer, for these and other reasons, and we need to figure out how to bring in some extra cash. This has been the subject of some intense prayers on my part the last couple of weeks.
We're taking Pip and Jenny to the airport today- they're flying to New Mexico for a friend's wedding. Yes, I am a wee bit concerned about swine flu, and I'll miss them dreadfully (they'll be gone five days, and they bought their tickets themselves or theyd' not be going).
I'm also hoping to convince the HM to take me to a Goodwill outlet where clothing is sold by the pound.
Strider's car is in the shop, so he wasn't able to come out to visit last night, which is, frankly, a big hole in everybody's lives, and the car in the shop is also a big hole in his budget. The HG's car died a couple of weeks ago, and he had been taking her to school and home again. In a serendipitous series of events, a friend of a friend of the HG's is out of the country for three months and has loaned her car to the friend of the first part, who has loaned it this week to the HG, which couldn't have happened at a more convenient time.
The HG's school stuff is going swimmingly- she doesn't have to take the Portuguese final because her professor is a swell guy. You earn points for assignments and test scores, get enough points and you don't have to take the final, and she was one point short of the cut-off mark- she emailed asking if she could skip the final and just take her current B grade, and he wrote her back saying of course he would give her an A for the class and she could skip the final. She still has one more large paper to do in the class she entered just a couple weeks ago and so had a lot of 'make-up' work to do, but she's gotten A's on her other completed work for that course. In Spanish, she could skip the final and get a C. This is all pretty amazing considering the level of distraction from her studies she's been experiencing, but I think that distraction has been good for her.=)
We had a grand weekend, I think around 10 people came up for the bonfire and stayed the night Friday, plus the 2 and 5 year old we babysat this weekend. Another group came up on Saturday for singing and playing in the creek. About 8 stayed over Saturday night and we drove in to church together. We had our usual delightful company last night. Friday we have another family coming to dinner, and Saturday we're going to a potluck (they call them 'pitch-ins' around here), which should be fun.
Monday it's back to the airport to pick up our ewe lambs- and then we begin again.
Ideas for old house restoration done cheaply would be most welcome.
Government as Zombies
Klaven on how government is like Night of the Living Dead:
[Government] doesn’t start businesses, it doesn’t create wealth, it doesn’t invent anything. It just devours all the stuff that you make. You bar the door against property tax, they come in through a sales tax, you board the windows against income taxes, they reach in through an energy tax.
But surely there are important differences between creatures from the “Night of the Living Dead” and the actions of the U.S. government. Of course there are! In the movie, Klavan observes,
zombies didn’t try to tell their victims being devoured was good for them. They didn’t say: “Let me devour your flesh, it’s patriotic.” Or, “Let me devour your flesh because we all have to make sacrifices.” Or — my favorite — “Let me devour your flesh because I know how to use it better than you do.” Also, when you try to stop the government zombies, when you say “No, zombie, No! Don’t devour my flesh,” they get pissy. “Well, that’s very selfish. You’re being greedy. You’re acting out of self interest.”
Now it always makes me feel really bad when a politician tells me I’m acting out of self-interest because everyone knows that politicians act out of a radiant love for all mankind. Or wait, maybe it’s an insatiable hunger for power! . . .More here
Holding Babies
A year or two shy of two decades ago, when I already had two children, I read Fearfully and Wonderfully Made, and I was particularly moved by a chapter on the importance of touch, on the *need* for babies to experience skin contact. When our first baby was born (1983), I'd decided that there was no good reason to just let her cry if I didn't have to. If it could not be helped, it couldn't be helped, but I saw no reason not to hold a crying baby if I could.
I didn't like her sleeping in another room, I liked her in bed with me. Both of us slept better that way. I tried putting her in another room at first, but I slept badly, snapping awake every time she made a funny noise, and she made multiple funny noises every night. My body wouldn't permit me to go into a deep sleep, so I slept lightlym, intermittently, and very, very badly. When we brought the baby to bed with us I relaxed and was able to get a much deeper and satisfactory sleep, with her nestled in the crook of my arm, safe, warm, happy, and well fed.
Incidentally, studies show babies generally do better sleeping with their mommies. The baby's heartrate is much healthier when sleeping with Mommy than when sleeping alone, and it will adjust itself to match the mother's heartbeat. Isn't that fascinating?
Certain relatives often fussed about this, one in particular. It was a friend who pointed out to me that this relative had not been very attached to her babies, and she took our different parenting style personally. From time to time an older woman would also be critical (not all of them, but it's the criticism that seems to make the most impact with us, isn't it?), implying that housework and weeding were more important tasks than dandling babies. There is certainly some housework that ought not to be neglected, but I don't think the roof will fall down upon your head if you do the windows once a year instead of once a month, or never dust dustboards at all, or vacuum the curtains instead of taking them down, washing, drying, ironing and starching, and then rehang them several times a year.
As a sidenote, I realized at some point that the older ladies (grandmothers, mostly) who were most critical of mothers who spent so much time holding their babies were also the most critical of women who chose natural childbirth (which, 26 years ago in my circles merely meant Lamaze and drug free). Once in a ladies Bible class when the class finished and ladies get chatty, the other women were talking about silly and even a little obscene all this new talk about natural childbirth and sharing all the details of your labor was. I shyly agreed that perhaps sharing in a mixed Bible Class full color detailed photographs of the entire birth and delivery was a tad insensitive, but suggested that still, learning more about the birth process and how the body worked and what happened was a good thing, it was better for women to know and be aware since it was their own bodies and health involved. I found myself on the receiving end of a collective blank stare, and then one woman said, "That's not necessary. It happens just the same whether you know all that stuff or not. IT's the doctor's job anyway. I'm in favor of being knocked completely out."
So, being a young mother, and this being my earliest experience with the reaction of older women to things I thought were an important, natural, and wholesome part of being a woman and mother, I felt a bit defensive about it for several years. Just as, I think, some of those women needed to criticize those parents who chose a different approach than they had used in order to validate their own decisions, I found myself yearning for some sort of validation as well. Then I read Fearfully and Wonderfully Made.
In the chapter on touch, the author explains several studies showing the importance, the need, for babies to experience lots of touching, and then he says,
The rest of that chapter gave me just the small amount of support I needed not to feel defensive anymore about how much we dandled and handled our babies at our house.
We had already long determined never to carry our babies at arm's length in plastic buckets (otherwise called infant car seats). We took our babies out of the car seat when we arrived anywhere, and we touched them, held them, nuzzled them, and filled up their love buckets rather than their plastic buckets. After reading Fearfully and Wonderfully made I didn't actually change anything I did, I just quit feeling like I somehow needed to justify myself to outsiders.
Fearfully and Wonderfully Made is by Dr. Paul Brand with PHilip Yancey. If you click on the link you can read more about it from Amazon. If you purchase it, or click through the link to purchase other items, we at The Common Room will get a few cents through the Amazon Associates program, which is nice, but not an obligation.
It's not really a parenting book, it just had information in that chapter that applied to parenting. It's about Dr. Brand's work with leprosy patients, and his ideas about the design of the human body, the Body of Christ, and the similarities. Queen Shenanay from The Beehive blogged about another part of the book some time ago. You can read her posts here and here.
It is a beautifully written book, with even more lovely spiritual applications.
I didn't like her sleeping in another room, I liked her in bed with me. Both of us slept better that way. I tried putting her in another room at first, but I slept badly, snapping awake every time she made a funny noise, and she made multiple funny noises every night. My body wouldn't permit me to go into a deep sleep, so I slept lightlym, intermittently, and very, very badly. When we brought the baby to bed with us I relaxed and was able to get a much deeper and satisfactory sleep, with her nestled in the crook of my arm, safe, warm, happy, and well fed.
Incidentally, studies show babies generally do better sleeping with their mommies. The baby's heartrate is much healthier when sleeping with Mommy than when sleeping alone, and it will adjust itself to match the mother's heartbeat. Isn't that fascinating?
Certain relatives often fussed about this, one in particular. It was a friend who pointed out to me that this relative had not been very attached to her babies, and she took our different parenting style personally. From time to time an older woman would also be critical (not all of them, but it's the criticism that seems to make the most impact with us, isn't it?), implying that housework and weeding were more important tasks than dandling babies. There is certainly some housework that ought not to be neglected, but I don't think the roof will fall down upon your head if you do the windows once a year instead of once a month, or never dust dustboards at all, or vacuum the curtains instead of taking them down, washing, drying, ironing and starching, and then rehang them several times a year.
As a sidenote, I realized at some point that the older ladies (grandmothers, mostly) who were most critical of mothers who spent so much time holding their babies were also the most critical of women who chose natural childbirth (which, 26 years ago in my circles merely meant Lamaze and drug free). Once in a ladies Bible class when the class finished and ladies get chatty, the other women were talking about silly and even a little obscene all this new talk about natural childbirth and sharing all the details of your labor was. I shyly agreed that perhaps sharing in a mixed Bible Class full color detailed photographs of the entire birth and delivery was a tad insensitive, but suggested that still, learning more about the birth process and how the body worked and what happened was a good thing, it was better for women to know and be aware since it was their own bodies and health involved. I found myself on the receiving end of a collective blank stare, and then one woman said, "That's not necessary. It happens just the same whether you know all that stuff or not. IT's the doctor's job anyway. I'm in favor of being knocked completely out."
So, being a young mother, and this being my earliest experience with the reaction of older women to things I thought were an important, natural, and wholesome part of being a woman and mother, I felt a bit defensive about it for several years. Just as, I think, some of those women needed to criticize those parents who chose a different approach than they had used in order to validate their own decisions, I found myself yearning for some sort of validation as well. Then I read Fearfully and Wonderfully Made.
In the chapter on touch, the author explains several studies showing the importance, the need, for babies to experience lots of touching, and then he says,
"Despite these findings, even today touching is often viewed as an unavoidable part of the more important tasks of feeding and cleaning the baby. Seldom is it considered an essential need in itself without which a baby may never mature....
In general... the higher the social strata, the less parents touch their infants [I disagree with this point, by the way, I think there are a lot of folks low on the social strata who do not recognize infant touch as a need and strongly recommend the 'cry it out' route]... Perhaps we have reached the extreme in America, where
mothers carry their babies at arms' length in plastic carriers and fathers spend an average of thirty seconds per day in tactile contact with their children."
The rest of that chapter gave me just the small amount of support I needed not to feel defensive anymore about how much we dandled and handled our babies at our house.
We had already long determined never to carry our babies at arm's length in plastic buckets (otherwise called infant car seats). We took our babies out of the car seat when we arrived anywhere, and we touched them, held them, nuzzled them, and filled up their love buckets rather than their plastic buckets.
Fearfully and Wonderfully Made is by Dr. Paul Brand with PHilip Yancey. If you click on the link you can read more about it from Amazon. If you purchase it, or click through the link to purchase other items, we at The Common Room will get a few cents through the Amazon Associates program, which is nice, but not an obligation.
It's not really a parenting book, it just had information in that chapter that applied to parenting. It's about Dr. Brand's work with leprosy patients, and his ideas about the design of the human body, the Body of Christ, and the similarities. Queen Shenanay from The Beehive blogged about another part of the book some time ago. You can read her posts here and here.
It is a beautifully written book, with even more lovely spiritual applications.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
A Not Very Brief Intro and a Couple Cheat Date Ideas
The Equuschick often finds the subject of frugality to be rather an insecure one for her at times, and for that reason she is often hesitant to post anything relating to the subject. Either she is nervous that her ideas will not be worthwhile to anyone else, or she feels a bit hypocritical because there are many areas where she knows that she probably spends a great deal more money than other people who are "truly" frugal.
But in the end she has concluded to dismiss her concerns and stick her tongue out at them, because frugality is like most everything else in life. There are principles, but few rules.
The principles are those only of common sense, contentment, and self-sufficiency.
Common sense will tell you that no matter how badly you want something it makes more sense to pay $5 for it at Store A than $8 at Store B. Contentment is all about self-denial, a valuable life-skill. Learn to tell yourself no and be happy anyway. Self-sufficiency should tell you that if you can do it yourself, you should. You are responsible for your own welfare so don't expect your needs to be met by others, especially others who may have more money than you. It is their money. Not yours. You want more money? Earn it with the hands God gave you.
But how those principles are practiced in each individual's life is another matter entirely. One person's treasure is another person's clutter and not everyone's needs are the same.
Food, for instance, is one area where The Equuschick has researched many money-saving ideas and dismissed a few of them. She eats what she needs to eat and if it happens to be more expensive, so be it. Potatoes, rice and beans may be very frugal indeed but The Equuschick can't do it and never bothered trying.
Other people may be more willing than others to invest extra time and effort and save a buck or two in area of life, while to someone else entirely that extra effort and time simply isn't worth it and this is not necessarily an indication of laziness. It can be, but it doesn't always follow. One person's priorities, abilities, and schedule will naturally be different than another person's.
Completely aside from needs and abilities is the question of personal preference. Everyone will have a different emotional need that may be completely incomprehensible to others and at times even look like waste.
The Equuschick, for instance, looks at those who spend money on make-up and clothes and gets a bit bewildered because if The Equuschick spent money on those things, she could not afford her dog. Obviously she must have her dog.
Still others look at The Equuschick and her dog and think "But she could save so much money without that big ol' beast."
Why, of course money could be saved. But to what purpose if you're the cranky, cynical, nervous and unhappy person that The Equuschick would be without a dog?
To still others, the idea of a "cheap date" is something of any oxymoron because a date brings visions of fancy restaurants and elegant champagne. The Equuschick hasn't been to many fancy restaurants, because you're supposed to be dressed up and wearing make-up when you go to a fancy restaurant and you probably shouldn't smell of dog.
But that's the kind of date you like, than by all means use all that money you save by not owning a 100 lb. dog and go out on the town.
But as for The Equuschick and Shasta, their last date was a $3 splurge on ingredients for 'Smores and then they had a bonfire in their backyard.
Even here there is a matter of ability as well as preference, because obviously if you live in an apartment in town you can't have a bonfire in your backyard.
(If you're local you can come over to Muskrat Shores and double-date sometime, though.)
The Equuschick and Shasta also keep an eye out, aided by the DHM, for cheap sales and coupons at fast-food places. Free Arby's sandwich? Pick up two and eat outside if the weather is nice, drive around town and chat if it isn't.
Take walks to the park, or walk around town and window shop.
A date, after all, is simply a special occasion out of the ordinary. It doesn't even have to involve food or leaving the house. Play Scrabble or other board games in bed in the winter.
If you want a truly candlelit dinner, turn of all the lights and skip the music thus saving electricity as well.
And if you're really like The Equuschick and Shasta, just take your dog on a walk together. That's The Equuschick's personal favourite.
But in the end she has concluded to dismiss her concerns and stick her tongue out at them, because frugality is like most everything else in life. There are principles, but few rules.
The principles are those only of common sense, contentment, and self-sufficiency.
Common sense will tell you that no matter how badly you want something it makes more sense to pay $5 for it at Store A than $8 at Store B. Contentment is all about self-denial, a valuable life-skill. Learn to tell yourself no and be happy anyway. Self-sufficiency should tell you that if you can do it yourself, you should. You are responsible for your own welfare so don't expect your needs to be met by others, especially others who may have more money than you. It is their money. Not yours. You want more money? Earn it with the hands God gave you.
But how those principles are practiced in each individual's life is another matter entirely. One person's treasure is another person's clutter and not everyone's needs are the same.
Food, for instance, is one area where The Equuschick has researched many money-saving ideas and dismissed a few of them. She eats what she needs to eat and if it happens to be more expensive, so be it. Potatoes, rice and beans may be very frugal indeed but The Equuschick can't do it and never bothered trying.
Other people may be more willing than others to invest extra time and effort and save a buck or two in area of life, while to someone else entirely that extra effort and time simply isn't worth it and this is not necessarily an indication of laziness. It can be, but it doesn't always follow. One person's priorities, abilities, and schedule will naturally be different than another person's.
Completely aside from needs and abilities is the question of personal preference. Everyone will have a different emotional need that may be completely incomprehensible to others and at times even look like waste.
The Equuschick, for instance, looks at those who spend money on make-up and clothes and gets a bit bewildered because if The Equuschick spent money on those things, she could not afford her dog. Obviously she must have her dog.
Still others look at The Equuschick and her dog and think "But she could save so much money without that big ol' beast."
Why, of course money could be saved. But to what purpose if you're the cranky, cynical, nervous and unhappy person that The Equuschick would be without a dog?
To still others, the idea of a "cheap date" is something of any oxymoron because a date brings visions of fancy restaurants and elegant champagne. The Equuschick hasn't been to many fancy restaurants, because you're supposed to be dressed up and wearing make-up when you go to a fancy restaurant and you probably shouldn't smell of dog.
But that's the kind of date you like, than by all means use all that money you save by not owning a 100 lb. dog and go out on the town.
But as for The Equuschick and Shasta, their last date was a $3 splurge on ingredients for 'Smores and then they had a bonfire in their backyard.
Even here there is a matter of ability as well as preference, because obviously if you live in an apartment in town you can't have a bonfire in your backyard.
(If you're local you can come over to Muskrat Shores and double-date sometime, though.)
The Equuschick and Shasta also keep an eye out, aided by the DHM, for cheap sales and coupons at fast-food places. Free Arby's sandwich? Pick up two and eat outside if the weather is nice, drive around town and chat if it isn't.
Take walks to the park, or walk around town and window shop.
A date, after all, is simply a special occasion out of the ordinary. It doesn't even have to involve food or leaving the house. Play Scrabble or other board games in bed in the winter.
If you want a truly candlelit dinner, turn of all the lights and skip the music thus saving electricity as well.
And if you're really like The Equuschick and Shasta, just take your dog on a walk together. That's The Equuschick's personal favourite.
Gypsy Rover
Another family favorite in the folk song department is The Gypsy Rover, which the HG sang with good results to the quads when she nannied for family friends with a dozen children a couple summers. She was also very excited when even the younger children remembered her and her folk songs from one summer to the next.
The Highwaymen:
The Highwaymen:
How Regulation Works
It's like a mountain climb to a gold mine. There are those who scratch and scramble to get to the top, because there are huge prizes available at the top.
Then, when they get there, they don't want others taking advantage of their trail-blazing or finding their own way to the top to share the wealth. So they create toll roads and barriers, checkpoints, gated entries, strenuous requirements, quotas, and other strict regulations in order to play gate-keeper- to keep the path to the success they've found limited to a select few.
The requirements and regulations they design naturally favor those who are already at the top.
There's nothing particularly insidious, to me, about the desire to narrow the path to the top and limit those who can go where you have gone- to limit, in fact, new entries into the area where you have found success. It's unabashedly self-centered, but that's not surprising or unexpected or particularly ethically problematic. A business represents the interests of the business. Business owners and CEOs can be altruistic and disinterested, but seldom would they pursue a charitable interest that actually harms their business interests, and I don't have a problem with that.
My husband's boss is a good example of this (and so is my husband, who operates as the CEO of the regional collection of stores his boss owns). They are good men who want to do good and not evil to their employees. Recently, for example, when an employee was having problems with his fiancee, my husband went to the store on his own time and with his own money, and bought the couple the movie Fireproof (they called him later to rave about it and thank him). They've hired people with a criminal record just to give them a chance. They have given up their own days off to make it possible for employees to go to their kids' awards ceremonies, or to make up extra sick leave for somebody who needed to be with a family member in the hospital. They have mentored young employees through circumstances where other bosses would have just fired them. The owner's motto is "Do the right thing, and the rest should fall into place."
However, it's a business. It's not a charity. There are limits. If the business doesn't make money, the boss doesn't make money to pay his bills and meet his obligations, and thereby loses his ability to provide those employees with jobs and his partners with income enough for them to justify their continued participation in the business.
What IS insidious, unethical, and deeply problematic to me is when businesses enlist the government in their efforts to block competition, and government is a willing, even eager, cohort. The media, in its ignorance about how the world works, plays the role of useful idiot to this devil's bargain between larger, successful businesses, and politicians who are supposed represent citizens and not favor one business over another.
Then, when they get there, they don't want others taking advantage of their trail-blazing or finding their own way to the top to share the wealth. So they create toll roads and barriers, checkpoints, gated entries, strenuous requirements, quotas, and other strict regulations in order to play gate-keeper- to keep the path to the success they've found limited to a select few.
The requirements and regulations they design naturally favor those who are already at the top.
There's nothing particularly insidious, to me, about the desire to narrow the path to the top and limit those who can go where you have gone- to limit, in fact, new entries into the area where you have found success. It's unabashedly self-centered, but that's not surprising or unexpected or particularly ethically problematic. A business represents the interests of the business. Business owners and CEOs can be altruistic and disinterested, but seldom would they pursue a charitable interest that actually harms their business interests, and I don't have a problem with that.
My husband's boss is a good example of this (and so is my husband, who operates as the CEO of the regional collection of stores his boss owns). They are good men who want to do good and not evil to their employees. Recently, for example, when an employee was having problems with his fiancee, my husband went to the store on his own time and with his own money, and bought the couple the movie Fireproof (they called him later to rave about it and thank him). They've hired people with a criminal record just to give them a chance. They have given up their own days off to make it possible for employees to go to their kids' awards ceremonies, or to make up extra sick leave for somebody who needed to be with a family member in the hospital. They have mentored young employees through circumstances where other bosses would have just fired them. The owner's motto is "Do the right thing, and the rest should fall into place."
However, it's a business. It's not a charity. There are limits. If the business doesn't make money, the boss doesn't make money to pay his bills and meet his obligations, and thereby loses his ability to provide those employees with jobs and his partners with income enough for them to justify their continued participation in the business.
What IS insidious, unethical, and deeply problematic to me is when businesses enlist the government in their efforts to block competition, and government is a willing, even eager, cohort. The media, in its ignorance about how the world works, plays the role of useful idiot to this devil's bargain between larger, successful businesses, and politicians who are supposed represent citizens and not favor one business over another.
Perhaps one of the biggest mainstream business media cliches is the surprising discovery that industry leaders often favor regulation of their industry. Time and again, reporters somehow manage to be surprised that by industry leaders who favor policies that increase the barrier to entry and regulatory costs. It's as if they are completely immune to evidence of the the anti-competivive effects of regulation.
This Administration Thinks It's The Godfather.
I don't know why we're using a term from dictatorships, but as long as we're throwing around calls for a Truth Commission on the OLC memos and CIA interrogation techniques, the one Truth Commission I'd like to see sometime is to look at both how the Bush administration, the Obama administration, and the Federal Reserve pressured banks and other businesses in this economic crisis. The Wall Street Journal had the story of how Harry Lewis, the CEO of Bank of America, testified under oath that both Secretary Henry Paulson and Chairman Ben Bernanke pressured him to go ahead with the Bank of America takeover of Merrill Lynch even though BofA had uncovered information about billions of losses that Merrill Lynch was holding. He wanted to back out of the deal, but was forced to go ahead with the deal. And, even worse, they told him not to publicly disclose to BofA's shareholders the full information on Merrill Lynch.
From Betsy's Page, a must read, although you might want to take some pain-killer and antacids before you start.
Consumer Reports- Ethnocentric, Out of Touch
I saw this yesterday and could hardly bring myself to touch it. They are so locked away in some white, upper middle class, Dink (dual income, no kids) version of reality they do not even know it. They really have nothing to say to me or families like mine (and yeah, I know we're a minority).
Here are things the tight-lipped, out of touch, nervous nellies at Consumer Reports disapprove of:
Co-sleeping:
Until there are safety standards in place for bedside basinettes, the safest place for your baby, they say, is in a crib. Oh, please. This is so very white, upper class American it's not even funny. More babies die in cribs every year than die in their parents beds, snuggled up in their parents arms.
If YOU feel you or your spouse sleep too heavily for your baby to sleep with you, that's one thing. That's a decision for parents to make. ALL of our babies slept with us. It's natural, normal, it's the way it's been done for thousands of years in cultures all over the globe. The crib is fairly recent and quite limited in sphere.
I'm telling you, these nanny types would love to make us submit breastmilk for testing.
Baby Bath Seats: Okay, I didn't use these much either- although as I grew older, one was a welcome relief to my bad back. But CR says you should never use one. Why? Because children have died. Why have they died? Because their parents walked away and left them in the seat in the bath unattended. The bath seat is not what caused those children to die. A parental error (for which those parents suffer more every day of their lives than anybody else can imagine) caused those fatal accidents. But CR thinks we are too stupid to respond well to any sort of publicity informing parents that the chairs are not a substitute for constant supervision.
But the thing that really amazes me is this:
Four babies in five years? One baby per year is a tragedy for that family. I am not seeing the justification for ditching the sling, which is an item used by third world cultures the world over, as well as in many Asian countries. Slings have a proven track record. And thank-you, no, I have never carried a baby of mine at arm's length from me in a plastic bucket, and if I had babies, I sure wouldn't start.
In the book Fearfully and Wonderfully Made, the author notes the wealth of studies indicating that babies desperately need touch, and plenty of it, in order to thrive and survive- where is that in the Consumer Reports world of cold, hard, plastic, easy to clean, easy to measure, easy to quantify? It's nowhere. But the science is sound. Babies do better when they sleep with their parents, when they are held skin to skin, when they are cuddled up in parental arms:
He might have been describing the Consumer's Union approach to parenting.
They also object to crib bumpers and infant positioners, two items that may have some justification, but two out of five is a pretty pathetic track record.
Parenting is about far more than rearing children in a sterilized, hygienic, bubble wrapped microcosm of an OSHA lab. It's about relationships, warmth, love, affection, touch, closeness- and CR is in no position of authority to give anybody parenting advice, which is what this amounts to.
Keep in mind that these people defend the CPSIA as necessary, and we can see how much authority they ought to have in anybody's lives.
It's sad. They once were a useful organization performing a useful public service, but they've become a caricature.
Here are things the tight-lipped, out of touch, nervous nellies at Consumer Reports disapprove of:
Co-sleeping:
Although sleeping with a baby in an adult bed is a common practice among some cultures, it can be dangerous.
Until there are safety standards in place for bedside basinettes, the safest place for your baby, they say, is in a crib. Oh, please. This is so very white, upper class American it's not even funny. More babies die in cribs every year than die in their parents beds, snuggled up in their parents arms.
If YOU feel you or your spouse sleep too heavily for your baby to sleep with you, that's one thing. That's a decision for parents to make. ALL of our babies slept with us. It's natural, normal, it's the way it's been done for thousands of years in cultures all over the globe. The crib is fairly recent and quite limited in sphere.
I'm telling you, these nanny types would love to make us submit breastmilk for testing.
Baby Bath Seats: Okay, I didn't use these much either- although as I grew older, one was a welcome relief to my bad back. But CR says you should never use one. Why? Because children have died. Why have they died? Because their parents walked away and left them in the seat in the bath unattended. The bath seat is not what caused those children to die. A parental error (for which those parents suffer more every day of their lives than anybody else can imagine) caused those fatal accidents. But CR thinks we are too stupid to respond well to any sort of publicity informing parents that the chairs are not a substitute for constant supervision.
But the thing that really amazes me is this:
Sling carriers
Over the past five years, at least four babies died and there have been many reports of serious injury associated with the use of sling-type carriers. The incidents include skull fractures, head injuries, contusions and abrasions. Most occurred when the child fell out of the sling. As slings grow in popularity, so do the number of serious injuries. No safety standards exist for slings. We think you should skip the sling and opt for other types of infant carriers, which have safer track records. (Image note: The CPSC recalled 100,000 Infantino slings in 2007.)
Four babies in five years? One baby per year is a tragedy for that family. I am not seeing the justification for ditching the sling, which is an item used by third world cultures the world over, as well as in many Asian countries. Slings have a proven track record. And thank-you, no, I have never carried a baby of mine at arm's length from me in a plastic bucket, and if I had babies, I sure wouldn't start.
In the book Fearfully and Wonderfully Made, the author notes the wealth of studies indicating that babies desperately need touch, and plenty of it, in order to thrive and survive- where is that in the Consumer Reports world of cold, hard, plastic, easy to clean, easy to measure, easy to quantify? It's nowhere. But the science is sound. Babies do better when they sleep with their parents, when they are held skin to skin, when they are cuddled up in parental arms:
"Despite these findings, even today touching is often viewed as an unavoidable part of the more important tasks of feeding and cleaning the baby. Seldom is it considered an essential need in itself without which a baby may never mature....
In general... the higher the social strata, the less parents touch their infants [I disagree with this point, by the way, I think there are a lot of folks low on the social strata who do not recognize infant touch as a need and strongly recommend the 'cry it out' route]... Perhaps we have reached the extreme in America, where mothers carry their babies at arms' length in plastic carriers and fathers spend an average of thirty seconds per day in tactile contact with their children."
He might have been describing the Consumer's Union approach to parenting.
They also object to crib bumpers and infant positioners, two items that may have some justification, but two out of five is a pretty pathetic track record.
Parenting is about far more than rearing children in a sterilized, hygienic, bubble wrapped microcosm of an OSHA lab. It's about relationships, warmth, love, affection, touch, closeness- and CR is in no position of authority to give anybody parenting advice, which is what this amounts to.
Keep in mind that these people defend the CPSIA as necessary, and we can see how much authority they ought to have in anybody's lives.
It's sad. They once were a useful organization performing a useful public service, but they've become a caricature.
Plane Buzzes Manhattan for Photo-Op
L0w flying Air Force One buzzes Manhattan- for a photo-op. Watch the third video here to see just how much it freaked people out. Heads should roll. And why are taxpayers paying for this?
More here. It appears the few agencies that were notified were told it was a secret operation and they couldn't alert the public.
Buildings were spontaneously evacuated as fearful citizens, many of whom witnessed 9/11, raced down stairwells and into the road. Whoever thought this was photo-op was a good idea needs his head examined.
More here. It appears the few agencies that were notified were told it was a secret operation and they couldn't alert the public.
Buildings were spontaneously evacuated as fearful citizens, many of whom witnessed 9/11, raced down stairwells and into the road. Whoever thought this was photo-op was a good idea needs his head examined.
Torture Memos Declassified, College Transcripts, Too Dangerous For Light of Day
former CIA Director Porter Goss explains how we can know that Nancy Pelosi is lying when she says she didn't know anything about waterboarding, and what Congress knew about the interrogation of terrorists:
Chief of the CIA's Osama bin Laden unit from 1996 to 1999, Michael Scheuer, on the release of the CIA interrogation memos:
David Broder:
One administration later, a different group of individuals occupying the same offices has -- thankfully -- made the opposite decision. Do they now go back and investigate or indict their predecessors?
That way, inevitably, lies endless political warfare. It would set the precedent for turning all future policy disagreements into political or criminal vendettas. That way lies untold bitterness -- and injustice.
More from Tom Elia at The New Editor
Does it bother anybody else that President Obama released redacted portions of the torture memos (the redacted bits were those that proved that torture saved lives in at least some cases), but his college transcripts remain more classified and top secret than those memos?
Let me be clear. It is my recollection that:
-- The chairs and the ranking minority members of the House and Senate intelligence committees, known as the Gang of Four, were briefed that the CIA was holding and interrogating high-value terrorists.
-- We understood what the CIA was doing.
-- We gave the CIA our bipartisan support.
-- We gave the CIA funding to carry out its activities.
-- On a bipartisan basis, we asked if the CIA needed more support from Congress to carry out its mission against al-Qaeda.
I do not recall a single objection from my colleagues. They did not vote to stop authorizing CIA funding. And for those who now reveal filed "memorandums for the record" suggesting concern, real concern should have been expressed immediately -- to the committee chairs, the briefers, the House speaker or minority leader, the CIA director or the president's national security adviser -- and not quietly filed away in case the day came when the political winds shifted. And shifted they have.
Chief of the CIA's Osama bin Laden unit from 1996 to 1999, Michael Scheuer, on the release of the CIA interrogation memos:
Americans should keep this worst-case scenario [a potential nuclear attack on the US] in mind as they watch the tragicomic spectacle taking place in the wake of the publication of the Justice Department's interrogation memos. It will help them recognize this episode of political theater as another major step in the bipartisan dismantling of America's defenses based on the requirements of presidential ideology. George W. Bush's democracy-spreading philosophy yielded the invasion of Iraq and set the United States at war with much of the Muslim world. Bush's worldview thereby produced an enemy that quickly outpaced the limited but proven threat-containing capacities of the major U.S. counterterrorism programs -- rendition, interrogation and unmanned aerial vehicle attacks.
Now, in a single week, President Obama has eliminated two-thirds of that successful-but-not-sufficient national defense troika because his personal ideology -- a fair gist of which is "If the world likes us more we are more secure" -- cannot tolerate harsh interrogation techniques, torture or coercive interviews, call them what you will. Surprisingly, Obama now stands alongside Bush as a genuine American Jacobin, both of them seeing the world as they want it to be, not as it is. Whereas Bush saw a world of Muslims yearning to betray their God for Western secularism, Obama gazes upon a globe that he regards as largely carnivore-free and believes that remaining threats can be defused by semantic warfare; just stop saying "War on Terror" and give talks in Turkey and on al-Arabiyah television, for example.
David Broder:
The memos on torture represented a deliberate, and internally well-debated, policy decision, made in the proper places -- the White House, the intelligence agencies and the Justice Department -- by the proper officials.
One administration later, a different group of individuals occupying the same offices has -- thankfully -- made the opposite decision. Do they now go back and investigate or indict their predecessors?
That way, inevitably, lies endless political warfare. It would set the precedent for turning all future policy disagreements into political or criminal vendettas. That way lies untold bitterness -- and injustice.
More from Tom Elia at The New Editor
Does it bother anybody else that President Obama released redacted portions of the torture memos (the redacted bits were those that proved that torture saved lives in at least some cases), but his college transcripts remain more classified and top secret than those memos?
Fire
I took a bunch of pictures of the fire that HM and Strider built up a few nights ago. Haven't had much experience taking pictures of fire, but I was pleased with how some of them turned out.
The 'S' Word for Homeschoolers
The socialization question (known as the 's' word by many
homeschoolers is an interesting one. I have some questions you may
want to consider.
First, think about what you mean by socialization. What does that
word mean to you? What is socialization? What is the purpose of it,
the goal? What would be the best way to reach that goal? Who should
be responsible for it? Is it an acceptable purpose for a government
institution to socialize our children?
Suppose you want your child to learn French. What would be the best
way for her to do that? Would it be for her to send hours every day
with other children who do not know French? Or would it be to spend
time under the tutoring of somebody who does know French? If you
want a child to learn social skills, are those skills best learned
from spending time in the company of other children who do not have
social skills?
What is the social environment of a public school? Does it reflect
reality? DOes it not limit children to spending large amounts of
time isolated with their age-mates, limited to contact with people
their own age and often from a limited geographical area (their
school district)?
Are _your_ friends limited to people who were born the same year as
you and live within one school district? Do you desire for your
child to learn to socialize with people only her own age and within
her district, or would you like her to develop skills which enable
her to interact in a confidant, mature manner with people both older
and younger than she is, with people from many areas and walks of
life?
Are your healthiest friendships based on mutual interests and
personality compatibility, or on shared year of birth and district of
residence? Is the purpose of a public school education or
socialization? Why do we assume that public schools are the best
place or even an adequate place to learn social skills? Are social
problems dealt with in the public school in a way that reflects the
real world? Do the problems that arise reflect in any way the adult
world in which you live and work? What evidence is there that
schools do a good job of 'socialization?'
homeschoolers is an interesting one. I have some questions you may
want to consider.
First, think about what you mean by socialization. What does that
word mean to you? What is socialization? What is the purpose of it,
the goal? What would be the best way to reach that goal? Who should
be responsible for it? Is it an acceptable purpose for a government
institution to socialize our children?
Suppose you want your child to learn French. What would be the best
way for her to do that? Would it be for her to send hours every day
with other children who do not know French? Or would it be to spend
time under the tutoring of somebody who does know French? If you
want a child to learn social skills, are those skills best learned
from spending time in the company of other children who do not have
social skills?
What is the social environment of a public school? Does it reflect
reality? DOes it not limit children to spending large amounts of
time isolated with their age-mates, limited to contact with people
their own age and often from a limited geographical area (their
school district)?
Are _your_ friends limited to people who were born the same year as
you and live within one school district? Do you desire for your
child to learn to socialize with people only her own age and within
her district, or would you like her to develop skills which enable
her to interact in a confidant, mature manner with people both older
and younger than she is, with people from many areas and walks of
life?
Are your healthiest friendships based on mutual interests and
personality compatibility, or on shared year of birth and district of
residence? Is the purpose of a public school education or
socialization? Why do we assume that public schools are the best
place or even an adequate place to learn social skills? Are social
problems dealt with in the public school in a way that reflects the
real world? Do the problems that arise reflect in any way the adult
world in which you live and work? What evidence is there that
schools do a good job of 'socialization?'
Monday, April 27, 2009
Hallelujah, I'm a Bum
The HM requested that we post this folk song to the blog. He had never heard it before today, when apparently Michael Medved played it on his radio program. I used to sing it as a child, although I was unaware of its rich history. I just thought I was being deliciously subversive.
McClintock wrote Big Rock Candy Mountain:
Oh the buzzin' of the bees
And the cigarette trees
The soda water fountain
Where the lemonade springs
And the bluebird sings
In that big rock candy mountain
On a summers day
In the month of May
A burly bum come hikin'
Down a shady lane
Near the sugar cane
He was looking for his likin'
As he strolled along
He sung a song
Of a land of milk and honey
Where a bum can stay
For many a day
And he won't need any money
Oh the buzzin' of the bees
And the cigarette trees
The soda water fountain
Where the lemonade springs
And the bluebird sings
In that big rock candy mountain
In the Big Rock Candy Mountain
The cops have wooden legs
The bulldogs all have rubber teeth
And the hens lay soft-boiled eggs
The farmer's trees are full of fruit
The barns are full of hay
I want to go where there ain't no snow
Where the sleet don't fall
And the wind don't blow
In that big rock candy mountain
Oh the buzzin' of the bees
And the cigarette trees
The soda water fountain
Where the lemonade springs
And the bluebird sings
In that big rock candy mountain
Oh the buzzin' of the bees
At the cigarette trees
The soda water fountain
Where the lemonade springs
And the bluebird sings
In that big rock candy mountain
Here's Burl Ives singing it:
McClintock wrote Big Rock Candy Mountain:
Oh the buzzin' of the bees
And the cigarette trees
The soda water fountain
Where the lemonade springs
And the bluebird sings
In that big rock candy mountain
On a summers day
In the month of May
A burly bum come hikin'
Down a shady lane
Near the sugar cane
He was looking for his likin'
As he strolled along
He sung a song
Of a land of milk and honey
Where a bum can stay
For many a day
And he won't need any money
Oh the buzzin' of the bees
And the cigarette trees
The soda water fountain
Where the lemonade springs
And the bluebird sings
In that big rock candy mountain
In the Big Rock Candy Mountain
The cops have wooden legs
The bulldogs all have rubber teeth
And the hens lay soft-boiled eggs
The farmer's trees are full of fruit
The barns are full of hay
I want to go where there ain't no snow
Where the sleet don't fall
And the wind don't blow
In that big rock candy mountain
Oh the buzzin' of the bees
And the cigarette trees
The soda water fountain
Where the lemonade springs
And the bluebird sings
In that big rock candy mountain
Oh the buzzin' of the bees
At the cigarette trees
The soda water fountain
Where the lemonade springs
And the bluebird sings
In that big rock candy mountain
Here's Burl Ives singing it:
The Muskrat Diaries
The list of things that The Equuschick finds more interesting than housework is a long and imaginative one, but the Law of Entropy catches up with us all and laundry doesn't wash itself and this morning there was a great deal of what The Equuschick calls "Week-end Wreckage" to be put back together.
And she was really resolved to do it all, too. And efficiently. She was! But then she went outside to check her clothes on the line and decided that the creek was much more interesting than the laundry.
She stood on the bridge for a few moments contemplating the scenery and was distracted by a Swimming Critter.
All critters are cool and much more interesting to The Equuschick than just about everything else, and Swimming Critters are in a special class all their own by virtue of sheer Mysteriousness.
Was it a Beaver? A Muskrat? Ooh, boy! The Equuschick abandoned all pretense of mature adulthood and spent the next half-hour or so watching Muskrats with a sense of euphoria and pride that rivaled the experience of eating chocolate.
Sometimes she still wants an ocean, but than other times it occurs to her that when you go to the coast you have to share it, unless you are fabulously wealthy. The Equuschick is not fabulously wealthy, but she does have a creek in her backyard that she doesn't have to share.
When the Muskrat had disappeared The Equuschick was not yet ready to return to the laundry so she began a Muskrat Diary.
She will now share with you her journalistic scribblings in order that you may properly understand the similarities The Equuschick's mind shares with that of a six year old boy who hunts for bugs.
April 27'th '09- Approx. 10:30-11:00 am
Subject seen from bridge, swimming south. Observed turning into a small shore. I began to approach the shore but snapped too many twigs. Subject was warned of my arrival and was off-shore when I arrived. Still, remained close enough to observe subject was definitely a Muskrat. Long and very thin black tail, body size much smaller than a Beaver. Approx. size of larger terrier dog. Observed small head and whiskers, black and beady eyes turned alertly and faced me. Subject darted away and disappeared into the creekbank, reminiscent of Harry Potter turning into Platform Nine and 3/4.
Studied shore of harbor now known as Muskrat Harbor and noted two empty clam shells and several tracks.
Subject emerged again shortly thereafter a few feet further up from where it had disappeared. Saw me again and dived underwater. Did not resurface.
Notes-
*Other Wildlife- 1 Frog
*Subject Christened Gladwin
The Equuschick now has grand plans to name the little house Muskrat Shores and to check on Gladwin and family every day to see how they're doing.
And she was really resolved to do it all, too. And efficiently. She was! But then she went outside to check her clothes on the line and decided that the creek was much more interesting than the laundry.
She stood on the bridge for a few moments contemplating the scenery and was distracted by a Swimming Critter.
All critters are cool and much more interesting to The Equuschick than just about everything else, and Swimming Critters are in a special class all their own by virtue of sheer Mysteriousness.
Was it a Beaver? A Muskrat? Ooh, boy! The Equuschick abandoned all pretense of mature adulthood and spent the next half-hour or so watching Muskrats with a sense of euphoria and pride that rivaled the experience of eating chocolate.
Sometimes she still wants an ocean, but than other times it occurs to her that when you go to the coast you have to share it, unless you are fabulously wealthy. The Equuschick is not fabulously wealthy, but she does have a creek in her backyard that she doesn't have to share.
When the Muskrat had disappeared The Equuschick was not yet ready to return to the laundry so she began a Muskrat Diary.
She will now share with you her journalistic scribblings in order that you may properly understand the similarities The Equuschick's mind shares with that of a six year old boy who hunts for bugs.
April 27'th '09- Approx. 10:30-11:00 am
Subject seen from bridge, swimming south. Observed turning into a small shore. I began to approach the shore but snapped too many twigs. Subject was warned of my arrival and was off-shore when I arrived. Still, remained close enough to observe subject was definitely a Muskrat. Long and very thin black tail, body size much smaller than a Beaver. Approx. size of larger terrier dog. Observed small head and whiskers, black and beady eyes turned alertly and faced me. Subject darted away and disappeared into the creekbank, reminiscent of Harry Potter turning into Platform Nine and 3/4.
Studied shore of harbor now known as Muskrat Harbor and noted two empty clam shells and several tracks.
Subject emerged again shortly thereafter a few feet further up from where it had disappeared. Saw me again and dived underwater. Did not resurface.
Notes-
*Other Wildlife- 1 Frog
*Subject Christened Gladwin
The Equuschick now has grand plans to name the little house Muskrat Shores and to check on Gladwin and family every day to see how they're doing.
Independence
My son's legal name is not the name he goes by. We call him by his middle name. His first name is the same as his daddy's, but his daddy doesn't go by his full name, either- he goes by a diminutive form of it. He was named after his daddy, who also doesn't go by his name, or any form of it. He is called by a nickname he picked up as a baby. The HM's father is named after his father, who also went by his middle name instead of the actual given name they all share. And he was named after his father, who, you may have guessed, also did not go by his given name, but his middle name. And so it goes.
In fact, I have never particularly cared for this first name, and my husband had agreed we didn't have to use it. What happened? Some meddlesome soul on my husband's side of the family did some genealogical research and discovered that my husband was the sixth generation to have this first name, and probably the only reason he was not the seventh is because she was only able to trace that line six generations back. None of them, oddly enough, ever seem to have been called by that first name (and it's not that it's all that strange of a name, it's fairly common). Well, I am a proper daughter of my packrattery family, and I can't fight that kind of history, so that was what we named him. His middle name, however, the name we call him, is my great-grand-father's name, and I have never known anybody younger than my great-grandfather with that name (until we gave it to our son, and then it blossomed into fashion and became a unisex name, but that's another story).
So- got all that? He's a seventh generation member of his family to possess his first name, which we never use, and his middle name, the one we do use, is his great-great-grandfather's.
What I didn't know is that using a middle name makes doctor visits and other bureaucratic interactions problematic. They can't seem to just make a note that the boy goes by '_________' and follow it. It's always his first name, the full form (which not even his daddy uses).
And the Boy? He's had a LOT of doctor visits this last couple months, including a full upper GI test (everything looks good, thank-you, but he never wants another barium shake again), so he's been hearing his first name a lot more in the last couple of months than he has heard it his entire life combined before now.
Aside: In fact, as a small boy, he didn't even know that other name was his. He honestly thought his middle name was Roo, and he liked it. But that's another story.
So, at one recent doctor visit after they called his first name twice before I realized they meant us, I turned to him and said, "I'm sorry. I bet it's hard getting used to answering to that name, isn't it, since you aren't used to it."
As he gathered up his things to go back to the doctor's office he nonchalantly replied, "Oh, no, it's not hard to get used to. I like it better. In fact, for about a year now when I meet new people and they ask me my name, that's the name I tell them. Most of my friends at church call me that."
Blink. So where have I been? His friends at church are basically two or three boys that talk Legos and chase each other around the parking lot, and one little girl who proposed to him the first time he met her so he avoids her as much as possible, and I guess most of the time I'm watching them, they're not needing to call each other's names.
I asked him why he liked his first name better, and he explained that he intends to be a squadron commander, and with the rank he expects to attain, his first name sounds better than his middle name.
I processed this strange new idea as he got weighed and measured and had his temperature checked, and then while we waited in the next waiting room for the doctor, I asked him tentatively, "So.... do you want me to start calling you by your first name, too?." I could, if he wanted, but it would get hard to get used to.
"Oh, no," he assured me with all the patronizing and tender kindness a ten year old boy is capable of (which is a prodigious amount, frankly). "You can keep calling me by my middle name, because, after all, you've been doing that all my life."
I think he was tactfully trying to tell me he understands you can't teach an old dog new tricks.
In fact, I have never particularly cared for this first name, and my husband had agreed we didn't have to use it. What happened? Some meddlesome soul on my husband's side of the family did some genealogical research and discovered that my husband was the sixth generation to have this first name, and probably the only reason he was not the seventh is because she was only able to trace that line six generations back. None of them, oddly enough, ever seem to have been called by that first name (and it's not that it's all that strange of a name, it's fairly common). Well, I am a proper daughter of my packrattery family, and I can't fight that kind of history, so that was what we named him. His middle name, however, the name we call him, is my great-grand-father's name, and I have never known anybody younger than my great-grandfather with that name (until we gave it to our son, and then it blossomed into fashion and became a unisex name, but that's another story).
So- got all that? He's a seventh generation member of his family to possess his first name, which we never use, and his middle name, the one we do use, is his great-great-grandfather's.
What I didn't know is that using a middle name makes doctor visits and other bureaucratic interactions problematic. They can't seem to just make a note that the boy goes by '_________' and follow it. It's always his first name, the full form (which not even his daddy uses).
And the Boy? He's had a LOT of doctor visits this last couple months, including a full upper GI test (everything looks good, thank-you, but he never wants another barium shake again), so he's been hearing his first name a lot more in the last couple of months than he has heard it his entire life combined before now.
Aside: In fact, as a small boy, he didn't even know that other name was his. He honestly thought his middle name was Roo, and he liked it. But that's another story.
So, at one recent doctor visit after they called his first name twice before I realized they meant us, I turned to him and said, "I'm sorry. I bet it's hard getting used to answering to that name, isn't it, since you aren't used to it."
As he gathered up his things to go back to the doctor's office he nonchalantly replied, "Oh, no, it's not hard to get used to. I like it better. In fact, for about a year now when I meet new people and they ask me my name, that's the name I tell them. Most of my friends at church call me that."
Blink. So where have I been? His friends at church are basically two or three boys that talk Legos and chase each other around the parking lot, and one little girl who proposed to him the first time he met her so he avoids her as much as possible, and I guess most of the time I'm watching them, they're not needing to call each other's names.
I asked him why he liked his first name better, and he explained that he intends to be a squadron commander, and with the rank he expects to attain, his first name sounds better than his middle name.
I processed this strange new idea as he got weighed and measured and had his temperature checked, and then while we waited in the next waiting room for the doctor, I asked him tentatively, "So.... do you want me to start calling you by your first name, too?." I could, if he wanted, but it would get hard to get used to.
"Oh, no," he assured me with all the patronizing and tender kindness a ten year old boy is capable of (which is a prodigious amount, frankly). "You can keep calling me by my middle name, because, after all, you've been doing that all my life."
I think he was tactfully trying to tell me he understands you can't teach an old dog new tricks.
High School Grad Rates
In a just-released survey, the Editorial Projects in Education Research Center reports that less than 20 of the nation's largest 50 school districts had high school graduation rates above 60% in 2005(graphs 4.2 & 4.4).
The survey shows that the average high school graduation rate for the largest 50 districts was below 60%. Think about that.
This is nothing short of a national disgrace.
From Tom Elia at The New Editor, where you'll find the link for the PDF file of the survey.
KFC Free Grilled Chicken Offer
Today only, one per person, free piece of grilled chicken. We're off to pick up ours, and then we're taking the long way home to take a look at the scenery along the way.
*KFC, for those who do not know, is Kentucky Fried Chicken
*KFC, for those who do not know, is Kentucky Fried Chicken
65 Billion a Day
And that's a conservative estimate of the President's spending his first 100 days in office:
He has a dream:
Since his inauguration on January 20, 2009, President Obama has proposed new spending programs that will add over the next 10 years $6.5-trillion (all figures U.S.) to the American national debt. That’s $6.5-trillion over and above the debt that would have been incurred had the existing policies been left alone. (Not that those existing policies were so great either.)
That’s $65-billion in new debt every single day of the first 100
He has a dream:
Barack Obama is engaged in a grand redirection of the U.S. economy. He hopes to transform it into an economy that is more centrally directed and controlled. He hopes to redistribute more wealth away from those who create it. Don’t take my word for it. Here is a recent estimate by one of President Obama’s most eminent supporters, John Judis, co-author of the 2002 book The Emerging Democratic Majority, which predicted and to some extent inspired Obama’s campaign strategy in 2008: “The Obama budgets will shift even more dramatically the balance of economic power away from the private and toward the public sector. The American relationship of state to economy will begin to look more like that of France and Sweden, whose non-crisis budgets total over 45% of GDP.”
As Judis observes, the Obama administration is not content merely to spend more. It wishes to dictate more too:
“[Obama’s] proposals seek to change not merely the pace of production, investment, and consumption, but what is produced and consumed … They are an effort at national planning. And it doesn’t matter, incidentally, whether the administration tries to get its way through manipulating the market or through outright control of investment; what matters is that it is using its governmental power to change the American economy in basic ways.”
Further Intros
Stryder's little sister, who is a tiny little bit of a person with a giant heart and high spirits, and our Pip, who is a deceptively quiet person with high spirits. The two girls are best buds, hanging out after a huge volleyball game.
Stryder himself, and the D-man dog, who still isn't sure if he's supposed to welcome Stryder or bar him from the house. Picture taken from last December. I know most of our bloggy friends are straining their eyes trying to figure out the books- those are hymnals on the table.=)
CPSIA Advocates as Scrooges
I can imagine them having this edited conversation (based on Dicken's Christmas Carol):
'The CPSIA is one of the most flawed laws ever written,' said the people who live in the real world, speaking to Congress and the special interest groups who stand between Congress and the people Congress allegedly represents, 'it is more than usually desirable that we should fix this law or else many craftsmen, used booksellers, libraries, shall join the ranks of the Poor and destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time and will suffer more as this law continues to destroy livelihoods as well as thrift shops where the poor stretch their buying power . Many thousands shall soon be in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sirs.'
'Are there no prisons to send these wicked craftspeople, booksellers, and consignment store owners who seek to poison child?' askedScrooge.Pirg's reps.
'Plenty of prisons,' said the craftspeople, nervously laying down the pen again.
'And theUnion workhousesWelfare programs.' demandedScroogeCongress. 'Are they still in operation?'
'They are. Still,' returned the craftspeople,' We prefer to support ourselves.'
'Foodstamps and other Government programs to encourage dependency are in full vigour, then?' saidScroogePublic Citizen and Congress.
'Both very busy, sir.'
'Oh. I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course,' saidScroogethe lawmakers. 'I'm very glad to hear it.'
... I help to support the establishments I have mentioned-they cost enough; and those who are badly off must go there.'
'Many can't go there; and many would rather die.'
'If they would rather die,' saidScroogethose responsible for the CPSIA, 'they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.'
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Sunday Hymn Post
What shall I render to my God
For all His mercy’s store?
I’ll take the gifts He hath bestowed,
And humbly ask for more.
The sacred cup of saving grace
I will with thanks receive,
And all His promises embrace,
And to His glory live.
My vows I will to His great Name
Before His people pay,
And all I have, and all I am,
Upon His altar lay.
Thy lawful servant, Lord, I owe
To Thee whate’er is mine,
Born in Thy family below,
And by redemption thine.
Thy hands created me, Thy hands
From sin have set me free,
The mercy that hath loosed my bands
Hath bound me fast to Thee.
The God of all redeeming grace
My God I will proclaim,
Offer the sacrifice of praise,
And call upon His Name.
Praise Him, ye saints, the God of love,
Who hath my sins forgiven,
Till, gathered to the church above,
We sing the songs of Heaven.
Cyberhymnal
Acapella congregational singing
For all His mercy’s store?
I’ll take the gifts He hath bestowed,
And humbly ask for more.
The sacred cup of saving grace
I will with thanks receive,
And all His promises embrace,
And to His glory live.
My vows I will to His great Name
Before His people pay,
And all I have, and all I am,
Upon His altar lay.
Thy lawful servant, Lord, I owe
To Thee whate’er is mine,
Born in Thy family below,
And by redemption thine.
Thy hands created me, Thy hands
From sin have set me free,
The mercy that hath loosed my bands
Hath bound me fast to Thee.
The God of all redeeming grace
My God I will proclaim,
Offer the sacrifice of praise,
And call upon His Name.
Praise Him, ye saints, the God of love,
Who hath my sins forgiven,
Till, gathered to the church above,
We sing the songs of Heaven.
Cyberhymnal
Acapella congregational singing
Marriage
Granny Tea got married at 21 and always told us that was too young, we should wait. My youngest brother is 40, and he's still waiting. I don't think that's what she meant. My middle brother and I paid no attention to that advice and got married at 20. Neither of us regret that, nor do our spouses (we both married people roughly our same age).
A friend of mine shared this link with all her friends. It's an interesting article on why marrying 'young' is not a recipe for disaster after all:
His advice reminds me of that in the book Sacred Marriage by Gary Thomas- which can really be summed up by pointing out that marriage isn't about making you happy, or shouldn't be. It's not even about making the other person happy, although that is a better focus. It's about making you holy. Sanctification. Happiness is a wonderful byproduct of that. It's a terrible goal.
A friend of mine shared this link with all her friends. It's an interesting article on why marrying 'young' is not a recipe for disaster after all:
First, what is considered "early marriage" by social scientists is commonly misunderstood by the public. The best evaluations of early marriage -- conducted by researchers at the University of Texas and Penn State University -- note that the age-divorce link is most prominent among teenagers (those who marry before age 20). Marriages that begin at age 20, 21 or 22 are not nearly so likely to end in divorce as many presume.
Second, good social science pays attention to gender differences. Most young women are mature enough to handle marriage. According to data from the government's National Survey of Family Growth, women who marry at 18 have a better shot at making a marriage work than men who marry at 21. There is wisdom in having an age gap between spouses. For women, age is (unfortunately) a debit, decreasing fertility. For men, age can be a credit, increasing their access to resources and improving their maturity, thus making them more attractive to women. We may all dislike this scenario, but we can't will it away.
Third, the age at which a person marries never actually causes a divorce. Rather, a young age at marriage can be an indicator of an underlying immaturity and impatience with marital challenges -- the kind that many of us eventually figure out how to avoid or to solve without parting. Unfortunately, well-educated people resist this, convinced that there actually is a recipe for guaranteed marital success that goes something like this: Add a postgraduate education to a college degree, toss in a visible amount of career success and a healthy helping of wealth, let simmer in a pan of sexual variety for several years, allow to cool and settle, then serve. Presto: a marriage with math on its side.
Too bad real life isn't like that. Marriage actually works best as a formative institution, not an institution you enter once you think you're fully formed. We learn marriage, just as we learn language, and to the teachable, some lessons just come easier earlier in life. "Cursed be the social wants that sin against the strength of youth," added Tennyson to his lines about springtime and love.
His advice reminds me of that in the book Sacred Marriage by Gary Thomas- which can really be summed up by pointing out that marriage isn't about making you happy, or shouldn't be. It's not even about making the other person happy, although that is a better focus. It's about making you holy. Sanctification. Happiness is a wonderful byproduct of that. It's a terrible goal.
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Coining His Own Phrases
It is common around the Common Room to respond to a wistful and unrealistic wish (I wish we were independently wealthy so Daddy never had to go to work again) with the Nursery Rhyme quote "If wishes were horses, then beggars would ride."
It's nearly as common to go on to the next, less well known verse, "And if ifs and ands were pots and pans, there'd be no work for tinkers."
Last week the Boy added his own very personal version:
"If wishes were wasps
We'd all be dead."
It's nearly as common to go on to the next, less well known verse, "And if ifs and ands were pots and pans, there'd be no work for tinkers."
Last week the Boy added his own very personal version:
"If wishes were wasps
We'd all be dead."
Science and Melting Caps
According to Energy Secretary Steven Chu, the earth's temperature is rising so fast that a “very, very scary” scenario will unfold. Island nations, especially those in the Caribbean, may disappear. Portions of Louisiana and Florida will go underwater, reducing the size of those states. New Orleans will be flooded. Said the Secretary, “I think the Caribbean countries face rising oceans and they face increase in the severity of hurricanes. This is something that is very, very scary to all of us. The island states in the world represent—I remember this number—one-half of 1 percent of the carbon emissions in the world. And they will—some of them will disappear.”
Fortunately for the American people, the fragile economy, and beachgoers everywhere, Mr. Chu's alarming prediction is based upon a faulty hypothesis: Melting ice caps would cause sea levels to rise. They would not. This is scientifically falsifiable claim. It is, in fact, provably false.
As a matter of fact, ice displaces more water than does its liquid counterpart. According to Chemistry.About.com, “Ice floats because it is about 9% less dense than liquid water. In other words, ice takes up about 9% more space than water…” Therefore, ice—which expands when it freezes—takes up less space when it melts, and could not result in sea levels rising.
One could even prove it. If Mr. Chu's hypothesis is correct, then one should be able to fill up a glass of water, add some ice, place it in the sun, and then watch as the glass overflows. But it does not. In fact, the volume decreases. Therefore, Mr. Chu's claim is falsified by a simple experiment. He would not even pass a 7th grade earth science exam.
More here.
Shady Grove on the Dulcimer
Jean Ritchie sings Shady Grove while playing the dulcimer
Tim O'Brien and the Chieftains sing it here.
Tim O'Brien and the Chieftains sing it here.
Just So You Know...
Handiapped accessible door handles are maybe not the greatest idea if you have a clever and large dog about the place.
Zeus had mastered the inside doors sometime ago (they push open), so we had learned to lock them when going out for a few hours and leaving him behind.
Friday he mastered opening the outside doors from the inside, which means pulling them towards him- he was caught outside a couple of times, and we were blaming one another for not shutting the front door properly when we realized none of us had used it.
Zeus had mastered the inside doors sometime ago (they push open), so we had learned to lock them when going out for a few hours and leaving him behind.
Friday he mastered opening the outside doors from the inside, which means pulling them towards him- he was caught outside a couple of times, and we were blaming one another for not shutting the front door properly when we realized none of us had used it.
The Road to Hell is Paved with Non-Intentions
There is a serious disconnect between the stated intention of the laws Congress is passing, and the actual results and wording of those laws. We have seen this repeatedly with the CPSIA, and Congress continues to believe it can fob us off by dismissing our concerns with meaningless assurances about their intentions. As Tristan points out to one of her reps:
We need Congress to match their intentions with the laws they actually pass. And either they are lying to us about what their intentions are and were, or they simply do not know how to do that successfully.
It's not just the CPSIA.
Another unintended consequence: St Vincent De Paul's thrift shop in Wisconsin no longer carrying children's toys:
I keep thinking of this post and the story behind it- the decision we made, fifteen years ago, to adopt two new children when we already had three. People thought we were nuts. How on earth could we afford that? People already wondered how we managed with three. Through a series of rapidly changing events,
We managed by eating a lot of nutritious but lackluster peasant food- beans and rice, mostly, and by making extensive use of thrift shops for all our clothing and most of our other household needs. We never bought anything but socks and underwear brand new. That window is rapidly shrinking for young families today.
Unintended or not, the consequences are real, and Congress isn't the one suffering. PIRG and Public Citizen are going to benefit from them. They are the Grinches and Scrooges who argue that it doesn't matter if thrift shops get rid of books and toys, and if small businesses fold, and entrepreneurial craftspeople have to close their doors and quit earning money to support their families.
And ordinary, every day citizens trying to care for their own families are the ones paying those consequences.
the INTENT of those who voted for a FAILURE of a law means nothing to me, my business or my children's future.
We need Congress to match their intentions with the laws they actually pass. And either they are lying to us about what their intentions are and were, or they simply do not know how to do that successfully.
It's not just the CPSIA.
Congress is broken. Everyone knows it — Congress enjoys barely half the approval rating of President Barack Obama. The sinister influence of campaign contributions is part of the problem — the failure to regulate Wall Street derivatives can be traced to huge contributions by financial service firms such as American International Group and Fannie Mae.
But Congress lacks even the idea of making sense of the laws it has passed. It keeps piling on new obligations without revising the old ones. Congress might as well be a huge concrete block, crushing society with laws that accumulated over decades.
Another unintended consequence: St Vincent De Paul's thrift shop in Wisconsin no longer carrying children's toys:
But Congress intended this result, right? Well, we just looked through the Congressional debate in 2008 on the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act, and found not a single reference to thrift stores removing children’s toys or clothing from the shelves. The conference report does mention increasing the CPSC’s budget for outreach to inform thrift stores about recalled toys, but that’s a different issue. And that’s the only mention of “thrift” in the context of the CPSIA..
I keep thinking of this post and the story behind it- the decision we made, fifteen years ago, to adopt two new children when we already had three. People thought we were nuts. How on earth could we afford that? People already wondered how we managed with three. Through a series of rapidly changing events,
... we went to bed with three children and the next morning suddenly gained two more children who came to us with nothing but the clothes on their backs and some immediate and distressing but treatable medical problems, and some longterm and severe medical problems- again, just two weeks before Christmas. We had no clothes for them, no beds, no presents; nothing was in readiness for them, except our hearts (and even those needed some sprucing up).
(if you are interested in the longer version of our adoption story, see here)
They came on a Friday. We went shopping on a Saturday. Where did we go shopping? Thrift shops, of course. We had an immediate and urgent need for clothing, toys, and bedding for two new children, and we lived on an enlisted man's salary. It was only two weeks before Christmas. The thrift shop enabled us to fill the gap between our income and our needs.
We dressed our five girls from thrift shops, consignment stores, and yard sales over the next several years.
We managed by eating a lot of nutritious but lackluster peasant food- beans and rice, mostly, and by making extensive use of thrift shops for all our clothing and most of our other household needs. We never bought anything but socks and underwear brand new. That window is rapidly shrinking for young families today.
Unintended or not, the consequences are real, and Congress isn't the one suffering. PIRG and Public Citizen are going to benefit from them. They are the Grinches and Scrooges who argue that it doesn't matter if thrift shops get rid of books and toys, and if small businesses fold, and entrepreneurial craftspeople have to close their doors and quit earning money to support their families.
And ordinary, every day citizens trying to care for their own families are the ones paying those consequences.
The Magic of a Campfire
Last night the two little boys, children of a single mom, came to stay the weekend with us. They could not go to sleep, or wouldn't. Several of us (and some friends) were sitting outside around the firepit, so we took the boys out with us.
The 2 year old fell asleep almost immediately, after looking around wide-eyed and commenting, "Tree! 'Nudder Tree! And 'tars!!"
The five year old sat in my lap for hours, refusing to go to sleep, refusing to get comfortable so he could go to sleep.
We sang song after song, and he seemed tired, but as soon as I would try to put his head down, he would sit up straight,staring at the fire.
He wanted to know who made the fire, how they made it, what the things were that were burning (logs) and what the shiny things flying off were (sparks).
"Is this your first time seeing a campfire?" I asked.
It was.
My husband helped me turn my chair sideways to the fire, so the little fellow could put his head down comfortably on my shoulder without having to look away from the fire.
He was asleep in five minutes.
The 2 year old fell asleep almost immediately, after looking around wide-eyed and commenting, "Tree! 'Nudder Tree! And 'tars!!"
The five year old sat in my lap for hours, refusing to go to sleep, refusing to get comfortable so he could go to sleep.
We sang song after song, and he seemed tired, but as soon as I would try to put his head down, he would sit up straight,staring at the fire.
He wanted to know who made the fire, how they made it, what the things were that were burning (logs) and what the shiny things flying off were (sparks).
"Is this your first time seeing a campfire?" I asked.
It was.
My husband helped me turn my chair sideways to the fire, so the little fellow could put his head down comfortably on my shoulder without having to look away from the fire.
He was asleep in five minutes.
Friday, April 24, 2009
Today's Dose of Shady Grove
What's the point of all these versions of the same folk song? Besides the fact that I just like it and am having fun, I think listening to the various bands and singers putting their own stamp on the same song might make us feel comfortable with singing out own version at home. It shows us just how versatile folk songs are- you don't have to sing it just one way.
So far, I still like Doc Watson's version best, but the others are fun, too. Here's one by the Mudcrutches- and thanks to Karen in South Carolina for suggesting it (she left a comment here)
It's a reunion piece from Tom Petty's first band, Mudcrutch.
So far, I still like Doc Watson's version best, but the others are fun, too. Here's one by the Mudcrutches- and thanks to Karen in South Carolina for suggesting it (she left a comment here)
It's a reunion piece from Tom Petty's first band, Mudcrutch.
What is Fascism?
Fascism isn't a libertarian doctrine! It just isn't, never will be and it can't be cast as one. Anarchism, secessionism, extreme localism or rampant individualism may be bad, evil, wrong, stupid, selfish and all sorts of other things (though not by my lights). But they have nothing to do with a totalitarian vision of the state where individuals and institutions alike must march in step and take orders from the government.
If you think shrinking government and getting it less involved in your life is a hallmark of tyranny it is only because you are either grotesquely ignorant or because you subscribe to a statist ideology that believes the expansion of the state is the expansion of liberty.
Jonah Goldberg has more.
The CPSIA is a product of those with fascist tendencies, and it is defended by the same. Only people who believe that individuals and institutions of all shapes and sizes must march in step and take orders from the government follow the one size fits all regulatory vision that produced the CPSIA and thousands of rules and regulations like it.
Sharpie Marker Decorating
I really like this. I would love something like this, bookcases on one wall, a window with a view out into the woods and homes of Lothlorien on the other, drawn on the walls on either side of our staircase.
We Have a Self Esteem Problem
Generation Me:
But we have reared the modern generation to think more highly of themselves than they ought. We've allowed the pernicious self-esteem movement to infiltrate even our Sunday Schools, where we teach children the false doctrine that when Jesus said to love others as themselves He was actually issuing a commandment that we love ourselves first.
Jean Twenge and W. Keith Campbell have written a book about this self-centered me generation, who have a puffed up sense of their own importance without an underlying reality to support it. The book is "The Narcissism Epidemic," and Twenge speaks to colleges where she finds:
There is a cure for this self-centered, overweening pride of self- and it sounds strangely familiar. Twenge recommends:
Growing up, my literary heroines were those who, like me, struggled to be good: Jo from "Little Women," Harriet the spy, Laura Ingalls and Pippi Longstocking. A strong-willed (and loud) child, I craved examples of unruly knuckleheads tethered to a loving family that encouraged us to be our best selves despite our natural inclinations. Precocious but naive, I thought of myself as an ugly duckling—misunderstood in my youth but destined for a beauty and stature completely impossible for my loved ones to comprehend. I shudder to think what a monster I would have become in the modern child-rearing era. Gorged on a diet of grade inflation, constant praise and materialistic entitlement, I probably would have succumbed to a life of heedless self- indulgence.
But we have reared the modern generation to think more highly of themselves than they ought. We've allowed the pernicious self-esteem movement to infiltrate even our Sunday Schools, where we teach children the false doctrine that when Jesus said to love others as themselves He was actually issuing a commandment that we love ourselves first.
Jean Twenge and W. Keith Campbell have written a book about this self-centered me generation, who have a puffed up sense of their own importance without an underlying reality to support it. The book is "The Narcissism Epidemic," and Twenge speaks to colleges where she finds:
When they're faced with the straight-out question—do you agree with this research, that you guys are the most narcissistic generation ever—there are uniform head nods and knowing grins to each other. "At the end of the day I love me and I don't think that's wrong," says Sharise Tucker, a 21-year-old senior at Southern Connecticut State, a self-professed narcissist. "I don't think it's a problem, having most people love themselves. I love me."
Quantcast
But as Twenge goes on to illustrate, all that narcissism is a problem that can range from the discourteous—residential advisers at Southern lament students disregarding curfews, playing dance music until 3 a.m., demanding new room assignments at a moment's notice and failing to understand why professors won't let them make up an exam they were too hung over to take—to the disastrous—failed marriages, abusive working environments and billion-dollar Ponzi schemes. Seems that the flip side of all that confidence isn't prodigious success but antisocial behavior.
There is a cure for this self-centered, overweening pride of self- and it sounds strangely familiar. Twenge recommends:
...humility, evaluating yourself more accurately, mindfulness and putting others first...
Irresponsible Reporting at Seattle's KIRO News
Toxic Levels of Lead Found In Children's Books, screams reporter Chris Halsne in this story.
What he never discusses is how this lead magically would transfer from the book to a child's blood stream, which is where the danger point actually exists.
Um, really? Where was the lead? On the corners, or in the illustrations? When toddlers chew or suck on books, do they typically suck through the center of the book, like the Very Hungry Caterpillar, or do they chew on the corners? Has he or the investigative reporter done any investigative research examining just how much time toddlers spend sucking books into a lead-filled slurry and how many times this has resulted in elevated lead levels (o)? And does anybody in this story stop to consider why an imaginary toddler sucking on a book is proof that books intended for 12 year olds should be banned because they might have some lead in the substrate?
Halsne says the two books they tested were Poems of Childhood and Japanese Children’s Stories. He doesn't give author's names or publishers, but does say both were published before 1983. Neither title sounds like a toddler's book, so it's a bit disingenous to use test results for two books for older children and then talk about how the 'fact' that toddlers suck on these books 'all the time' is the other half of an equation 'proving' Congress needs to act. Furthermore, it's extremely unlikely that either of these books are intended for toddlers, given the fact that they were both published before 1983. Toddler books in libraries just don't last that long.
This is a bit of slight of hand designed to frighten the public without informing them.
Here are some facts Lanphear and Halsne should be aware of:
Lead is not magic. It doesn't just fly through the air from the printed page to a child's blood stream. There are:
And of course, the New England Journal of Medicine articles, notwithstanding, the verdict on lead levels is not nearly so conclusive as the above emotional laden argument makes it seem:
There is not a case on record where lead from a child's book entered the blood stream.
Remember when people were insisting this was ridiculous, nobody wanted to get rid of library books?
Thanks to LAnon for pointing out the article (in the comments to this post), even if it has given me heartburn and pushed back my breakfast making some two hours.=)
What he never discusses is how this lead magically would transfer from the book to a child's blood stream, which is where the danger point actually exists.
He quotes Dr. Bruce Lanphear, a former member of the United States EPA lead advisory panel, who is concerned because he claims toddlers are 'constantly' sucking on those books:
KIRO Team 7 Investigators grabbed an armful of used books from the children's section of Seattle's main library.Using a simple test with an easy to read result, we tested 18 books ourselves. Two samples turned pink, which means something on the book contains exposed lead.Knowing the over-the-counter indicators aren't always accurate, we paid a certified lab to do a detailed chemical analysis.Scientists confirmed our suspicion.While pointing to our results, Friedman and Bruya testing specialist Brad Benson told us, “That's about two and a half times our detection limit, so would definitely consider that a verifiable hit of lead on that sample.”Seattle parent Becky Anderson routinely takes her toddler Annie to the library to find fun reading material. She was a bit taken back by the notion that books, she was checking out for her daughter, might contain toxic lead levels.“I wasn't aware of that. That is really concerning to me. We've gone to lengths to have our house examined for lead and concerned about the toy recalls. I hadn't heard about the books. That is alarming. They need to look into it.”According to the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), starting this year, children's products are considered hazardous with lead levels exceeding 300 parts per million -- but even that's considered unsafe.A new federal law says toys and children’s books with lead over 100 parts per million can't be sold or distributed two years from now.The books we tested show respective lead levels at 546 and 456 parts per million -- over the allowable safe limits.Numerous parents we spoke with outside Seattle’s libraries wanted to weigh in on this controversy.
“Toddlers are constantly sucking on these things at the same time they are reading or having it read to them. For those kinds of books, I worry quite a bit. We need to make sure that some good regulations are in place to protect that age kid from books.”
Um, really? Where was the lead? On the corners, or in the illustrations? When toddlers chew or suck on books, do they typically suck through the center of the book, like the Very Hungry Caterpillar, or do they chew on the corners? Has he or the investigative reporter done any investigative research examining just how much time toddlers spend sucking books into a lead-filled slurry and how many times this has resulted in elevated lead levels (o)? And does anybody in this story stop to consider why an imaginary toddler sucking on a book is proof that books intended for 12 year olds should be banned because they might have some lead in the substrate?
Halsne says the two books they tested were Poems of Childhood and Japanese Children’s Stories. He doesn't give author's names or publishers, but does say both were published before 1983. Neither title sounds like a toddler's book, so it's a bit disingenous to use test results for two books for older children and then talk about how the 'fact' that toddlers suck on these books 'all the time' is the other half of an equation 'proving' Congress needs to act. Furthermore, it's extremely unlikely that either of these books are intended for toddlers, given the fact that they were both published before 1983. Toddler books in libraries just don't last that long.
This is a bit of slight of hand designed to frighten the public without informing them.
Here are some facts Lanphear and Halsne should be aware of:
E. Book ink poses virtually no threat under normal use and abuse by a child
i. Book ink soaks into paper, does not rub off on hands
ii. Research on absorption of lead from ink – saliva can’t leach
iii. Bibliophagia (eating books) rare at any age.
1. Normal for babies and toddlers to mouth board books (usually just edges), but studies show putting books in mouth becomes unusual past 18-24 months. Law covers books for kids up to age 12, 10 years past age when mouthing occurs.
2. Actually eating the book is exceedingly rare – usually sign of pica, a medical condition in which people compulsively eat non-nutritive substances (and thus not under the umbrella of “normal use and abuse.”(and only found 2 cases in which young children were said to have eaten a book, along with other substances that posed much greater risk of lead poisoning or other health problems – both kids were later diagnosed with pica and treated for underlying medical conditions.)
F. Emerging evidence that exposure to books may help to both prevent and treat harmful effects of lead toxicity.
Lead is not magic. It doesn't just fly through the air from the printed page to a child's blood stream. There are:
No known cases EVER of lead poisoning from books (of 44 rare sources of lead poisoning in children cataloged by CDC, none is from a book – only print-related case was an infant who had elevated levels after parents burned logs made from old newspapers – people don’t burn children’s book logs.) No mention ever, anywhere of lead in books even contributing to elevated lead levels.Saying that lead is bad is not good evidence that this law is a good law, because toys, books, and clothing are not the primary source of elevated blood lead levels in children, nor is this argument honest, as we know that children under 3 absorb lead much more readily than older children. There is no reason to believe that lead in a book of Japanese children's stories poses any threat to a ten year old, yet this law covers ALL books for ALL children from ages 12 and down.
And of course, the New England Journal of Medicine articles, notwithstanding, the verdict on lead levels is not nearly so conclusive as the above emotional laden argument makes it seem:
Based on his review of the body of literature and his own research, Bellinger hypothesizes that an enriched environment can prevent or ameliorate the effects of lead exposure, which is especially significant in light of the absence of an effective medical treatment. In the journal Pediatrics, Bellinger noted (emphasis added is mine):Finally, characteristics of a child’s rearing environment might influence the
toxicity of a given lead dose.47 Lead seems to be similar to other biological risks, such as low birth weight, in that children from environments that offer fewer developmental resources and supports express deficits at a lower blood lead level than do children from more optimal environments45,48
and show less recovery after exposure.43
There is not a case on record where lead from a child's book entered the blood stream.
What evidence that does exist suggests that touching, holding, reading, even licking the book will not result in a chlid absorbing the lead, because saliva turns out not to be a very effective way of separating lead out of a printed page.
Actually EATING the entire book *might*- if a child chanced to eat a book that had more lead in it than most other pre-1985 books, but I suspect most children would be complaining of a belly ache for other reasons before they finished chomping down an entire book.
I don't know any children over 2 who lick, suck, or chew on their books, yet this draconian law forbids the sale of all pre-1985 books for the use of children as old as 12- with zero evidence it's even possible for that book to harm a ten year old risk assessment is completely forbidden by the CPSIA as it stands. And it appears Halsne feels fully justified in having these books removed from libraries as well.Remember when people were insisting this was ridiculous, nobody wanted to get rid of library books?
Thanks to LAnon for pointing out the article (in the comments to this post), even if it has given me heartburn and pushed back my breakfast making some two hours.=)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
