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?
Thursday, June 21, 2012
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)