There are dozens of reasons we homeschool.
One reason is detailed in this article: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765552031/The-war-on-boys-young-men-are-facing-a-new-crisis.html?pg=1
Education is now set up for girls. Teaching in classrooms, social learning, expected achievements based on developmental levels, college entrance, textbooks, and so many other aspects of public education are slanted toward helping girls succeed.
I have a lot of boys and only one girl. I want them all to succeed. I don't see any reason to put my boys at a disadvantage simply because they have a Y chromosome. I can tailor our education here for each student to succeed, so that the boys get the kind of education that helps boys learn. I can also ensure the expectations are high enough for them--that nobody just expects they'll fail/misbehave/whatever simply because they are boys.
Tuesday, October 09, 2012
Monday, October 01, 2012
Literary Agents? Again?
Uh...I finished my novel. Again. Same novel.
This time, I needed to be just done. DONE. No more editing it endlessly. I didn't even take it to my writer's group. Or my parents. Or my husband. Or even my kids. I was afraid one of them would make a really excellent comment that I agreed with, and I would be back on page one, fixing this or that.
But I want to move on to the next novel: Melora saves her Dad from evil art forgers who have captured him because he's about to reveal their secrets. It's an adventure story retelling of an obscure 16th-century Portuguese Arthurian legend, set in modern days. The first chapter is done and really exciting! Outline is done. Been researching art and antiquities black markets, forensics, forgery, theft....cool stuff, actually. Also I've gotten to look into Caravaggio's life and the legend of the Maltese Falcon as well as the memorabilia from the movie of the same name. As you can see, I'm really excited to write this book! And that means I had to be done with "The Poison Spindle Problem."
So I finished it.
And then my kids wanted a bound copy to read. They each wanted one. I have no money to get those printed, so I started thinking of options. And one thing led to another and I'm back to querying agents. I think it's a good book. I've been reading children's lit and I feel like it's as good as what's being published. Anda, my voracious reader who is very honest with me about my work, says it's as good as her favorite novels. So why not try to get it published? The kids said they want to be able to go to the library and see my book on the shelf.
I decided, though, that I really need to be done still. I realized that at this point, I can tweak words here and there for eternity and it probably won't make a difference as to whether an agent likes it or not. I can have this minor character show up again at the end or not and it still won't make a difference as to whether an agent likes it or not. Some changes don't really improve things--they just change things. So I decided to get off that hamster wheel and start querying. And I decided to go whole hog this time: query every agent who I think might be a good fit, rather than 8 at a time and send out a new query for every rejection (which is how I've done it in the past). I decided either someone is going to like it or they aren't, and I'm not going to rewrite that book without someone asking me to (an editor or agent, for example), so it can't hurt to query every agent with this project all at once.
So I spent the last week sending out queries. I now have sent 125 queries on this project, but that's since 2006, and it's a very different book since then! VERY different. Querying has changed in the last 6 years. Most agencies only take email queries instead of grudgingly accepting them. Most agencies no longer respond if they aren't interested--which is frustrating for writers on one level (no feedback!) but great on another (no rejection!). Most agencies still take 4-6 weeks to respond (or so say their websites). And I've only been doing this for a week.
Interestingly, most agencies ask you to put both the query letter and the partial in the email up front. It used to be you'd send a query, and if they liked it they'd ask for 10-50 pages (a "partial" or partial manuscript) to evaluate your writing, and if they liked that, they'd ask for the whole manuscript. The whole process took a long time because it was all done by snailmail and you had a 4-6 week wait between steps. Now, you send the query followed by the 10-50 page sample right in the body of the email. That way, an agent can read the query and delete it right away if they don't like it or can't sell it, but if you've piqued their interest, they can just skim the beginning of the book right there on the spot to see if you can write at all. And then if they're still interested, they can hit "reply" and ask for the whole manuscript to be emailed to them, and you can send it right away (I sent one today within 5 minutes of getting the reply) so the agent can keep reading while they are still interested, if they want. Better for everyone this way. And it means that if an agent asks to read your book, you already passed the first two tests: query and first few pages were okay.
So, like I said, 125 queries have gone out. Some were old. About 72 so far are new. I sent them fully expecting to hear nothing back from anyone ever. To my surprise, I've had 6 rejections so far, all form rejections. Most were very nice--something along the lines of "This isn't for me. Good luck finding someone else." One was quite condescending and rude--something along the lines of "I only take books with interesting characters, plot, and setting. Nice of you to spend all this time writing and think of me, but no." The subtext, of course, being that YOUR book (my book!) didn't have interesting characters, plot, or setting (at least in the first 10 pages, which is all she asked to read up front).
And three agencies so far have asked to read it! And I've only had it out there for a week! And, to my great surprise (and delight--I admit it), all three are among the top agencies, most recommended by the watchdogs, successful agencies. So I'm very pleased. It was especially nice today when I got up and found that mean form rejection and felt a little downhearted, and then within half an hour one of these top agencies asked for the full manuscript (which I sent immediately). My kids were excited because this last agency that asked to read it represents some of their favorite authors, including Suzanne Collins (my kids can't get enough of "Gregor the Overlander"--they haven't read "Hunger Games" yet). And that with the same 10 pages that elicited the "only interesting plot, characters, and settings" rejection.
So I still fully expect them all to say, "Never mind. Not my cup of tea." (because that's all I've ever heard from agents--except that one who very helpfully said, "I'm not sure you know what story you're trying to tell. Can't you put more romance in?"--helpful because that's what drove me to realize that no, I can't, because I really want to write for children, not teens and adults. HUGE breakthrough for me.).
Anyway, it's been a fun week, when I went into this truly not caring what happened. Having people say, "Oh, your first 10 pages make me want to read more" has been kind of gratifying, especially since I sweat blood over those first 10 pages. They were the hardest to write in the whole book!
But tomorrow I'm still going to start Melora. Art forensics here I come!
This time, I needed to be just done. DONE. No more editing it endlessly. I didn't even take it to my writer's group. Or my parents. Or my husband. Or even my kids. I was afraid one of them would make a really excellent comment that I agreed with, and I would be back on page one, fixing this or that.
But I want to move on to the next novel: Melora saves her Dad from evil art forgers who have captured him because he's about to reveal their secrets. It's an adventure story retelling of an obscure 16th-century Portuguese Arthurian legend, set in modern days. The first chapter is done and really exciting! Outline is done. Been researching art and antiquities black markets, forensics, forgery, theft....cool stuff, actually. Also I've gotten to look into Caravaggio's life and the legend of the Maltese Falcon as well as the memorabilia from the movie of the same name. As you can see, I'm really excited to write this book! And that means I had to be done with "The Poison Spindle Problem."
So I finished it.
And then my kids wanted a bound copy to read. They each wanted one. I have no money to get those printed, so I started thinking of options. And one thing led to another and I'm back to querying agents. I think it's a good book. I've been reading children's lit and I feel like it's as good as what's being published. Anda, my voracious reader who is very honest with me about my work, says it's as good as her favorite novels. So why not try to get it published? The kids said they want to be able to go to the library and see my book on the shelf.
I decided, though, that I really need to be done still. I realized that at this point, I can tweak words here and there for eternity and it probably won't make a difference as to whether an agent likes it or not. I can have this minor character show up again at the end or not and it still won't make a difference as to whether an agent likes it or not. Some changes don't really improve things--they just change things. So I decided to get off that hamster wheel and start querying. And I decided to go whole hog this time: query every agent who I think might be a good fit, rather than 8 at a time and send out a new query for every rejection (which is how I've done it in the past). I decided either someone is going to like it or they aren't, and I'm not going to rewrite that book without someone asking me to (an editor or agent, for example), so it can't hurt to query every agent with this project all at once.
So I spent the last week sending out queries. I now have sent 125 queries on this project, but that's since 2006, and it's a very different book since then! VERY different. Querying has changed in the last 6 years. Most agencies only take email queries instead of grudgingly accepting them. Most agencies no longer respond if they aren't interested--which is frustrating for writers on one level (no feedback!) but great on another (no rejection!). Most agencies still take 4-6 weeks to respond (or so say their websites). And I've only been doing this for a week.
Interestingly, most agencies ask you to put both the query letter and the partial in the email up front. It used to be you'd send a query, and if they liked it they'd ask for 10-50 pages (a "partial" or partial manuscript) to evaluate your writing, and if they liked that, they'd ask for the whole manuscript. The whole process took a long time because it was all done by snailmail and you had a 4-6 week wait between steps. Now, you send the query followed by the 10-50 page sample right in the body of the email. That way, an agent can read the query and delete it right away if they don't like it or can't sell it, but if you've piqued their interest, they can just skim the beginning of the book right there on the spot to see if you can write at all. And then if they're still interested, they can hit "reply" and ask for the whole manuscript to be emailed to them, and you can send it right away (I sent one today within 5 minutes of getting the reply) so the agent can keep reading while they are still interested, if they want. Better for everyone this way. And it means that if an agent asks to read your book, you already passed the first two tests: query and first few pages were okay.
So, like I said, 125 queries have gone out. Some were old. About 72 so far are new. I sent them fully expecting to hear nothing back from anyone ever. To my surprise, I've had 6 rejections so far, all form rejections. Most were very nice--something along the lines of "This isn't for me. Good luck finding someone else." One was quite condescending and rude--something along the lines of "I only take books with interesting characters, plot, and setting. Nice of you to spend all this time writing and think of me, but no." The subtext, of course, being that YOUR book (my book!) didn't have interesting characters, plot, or setting (at least in the first 10 pages, which is all she asked to read up front).
And three agencies so far have asked to read it! And I've only had it out there for a week! And, to my great surprise (and delight--I admit it), all three are among the top agencies, most recommended by the watchdogs, successful agencies. So I'm very pleased. It was especially nice today when I got up and found that mean form rejection and felt a little downhearted, and then within half an hour one of these top agencies asked for the full manuscript (which I sent immediately). My kids were excited because this last agency that asked to read it represents some of their favorite authors, including Suzanne Collins (my kids can't get enough of "Gregor the Overlander"--they haven't read "Hunger Games" yet). And that with the same 10 pages that elicited the "only interesting plot, characters, and settings" rejection.
So I still fully expect them all to say, "Never mind. Not my cup of tea." (because that's all I've ever heard from agents--except that one who very helpfully said, "I'm not sure you know what story you're trying to tell. Can't you put more romance in?"--helpful because that's what drove me to realize that no, I can't, because I really want to write for children, not teens and adults. HUGE breakthrough for me.).
Anyway, it's been a fun week, when I went into this truly not caring what happened. Having people say, "Oh, your first 10 pages make me want to read more" has been kind of gratifying, especially since I sweat blood over those first 10 pages. They were the hardest to write in the whole book!
But tomorrow I'm still going to start Melora. Art forensics here I come!
Friday, September 28, 2012
Did I just read that?
"She sustained treatment for her injuries."
Really?
http://abcnews.go.com/US/teen-girls-videotaped-beating-woman-remorseless-detective/story?id=17348305#.UGYUnU3A8rU
Really?
http://abcnews.go.com/US/teen-girls-videotaped-beating-woman-remorseless-detective/story?id=17348305#.UGYUnU3A8rU
Saturday, September 22, 2012
New video from Tim
Wednesday was International Talk Like a Pirate Day. Apparently even Obama participated.
Here was Tim's contribution to the celebration:
Here was Tim's contribution to the celebration:
Did I just read that?
"A toddler is safe at homeafter wandering onto a busy highway in Dodge County, Wisconsin. Guadalupe Ollarzabal spotted the boy as he was driving along Highway 19 Wednesday evening." http://www.9news.com/news/sidetracks/290364/337/2-year-old-found-wandering-on-highway
What a toddler was doing driving is beyond me!
Friday, September 14, 2012
Another tourette boy?
Benji went to his first full day of Kindergarten today. He'd done two half days before, but this was his first full day.
He was SO excited. Benji has always been my "See ya, Mom!" kid. He's the only one who went willingly to nursery and kicked me out, for example. So he was totally okay trotting out the door this morning and handling things himself.
And he came home happy. Unfortunately, he didn't eat his lunch at all because he was afraid it might have rotted by the time he got to eat it (and I gave him fruit and chips--none of which rot in 4 hours!). I hear that right after lunch he had one meltdown (but only one) but nobody from the school called me, so I'm guessing they got it taken care of. I hope so, anyway. Caleb and Anda both happened by while it was happening and gave him love and tissues and tried to help him stop crying--I'm so glad they were there at the right time!
Anyway, he came home happy. And he came home with a tic.
It's a really obvious shoulder-abdomen tic that is undeniably ticcing and not something else. This fascinated me because he also came home able to sit in a chair and ask and answer questions calmly, without jumping around, running, or touching me excessively. And without repeating the first entire half of his sentences over and over.
And suddenly it occurred to me that he might have Tourette Syndrome, just like Caleb. I have suspected, off and on, for a couple of years that it might be in Benji, too, because he did this eye-blinking thing. But I wasn't sure if it was a tic or if he was mimicking Caleb. Benji is an incredibly talented mimic (I swear the kid is going to be a Broadway star--all the "annoying" things he does are considered talents on Broadway, just not in Sunday School). So I wasn't settled on whether he was mimicking or ticcing, but it didn't matter because there isn't a good treatment for tics anyway.
So I was telling Tim about this new tic and, in the course of a couple of different conversations about it with Tim, I realized (because Tim pointed it out) that Benji repeating entire half sentences over and over is probably not him trying to rephrase things just right--it's probably a tic. In fact, Caleb used to do that, too. He just repeated smaller phrases than Benji does, but the behavior is the same.
Then I realized (because I read it in an article as I was doing some research) that Benji's completely annoying habit of pawing at me while he talks is probably a tic. Apparently touching other people is a common tic.
And it occurred to me that the excessive running that Benji does might not be ADHD or SPD (although I'm still absolutely convinced he has SPD). It might be a tic. He often sways or wiggles and then runs while he's trying to tell me things, and today it was striking that he didn't. He did that shoulder-abdomen thing instead. So that's when I thought--I wonder if the running is a tic? I wonder if he tics by hopping up to run and then finds himself across the room or in the front and then just does something there, like touch the blackboard, simply because he himself is trying to comprehend why he's there and why he needed to get up and run and what the heck is going on. I wonder if the trouble he gets in sometimes is because he is trying to justify his tic to himself. When Caleb was 3 and then again when he was 5 and we realized there was something going on, I asked him if he did that on purpose after a tic, and he said, 'Of course I do. I meant to do that.' He was trying to comprehend what his body was doing, and he figured he must have chosen to tic, probably because he felt the premonitory urge (a warning that you're about to tic, or that you need to, kind of like you just know when you're going to sneeze and the feeling doesn't go away until you do) and figured he must have chosen to tic to get that to go away.
Knowing that the repeated phrases, the eye blinking, the pawing at people (who would have guessed that one?!), the fact that his tic wanders or changes from place to place around his body, the sleep disorder, the ADD symptoms all go together and absolutely indicate Tourette Syndrome has caused me to step back and look at Benji with new eyes.
One of the big challenges for families with TS is identifying what in the kid is a tic and can't be helped and what are just bad habits that need to be addressed. When he picks his nose, do we mention that or ignore it? When he stutters through sentences, do we get speech therapy or just wait for the tic to drift somewhere else? Is that clearing throat sound asthma that needs medication or is it a tic that needs to be ignored? And if you open the door to running, pawing, jumping, etc...where are the lines? What is ADD distraction and what is his head turning to the side when his brain is still completely with me? What is ADD movement required to get the brain focused and what is purposeless tic movement? How much of the jumping around his his normal, exuberant personality and how much is a tic? When he throws himself to the floor in the grocery store or licks a window or takes the clocks at the store down and changes the times on all of them, is that ADHD, a tic, a tic followed by a purposeful behavior to justify the tic, SPD overstimulation, or just bad behavior? You respond to each differently. You can bet I'm going to be watching Benji a lot in the next little while, feeling this one out.
I learned today that TS (Tourette Syndrome) is genetic, so it's no surprise that more than one of our children would have it. Tim and I are wondering which family it came from--or if it's in both families. It's actually quite a bit of a surprise with all the siblings, cousins, nieces and nephews, aunts and uncles we have that nobody else has kids diagnosed with TS. We've seen clear evidence of other kids in the family with SPD, ADD, Hypokalemic sensory overstimulation disorder, DSPS (the sleep disorder), fibro, profound giftedness...all the other genetic things we carry. Mostly we know which of our four parents those things came from. So why not this one? Is nobody identifying the tics (since eye blinking isn't always obvious), or is it just not expressing itself and we just got lucky? Or are people just trying to discipline it out of their kids? I could totally see that last one. Even knowing about Caleb's TS, I've tried many many times to get Benji to just finish his sentences already, to get him to stop pawing at me, to get him to sit still--and that after I already identified the eye blinking as a probable tic. I'm shocked that I didn't rightly identify the palilalia (repeating your own phrases) even though it was nearly identical to Caleb's!
So what I'm wondering (and Tim is wondering) is what triggered the sudden development of a new tic right after the first full day of Kindergarten? Stress? Lack of sleep? Hunger? All of those things usually exacerbate TS. But the development of a new, dramatic, completely-unrelated-to-any-of-his-other-tics tic? I am wondering if someone put their foot down and said "If you can't be still and not run, you can't come anymore" and that was so traumatic to Benji (because he wants so desperately to be in school and to succeed at it) that it caused his tic to shift from running to the shoulder-abdomen thing. The rest of today, he did the shoulder-abdomen thing a lot, but I've almost never seen him sit so still for so long when there wasn't a movie on. And I've never seen him talk to me for extended periods like that (extended like 5 minutes straight) without hopping up, squirming, running off and coming back, pawing, poking, dancing, squirming again, and eventually getting so stuck trying to finish a sentence that he walks away.
Has TS been keeping this poor kid captive all this time, slave of a body that acted without his permission and to his consternation? And then for him to get in trouble for it....yikes. Poor Benji!
For Benji more than most kids, a TS diagnosis would dramatically change things--probably in ways that will make him much happier, even if it doesn't make it easier to take him to the grocery store.
Interesting notes: Did you know that up to 90% of people with Tourette Syndrome also have ADD, but that stimulant medications make the TS worse, so it's harder to treat? And, interestingly, it turns out that sleep disorders are common comorbid conditions with TS. So I guess we fit right in, don't we?
He was SO excited. Benji has always been my "See ya, Mom!" kid. He's the only one who went willingly to nursery and kicked me out, for example. So he was totally okay trotting out the door this morning and handling things himself.
And he came home happy. Unfortunately, he didn't eat his lunch at all because he was afraid it might have rotted by the time he got to eat it (and I gave him fruit and chips--none of which rot in 4 hours!). I hear that right after lunch he had one meltdown (but only one) but nobody from the school called me, so I'm guessing they got it taken care of. I hope so, anyway. Caleb and Anda both happened by while it was happening and gave him love and tissues and tried to help him stop crying--I'm so glad they were there at the right time!
Anyway, he came home happy. And he came home with a tic.
It's a really obvious shoulder-abdomen tic that is undeniably ticcing and not something else. This fascinated me because he also came home able to sit in a chair and ask and answer questions calmly, without jumping around, running, or touching me excessively. And without repeating the first entire half of his sentences over and over.
And suddenly it occurred to me that he might have Tourette Syndrome, just like Caleb. I have suspected, off and on, for a couple of years that it might be in Benji, too, because he did this eye-blinking thing. But I wasn't sure if it was a tic or if he was mimicking Caleb. Benji is an incredibly talented mimic (I swear the kid is going to be a Broadway star--all the "annoying" things he does are considered talents on Broadway, just not in Sunday School). So I wasn't settled on whether he was mimicking or ticcing, but it didn't matter because there isn't a good treatment for tics anyway.
So I was telling Tim about this new tic and, in the course of a couple of different conversations about it with Tim, I realized (because Tim pointed it out) that Benji repeating entire half sentences over and over is probably not him trying to rephrase things just right--it's probably a tic. In fact, Caleb used to do that, too. He just repeated smaller phrases than Benji does, but the behavior is the same.
Then I realized (because I read it in an article as I was doing some research) that Benji's completely annoying habit of pawing at me while he talks is probably a tic. Apparently touching other people is a common tic.
And it occurred to me that the excessive running that Benji does might not be ADHD or SPD (although I'm still absolutely convinced he has SPD). It might be a tic. He often sways or wiggles and then runs while he's trying to tell me things, and today it was striking that he didn't. He did that shoulder-abdomen thing instead. So that's when I thought--I wonder if the running is a tic? I wonder if he tics by hopping up to run and then finds himself across the room or in the front and then just does something there, like touch the blackboard, simply because he himself is trying to comprehend why he's there and why he needed to get up and run and what the heck is going on. I wonder if the trouble he gets in sometimes is because he is trying to justify his tic to himself. When Caleb was 3 and then again when he was 5 and we realized there was something going on, I asked him if he did that on purpose after a tic, and he said, 'Of course I do. I meant to do that.' He was trying to comprehend what his body was doing, and he figured he must have chosen to tic, probably because he felt the premonitory urge (a warning that you're about to tic, or that you need to, kind of like you just know when you're going to sneeze and the feeling doesn't go away until you do) and figured he must have chosen to tic to get that to go away.
Knowing that the repeated phrases, the eye blinking, the pawing at people (who would have guessed that one?!), the fact that his tic wanders or changes from place to place around his body, the sleep disorder, the ADD symptoms all go together and absolutely indicate Tourette Syndrome has caused me to step back and look at Benji with new eyes.
One of the big challenges for families with TS is identifying what in the kid is a tic and can't be helped and what are just bad habits that need to be addressed. When he picks his nose, do we mention that or ignore it? When he stutters through sentences, do we get speech therapy or just wait for the tic to drift somewhere else? Is that clearing throat sound asthma that needs medication or is it a tic that needs to be ignored? And if you open the door to running, pawing, jumping, etc...where are the lines? What is ADD distraction and what is his head turning to the side when his brain is still completely with me? What is ADD movement required to get the brain focused and what is purposeless tic movement? How much of the jumping around his his normal, exuberant personality and how much is a tic? When he throws himself to the floor in the grocery store or licks a window or takes the clocks at the store down and changes the times on all of them, is that ADHD, a tic, a tic followed by a purposeful behavior to justify the tic, SPD overstimulation, or just bad behavior? You respond to each differently. You can bet I'm going to be watching Benji a lot in the next little while, feeling this one out.
I learned today that TS (Tourette Syndrome) is genetic, so it's no surprise that more than one of our children would have it. Tim and I are wondering which family it came from--or if it's in both families. It's actually quite a bit of a surprise with all the siblings, cousins, nieces and nephews, aunts and uncles we have that nobody else has kids diagnosed with TS. We've seen clear evidence of other kids in the family with SPD, ADD, Hypokalemic sensory overstimulation disorder, DSPS (the sleep disorder), fibro, profound giftedness...all the other genetic things we carry. Mostly we know which of our four parents those things came from. So why not this one? Is nobody identifying the tics (since eye blinking isn't always obvious), or is it just not expressing itself and we just got lucky? Or are people just trying to discipline it out of their kids? I could totally see that last one. Even knowing about Caleb's TS, I've tried many many times to get Benji to just finish his sentences already, to get him to stop pawing at me, to get him to sit still--and that after I already identified the eye blinking as a probable tic. I'm shocked that I didn't rightly identify the palilalia (repeating your own phrases) even though it was nearly identical to Caleb's!
So what I'm wondering (and Tim is wondering) is what triggered the sudden development of a new tic right after the first full day of Kindergarten? Stress? Lack of sleep? Hunger? All of those things usually exacerbate TS. But the development of a new, dramatic, completely-unrelated-to-any-of-his-other-tics tic? I am wondering if someone put their foot down and said "If you can't be still and not run, you can't come anymore" and that was so traumatic to Benji (because he wants so desperately to be in school and to succeed at it) that it caused his tic to shift from running to the shoulder-abdomen thing. The rest of today, he did the shoulder-abdomen thing a lot, but I've almost never seen him sit so still for so long when there wasn't a movie on. And I've never seen him talk to me for extended periods like that (extended like 5 minutes straight) without hopping up, squirming, running off and coming back, pawing, poking, dancing, squirming again, and eventually getting so stuck trying to finish a sentence that he walks away.
Has TS been keeping this poor kid captive all this time, slave of a body that acted without his permission and to his consternation? And then for him to get in trouble for it....yikes. Poor Benji!
For Benji more than most kids, a TS diagnosis would dramatically change things--probably in ways that will make him much happier, even if it doesn't make it easier to take him to the grocery store.
Interesting notes: Did you know that up to 90% of people with Tourette Syndrome also have ADD, but that stimulant medications make the TS worse, so it's harder to treat? And, interestingly, it turns out that sleep disorders are common comorbid conditions with TS. So I guess we fit right in, don't we?
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
Did I just read that?
From ksl.com home page: "Curiosity photos look curiously similar to Utah scientists"
So the Utah scientists look like dust and rock? Or there are humans on Mars.....
Saturday, September 01, 2012
Four new Videos from Tim
Hey! New Videos! After a long time of not being able to get videos filmed, Tim got the garage cleaned out, repainted the black (yes, even the floor of my garage is black), and used his new camera to make videos.
And they look and sound great. He was so right about needing that particular camera! (Cannon EOS T2i, if you care to know--takes great pro-quality photos and video. Oh, and it was a great deal!).
So videos:
First, "Hot Night."
I love the imagery in the lyrics in this song. The whole idea of going downtown and seeing a "hipster hoping on a guitar" so captures the essence of local musicians. Love the lyrics on this. Tonight I saw him perform this live and at the end he slowed the rhythm way down (looping pedal can do this) and turned it into another song entirely without changing the loop. It was AMAZING. You'll have to see it live sometime. REALLY, really cool.
And "The Sound Goes Around"
I've been waiting to share this song for five years, and there was no good recording or video of it until now. There is a longer version of this that we got some live footage of, but it's still on the camera.
And "Momma"
This is not the first video of this song Tim has posted, but this is a great, dynamic performance. Watching it, I was struck by how very "Mormon" the song is, without being Mormon. I just love Tim's lyrics. They are art. They are poetry. They are not nonsense, and they're not shallow.
And, finally, this. This just blew me away the first time I saw it. They have looping pedals, wired together, and are doing duo vocal live looping. I think they might be the only guys on the planet who have figured out how to do this, and who can make such incredible songs. The bass/drum thing that comes in about 3:20 is so delicious to me. I could listen to that forever. Seriously. It's like food for my soul. Oh, and you should hear it live, with the subwoofer. WOW. Anyway, seeing them play the looping pedals like keyboards and drum machines is truly amazing. This is a one-of-a-kind act and I don't think there are any other people on earth who can do what Matt Murphy and Tim are doing in this video. And there are a dozen new songs for this format in development, including one we don't have a video of yet called "Sandbox" that might just be my favorite of all of Tim's songs--and is certainly one of the kids' favorites (especially after they learned it was describing a video game....). Anyway, this one is "Jungle Jackson":
And they look and sound great. He was so right about needing that particular camera! (Cannon EOS T2i, if you care to know--takes great pro-quality photos and video. Oh, and it was a great deal!).
So videos:
First, "Hot Night."
And "The Sound Goes Around"
I've been waiting to share this song for five years, and there was no good recording or video of it until now. There is a longer version of this that we got some live footage of, but it's still on the camera.
And "Momma"
This is not the first video of this song Tim has posted, but this is a great, dynamic performance. Watching it, I was struck by how very "Mormon" the song is, without being Mormon. I just love Tim's lyrics. They are art. They are poetry. They are not nonsense, and they're not shallow.
And, finally, this. This just blew me away the first time I saw it. They have looping pedals, wired together, and are doing duo vocal live looping. I think they might be the only guys on the planet who have figured out how to do this, and who can make such incredible songs. The bass/drum thing that comes in about 3:20 is so delicious to me. I could listen to that forever. Seriously. It's like food for my soul. Oh, and you should hear it live, with the subwoofer. WOW. Anyway, seeing them play the looping pedals like keyboards and drum machines is truly amazing. This is a one-of-a-kind act and I don't think there are any other people on earth who can do what Matt Murphy and Tim are doing in this video. And there are a dozen new songs for this format in development, including one we don't have a video of yet called "Sandbox" that might just be my favorite of all of Tim's songs--and is certainly one of the kids' favorites (especially after they learned it was describing a video game....). Anyway, this one is "Jungle Jackson":
Saturday, August 25, 2012
Did I just read that?
"The microparticles can keep an object alive for up to 30 min after respiratory failure." http://www.techwench.com/scientists-invent-oxygen-particle-that-if-injected-allows-you-to-live-without-breathing/
So apparently scientists can now bestow life on objects? Fascinating.....
So apparently scientists can now bestow life on objects? Fascinating.....
Friday, August 24, 2012
SPD and Fibromyalgia
When my sister called today to say we were right and her son does have SPD, my first thought was, "What?!"--I misheard "STDs." (The kid isn't even one yet!).
SPD is Sensory Processing Disorder. With SPD, a person (usually a child, and usually a boy) either gets too much or too little feedback from their senses, processing the sensory input "wrong" and leading to sometimes bizarre behavior to either get more or avoid sensory input.
SPD happens in all the senses, and not evenly. Where one sense might be hypersensitive, another might be undersensitive, leading a kid to run constantly or speak too loudly but refuse to eat most foods and wear most clothes. The "broken" sensory input can come in from any of the "standard" (taught in elementary school) five senses: taste, touch, smell, sight, or hearing; or from the "other" senses, which have big names that are actually more confusing but which are, in essence, the sense of where your body is in space (movement, balance) and the sense of where your body is in relationship to itself (where your limbs are, what angle your joints are bent at, is your head tipped to one side, etc). I suspect there are other senses that aren't on the standard SPD list, like pain. Pain is a sense--it's not touch or taste or smell or sight or hearing; it's not you-in-space or your-body-connected. And yes, it interacts with the other senses, but so do smell and taste, and sight and hearing, and touch and taste.
SPD is normally diagnosed in boys and is not considered genetic. It is often associated with autism because ALL autistic children have SPD, but in reality, not all children with SPD have autism (like all bipolar people sometimes are depressed, but not all depressed people are bipolar). SPD is also extremely common among profoundly gifted people (and some people theorize is related to their intelligence: they take in and process more information than "average" people). One theory out there is that profoundly gifted people are often diagnosed with Asperger's or HFAutism because they actually have SPD and the disorders get confused with one another often. (Aspies, for example, don't like to be touched without warning. Neither do people with SPD, but that doesn't necessarily make them Aspies.)
SPD is newly on the radar--so much so that doctors and psychologists won't touch it, and many don't believe it exists. It has to be diagnosed by an occupational or physical therapist, and those are the people who most effectively treat it.
The "newness" of SPD is one reason I think people don't think it's genetic. There's not enough data to go around. Plus, it would be hard to collect data because it would necessarily be self-reported, and adults who have "always been this way" would not necessarily realize that not everyone was processing the world the same way they are, especially if they grew up and adapted and became fully functional adults. (Like that old question, what if I see blue the same way you see red--there would be no way to tell because the label is stuck to the color as you see it, not as everyone necessarily sees it. "Normal" is what you've always experienced and can function in--not necessarily what everyone is experiencing).
I, personally, DO think it's genetic. Why?
Because I'm pretty sure my kids have it, my sisters kids have now been diagnosed, and, as I got reacquainted with dozens of my maternal cousins this summer, I discovered that MANY of their children have it, too. Many of them, from different families.
The thing that struck me when I got home from one of these encounters where we all went, "Oh, your kid, too? How bizarre that we each have one or two kids like this...." is that this is also the family that has huge numbers of women with fibromyalgia.
Fibro runs STRONGLY in my family. Almost shockingly so.
Then I started thinking: Fibro is a disorder where your senses collect information and then process it "wrong", turning normal sensation into pain. Nobody knows what causes it, but everyone agrees that fibro is heavily influenced by hormones.
So my theory is that fibro and SPD are the same thing, but that fibro is processed through female hormones (that's why you see it primarily in women) and SPD is processed through male hormones (which is why you see it mostly in boys). Either way, your body's senses are processing information in a "wrong" way (primarily through hypersensitivity in fibro) and you are forced to adapt or medicate to survive.
I wish I had the time, resources, and expertise to test this theory. It would be a big deal to the world of SPD and fibro, opening doors of looking at things in new ways that hopefully would add insight that could lead to treatment. It certainly would be a groundbreaking study in both the SPD and fibro worlds! We certainly have a big enough family to actually do a legit genetic study--it's my mom's family, and she was one of 7 children (each of whom had 3 or more children, and most of those children had 3 or more children) and has over a hundred first cousins. There are well over 300 people in my generation in this family--just first and second cousins--and almost all of those 300 had 3 or more children. I wish I could get them all together, explain SPD and Fibro (both of which often go undiagnosed, so I'd have to explain it all in detail), and say, "How many of us have kids like this? How many have fibro? Can we trace the genetics somehow?"
Someday....
SPD is Sensory Processing Disorder. With SPD, a person (usually a child, and usually a boy) either gets too much or too little feedback from their senses, processing the sensory input "wrong" and leading to sometimes bizarre behavior to either get more or avoid sensory input.
SPD happens in all the senses, and not evenly. Where one sense might be hypersensitive, another might be undersensitive, leading a kid to run constantly or speak too loudly but refuse to eat most foods and wear most clothes. The "broken" sensory input can come in from any of the "standard" (taught in elementary school) five senses: taste, touch, smell, sight, or hearing; or from the "other" senses, which have big names that are actually more confusing but which are, in essence, the sense of where your body is in space (movement, balance) and the sense of where your body is in relationship to itself (where your limbs are, what angle your joints are bent at, is your head tipped to one side, etc). I suspect there are other senses that aren't on the standard SPD list, like pain. Pain is a sense--it's not touch or taste or smell or sight or hearing; it's not you-in-space or your-body-connected. And yes, it interacts with the other senses, but so do smell and taste, and sight and hearing, and touch and taste.
SPD is normally diagnosed in boys and is not considered genetic. It is often associated with autism because ALL autistic children have SPD, but in reality, not all children with SPD have autism (like all bipolar people sometimes are depressed, but not all depressed people are bipolar). SPD is also extremely common among profoundly gifted people (and some people theorize is related to their intelligence: they take in and process more information than "average" people). One theory out there is that profoundly gifted people are often diagnosed with Asperger's or HFAutism because they actually have SPD and the disorders get confused with one another often. (Aspies, for example, don't like to be touched without warning. Neither do people with SPD, but that doesn't necessarily make them Aspies.)
SPD is newly on the radar--so much so that doctors and psychologists won't touch it, and many don't believe it exists. It has to be diagnosed by an occupational or physical therapist, and those are the people who most effectively treat it.
The "newness" of SPD is one reason I think people don't think it's genetic. There's not enough data to go around. Plus, it would be hard to collect data because it would necessarily be self-reported, and adults who have "always been this way" would not necessarily realize that not everyone was processing the world the same way they are, especially if they grew up and adapted and became fully functional adults. (Like that old question, what if I see blue the same way you see red--there would be no way to tell because the label is stuck to the color as you see it, not as everyone necessarily sees it. "Normal" is what you've always experienced and can function in--not necessarily what everyone is experiencing).
I, personally, DO think it's genetic. Why?
Because I'm pretty sure my kids have it, my sisters kids have now been diagnosed, and, as I got reacquainted with dozens of my maternal cousins this summer, I discovered that MANY of their children have it, too. Many of them, from different families.
The thing that struck me when I got home from one of these encounters where we all went, "Oh, your kid, too? How bizarre that we each have one or two kids like this...." is that this is also the family that has huge numbers of women with fibromyalgia.
Fibro runs STRONGLY in my family. Almost shockingly so.
Then I started thinking: Fibro is a disorder where your senses collect information and then process it "wrong", turning normal sensation into pain. Nobody knows what causes it, but everyone agrees that fibro is heavily influenced by hormones.
So my theory is that fibro and SPD are the same thing, but that fibro is processed through female hormones (that's why you see it primarily in women) and SPD is processed through male hormones (which is why you see it mostly in boys). Either way, your body's senses are processing information in a "wrong" way (primarily through hypersensitivity in fibro) and you are forced to adapt or medicate to survive.
I wish I had the time, resources, and expertise to test this theory. It would be a big deal to the world of SPD and fibro, opening doors of looking at things in new ways that hopefully would add insight that could lead to treatment. It certainly would be a groundbreaking study in both the SPD and fibro worlds! We certainly have a big enough family to actually do a legit genetic study--it's my mom's family, and she was one of 7 children (each of whom had 3 or more children, and most of those children had 3 or more children) and has over a hundred first cousins. There are well over 300 people in my generation in this family--just first and second cousins--and almost all of those 300 had 3 or more children. I wish I could get them all together, explain SPD and Fibro (both of which often go undiagnosed, so I'd have to explain it all in detail), and say, "How many of us have kids like this? How many have fibro? Can we trace the genetics somehow?"
Someday....
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
Did I just read that?
"Knox confirmed early Tuesday morning that police released Serenity around 12:30 a.m., to her maternal mother, Howell, 20."
http://www.freep.com/article/20120820/NEWS01/120820081/Police-believe-they-ve-found-mother-baby-left-bus-stop?odyssey=nav|head
Is there any other type of mother? A paternal mother, perhaps?
Monday, August 20, 2012
What good is a dry marker?
My kids invariably leave the lids off their markers. So we end up with tons of dry markers sitting around. I used to gather them up and throw them away.
But no longer!
Lately, the favorite game is taking dry markers to the bathroom sink. They fill the sink with water and float the markers. Pretty soon, little rivulets of color are snaking through the water, making beautiful patterns.
Because our bathroom sink is white, the only color in the water comes from the markers. They've learned more about mixing to make new colors than they ever did with paint. And the mess goes down the drain when they're done.
We noticed that if you float a marker long enough, the tip turns white. But if you leave it out to "dry" for a while, the color usually returns--and the marker is no longer dry. It is once again useful for coloring on paper (provided you still have the lid somewhere).
So now I keep a container full of dry markers by the bathroom sink so the kids can play whenever they want. No more wasted markers.
But no longer!
Lately, the favorite game is taking dry markers to the bathroom sink. They fill the sink with water and float the markers. Pretty soon, little rivulets of color are snaking through the water, making beautiful patterns.
Because our bathroom sink is white, the only color in the water comes from the markers. They've learned more about mixing to make new colors than they ever did with paint. And the mess goes down the drain when they're done.
We noticed that if you float a marker long enough, the tip turns white. But if you leave it out to "dry" for a while, the color usually returns--and the marker is no longer dry. It is once again useful for coloring on paper (provided you still have the lid somewhere).
So now I keep a container full of dry markers by the bathroom sink so the kids can play whenever they want. No more wasted markers.
Friday, August 17, 2012
Jobs?
Looking for jobs for Tim, applying here and there, and I'm finding a lot of stuff like this:
"Master's preferred from a regionally accredited institution.... $12.55 - $18.84 an hour." There is no way to pay off student loans for $12.55 an hour. Tim gets more than that per hour as an on-call manual labor guy breaking down sets for a theater every other week or so--and that doesn't require a Master's degree.
Or qualification include: "Moderate to deep understanding of the vocal music landscape in the US; Experience in non-profit development is a plus...This is a volunteer position." No pay? For a moderate to deep understanding of the vocal music landscape in the US? I mean, really? That takes 10 years to develop. Plus they want programming/web skills.
"Master's preferred from a regionally accredited institution.... $12.55 - $18.84 an hour." There is no way to pay off student loans for $12.55 an hour. Tim gets more than that per hour as an on-call manual labor guy breaking down sets for a theater every other week or so--and that doesn't require a Master's degree.
Or qualification include: "Moderate to deep understanding of the vocal music landscape in the US; Experience in non-profit development is a plus...This is a volunteer position." No pay? For a moderate to deep understanding of the vocal music landscape in the US? I mean, really? That takes 10 years to develop. Plus they want programming/web skills.
Another job wanted someone who was a professional accompanist on piano, professional voice teacher (all voice parts for adults), live event producer, vocal ensemble music director, and artistic visionary who could conceptualize and design performances ("from 10 minutes to full evenings"). There might be someone who can do ALL of that. Usually you'd hire 3-4 people for that job, especially since it was an arts college looking--you'd think they'd know to get experts in each of those fields. Oh, and you don't even get to be faculty--this is merely a staff position, like some schools hire a vocal coach to help students prepare for performances. Just staff. No chance for advancement.
Not very encouraging, is it? No wonder most of the musicians we know are either moving home or going back to school. The work opportunities available to musicians are looking pretty dismal right now, demanding lots of expertise for little to no pay--probably because even the experts are looking for whatever they can get.
Monday, August 13, 2012
Musicians in society
I've been reading "Mr. Langshaw's Square Piano: The Story of the First Pianos and How They Caused a Cultural Revolution" by Madeline Goold.
It's an interesting book, more about the life and training of musicians in the 1750s-1810s than it is about pianos.
The training of musicians back then was not too far different from now--musicians trained with teachers until they were deemed masters, and then they tried to get jobs.
And it wasn't an easy thing to do, partly because of the social status given musicians. Social status at that period in England was much more stratified than now, but it struck me that musicians still occupy the same social "space" as they did back then.
For example, Goold writes that it was "an era when professional musicians were regarded as menials; Mozart had been required to sit below the valets in the service of the Archbishop of Salzburg. In England, musicians ranked as tradesmen; Lord Chesterfield....in 1755, advised: 'Nothing degrades a man more than performing on any instrument whatsoever.'" (p 168).While it isn't considered degrading to play any instrument whatsoever nowadays, but it certainly only elevates him artistically. Nobody considers bassoon or oboe players to be socially "It".
Chesterfield also told his son, "piping and fiddling puts a gentleman in a very frivolous and contemptible light...and takes up a great deal of time that might be better employed" (p179). This is certainly an attitude that we (Tim and I) have noticed--often--in our own lives, over 250 years after it was said. I guess some things never change.
A friend of ours is writing his dissertation on band music in America in the mid-1800s, just after the period covered by the book I'm reading, and on the other side of the world. I got a sneak preview of the research (and it's really cool!), and one thing I noticed there that is parallel to England a century earlier is that communities value music as something that elevates them and brings them to a more sophisticated social plane. How interesting, then, that the very same communities did not (and still do not) value the musicians who make the music. They value the results of the labor, but not the laborers. Rather, they actually disdain the laborers, somehow isolating the fruit of their labor from the workers who create it, even while acknowledging not only the value of the fruits of the labor, but also the reality that they, themselves, could not create it.
Back in the day, it wasn't just musicians who were looked down upon. Any tradesman was considered inferior to those who did not have to work with their hands. Brain work was considered superior to manual labor. It strikes me that this is still true today--we value the hardwood floor, but not the man who cut the wood or the man who installed it; we value the fresh produce, but not the farmer who grew it; we value the smooth roads, but not the men who build them; we value large, sturdy houses, but not the men who build them. All of those things give us status socially even while associating with the people who make them does just the opposite.
Bizarre and sad. Why not value the workers, builders, and creators in society?
In our society, we do value the thinkers just like the men in the 1700s did, and we value the doctors and lawyers just like they did in the 1750s, and (oddly, when you think about it), we give social status to the wealthy even if they didn't earn their wealth. We also give status to the famous because our society craves both fame and money, imagining (wrongly) that those things give you both power and happiness.
Interestingly, some of the most famous and wealthy people in America are musicians--and because of their fame and wealth, they are held up as the pinnacle of success and social standing. But it's not because they are musicians, and it's not because of their talent, even if people claim otherwise. It's because of their fame.
That leaves most musicians in an odd position socially--most of them are still considered quirky frivolous time-wasters. They are treated as though they are irresponsible. When things go poorly for them, instead of getting sympathy, they get "I told you so" and "if you hadn't been so foolish as to become a musician.....". But if they happen to break through and become famous, suddenly they are the pinnacle of social success and looked to as something akin to the 1750s royalty, even if the day before they were the lowest rung of the ladder, below even construction workers because of the misperception that musicians do nothing all day and then sing at night for hundreds of dollars (at least construction workers, the thinking seems to go, have the decency to earn their wages honestly by using their hands and time to work--as if musicians don't.).
While by the mid-1800s, a few musicians (mostly composers) became superstars (Strauss, for one), most never did. Or do. Obviously, some things never change.
It's an interesting book, more about the life and training of musicians in the 1750s-1810s than it is about pianos.
The training of musicians back then was not too far different from now--musicians trained with teachers until they were deemed masters, and then they tried to get jobs.
And it wasn't an easy thing to do, partly because of the social status given musicians. Social status at that period in England was much more stratified than now, but it struck me that musicians still occupy the same social "space" as they did back then.
For example, Goold writes that it was "an era when professional musicians were regarded as menials; Mozart had been required to sit below the valets in the service of the Archbishop of Salzburg. In England, musicians ranked as tradesmen; Lord Chesterfield....in 1755, advised: 'Nothing degrades a man more than performing on any instrument whatsoever.'" (p 168).While it isn't considered degrading to play any instrument whatsoever nowadays, but it certainly only elevates him artistically. Nobody considers bassoon or oboe players to be socially "It".
Chesterfield also told his son, "piping and fiddling puts a gentleman in a very frivolous and contemptible light...and takes up a great deal of time that might be better employed" (p179). This is certainly an attitude that we (Tim and I) have noticed--often--in our own lives, over 250 years after it was said. I guess some things never change.
A friend of ours is writing his dissertation on band music in America in the mid-1800s, just after the period covered by the book I'm reading, and on the other side of the world. I got a sneak preview of the research (and it's really cool!), and one thing I noticed there that is parallel to England a century earlier is that communities value music as something that elevates them and brings them to a more sophisticated social plane. How interesting, then, that the very same communities did not (and still do not) value the musicians who make the music. They value the results of the labor, but not the laborers. Rather, they actually disdain the laborers, somehow isolating the fruit of their labor from the workers who create it, even while acknowledging not only the value of the fruits of the labor, but also the reality that they, themselves, could not create it.
Back in the day, it wasn't just musicians who were looked down upon. Any tradesman was considered inferior to those who did not have to work with their hands. Brain work was considered superior to manual labor. It strikes me that this is still true today--we value the hardwood floor, but not the man who cut the wood or the man who installed it; we value the fresh produce, but not the farmer who grew it; we value the smooth roads, but not the men who build them; we value large, sturdy houses, but not the men who build them. All of those things give us status socially even while associating with the people who make them does just the opposite.
Bizarre and sad. Why not value the workers, builders, and creators in society?
In our society, we do value the thinkers just like the men in the 1700s did, and we value the doctors and lawyers just like they did in the 1750s, and (oddly, when you think about it), we give social status to the wealthy even if they didn't earn their wealth. We also give status to the famous because our society craves both fame and money, imagining (wrongly) that those things give you both power and happiness.
Interestingly, some of the most famous and wealthy people in America are musicians--and because of their fame and wealth, they are held up as the pinnacle of success and social standing. But it's not because they are musicians, and it's not because of their talent, even if people claim otherwise. It's because of their fame.
That leaves most musicians in an odd position socially--most of them are still considered quirky frivolous time-wasters. They are treated as though they are irresponsible. When things go poorly for them, instead of getting sympathy, they get "I told you so" and "if you hadn't been so foolish as to become a musician.....". But if they happen to break through and become famous, suddenly they are the pinnacle of social success and looked to as something akin to the 1750s royalty, even if the day before they were the lowest rung of the ladder, below even construction workers because of the misperception that musicians do nothing all day and then sing at night for hundreds of dollars (at least construction workers, the thinking seems to go, have the decency to earn their wages honestly by using their hands and time to work--as if musicians don't.).
While by the mid-1800s, a few musicians (mostly composers) became superstars (Strauss, for one), most never did. Or do. Obviously, some things never change.
Sunday, August 12, 2012
Dreaming of agents
The last few days my energy level has picked up and I determined to fix up some things that needed fixing, starting with the front window sun-blocking screen that came down. I spent all day yesterday puttering around doing tasks that needed to be done in and around my house.
Then last night I dreamed that I was at a party and there were no less than four literary agents there, friends of my cousins and friends, that I was interacting with socially. More than one asked me, "So what do you write?" And when I told them they said, "I want to read that." One even whipped out her laptop and asked if she could download my book and start on it right away.
And I was ashamed because it's not done. Oh, it's written all the way through. And I even know what needs to be done to fix it up (beginning is done, transition to middle needs work but it's only one chapter, middle is fantastic, ending needs less of one character and more of another--all easy, quick fixes, actually). But it's not actually done. And I haven't worked on it for months.
I woke up with the firm realization that anyone can fix up a house, but my work is raising kids and writing. Nobody else can do those things. Nobody can do it for me. Nobody can do it instead of me. This is the work I feel driven to, inspired about, made for, enlivened by.
Now how to fit it in? Inspiration is colliding with practical necessities. If something has to give, I hope I have the courage and wisdom to still do the things that nobody else can do.
Then last night I dreamed that I was at a party and there were no less than four literary agents there, friends of my cousins and friends, that I was interacting with socially. More than one asked me, "So what do you write?" And when I told them they said, "I want to read that." One even whipped out her laptop and asked if she could download my book and start on it right away.
And I was ashamed because it's not done. Oh, it's written all the way through. And I even know what needs to be done to fix it up (beginning is done, transition to middle needs work but it's only one chapter, middle is fantastic, ending needs less of one character and more of another--all easy, quick fixes, actually). But it's not actually done. And I haven't worked on it for months.
I woke up with the firm realization that anyone can fix up a house, but my work is raising kids and writing. Nobody else can do those things. Nobody can do it for me. Nobody can do it instead of me. This is the work I feel driven to, inspired about, made for, enlivened by.
Now how to fit it in? Inspiration is colliding with practical necessities. If something has to give, I hope I have the courage and wisdom to still do the things that nobody else can do.
Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Did I just read that?
This one was a winner. I don't think the doctors who paid to have their ads put up on sites meant it to come up like this.
At first glance, I missed the "ads by Google" label and saw the words and immediately this picture:
At first glance, I missed the "ads by Google" label and saw the words and immediately this picture:
Yeah, that makes me want to go to those Loveland doctors with their friendly, convenient care!
Sunday, July 22, 2012
Did I just read that?
"OMG fire burns 1300 acres near Shivwits reservation near St. George"
Is that really the name of that fire? Best fire name ever. I think that's what I would say if I saw a fire burning 1300 acres.
I'll text it to you: OMG! Fire!
Friday, July 20, 2012
Did I just read that?
From the AP (no joke!): "3 LA-area homeless people found stabbed with notes"
That's some fancy origami that made it so they could be stabbed with notes instead of something a little sharper--like knives.
Sunday, July 15, 2012
Dear President Obama,
I realize that Tim didn't build the roads. And that the sound equipment guys contributed a LOT toward his career.
But the reality is, the roads and sound equipment would exist without Tim, but his business wouldn't. He did build it. It is his. And if it succeeds or fails, it does have a great deal to do with Tim.
Perhaps you should start a business before you try to talk about them.
Thanks,
Me
PS When you can do this, then we'll talk about whether or not you deserve credit (and Tim's pay) for whatever success he might have.
But the reality is, the roads and sound equipment would exist without Tim, but his business wouldn't. He did build it. It is his. And if it succeeds or fails, it does have a great deal to do with Tim.
Perhaps you should start a business before you try to talk about them.
Thanks,
Me
PS When you can do this, then we'll talk about whether or not you deserve credit (and Tim's pay) for whatever success he might have.
Saturday, July 14, 2012
Did I just read that?
"Worldwide, 2011 was the coolest year on record since 2008, yet temperatures remained above the 30 year average, according to the 2011 State of the Climate report released online today by NOAA. "
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2012/20120710_stateoftheclimatereport.html
Yup, you heard it from NOAA.gov: 2011 was the coolest year since 2008! Since three whole years before it. It wasn't even the coolest year in the last 5 years. Nice.
Monday, July 09, 2012
Another cute lie on a card
Oh, boy. This one shows up all over facebook in various forms, all on cute little quote cards: "Believe that everything happens for a reason." or "Everything happens for a reason."
I don't know who wrote that, or who is trying to promote it, but it's a big, fat, emotionally dangerous LIE.
Try telling that to a little girl whose dad molested her for years.
Try telling that to Elizabeth Smart, who was held captive as a sex slave to a mad man for 9 months when she was barely a teenager.
Try telling that to the mom whose daughter was kidnapped, raped, and murdered last month in Utah.
Try telling that to the mom who was 2 days shy of her baby's due date when her car was hit by a drunk driver on a suspended license--and it killed her baby.
Then look me in the eye and tell me why you think that lie is going to help ANYONE. The reason those things happened is another person made a very bad choice, and someone else suffered for it. That's the reason.
Sometimes things happen because there are truly wicked people in this world. Sometimes really good, innocent people suffer a lot for their whole lives because one selfish, wicked person did something bad to them. And sometimes someone else made a mistake that had really sad ripples. Sometimes good people do dumb things that end up hurting other people.
And it makes me sick to think that all those facebook posters are trying to tell them that happened for a reason (presumably that some higher power condones). The quote seems to imply that God is controlling all these things that happen, and He WANTED it to happen.
Sometimes, there are bad things that happen because someone else made a choice, and sometimes it's dumb luck, and sometimes there seems to be no reason, and wasting energy searching for the reason is a waste of time and emotion.
I wish people would stop saying that everything happens for a reason. It's not helpful.
Really, bad things happen. And it's a good thing Jesus came and can help us get through them without it destroying our whole lives.
I don't know who wrote that, or who is trying to promote it, but it's a big, fat, emotionally dangerous LIE.
Try telling that to a little girl whose dad molested her for years.
Try telling that to Elizabeth Smart, who was held captive as a sex slave to a mad man for 9 months when she was barely a teenager.
Try telling that to the mom whose daughter was kidnapped, raped, and murdered last month in Utah.
Try telling that to the mom who was 2 days shy of her baby's due date when her car was hit by a drunk driver on a suspended license--and it killed her baby.
Then look me in the eye and tell me why you think that lie is going to help ANYONE. The reason those things happened is another person made a very bad choice, and someone else suffered for it. That's the reason.
Sometimes things happen because there are truly wicked people in this world. Sometimes really good, innocent people suffer a lot for their whole lives because one selfish, wicked person did something bad to them. And sometimes someone else made a mistake that had really sad ripples. Sometimes good people do dumb things that end up hurting other people.
And it makes me sick to think that all those facebook posters are trying to tell them that happened for a reason (presumably that some higher power condones). The quote seems to imply that God is controlling all these things that happen, and He WANTED it to happen.
Sometimes, there are bad things that happen because someone else made a choice, and sometimes it's dumb luck, and sometimes there seems to be no reason, and wasting energy searching for the reason is a waste of time and emotion.
I wish people would stop saying that everything happens for a reason. It's not helpful.
Really, bad things happen. And it's a good thing Jesus came and can help us get through them without it destroying our whole lives.
Cute Lies on Cards
It's become a serious fad to post cute little sayings on virtual cards all over facebook.
They're driving me nuts!
Some are harmless. Some are actually nice (like quotes from the prophets that are encouraging).
Some of the most popular are downright lies.
Like this one: "At any given moment, you have the power to say: This is not how the story is going to end."
Yeah, right.
Really, the end of the story is when and how you die, right? How many of us get to choose that? Barring suicide, none.
But even if we take "the story" to mean not your entire life, but just a little section of it, it's a cruel thing to tell someone that they have control over all the outcomes in their lives. Moms don't really get to decide if their babies are born healthy and without disabilities. Cancer patients don't get to decide to be healthy. Some people work all their lives and never get a baby/spouse/job/miracle/whatever they're hoping and praying for.
Sometimes you get fired.
Sometimes you end up in a wheel chair.
Sometimes your kid does.
Sometimes people get raped or tortured.
Sometimes there's a giant wildfire and it burns your house to the ground.
Sometimes the drunk driver does hit your car, and all you saying "This is not how the story is going to end!!" won't stop that. Sometimes that IS the end, and you can't stop it. And if it's not the end, then saying that is stupid.
We can't control other people, and for all our fuzzy warm thoughts, and all of our independent spirits, and all our empowerment, other people's choices do have a major impact on our lives--and we can't change that.
And sure, you can say, "The story is not going to end here"--because if the story wasn't completely over, you do have to pick up and move on.
Really, in life, the choice is not how the story ends. The choice is how we react, what we choose, and sometimes how we're going to focus from here on out (NOT necessarily what happens to us next).
Every story, ultimately, ends in death. And that's how it's supposed to be. But we don't get to choose a great deal of the things that happen to us, and it's truly not helpful to people who are struggling when we lie to them and tell them they can.
Because the reality is, either this IS how the story is going to end and you have no choice over that, or you haven't reached the end yet and you don't know what's going to happen next, so you choose your own actions and pray for the best.
They're driving me nuts!
Some are harmless. Some are actually nice (like quotes from the prophets that are encouraging).
Some of the most popular are downright lies.
Like this one: "At any given moment, you have the power to say: This is not how the story is going to end."
Yeah, right.
Really, the end of the story is when and how you die, right? How many of us get to choose that? Barring suicide, none.
But even if we take "the story" to mean not your entire life, but just a little section of it, it's a cruel thing to tell someone that they have control over all the outcomes in their lives. Moms don't really get to decide if their babies are born healthy and without disabilities. Cancer patients don't get to decide to be healthy. Some people work all their lives and never get a baby/spouse/job/miracle/whatever they're hoping and praying for.
Sometimes you get fired.
Sometimes you end up in a wheel chair.
Sometimes your kid does.
Sometimes people get raped or tortured.
Sometimes there's a giant wildfire and it burns your house to the ground.
Sometimes the drunk driver does hit your car, and all you saying "This is not how the story is going to end!!" won't stop that. Sometimes that IS the end, and you can't stop it. And if it's not the end, then saying that is stupid.
We can't control other people, and for all our fuzzy warm thoughts, and all of our independent spirits, and all our empowerment, other people's choices do have a major impact on our lives--and we can't change that.
And sure, you can say, "The story is not going to end here"--because if the story wasn't completely over, you do have to pick up and move on.
Really, in life, the choice is not how the story ends. The choice is how we react, what we choose, and sometimes how we're going to focus from here on out (NOT necessarily what happens to us next).
Every story, ultimately, ends in death. And that's how it's supposed to be. But we don't get to choose a great deal of the things that happen to us, and it's truly not helpful to people who are struggling when we lie to them and tell them they can.
Because the reality is, either this IS how the story is going to end and you have no choice over that, or you haven't reached the end yet and you don't know what's going to happen next, so you choose your own actions and pray for the best.
Wednesday, July 04, 2012
Did I just read that?
"Hot dog eating face off set for Fourth" (This was the way the article headline was summarized on CNN.com's home page--the link takes you to a more accurate headline on the article itself).
Maybe I'm just really really tired, but when I read this, I started wondering whose face the hot dog was eating off, and why they scheduled it for the fourth?
But then again, the "fixes" you could apply don't help: "Hot dog-eating faceoff set for Fourth" isn't much better. Poor overheated canines!
Tuesday, July 03, 2012
Did I just read that?
"Missing 2-year-old boy found safe, fad arrested"
http://www.9news.com/news/world/275679/347/Boy-abducted-by-father-found-safe-in-semi?odyssey=obinsite
So it was a fad for 2 yo to go missing, but they stopped that fad. Good thing!
Thursday, June 21, 2012
Interesting article on pedophilia
http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/21/opinion/cantor-pedophila-sandusky/index.html?hpt=hp_t3
It makes sense to help people not get to the point where they are molesting children, doesn't it?
The thing that has me most intrigued about this article, though, is that there is evidence that pedophilia is a biological condition (genetic? I've wondered for years if it was genetic, since there is anecdotal evidence of it running in families). It certainly changes our approach if we find this is a handicap combined with bad choices rather than simply bad choices.
If pedophilia is genetic, and so is homosexuality.....
I find it really fascinating that we say, for the good of society and children, that pedophiles just need to spend their entire lives resisting their deviant sexual urges. Society used to say that to homosexuals, for the same reasons. Now that's unpopular. But clearly there is a double standard here, based on a culturally-defined view of what constitutes deviancy (NOT a scientifically-based or culturally-based view on what is good for society and children, it seems).
Bottom line, though, is that underlying argument (unspoken, but the assumption does underlie the arguments in the whole debate) that we all must accept homosexuality because sexual urges are so powerful that they cannot be resisted and our lives are ruined if we don't give in to them is clearly false. The idea seems to be that we cannot be happy and still follow the commandments if our biology dictates otherwise, and that doesn't really make sense to me--especially if you understand that God is our father and His instructions are designed to help us be happy, not just ideas made up by men to control other men. Because we expect pedophiles (and other socially-labeled sexual deviants) to control themselves and not let their drives run their lives. And we expect teenagers to--especially teenage girls, it seems, since they're the ones who end up stuck with a baby if they don't. And nobody condemns religious people for expecting unmarried women to. But not men? And especially not gay men?
That seems a little absurd, doesn't it?
Personally, I like this guy's approach: http://www.joshweed.com/2012/06/club-unicorn-in-which-i-come-out-of.html and I'm glad it's working for him.
I am not about to say that all gay people should be condemned for their choices, or that God is condemning them for their choices. I have no idea. I think all people should be treated with respect and compassion. But I do wonder how a biological information, combined with a recognition that we all make choices and are not completely slaves to our biology--how does that inform the debate? How does that change how we approach people and treat things like pedophilia?
It makes sense to help people not get to the point where they are molesting children, doesn't it?
The thing that has me most intrigued about this article, though, is that there is evidence that pedophilia is a biological condition (genetic? I've wondered for years if it was genetic, since there is anecdotal evidence of it running in families). It certainly changes our approach if we find this is a handicap combined with bad choices rather than simply bad choices.
If pedophilia is genetic, and so is homosexuality.....
I find it really fascinating that we say, for the good of society and children, that pedophiles just need to spend their entire lives resisting their deviant sexual urges. Society used to say that to homosexuals, for the same reasons. Now that's unpopular. But clearly there is a double standard here, based on a culturally-defined view of what constitutes deviancy (NOT a scientifically-based or culturally-based view on what is good for society and children, it seems).
Bottom line, though, is that underlying argument (unspoken, but the assumption does underlie the arguments in the whole debate) that we all must accept homosexuality because sexual urges are so powerful that they cannot be resisted and our lives are ruined if we don't give in to them is clearly false. The idea seems to be that we cannot be happy and still follow the commandments if our biology dictates otherwise, and that doesn't really make sense to me--especially if you understand that God is our father and His instructions are designed to help us be happy, not just ideas made up by men to control other men. Because we expect pedophiles (and other socially-labeled sexual deviants) to control themselves and not let their drives run their lives. And we expect teenagers to--especially teenage girls, it seems, since they're the ones who end up stuck with a baby if they don't. And nobody condemns religious people for expecting unmarried women to. But not men? And especially not gay men?
That seems a little absurd, doesn't it?
Personally, I like this guy's approach: http://www.joshweed.com/2012/06/club-unicorn-in-which-i-come-out-of.html and I'm glad it's working for him.
I am not about to say that all gay people should be condemned for their choices, or that God is condemning them for their choices. I have no idea. I think all people should be treated with respect and compassion. But I do wonder how a biological information, combined with a recognition that we all make choices and are not completely slaves to our biology--how does that inform the debate? How does that change how we approach people and treat things like pedophilia?
Friday, June 15, 2012
Did I just read that?
From 9News in Denver: "Authorities search for missing disabled tee" http://www.9news.com/news/article/272596/188/Authorities-search-for-missing-disabled-tee
I wonder if they mean the letter or the shirt?
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
Friday, June 01, 2012
Caleb says,
"Mom, has it ever occurred to you that the sun might have already gone out?"
Because, he explains, the light takes so long to get here.....
Because, he explains, the light takes so long to get here.....
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Did I just read that?
This whole article: http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2012/05/30/idaho-bans-five-wives-vodka-for-being-offensive/?intcmp=features
Okay, so they banned Five Wives Vodka in Idaho because it might offend the Mormons there, who make up a quarter of the population. Because, presumably, the Mormons are walking through the liquor stores all the time and might see that and be offended.
Because Mormons spend a LOT of time in liquor stores.....
Okay, so they banned Five Wives Vodka in Idaho because it might offend the Mormons there, who make up a quarter of the population. Because, presumably, the Mormons are walking through the liquor stores all the time and might see that and be offended.
Because Mormons spend a LOT of time in liquor stores.....
Did I just read that?
This is a fantastically terrible headline. Hard to believe a real press organization let it out:
"Drunk, pregnant mother arrested in Houston after leaving baby in car to get piercing"
"Drunk, pregnant mother arrested in Houston after leaving baby in car to get piercing"
Okay, first: the pregnant lady left her baby in the car. That's tricky. I mean, there were lots of times when I was pregnant that I wished I could just take that baby out for a minute (like to tie my shoes), but--really?
And the baby was left in the car to get a piercing? Wow.
Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Did I just read that?
From CNN.com's home page today: "Mountain lion shot at office building"
I wonder what kind of heat a mountain lion packs? Must have been a building that housed a taxidermists' lab.
Thursday, May 17, 2012
Big houses
Wow. I was relaxing and spacing out last night and I came across a slide show of celebrity houses. In a brain dead stupor, I scanned through 70 of them.
As I looked, though, my brain grew more and more alert as I grew more and more disgusted.
Those houses were big enough for fifteen families! And many celebrities owned more than one.
And I know the celebrities earned enough to pay for those multi-million-dollar homes.
But two people with no kids really don't need 8,000 square feet. Really. Honestly. What do you do in a house? Eat (so you need a kitchen, but only enough of one to comfortably cook and eat in), sleep (so you need a bedroom big enough for a bed), relax (so you need a space to read or watch TV or whatever your hobby is), study or work (so an office?)....what are the other seven thousand square feet for?
Even with six kids, we would be rolling in space with just 3,000 square feet. And if we had 4,000, Tim's business would be rolling in space, too.
So if I ever end up rich and try to buy one of those mansions, somebody please slap me and remind me that there are better uses for millions of dollars than higher utilities bills.
There was one house that seemed reasonable: Will Smith's house was relatively normal-sized for a family--what he invested in was land to ride horses. Now that seems reasonable to me.
As I looked, though, my brain grew more and more alert as I grew more and more disgusted.
Those houses were big enough for fifteen families! And many celebrities owned more than one.
And I know the celebrities earned enough to pay for those multi-million-dollar homes.
But two people with no kids really don't need 8,000 square feet. Really. Honestly. What do you do in a house? Eat (so you need a kitchen, but only enough of one to comfortably cook and eat in), sleep (so you need a bedroom big enough for a bed), relax (so you need a space to read or watch TV or whatever your hobby is), study or work (so an office?)....what are the other seven thousand square feet for?
Even with six kids, we would be rolling in space with just 3,000 square feet. And if we had 4,000, Tim's business would be rolling in space, too.
So if I ever end up rich and try to buy one of those mansions, somebody please slap me and remind me that there are better uses for millions of dollars than higher utilities bills.
There was one house that seemed reasonable: Will Smith's house was relatively normal-sized for a family--what he invested in was land to ride horses. Now that seems reasonable to me.
Monday, May 14, 2012
Did I just read that?
From the 9News Home page: http://www.9news.com/
Because a doctor with a sword is just the person you want to trust to take you to a health fair.
Maybe it's a SCA Health Fair. Renaissance Health Faire?
Because a doctor with a sword is just the person you want to trust to take you to a health fair.
Maybe it's a SCA Health Fair. Renaissance Health Faire?
Sunday, May 13, 2012
Did I just read that?
"Car crashes into Denver home, dog found in back seat"
http://www.9news.com/news/article/267807/222/Car-crashes-into-Denver-home-dog-found-in-back-seat?odyssey=obinsite
Well, a dog driving a car would probably crash it regardless, but driving from the back seat? That's just craziness.
Saturday, May 05, 2012
Kites
Today we went to a party in a park. When we got there, kids were flying kites. We watched. We tried it. The kids ran with the kites after the wind died.
And the kids asked, "What would happen if the kite went really high and the string broke? Would the kite fly away?"
I remembered flying kites with my family when I was young. And I remembered that when the strings broke or you stopped tugging back against the kite's efforts to escape, the kites didn't fly away free. They plummeted to the earth and crashed hard on their top points, often breaking the kite.
Interesting that the best way to make a kite soar is not to set it free, but to pull it back, keep it anchored to the earth. Even to get a kite high into the air, you can't just let the string out as fast as the kite wants to go up. You have to pull back, pull back, and let the string play out slowly, letting the kite rise in a controlled flight, not a rush toward the sun.
Thinking about that on the way home, I realized that people are like kites. We aren't at our best when we're set free and allowed to pursue, unfettered, any whim or notion the wind puts into our minds. It's not safe. It's not a good idea. It doesn't allow us to soar, to explore new horizons, or to be free like we think it would. Instead, it leaves us crashing, hard and fast, in ways that leave us broken and unable to fly.
We need things that pull back against our efforts to do whatever we want. We need families that rely on us to fill obligations so we can't go wandering the planet chasing dreams. We need guidelines like the gospel that give us direction and limitations. We sometimes need adversity to tug back hard and keep us from going into a nosedive that seems impossible when we're flying high, our wings full of wind. We need anchors.
And if we want to fly high, we have to be patient, not just rocketing off into space simply because we can see where we want to be. The string has to play out slowly, letting us rise a little at a time, or we plummet.
Some day, when my kids question why we have rules, or when their friends question why Mormons have such "restrictions" on them, I hope I remember to take them first to fly a kite.
And the kids asked, "What would happen if the kite went really high and the string broke? Would the kite fly away?"
I remembered flying kites with my family when I was young. And I remembered that when the strings broke or you stopped tugging back against the kite's efforts to escape, the kites didn't fly away free. They plummeted to the earth and crashed hard on their top points, often breaking the kite.
Interesting that the best way to make a kite soar is not to set it free, but to pull it back, keep it anchored to the earth. Even to get a kite high into the air, you can't just let the string out as fast as the kite wants to go up. You have to pull back, pull back, and let the string play out slowly, letting the kite rise in a controlled flight, not a rush toward the sun.
Thinking about that on the way home, I realized that people are like kites. We aren't at our best when we're set free and allowed to pursue, unfettered, any whim or notion the wind puts into our minds. It's not safe. It's not a good idea. It doesn't allow us to soar, to explore new horizons, or to be free like we think it would. Instead, it leaves us crashing, hard and fast, in ways that leave us broken and unable to fly.
We need things that pull back against our efforts to do whatever we want. We need families that rely on us to fill obligations so we can't go wandering the planet chasing dreams. We need guidelines like the gospel that give us direction and limitations. We sometimes need adversity to tug back hard and keep us from going into a nosedive that seems impossible when we're flying high, our wings full of wind. We need anchors.
And if we want to fly high, we have to be patient, not just rocketing off into space simply because we can see where we want to be. The string has to play out slowly, letting us rise a little at a time, or we plummet.
Some day, when my kids question why we have rules, or when their friends question why Mormons have such "restrictions" on them, I hope I remember to take them first to fly a kite.
Friday, May 04, 2012
What I learned Today
What I learned today:
If you consider tomatoes fruit, then you must also consider cucumbers, green beans, tree nuts, grains, squashes, peas, black pepper, and anything else that grows from a flower and contains seeds "fruit." Technically, those are all the fruits of their plants. And, by those rules, rhubarb is a vegetable. It turns out that the kindergarten definition of a "fruit" in common language is the right one: You know it when you see it. It's sweet and often juicy and you can eat it raw or cooked, but it's most often eaten raw. That other definition, the one that makes tomatoes fruit, is the botanical definition, not the common or the culinary definition. So it turns out that tomatoes are vegetables after all! It has to be true--the Supreme Court said tomatoes are vegetables way back in the 1880s. (I know--you're wondering why the US Supreme Court got involved. Well, it turns out if you pass a law that says you have to pay a tariff on vegetables but not fruits, suddenly everyone cares very much if tomatoes are vegetables or fruits). Oh, and pepper is still a fruit, no matter what definition you go by. It comes from a berry. Who knew?
What else I learned today:
If you take two rolls of paper towels, you can use over two dozen redecorating the bathroom and modifying the plumbing, and you still have enough left over to run them up and down the hall four times, down the stairs twice, down another hall twice, and across the family room six times. Just in case you ever wondered, you don't have to experiment on that. Nathanael tested it for you while I was nursing Elijah.
What else else I learned today:
Given the choice between candy (fruit snacks) and watermelon, Benji far and away prefers the watermelon.
Also:
A stick swing hung on a long rope from a tree can make a very large purple goose egg on a small boy's head when flung at the right angle by another small boy.
And:
There are actually kids who willingly take antibiotics. I thought they didn't exist, but, mercifully, I actually have one! In my own little family! Who would have guessed. They aren't mythical after all.
If you consider tomatoes fruit, then you must also consider cucumbers, green beans, tree nuts, grains, squashes, peas, black pepper, and anything else that grows from a flower and contains seeds "fruit." Technically, those are all the fruits of their plants. And, by those rules, rhubarb is a vegetable. It turns out that the kindergarten definition of a "fruit" in common language is the right one: You know it when you see it. It's sweet and often juicy and you can eat it raw or cooked, but it's most often eaten raw. That other definition, the one that makes tomatoes fruit, is the botanical definition, not the common or the culinary definition. So it turns out that tomatoes are vegetables after all! It has to be true--the Supreme Court said tomatoes are vegetables way back in the 1880s. (I know--you're wondering why the US Supreme Court got involved. Well, it turns out if you pass a law that says you have to pay a tariff on vegetables but not fruits, suddenly everyone cares very much if tomatoes are vegetables or fruits). Oh, and pepper is still a fruit, no matter what definition you go by. It comes from a berry. Who knew?
What else I learned today:
If you take two rolls of paper towels, you can use over two dozen redecorating the bathroom and modifying the plumbing, and you still have enough left over to run them up and down the hall four times, down the stairs twice, down another hall twice, and across the family room six times. Just in case you ever wondered, you don't have to experiment on that. Nathanael tested it for you while I was nursing Elijah.
What else else I learned today:
Given the choice between candy (fruit snacks) and watermelon, Benji far and away prefers the watermelon.
Also:
A stick swing hung on a long rope from a tree can make a very large purple goose egg on a small boy's head when flung at the right angle by another small boy.
And:
There are actually kids who willingly take antibiotics. I thought they didn't exist, but, mercifully, I actually have one! In my own little family! Who would have guessed. They aren't mythical after all.
Thursday, May 03, 2012
Words I'm Finding are Tags of bad writing (my own)
I am revising my novel again because my kids and one of my students started asking me if they could read it.
And I noticed I have some really good segments in there. And then there are some that are... not so good.
But I also noticed that I kindly tagged them for myself. The words "Then," "Suddenly," and "were" are all tags in my writing that tell me "this part could be rewritten to be stronger."
Generally, when I use "were," I'm finding there is a stronger verb that can fill in that space.
Generally, when I use "suddenly," it's a shortcut for building tension in the previous passage. (If I've built the tension up properly, I don't need to say "Suddenly"--it's clear from the writing).
Generally, when I say, "then," I'm outlining instead of writing. I'm finding that I write a lot of "She opened the door. Then she stepped through." I am telling you what I'm visualizing, but I'm giving you nothing to help you visualize it yourself. Technically, it's a description, but not a good one. As a reader, you don't have to be engaged in writing like that. In fact, it's almost impossible to be engaged in that. You can't get lost in that. It's just a summary of the action, not an invitation to live inside the action. Isn't "She opened the door and stepped through" better? Or, even better, "She stepped through the door into a writhing, slimy mass. Worms. Ugh." See? No need for "then" in that sentence!
In fact, I spend a lot of time saying things that ought to go unsaid. Like that she opened the door before she stepped through. We assume the door opened--it doesn't need to be the focus of it's own sentence unless it is incredibly significant that she opened the door.
So this time around, I'm trying to economize my words. I'm trying to say what needs to be said for the reader to have the experience I hope they have without getting distracted from it and without using extra words. So often, the most efficient way to say something is really good writing. It's more fluid and less likely to draw attention away from the story and onto the words. The worst thing that can happen is if a reader is going along, reading my book, and suddenly they are noticing how it's written. If anything is drawing you out of the story, it needs to be rewritten.
So I'm using the "find" function in Open Office Text to catch those tags I so kindly left for myself and rewrite, rewrite, rewrite.
And I noticed I have some really good segments in there. And then there are some that are... not so good.
But I also noticed that I kindly tagged them for myself. The words "Then," "Suddenly," and "were" are all tags in my writing that tell me "this part could be rewritten to be stronger."
Generally, when I use "were," I'm finding there is a stronger verb that can fill in that space.
Generally, when I use "suddenly," it's a shortcut for building tension in the previous passage. (If I've built the tension up properly, I don't need to say "Suddenly"--it's clear from the writing).
Generally, when I say, "then," I'm outlining instead of writing. I'm finding that I write a lot of "She opened the door. Then she stepped through." I am telling you what I'm visualizing, but I'm giving you nothing to help you visualize it yourself. Technically, it's a description, but not a good one. As a reader, you don't have to be engaged in writing like that. In fact, it's almost impossible to be engaged in that. You can't get lost in that. It's just a summary of the action, not an invitation to live inside the action. Isn't "She opened the door and stepped through" better? Or, even better, "She stepped through the door into a writhing, slimy mass. Worms. Ugh." See? No need for "then" in that sentence!
In fact, I spend a lot of time saying things that ought to go unsaid. Like that she opened the door before she stepped through. We assume the door opened--it doesn't need to be the focus of it's own sentence unless it is incredibly significant that she opened the door.
So this time around, I'm trying to economize my words. I'm trying to say what needs to be said for the reader to have the experience I hope they have without getting distracted from it and without using extra words. So often, the most efficient way to say something is really good writing. It's more fluid and less likely to draw attention away from the story and onto the words. The worst thing that can happen is if a reader is going along, reading my book, and suddenly they are noticing how it's written. If anything is drawing you out of the story, it needs to be rewritten.
So I'm using the "find" function in Open Office Text to catch those tags I so kindly left for myself and rewrite, rewrite, rewrite.
Tuesday, May 01, 2012
Homework
Sometimes I tell Tim something I don't understand or want to know about, and he suggests "homework"--things I can look at that will help answer my questions. Sometimes he is thinking about something and wants to know what I think, and he suggests "homework." So today both of those collided, and I got some very delightful homework.
A few days ago I told him I couldn't tell the difference between different video qualities on viral videos, so he sent me to a few different videos to see. Now I can tell the difference. But I've been looking at video a different way since then, noticing camera shots, camera angles, film quality, etc.
Today, he said he was thinking about these two artists and how they differ from each other.
To make it easier to compare, I give you two interpretations of the same song:
A few days ago I told him I couldn't tell the difference between different video qualities on viral videos, so he sent me to a few different videos to see. Now I can tell the difference. But I've been looking at video a different way since then, noticing camera shots, camera angles, film quality, etc.
Today, he said he was thinking about these two artists and how they differ from each other.
VS
Specifically, we were trying to figure out why the top guy, Mike Tompkins, has gotten national media coverage and consistently gets well over five MILLION views on his videos, and the bottom guy doesn't. He gets in the low hundreds of thousands of views, but his videos can't even strictly be labeled viral. The question is: Why is that? Given just the videos to look at, why, when both guys are doing exactly the same thing, does one get lots of views and one get fewer?
To make it easier to compare, I give you two interpretations of the same song:
VS
I have some theories about what is different, but I'm curious what you think? Tim and I certainly had a great deal of fun talking about it!
Monday, April 30, 2012
Baby Dental Woes. Again.
Baby number six is going down to Children's Hospital for dental surgery. He's only 17 months old, and the dentist has been watching his teeth carefully and caring for them since he was 11 months old. Every 6-8 weeks, we have gone back for more temporary fillings.
This is NOT baby bottle mouth. He won't take a bottle and hates to drink anything except water or breast milk.
This is a baby whose teeth formed poorly somehow, despite what everyone keeps telling me (oh, no--you just have strong bacteria in your mouth; oh, no--he just takes a bottle; oh, no--you just didn't brush his teeth). NO. This is not my fault.
Except it is--the bad genetics run in my family. My kids' teeth, my sister's teeth, my nieces and nephew's teeth, my cousin's teeth...all come in with spots of enamel missing, so they decay really fast. So it's my fault because Elijah got the genes from me. But beyond granting him life with my bad genetics, I did nothing wrong.
Here's the thing: With the dentist watching us carefully and seeing him often, and me being careful, we went 8 weeks ago and his molars hadn't erupted yet. All good, right? Well, we went in last week for our checkup and his molars had erupted and were already decayed!
You can talk about dental hygiene problems all you want, but you have to acknowledge that a baby's teeth, even under the worst circumstances, should last more than 8 weeks. Even if they're drinking soda every day, a baby's teeth should last longer than 8 weeks.
And today he woke up with an infected mouth--swollen lip and cheek--after crying for hours last night. Abscess? I think so. Or perhaps it has something to do with the fact that his front teeth, which have been slowly decaying, have turned black over the last 2 days since we saw the dentist. Yikes! Double Yikes!
Good thing they're planning to get his teeth fixed in the next two weeks, because there is no way he'd make it to adulthood without some help here.
Poor kid.
And it's all my fault. But it's not my fault.
This is NOT baby bottle mouth. He won't take a bottle and hates to drink anything except water or breast milk.
This is a baby whose teeth formed poorly somehow, despite what everyone keeps telling me (oh, no--you just have strong bacteria in your mouth; oh, no--he just takes a bottle; oh, no--you just didn't brush his teeth). NO. This is not my fault.
Except it is--the bad genetics run in my family. My kids' teeth, my sister's teeth, my nieces and nephew's teeth, my cousin's teeth...all come in with spots of enamel missing, so they decay really fast. So it's my fault because Elijah got the genes from me. But beyond granting him life with my bad genetics, I did nothing wrong.
Here's the thing: With the dentist watching us carefully and seeing him often, and me being careful, we went 8 weeks ago and his molars hadn't erupted yet. All good, right? Well, we went in last week for our checkup and his molars had erupted and were already decayed!
You can talk about dental hygiene problems all you want, but you have to acknowledge that a baby's teeth, even under the worst circumstances, should last more than 8 weeks. Even if they're drinking soda every day, a baby's teeth should last longer than 8 weeks.
And today he woke up with an infected mouth--swollen lip and cheek--after crying for hours last night. Abscess? I think so. Or perhaps it has something to do with the fact that his front teeth, which have been slowly decaying, have turned black over the last 2 days since we saw the dentist. Yikes! Double Yikes!
Good thing they're planning to get his teeth fixed in the next two weeks, because there is no way he'd make it to adulthood without some help here.
Poor kid.
And it's all my fault. But it's not my fault.
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
Why I'm okay with Mitt Romney being rich
The Tea Party is trying to make Romney a bad guy because he's rich. They're trying to say he is out of touch with the struggles of regular people because he's rich. They're trying to say that having money makes you unfit to become President of the United States.
And they're wrong.
For one thing, both major candidates are rich. Obama was independently wealthy before he became president, too. So it's kind of a moot point.
But even more than that, Romney's wealth makes him well-suited to being president.
For one thing, he earned his money. He knows how to work. He knows how business works. He knows how to get things done with the bottom line in mind. This is a good thing--especially when the President's job right now is to get the country financially stable again. Of course you want someone to do that who is particularly talented at it, not someone who has never handled large amounts of money and all the details that go with managing money.
Also, he's not a money-grubber. It's well-documented that he has a lot of money but doesn't love money. He has taken many prominent jobs without taking the pay that was offered for them, like fixing the Olympics in Salt Lake City. He's also quietly but willingly generous with what he has. I know members of my family who have benefited from his willingness to give his wealth away.
Finally, there is a culture that goes along with being rich. People who are rich and interact with other rich people do things, talk about things, dress, carry themselves, act in a certain way that is socially acceptable in their circles (just like everyone does). And the reality is that the President of the United States spends most of his time interacting with people who walk in those wealthy circles, both at home and internationally. Regardless of whether you think that's right or not, facing that as a reality and finding someone who is comfortable with very wealthy, very influential people is important. It's a skill the President must have in order to be gracefully effective at his job, at home and abroad. If you put any old school janitor in the Oval office, he'd be so far out of his comfort zone that it would be embarrassing and he would be hampered in doing his job culturally, not by nature of his natural ability. Nobody in the world would take him seriously. You think Obama's been mocked for being awkward abroad? Sheesh. No, you want someone in office who is comfortable living in the world they have to live in, someone who understands the nuances of behavior, someone who is not out of place and who doesn't feel inferior or insecure in any way, someone who is not impressed (or, therefore, influenced) by someone else who wears that fancy suit or sports that diamond-studded wristwatch.
No, Romney's wealth is one of the reasons he is well-suited for the office. It is one of the reasons he will be able to be honest and get things done (instead of being overwhelmed, embarrassing, money-grubbing, etc).
Too bad the tea party can't see that.
And they're wrong.
For one thing, both major candidates are rich. Obama was independently wealthy before he became president, too. So it's kind of a moot point.
But even more than that, Romney's wealth makes him well-suited to being president.
For one thing, he earned his money. He knows how to work. He knows how business works. He knows how to get things done with the bottom line in mind. This is a good thing--especially when the President's job right now is to get the country financially stable again. Of course you want someone to do that who is particularly talented at it, not someone who has never handled large amounts of money and all the details that go with managing money.
Also, he's not a money-grubber. It's well-documented that he has a lot of money but doesn't love money. He has taken many prominent jobs without taking the pay that was offered for them, like fixing the Olympics in Salt Lake City. He's also quietly but willingly generous with what he has. I know members of my family who have benefited from his willingness to give his wealth away.
Finally, there is a culture that goes along with being rich. People who are rich and interact with other rich people do things, talk about things, dress, carry themselves, act in a certain way that is socially acceptable in their circles (just like everyone does). And the reality is that the President of the United States spends most of his time interacting with people who walk in those wealthy circles, both at home and internationally. Regardless of whether you think that's right or not, facing that as a reality and finding someone who is comfortable with very wealthy, very influential people is important. It's a skill the President must have in order to be gracefully effective at his job, at home and abroad. If you put any old school janitor in the Oval office, he'd be so far out of his comfort zone that it would be embarrassing and he would be hampered in doing his job culturally, not by nature of his natural ability. Nobody in the world would take him seriously. You think Obama's been mocked for being awkward abroad? Sheesh. No, you want someone in office who is comfortable living in the world they have to live in, someone who understands the nuances of behavior, someone who is not out of place and who doesn't feel inferior or insecure in any way, someone who is not impressed (or, therefore, influenced) by someone else who wears that fancy suit or sports that diamond-studded wristwatch.
No, Romney's wealth is one of the reasons he is well-suited for the office. It is one of the reasons he will be able to be honest and get things done (instead of being overwhelmed, embarrassing, money-grubbing, etc).
Too bad the tea party can't see that.
The debate on whether mothers "work" or not is missing the point
When Bill Maher, in defending himself in defending Rosen (but missing the point of what she said) said, "No one is denying that being a mother is a tough job; I remember I was a handful. But you know there is a big difference between being a mother, and that tough job, and getting your a*& out the door at 7 a.m. when it's cold, having to deal with the boss, being in a workplace, or even if you're unhappy you can't show it for eight hours," he had NO IDEA what he was talking about.
The man has no idea what mothers do. All those things he describes? They're easier than being a mother. Poor rich idiot.
But when everyone spent all their time defending the idea that moms do work--hard--even though they are at home, they missed the point, too. Not as bad as Maher missed the point, but still. When I see articles showing the economic value of mothers, they invariably simplify motherhood to a series of tasks that we'd otherwise have to pay someone to do: cooking, cleaning, chauffering, counselling, tutoring....
But mothers are so much more than that. So much more than menial laborers.
Mothers are the protectors and creators of our whole society. A society is not made of individuals doing what they want (even if our culture is pushing that as the ideal). A society is made up of connected people who interact with each other. And who creates those people? Mothers. Who fosters those connections? Mothers. Who teaches people how to interact, how to be consumers, how to help, how to learn, how to work? How to be productive members of society? MOTHERS.
Even the people who try to boil it down to economics are missing the point: Mothers CREATE the economy. They teach people how to work, how to use and save money effectively, how to be responsible, how to care for themselves and others. They also have a MAJOR influence on how and where most of the money gets spent.
Mothering (okay--Parenting. Fathers are equally important) is the single most important job in the WORLD. It is the lynchpin that holds all of society together. Good mothers make stable homes. Stable homes make healthy kids and happy, productive, law-abiding adults. Healthy kids make society, now and in the future. Everything--EVERYTHING--that makes life worth living and makes society strong, healthy, safe, and wonderful boils down to mothers doing their jobs right and doing them well.
Mothers are more important than governments, than presidents, than money.
Any single problem in our society can be traced back to homes and families. Fixing the homes and families, making mothers less stressed so women can make mothering their priority instead of pleasing a boss their priority, is the absolute key to solving every single problem in our society. Want to fix education? Fix the homes. Want to get fewer people into prison and onto drugs? Fix the homes. Want to cut the crime rate? Fix the homes. Want to get people off welfare? Fix the homes.
Motherhood should be an honored position, given a great deal of respect and support.
Instead, we mock women who make motherhood a priority over money. We tell them they're lazy, good-for-nothing leeches. I still remember the man who looked me in the eye and said, "Well, my wife likes to contribute to our family [so she kept her job]." Apparently staying at home raising your kids, sacrificing everything you have and are to make a family (and yourself, in the process) happy is a waste of time and not a contribution to the family. Only money matters.
And then we wonder why the nation is falling apart.
Did I just read that?
From a hospital website for kids:
"Juice is healthy, but one glass a day is enough. It’s also a good idea to have this at mealtimes for the sake of your teeth. Either this or you can water it down if you like. You can do the same thing with squash. " http://www.gosh.nhs.uk/children/general-health-advice/eat-smart/food-science/drinking/
"Juice is healthy, but one glass a day is enough. It’s also a good idea to have this at mealtimes for the sake of your teeth. Either this or you can water it down if you like. You can do the same thing with squash. " http://www.gosh.nhs.uk/children/general-health-advice/eat-smart/food-science/drinking/
Huh? How on earth do you water down squash? And why would you want to? Personally, I like mine steamed with a little butter and salt.
Sunday, April 08, 2012
Easter
Turns out the science experiments with the leftover egg dye are MUCH more interesting and fun than coloring eggs.
The kids dyed fabric.
They discovered an apple sliced dipped in egg dye makes a nice stamp.
They're mixing colors and making up magical stories to go with the potions and the magic cloth they dye. They're freezing dye to see what happens.
And days like this I remember why I have an ugly, crappy table and haven't tried too hard to replace it. They can spill all the egg dye they want over there and it won't be worse than it is now. And that's also why we have hardwood floors instead of carpet, and why I had all the little boys dying eggs in dark-colored shorts and no shirts.
Once again, I see that children learning and clean houses are sometimes (often? always?) mutually exclusive.
Too bad they'd rather eat the candy than experiment with it!
Nathanael, just 3, doesn't remember coloring eggs last year. So when we said we were going to dye eggs, he said, "The eggs died?" and that was his perception of the entire activity. We were coloring dead eggs, and when we were done, all the eggs had died. Funny thing is, it didn't seem to bother him much.
Easter is a funny holiday--to commemorate the most important event that ever happened (the resurrection and atonement of Jesus Christ), we wear fancy clothes, stuff ourselves on expensive candy, make eggs look unnatural, and tell our children that a magical bunny pooped eggs all over the yard and they have to not only clean it up, but eat most of it. I just don't see the connection between the reason for the season and the traditions.
And, in other news: brown eggs aren't as fun to dye. But the kids insisted on trying because mommy didn't realize it was a problem until I'd prepared two of the brown ones to boil. Oh well.
The kids dyed fabric.
They discovered an apple sliced dipped in egg dye makes a nice stamp.
They're mixing colors and making up magical stories to go with the potions and the magic cloth they dye. They're freezing dye to see what happens.
And days like this I remember why I have an ugly, crappy table and haven't tried too hard to replace it. They can spill all the egg dye they want over there and it won't be worse than it is now. And that's also why we have hardwood floors instead of carpet, and why I had all the little boys dying eggs in dark-colored shorts and no shirts.
Once again, I see that children learning and clean houses are sometimes (often? always?) mutually exclusive.
Too bad they'd rather eat the candy than experiment with it!
Nathanael, just 3, doesn't remember coloring eggs last year. So when we said we were going to dye eggs, he said, "The eggs died?" and that was his perception of the entire activity. We were coloring dead eggs, and when we were done, all the eggs had died. Funny thing is, it didn't seem to bother him much.
Easter is a funny holiday--to commemorate the most important event that ever happened (the resurrection and atonement of Jesus Christ), we wear fancy clothes, stuff ourselves on expensive candy, make eggs look unnatural, and tell our children that a magical bunny pooped eggs all over the yard and they have to not only clean it up, but eat most of it. I just don't see the connection between the reason for the season and the traditions.
And, in other news: brown eggs aren't as fun to dye. But the kids insisted on trying because mommy didn't realize it was a problem until I'd prepared two of the brown ones to boil. Oh well.
Saturday, April 07, 2012
Happy White Cake Day!
We wanted to separate celebrating Jesus's birthday from candy, presents, and anything "magical," so we have a little birthday party every April 6. We call it White Cake Day, and always serve a white cake (angel food) with strawberries and strawberry cream. Actually, it's the tastiest cake on earth.
Today, when I got up, I told Benji, "Today we're going to have cake for Jesus's birthday."
He said, "Oh. I know. When Jesus comes over, we can hide in the kitchen and then when he comes in, we can surprise him."
I had to explain that Jesus probably wasn't coming, and Benji accepted that.
But I thought, as he trotted out to play, how much Jesus would love it if Benji arranged a surprise party for him. And how much he would love running in the yard with Benji.
It was really good for me to step back for a minute and think about my kids the way Jesus might see them. What if he did show up one day for a white cake day party? No doubt he would play with the kids. And he would love Benji. (And all the others).
Today, when I got up, I told Benji, "Today we're going to have cake for Jesus's birthday."
He said, "Oh. I know. When Jesus comes over, we can hide in the kitchen and then when he comes in, we can surprise him."
I had to explain that Jesus probably wasn't coming, and Benji accepted that.
But I thought, as he trotted out to play, how much Jesus would love it if Benji arranged a surprise party for him. And how much he would love running in the yard with Benji.
It was really good for me to step back for a minute and think about my kids the way Jesus might see them. What if he did show up one day for a white cake day party? No doubt he would play with the kids. And he would love Benji. (And all the others).
Friday, March 30, 2012
More Yogurt Reviews
I'm always trying new yogurts when they come on sale, and this week I tried "Pure" by Dannon. I was impressed that all the ingredients are normal ingredients.
I was even more impressed with the taste and the whole-milk-yogurt cream feel. It eats like pudding.
My first thought was "Wow. That's good." My second thought was, "Wait, where is that 'yogurt' flavor? This tastes like cream." Like a delicious. sweet, thick, rich strawberry cream. SO yummy.
Sure enough, there is no mention anywhere on the package of yogurt cultures. Not only no live active cultures. None at all. Not even in the ingredients.
They have made a fantastic treat with Dannon Pure. But it's not yogurt. I'm not sure how they are justifying calling it that.
I was even more impressed with the taste and the whole-milk-yogurt cream feel. It eats like pudding.
My first thought was "Wow. That's good." My second thought was, "Wait, where is that 'yogurt' flavor? This tastes like cream." Like a delicious. sweet, thick, rich strawberry cream. SO yummy.
Sure enough, there is no mention anywhere on the package of yogurt cultures. Not only no live active cultures. None at all. Not even in the ingredients.
They have made a fantastic treat with Dannon Pure. But it's not yogurt. I'm not sure how they are justifying calling it that.
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Did I just read that?
"The advantage Wal-mart has over those stores is that it can make up for any losses it takes in the food isles in higher margin departments like apparel." http://www.foxbusiness.com/news/2012/03/28/wal-mart-plans-to-reduce-grocery-prices-by-1-billion/#ixzz1qYeNNe3c
Are the food isles in the Pacific? Atlantic? Great Lakes?
Are the food isles in the Pacific? Atlantic? Great Lakes?
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Did I just read that?
"The suspect is described as an African American male in his 30's with short or bald hair. " http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/03/27/georgia-police-search-for-man-targeting-children/?test=latestnews#ixzz1qN61Guhu
Bald hair. I love it.
Bald hair. I love it.
Did I just read that?
Sent to me by my sister, Beth:
"Racist Hunger Games fans disappointed at the box office. "
The non-racist fans were okay with it, though.
"Racist Hunger Games fans disappointed at the box office. "
The non-racist fans were okay with it, though.
Friday, March 23, 2012
Did I just read that?
"SEAN HANNITY, HOST: Michelle Obama sat down with David Letterman for an interview that will air later tonight on CBS, which is highly unusual, especially considering the vial comments that the host made about Governor Palin's daughter back in 2009." http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/hannity/2012/03/20/liberal-double-standard-michelle-obama-sits-down-david-letterman?intcmp=obnetwork#ixzz1pzFP2Dxc
Apparently making comments about vials--perhaps vials of perfume?--is vile.
Apparently making comments about vials--perhaps vials of perfume?--is vile.
Friday, March 16, 2012
Elijah says....
Elijah (16 mo old) was listening to Nathie watching "The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh." A song came on that referred to "the quick-thinking, unshrinking Pooh Bear" (or something like that).
Almost immediately Elijah began singing at the top of his voice--"aaah, aaaah, aahh Hoo Raaar!"
I guess that works, Pooh sounds like "Hoo," which is Elijah's word for "owl" (and they do talk a lot about Owl in that video). And "raaar!" is Elijah's word for "bear."
Now I'm wondering what he thinks that song is about....an owl bear?
Almost immediately Elijah began singing at the top of his voice--"aaah, aaaah, aahh Hoo Raaar!"
I guess that works, Pooh sounds like "Hoo," which is Elijah's word for "owl" (and they do talk a lot about Owl in that video). And "raaar!" is Elijah's word for "bear."
Now I'm wondering what he thinks that song is about....an owl bear?
Saturday, March 10, 2012
Caleb says, "
"So...a heptadecapocalyptic world is one that has gone through 17 apocalypses, right?"
Uh...yeah. Wait...What?!
Uh...yeah. Wait...What?!
Friday, March 09, 2012
Caleb's latest
Caleb loves to write comics. Here is his latest online comic: http://cloudsoftime.smackjeeves.com/comics/1435297/prologue-part-1-and-so-starts-another-day/
Thursday, March 08, 2012
Did I just read that?
Craigslist strikes again: "Responsible and Conscious House Cleaner Needed this Week - (Boulder) domestic gigs" (http://boulder.craigslist.org/dmg/2887003622.html)
I don't know--are you sure an unconscious house cleaner won't do? They're much quieter.
I don't know--are you sure an unconscious house cleaner won't do? They're much quieter.
Thursday, March 01, 2012
Did I just read that?
"Tim Barter, 32, from the U.K., fell 25 feet when a drainpipe collapsed beneath him and slipped into a coma for 10 days." http://www.foxnews.com/health/2012/03/01/doctors-use-fat-from-mans-stomach-to-repair-head-injury/?intcmp=obnetwork#ixzz1nvRFNbnX
Drat those drainpipe comas. They cause all kinds of grief.
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Did I just read that?
"Lawsuit: Woman claims man struck her with horse"
He struck her with a baseball bat or his fist or a horse. So sue him.
Monday, February 27, 2012
Did I just read that?
"Report: Women have rare egg-producing stem cells" http://www.9news.com/news/world/252255/347/Report-Women-have-rare-egg-producing-stem-cells
If all women have them, the cells hardly qualify as rare...
Did I just read that?
"La. chimpanzees get pregnant despite vasectomies" http://www.9news.com/news/sidetracks/252288/337/La-chimpanzees-get-pregnant-despite-vasectomies-
Maybe that's because they were female?
Maybe that's because they were female?
Thursday, February 23, 2012
New culinary invention
Not sure this actually counts as culinary, but this was our new treat invention: milk chocolate covered fruit snacks.
I melted a bag of milk chocolate chips in the microwave. Then I opened 12 packets of fruit snacks into the melted chocolate. I added half a bag of mini marshmallows (fruity colors and shapes variety). Stirred them all up and spread the concoction on a sheet of wax paper to harden and cool.
The verdict?
Well, it's gone.
I melted a bag of milk chocolate chips in the microwave. Then I opened 12 packets of fruit snacks into the melted chocolate. I added half a bag of mini marshmallows (fruity colors and shapes variety). Stirred them all up and spread the concoction on a sheet of wax paper to harden and cool.
The verdict?
Well, it's gone.
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Did I just read that?
" "Perhaps this transaction was appropriate because Young happened to be the
namesake of the school's grandson." http://www.dese
How a school has a grandson is something of a mystery....
How a school has a grandson is something of a mystery....
Monday, February 20, 2012
Did I just read that?
"When rescuers arrived at the scene, Skyllberg was emancipated and barely speaking. He had no food or water with him, only cigarettes and comic books, the Daily Mail said. It was believed he had been eating snow."
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/02/20/swedish-man-survives-two-months-in-sub-zero-temperatures-by-hibernating-in-car/#ixzz1mug3vs6J
EMACIATED. The word is "emaciated."
Sheesh.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/02/20/swedish-man-survives-two-months-in-sub-zero-temperatures-by-hibernating-in-car/#ixzz1mug3vs6J
EMACIATED. The word is "emaciated."
Sheesh.
Thursday, February 16, 2012
Did I just read that?
"The proposed fixes include making sure more information becomes public when children are abused or killed after coming into contact with social workers. " http://www.9news.com/moms/article/249704/499/Child-care-program-improving-after-43-children-die
So social workers are murdering kids? Great.
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Homeschooling mantra
I walked past a box today full of papers and noticed one sticking out with my handwriting on it. So I pulled it out--it was a page of notes that I had written the day I decided I really could succeed at homeschooling without the help of a cyberschool or an established curriculum.
It is the set of rules I was to live by that would make homeschooling successful. A mantra, if you will. It says:
#1 -- Learning Is Fun
#2 -- I can do it better
#3 -- Exposure to Everything Good
#4 -- The truth (and Resources) are out there
#5 -- (K-6) They're gonna do it again--no stress
#6 --Reductionism -- Concepts before details
On another page I found,
"1. Learning Is Active
2. Experience-based education
3. We aren't in a hurry"
So there you have it--a mixture of my own reassurances and my own educational philosophies when I was getting started.
And you know what? I CAN do schooling better than the public schools can. Learning actually IS fun. And the resources were truly out there (and free).
It's a lot of work to make my own curricula, but it's fun, and hopefully it will make homeschooling LESS work for other families.
It is the set of rules I was to live by that would make homeschooling successful. A mantra, if you will. It says:
#1 -- Learning Is Fun
#2 -- I can do it better
#3 -- Exposure to Everything Good
#4 -- The truth (and Resources) are out there
#5 -- (K-6) They're gonna do it again--no stress
#6 --
On another page I found,
"1. Learning Is Active
2. Experience-based education
3. We aren't in a hurry"
So there you have it--a mixture of my own reassurances and my own educational philosophies when I was getting started.
And you know what? I CAN do schooling better than the public schools can. Learning actually IS fun. And the resources were truly out there (and free).
It's a lot of work to make my own curricula, but it's fun, and hopefully it will make homeschooling LESS work for other families.
Friday, February 10, 2012
Did I just read that?
From an official email from Longmont City today: "Water Board Vacancy"
Anyone want to apply to be tortured?
Sunday, February 05, 2012
Did I just read that?
" It appears as if the vehicle went off of an adjacent road. The Sherriff's office has launched a large-scale repelling operation and are calling in helicopter supports to check on the scene." http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=19131781&title=police-may-have-found-vehicle-of-missing-colorado-men-&s_cid=featured-1
Does a repelling operation consist of trying to force two giant magnets' south ends together? Producing smells that are noxious? Putting up repulsive billboards?
Or did they mean rappelling?
Does a repelling operation consist of trying to force two giant magnets' south ends together? Producing smells that are noxious? Putting up repulsive billboards?
Or did they mean rappelling?
Saturday, February 04, 2012
I finished Kindergarten
After 6 months of work, I finished Kindergarten.
Making an online Kindergarten, that is. It covers math, language arts (literature, spelling, reading, grammar, handwriting, composition), social studies, history, art, music, and science.
And it's really good.
Have a peek: https://sites.google.com/site/learninglynxclassroom/awakeningwoods
Or use it for Kindergarten. It's ready to go, complete, and 100% FREE. Yes, free.
Making an online Kindergarten, that is. It covers math, language arts (literature, spelling, reading, grammar, handwriting, composition), social studies, history, art, music, and science.
And it's really good.
Have a peek: https://sites.google.com/site/learninglynxclassroom/awakeningwoods
Or use it for Kindergarten. It's ready to go, complete, and 100% FREE. Yes, free.
Friday, February 03, 2012
Interesting phenomenon
Normally, in Colorado, December is relatively mild and then January and February are freezing and below freezing. Normally, in January and February we see snow and more snow, and single-digit temperatures for several weeks straight.
This year, we had snow in October, and then more snow in December, and single-digit temperatures in December. And then January was in the 60s most days, and plenty warm.
The result? Both the kids and the trees felt like it was spring. Me, too, actually. I could take the trash out at midnight barefoot most nights and not be uncomfortable in the least. In January!
About 3 days ago, the maple and cottonwood trees in our yard put out their buds. Naturally, today a blizzard rolled in and is dumping dumping dumping snow. But I digress.
When Anda and I walked outside and noticed the buds on the cottonwood tree, we also noticed an interesting thing: there were buds coming out on all the broken off branches, too. Even the twigs that came down in October in that unusual storm now had buds--it was like all those branches, downed in the middle of the fall by snow, had no idea they were no longer on the tree. So we had buds all over the yard!
We wondered if there was a way to stimulate root growth?
But now it's a moot point, what with all the snow. Now I'm wondering if trees bud in January, and then freeze in February, will they bud again in April, or will the trees die?
This year, we had snow in October, and then more snow in December, and single-digit temperatures in December. And then January was in the 60s most days, and plenty warm.
The result? Both the kids and the trees felt like it was spring. Me, too, actually. I could take the trash out at midnight barefoot most nights and not be uncomfortable in the least. In January!
About 3 days ago, the maple and cottonwood trees in our yard put out their buds. Naturally, today a blizzard rolled in and is dumping dumping dumping snow. But I digress.
When Anda and I walked outside and noticed the buds on the cottonwood tree, we also noticed an interesting thing: there were buds coming out on all the broken off branches, too. Even the twigs that came down in October in that unusual storm now had buds--it was like all those branches, downed in the middle of the fall by snow, had no idea they were no longer on the tree. So we had buds all over the yard!
We wondered if there was a way to stimulate root growth?
But now it's a moot point, what with all the snow. Now I'm wondering if trees bud in January, and then freeze in February, will they bud again in April, or will the trees die?
Monday, January 30, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)