Ice Cream Experiments

I rediscovered my ice cream maker. And, since I had a bunch of ice cream buckets hanging around that we had saved (it's no use buying boxes of ice cream when you have 6 kids who eat it), I had plenty of space for experiments.

We've tried a lot of things. Peanut butter chocolate chip didn't work so well. Neither did malted milk chocolate chip. Mango was good but I should have used three times the amount of mango puree. Blackberry was too flimsy a flavor, and I tried to fix it by adding cream cheese but I added too much. So now it's sort of cheesecake flavored, but too strong.  Mixed berry was super yummy. Raspberry was to die for.

But our favorite so far is strawberry. I make Philadelphia Style ice cream--no eggs--because it's faster and easier. To flavor it with fruit, I buy bags of frozen fruit (I guess the're for smoothies? They all have smoothie recipes on the back).  One or even two bags of frozen fruit, pureed, is about right for 4 qts of ice cream.

The Strawberry Recipe that's the very best we happened on by accident--I forgot to add a few ingredients when I was mixing it up.

Here's what we use (my ice cream maker holds 4 quarts):

Strawberry Ice Cream
2 c heavy cream
2 c milk
4 c half and half (or to fill the ice cream bucket to the line)
2 c sugar
1 large container sweetened sliced strawberries, pureed. You could even use 2 if you wanted.

Mix all the ingredients and freeze according to your ice cream freezer instructions.  The ingredients I left out were 1/2 tsp salt and 1 Tbsp vanilla. What it gave us was a very strawberries-and-cream flavor instead of a strawberry "ice cream" flavor. It was super super yummy. You could skip the milk and add cream instead, I suppose. I haven't tried that.

To make raspberry ice cream (a Utah thing, and so SO good), replace the strawberries with one or two bags of frozen raspberries, pureed. Likewise for mixed berry--1-2 bags of frozen mixed berries, pureed.

Last night's experiments were highly successful, too. We made cherry at Anda's request and chocolate chocolate chip. I didn't have recipes for either of these, so I just made them up:

Cherry Ice Cream
2 c heavy cream
3 c half and half
milk to fill bucket
1 bag frozen dark sweet cherries
1 bag frozen cherries and berries (but use only the cherries and blueberries--pick out the strawberries and blackberries)
1 can apple-cherry juice concentrate
1 3/4 c sugar
1/2 tsp salt
1 Tbsp vanilla

Puree the cherries, blueberries, and juice concentrate with enough milk or half-and-half that the blender doesn't protest. Stir together with the rest of the ingredients. Freeze according to the instructions.

That was yummy.  Then, without first cleaning the ice cream bucket or dasher of the cherry ice cream (which I had just dumped into a storebought ice cream bucket and put into the freezer), I made chocolate chocolate chip ice cream. I figured the hint of cherry in the chocolate chip ice cream would be yummy, if you noticed it at all. I was right--mostly unnoticeable.

Chocolate Chocolate Chip Ice Cream
2 c heavy cream
5 c half and half (or to fill bucket)
1 c chocolate syrup (the kind you squirt on ice cream)
1/2 c Hershey's Special Dark chocolate syrup
1 1/2 c sugar
1 tsp vanilla
1 bag semi-sweet chocolate chips

In the blender, mix 2 1/2 c half and half with half of the chocolate syrup, the vanilla, and the sugar. Melt the chocolate chips in the microwave (30 seconds at a time until they stir smooth). I did a cup at a time. Then, while the blender is going (on low) pour the melted chocolate into the half-and-half mixture. Pour this mixture into the ice cream can. Then mix the rest of the half-and-half and the cream with the rest of the chocolate syrups (don't mix it too long, or it gets too frothy). Add this to the ice cream can and stir well. Then freeze according to the instructions. I let this go for a long time and then pulled the plug on the ice cream maker when chocolate ice cream started gushing out the top of the can. It never did set up enough to turn the ice cream maker off by itself like it was supposed to. It came out the consistency of a milkshake. I poured it into a bucket and froze it.

Then today we decided to have some chocolate ice cream--and discovered that it never did get as hard and stiff as homemade ice cream usually does. After a whole night in the freezer, it was still just barely stiffer than soft-serve ice cream consistency. That's kind of fun. It came out super super yummy--slightly dark chocolate flavored, which I much prefer, and with tiny flecks of chocolate (you can make them bigger--like flakes of chocolate instead of flecks of chocolate--by pouring the melted chocolate chips into the cream or half and half while it's being mixed with the whip attachment on the mixer instead of in the blender). It has kind of a truffle consistency, if you can describe ice cream that way.

Next time we might mix chopped candy bars or Andes Mints Chips into the chocolate ice cream. Mmmmmm. Or maybe some raspberry puree....

Reasons we homeschool: research indicates better outcomes

The research that's been done on homeschooling points to better outcomes in every area (including socialization) than public schooling.

General research review:
http://www.nheri.org/research/research-facts-on-homeschooling.html

On socialization in particular: http://www.hslda.org/docs/nche/000000/00000068.asp

Pondering Motherhood

The day Caleb was born, they put him into my arms and I looked at him and thought, "Oh! This is what I've been looking for my whole life!" What I was lacking wasn't any of the things society said I should be pursuing--college degrees, jobs, money, prestige--it was children! I didn't know that I longed to be a mother. I had never, ever thought of it that way before Caleb showed up.

With a new baby in the house, it seems reasonable that my mind would be on motherhood again.

It feels like motherhood is really looked down upon in our culture. People delay starting families so they can have a career, people have fewer children and farm them off to daycares so they can pursue their adult interests. Children are increasingly  unwelcome in places like restaurants and hotels.

And nobody really thinks you're amazingly awesome for having more than 3 kids. They just think you're nuts. And 7 kids? Well, that's not a crown of jewels and honor, by any stretch. I mostly feel like a circus sideshow act when we go out in public. The thing I hear from most people is, "I could NEVER do that," with the subtext being "nor would I want to"--because being a checker at the grocery store is so much more fulfilling? (It always strikes me as sad that women have been trained to think they are too weak to do something as integral to woman-ness as raise children, but that's another post for another day).

Having children should be an honor and privilege and a joy. It should be something society values and supports.

At least it is that to God.

God says that His work and glory is to bring about the immortality and eternal life of Man.  And we all know He did that through Jesus.

But do we ever sit and think about the fact that He couldn't do that without women being willing to be pregnant and have babies?  Immortality is a free gift, thanks to Jesus, given to every person who is born on this earth.

But you have to be born. And that requires a woman willing to carry a baby and birth it, just to give it a body--no small sacrifice, mind you. Being pregnant is NOT fun or easy for most of us, and 9-12 months of downright torture for many. But that is the only way for a person to get a body, and therefore to get access to Jesus' gift of immortality.


In other words, God's work and glory aren't even possible without mothers.


And God didn't make us like many animals, who are born and then hop up and get going on their lives, independent of parents. He made us born weak and fragile and incredibly dependent for many, many years. Why? Because of the second part of his work: eternal life. Being raised in a family is the way God has chosen to give His children the very best shot at eternal life, or returning to live in God's own presence for eternity (which is what He wants for us). Jesus made it possible; parents doing their job right make it easier (parents doing their job wrong make it much harder, though, but the benefits of good parenting must have been worth the risk of some people getting bad parents). And it gives obvious benefit to parents. This is the most right thing we ever do--for our children and for us (because we are, in fact, God's children, too).

No wonder they call motherhood the highest and holiest calling women will have! No wonder this feels like hands-down the most important work I will ever do. This is my greatest chance--even greater than going on a mission--to partner with God to help bring to pass His work and His glory.

Too bad our culture seems hell-bent on stopping women from doing this work at all! And, just in case women do decide to have children (and most still do), our culture works very hard to confuse them into thinking that motherhood is a house decorating assignment, or a janitorial job, or a fashion design and model-training program, or an assignment to keep people who do extracurricular activities (sports, art lessons, etc) in work, or something that it's perfectly okay to outsource to whomever has a daycare or babysitter license, or a chance to re-live your life through someone else, or an art exercise in sculpting humans to our liking and for our own benefit and glory only. Even women in the church often confuse motherhood with the peripheral assignments that go along with it. Or they think there is only one way to mother and spend a lot of time teaching that and condemning people who don't do it "right". Sad that there is so little understanding of one of the most important things women ever do. (But of course, Satan would prefer it that way, wouldn't he? Parents are God's "secret weapon," so of course Satan will do anything he can to stop them from understanding and doing their work.)

Thank goodness we have prophets to let us know the truth!

Did I just read that?

"The airport told CBS4 that agents from the United States Department of Agriculture Wildlife Services patrol the parking lots and remove any rabbits they find, but few have complained about car problems."
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/27/rabbits-gnawing-away-at-cars-in-colorado-airport/?test=latestnews#ixzz2JD2vZacr

No kidding, huh? Rabbits don't complain about car problems? Maybe that's because they don't have cars...

Did I just read that?

This was the top headline on Foxnews.com today, and it made me blush: "Birth Control Mandate Loosens Suits"   http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/26/obama-birth-control-mandates-loosen-lawsuits/

On the actual page, the headline is fixed, so if you click the links you won't see it.

But still--put the women on birth control, and what happens to the men's suits?  Jeesh.

Alternate Nursing Techniques...

Jack is my first baby in a long time who hasn't been a good, instinctive nurser. It's been two weeks, and he's finally figured out how to nurse for more than 5-10 minutes at a time. Most of my babies figured that out in about 3 minutes on the first day.

But he's still working on his technique.

Most babies latch on and then give five or six quick sucks to get the milk flowing, and then they nurse normally. Jack doesn't get this.

Instead, he opens his mouth and yells at the breast for a few minutes, moving as though he wants to latch on but refusing to actually close his mouth. Then he waits for the milk to start spraying. Once there is milk, he latches on and nurses normally. But not before.

Hopefully he gets his technique refined a little before we have to nurse in public...

Zig Ziglar

Ever since Zig Ziglar died, people have been posting quotes from him on Facebook. I had not paid much attention to Mr. Ziglar before, and I'll be glad when I don't have to anymore.

He's the feel-good pseudo-prophet of the month. His doctrines are meant to inspire and empower. He takes truth and leaves out a few key elements--like God--and then spreads it around, making promises that if you do certain things and believe in yourself, success will appear. Success, of course, meaning money.

But Mr. Ziglar's philosophies are flawed--deeply.  I don't know how he came up with his promises and formulas, but it seems like he looked at a bunch of successful people, guessed what they did, and then went around promising everyone it will work for them, too. Sweet little formulas like a dream + faith (in the dream and in yourself, not in God) + action + perseverance + time + patience = Dream Come True.

What he didn't take into account is that millions of people follow that formula and their dreams never do come true. But someone somewhere followed it and it worked, so we get promised it will always work for everyone. And there are some lovely built-in "outs" for Mr. Ziglar if it doesn't work--he can always claim you didn't have enough faith, you didn't work hard enough, you gave up too soon. In other words, you failed because You are a Failure. And if you believed in me long enough, you'd succeed.

I've heard this kind of stuff before, coming out of the mouth of my crazy grandma. Same formula, but her "dream" that starts out is crazy in the extreme--like being able to fly. Maybe that's why I can't stomach it from Mr. Ziglar.

Or maybe it's because it's overly simplistic. "You will either look back and say 'I wish I had' or 'I'm glad I did'." Is just overly simplistic. There's so much complexity in life that he just skips.  He doesn't address the reality that some dreams are not possible (being able to fly, or for me to play in the NBA, or for Tim to have our next baby, for example)--in fact, he teaches the opposite, openly and often. He doesn't address that some dreams would actually be nightmares if we could see the big picture, and therefore are not desirable.  He doesn't address the temporary nature of some dreams (I wanted to be a track star for about two weeks when I was in 3rd grade, now I have no interest in that.). He doesn't address the reality that we grow and learn and often give up on something we wanted for something we want even more. He also doesn't address the fact that life is not a one-track proposition. We have many interacting goals, dreams, aspirations, talents, limitations, experiences, etc. Isolating just one and making that our entire focus leaves us at risk of neglecting other important aspects of life. He doesn't address the very real situation that we are human and have physical limitations that can stop us from doing things we want to do--and that sometimes (often?) accepting those limitations makes us happier than fighting them. And he completely leaves out the reality that God is ultimately in charge, and His deepest interests for us deal with our development, learning, growth, and refinement--not with always helping us get what we want. If we put our faith in God, instead of our dreams or ourselves, we will find that we are often denied things we want--even good things we want, and even when we work really really hard for them--in order for God to help us get what He knows will make us happiest in the long run (as in the eternities).

Maybe it's because Ziglar's definition of success (and therefore his ideas of what we should be pursuing) are subtly tied up in social and financial success--he's promising money and power to people who work for it. The trouble is, those "rewards" are the wrong ones to be searching for. Life is much better when we stop seeking money and power (which President McKay said were temptations of the devil, not valid goals) and instead start seeking happiness (which God has taught us how to get--and he didn't include gaining money or worldly power in the equation).  In fact, nowhere in the scriptures or the words of the prophets are we counselled to pursue our dreams. Not once. Never are we told that the ultimate happiness comes from our dreams coming true, or following our passions, or shooting for the stars. (And, in fact, many many  musicians we have met--people who the world considers the ones who are "living the dream" and "free from the nine-to-five shackles"--spend their whole lives mourning what they can't have: a stable home and family. They are not any happier than everyone else, and are often just as discontent. "Living the life" is lonely and unfulfilling, it turns out.)

Ziglar's doctrines are also deeply cruel. It's not right to tell a woman struggling with infertility that she just didn't try hard enough or believe it enough or work hard enough--and that's why she doesn't have a baby. It's not right to tell a father of an autistic kid that if he just tries harder and applies the right formulas, the kid will turn out to be normal. It's not right to tell a hardworking, content family that if they work harder and neglect their family relationships, they will have money and be "truly" happy. I, personally, don't find it helpful for Mr. Ziglar to tell me that I could keep my house spotless if I just tried harder (completely ignoring that I have physical limitations, like fibromyalgia, that make that impossible). It leaves me always feeling like a complete failure instead of like a valuable person who has a lot to contribute--just not to my walls.

Personally,  I prefer to rely on the advice of real prophets. Snippets like, "Forget yourself and get to work" are much more powerful than formulas for "success."

Did I just read that?

"Simple blood test can help predict mortality, Utah researchers find"   http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865570970/Simple-blood-test-can-help-predict-mortality-Utah-researchers-find.html

I'd say it's probably a pretty simple test: if you have blood, you're mortal!

Grow Cube and Sphere Answer Keys

Kids have been assigned this for school:  http://schooltimegames.com/Logic/GrowCube.html

Fun, but how to solve the puzzle?

Now that I figured it out, I'm posting it here so we can find it again.

Highlight the area below to see the answer:

Put the items on the cube in this order:

Guy
Water
Seeds
Bucket
Glass tube
Fire
White dish
Bone
Springs
Ball


The kids also play this one for school: http://www.eyezmaze.com/grow/RPG/index.html#more

And how to solve it?

Highlight the area below for the answer:

Place the items on the sphere in this order:

House
Tree
Castle 
Water
Tower
Rocks
Treasure
Stairs

We also found a new one we hadn't tried before: http://www.eyezmaze.com/eyezblog_en/blog/2009/06/grow_ver3_remake.html

I haven't solved this one, but there is a solution on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCV_KrcJ1Ds


Grow Tower: http://www.eyezmaze.com/eyezblog_en/blog/2009/01/grow_tower.html
and the solution:

box w button
golden pot 
bricks
grass
pot

Did I just read that?

From ksl mobile: "Over weight people less likely to die, study says"

Less likely to die....ever? Cool.

Distressing Things I Heard about Congress Today

On facebook, people started passing around a picture saying that it's time for Boehner to stand down from being Speaker of the House because he compromised.

I'm really confused about this. Isn't compromise the point? If we all just stupidly stand and insist it's my way or the highway, we all would have suffered. Haven't these people read that old Dr. Seuss story about The Zax?   Even if we don't agree with the compromise, at least they are trying to compromise for once. All the gridlock and selfishness is not getting us anywhere.

The other thing I heard was a radio interview with Nancy Pelosi, who was explaining that some of the Republicans were having trouble accepting the compromise because "They listen to their constituents, and that makes them afraid they might pay later for accepting this."   She was talking about it as though a congressman or senator listening to their constituents is a BAD thing. But I thought that's what we sent to the Washington to do--not represent their own or their party's interests, but to represent their constituents. And that means they have to listen to us. And it scares me that Pelosi thinks that this is a bad thing that weakens the congressmen. Does she really believe they are there to dictate to us what we want? That's more than a little scary.

Personally, I don't have a lot of hope this will fix anything, but I sure wish it were the first step down a road that leads to people listening to one another  and compromising more. I'm so sick of watching our government stand toe-to-toe and call names like kindergartners.

Creativity and Can't

I'm sitting around a lot lately. I've never had fibro like this before, where the palms of my hands and the soles of my feet feel bruised, so I can't really do anything (holding a knife, walking, opening cans, etc hurt). My hips and legs and arms all ache, which adds to the difficulty in accomplishing anything.

So I'm sitting around a lot, looking at Facebook and the news and my email and thinking when the brain fog isn't too intense (which it usually is).

Today, I started seeing those stupid cards on Facebook again.

For example, one card advised that one of your New Year's Resolutions should be to cut out the word "impossible."  It's a nice warm fuzzy thought, that we can do anything as long as we believe we can. But it's really one of the stupider things I've heard.  Impossible is a reality in life. It's meant to be that way. We each have different gifts and different handicaps and different circumstances, and while it's nice to say I could earn a million dollars this month if I tried hard enough, it's not really possible. I'm never going to be able to play in the NBA, even when I'm not pregnant. I'm not able to fly without help, as much as I'd like. I am never going to be able to live loop a song.

It's really unfair to tell people with handicaps, like fibro, that the reason they can't do things is because they are thinking about it all wrong--that if they just tried harder and believed harder, they could do what they want to do. Fibro stops me from being able to play the piano without pain. I tried to take pictures of Tim yesterday and discovered that I can't hold a camera up in front of my face--my arms hurt and then they just won't cooperate.

Sometimes "I can't" and "It's impossible" are the most important things we can say because they allow us to accept our limitations--and either move on in a different direction (finding other pastimes and talents, for example, instead of playing piano) or ask for help (so that Tim makes dinner on the days that I hurt too much to hold a knife). Really, accepting "can't" and "impossible" are far more empowering than abolishing those things from our vocabulary. God gave us all things we can do, and we're much more happy and productive if we work on those things--the things that are easy and enjoyable, or the things we feel driven and motivated to work hard on--instead of wasting our whole lives pursuing unrealistic goals that we really can't do. (Not to say we should never do hard things--of course we should. But chasing impossible things is stupid.)

Another one I saw today said that an essential aspect of creativity is not being afraid to fail.  I think a businessman  must have written that. All (except maybe 1) of the creative people I know (and I know a LOT) are deeply terrified of failure. They are even more afraid of failure than the non-creative people I know. Most have so much anxiety about failure that they need counselling and medication (even if they don't get it).

And that fear is actually what motivates them to keep going and keep refining and keep polishing and keep perfecting their art. It's the thing that makes them rewrite the novel fifteen times until they're sure it's good, and then revise it again ten more times based on the feedback they got from one or two trusted people. It's the thing that makes them write a hundred songs and only release the best ten. Or one. It's the thing that makes them throw away dozens of canvasses and only try to sell the best one.

People who are not afraid to fail are not driven to succeed.

Sure you can be creative if you aren't afraid to fail--you're not afraid to look at things in new ways. But the really, truly creative people I know are the ones who can't help but think outside the box (not the ones who do because they aren't afraid to). It's not a change in thinking that makes them able to be intensely creative. They just ARE that way--and often are ashamed of it, frustrated by it, terrified of it. They are people who say, "Why can't I be normal?", not people who say, "Maybe if I work at failing on purpose, I can lose my fear of it and then I can be more creative." They are people who know it's irrational, know it's a "waste of time", know it's not financially viable, but they can't help lying awake at night thinking of new ways of doing things, new things they could create, new conversations for characters to have, new poems or lyrics to songs.

It has nothing to do with lacking a fear of failure, and everything to do with an internal compulsion that won't let them go. Creativity is not something they do on purpose. It's an essential part of their being, like breathing.

And the ones that develop it into something amazing are more often than not terrified of failing.

The American Dream

I keep seeing things like this article, claiming that the American Dream is in its death throes for those in my generation.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-21/american-dream-fades-for-generation-y-professionals.html

But when you read the article, it becomes clear that what they are defining as The American Dream is getting a good job and becoming a millionaire.

They got it wrong!

Traditionally, the American Dream was to have a family and own a house for them to live in--not a giant house, just a moderate house big enough for the family with a little yard.

And that dream is still within reach of people. What's not realistic is for a whole generation to become single millionaires with no obligations at all, or for them to work in their dream jobs for their whole lives without any break.

But that's the wrong dream anyway. It was never realistic for an entire generation to become millionaires. And living without family and without obligation is not actually going to make anyone happy. It will just make them old and lonely, selfish and egotistical, disconnected and drifting. The thing they define as The American Dream was just a set-up anyway: a setup for disappointment, for loneliness, for a long unresolvable midlife crisis as everyone discovers too late that what they should have done was spend less time working and more time building a family (which is one of the few things we really do have a biological deadline on).

Notice that God never said "Chase your dreams".  God never said, "Get a good career and work your way up the ladder."  God never said, "Earn a million dollars and live 'the life.'" And if God wants us to be happy, and He's given us a roadmap for happiness, and He left those things off, then apparently none of those things will get us there, despite how appealing they seem when we're young, and despite how much our culture has pushed the selfish way (because really all those things are about ME--my dreams, my career at all costs, my success, my money, my plans--and I guess focusing on  ME is, ironically, not the way to make me happy).

The American Dream, the way it used to be, is not dead. There are still opportunities for people to find love, build a family, have a steady career (even if it's not your dream work), buy a modest house to live out your life in. And that kind of dream is worth pursuing, and it is more in keeping with the guidelines God has given us--family, work (but reasonably, to stay alive and stable--not compulsively, to do nothing else but get money), stability and participation in a community all are included in that old American Dream. It's not a flashy dream. It's not something that will make you more special than someone else. It doesn't follow the new definition of "Success," but it encompasses the things we need to be successful at in order to be happy. (Hint: none of those includes having a lot of money).

That other American Dream? RIP and good riddance. It wasn't a good dream anyway, even if it looked like it should be.

Did I just read that?

"Mourners line the street as a hurst carrying Emilie Parker drives by following funeral services for the 6-year old Connecticut elementary shooting victim, Saturday, Dec. 22, 2012, in Ogden, Utah." http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Conn-victim-laid-to-rest-next-to-grandpa-in-Utah-4141059.php#ixzz2FpSo1IvA



Tim's related to the Hurst family. I didn't know they were in the body-moving business, though.  

Oddly, this is the second place I've seen this particular mistake online just today.  (The word, by the way, should be "hearse"). 

Wearing Pants to Church

Have you seen this? "Wear Pants to Church Day".  http://www.ksl.com/?sid=23355976&nid=1016&title=group-pushes-for-lds-women-to-wear-pants-to-church&s_cid=queue-3

I have seen this in several places lately, as feminists I know encourage each other to join.

And I find it completely ludicrous.

First of all, there is no prohibition against wearing pants to church for women. So how is this a protest against the church? Might be a protest against some areas' cultural traditions, for sure, but it does not say what the women involved think they are saying.

Secondly, it announces that women feel like they can't have power and influence unless they "wear the pants," which says to me they don't value what women are and think women should be more like men. Stupid stupid stupid. Women can be incredibly powerful sources of good in the world without trying to be men. And we all--men and women--are happier if we embrace our divine nature as well as our individual talents and gifts, instead of always seeking to be someone else. Men and women are different, and there should be no shame in that. As far as I know, only the feminists are ashamed of that. Ironic, no?

Finally, it's a rather blunt statement that the women involved don't believe that Jesus is running this church and, further, don't believe that the prophet or apostles talk to God. It really lowers the church from being the true church of God, run by revelation, to being just another of those religious organizations that atheists believe exist purely to extort and control people, run by people for their own purposes and their own glory, even if with good intentions. Might as well wear a T-shirt that says, "Forget God. Put me in charge because I'm smarter than He is."

There are certainly problems that crop up in the church. I don't believe it's infallible. It's is administered by people, after all, and sometimes those leaders (especially on the local level) can get mired in all manner of sins and mistakes, even when they have good intentions. I don't deny that happens. (I do think it's silly to say only male leaders make mistakes and offend people, though. I've had as much trouble and sorrow from the actions of women in the church as men--we're all just people, male and female! It's really ridiculous to claim the church would have fewer mistakes made and fewer offended people if women were in charge).

But there are better ways to effect change than wearing pants to church--like going right to God and telling Him your issues, and then working within the system, following the Spirit, to make things better.

Even if you really DO believe that God has said women should have the priesthood and the prophets and apostles are digging in their heels and refusing to change for their own benefit, I don't think having a social protest is going to get any positive results at all. And it certainly isn't going to get you, personally, into the kind of influential position you would need to have in order to change that. Sometimes working within a broken system is more effective than working against it. (And I don't think this system is broken, but if you did, this would be a poor course of action to choose--especially since the church as a whole is going to ignore it, and it will just prejudice the local leaders against using you in any callings).

Personally, I have worn pants to church before. I was in a church building in pants the week before last, in fact, just as the meetings got out. And last week several women came to church in pants in my ward. It wasn't a political statement, and nobody cared what they were wearing.

But I would be embarrassed to wear them this Sunday! It feels too much like a statement to the ward, not that I think women should have the priesthood, but that I have no faith in God or the prophets and I don't understand what the scriptures teach about the priesthood. I'd be embarrassed to say that to everyone, even if it were true!

Did I just read that?

From Longmont's paper, the Times Call today: "The man, identified as Pedro L. Villa, who's believed to be either 19 or 21 and is suspected of  “entering many of these homes at night, through unliked doors, while the residents are asleep,” Longmont police Cmdr. Jeff Satur said."
http://www.timescall.com/news/ci_22149541/longmont-police-seek-suspect-residential-burglaries-car-break


I guess he doesn't want to come through doors that people like.

Also, that is a perfect example of a very long sentence fragment. If you take out all the clauses, you're left with "The man," which isn't a sentence.

Sleep is what I want for Christmas

I've been on a 24 hour 20 minute day since we first tried chronotherapy. (That was a big mistake, obviously--would have been better to stick with going to bed consistently at 2:00 am!). That means I can't fall asleep until 20 minutes later each night. It's not too bad until bedtime passes 5:00 am, and then I have to just jump through the day as fast as possible to get bedtime back to night again.

Unfortunately, this pregnancy has done a number on my sleep. Most nights I sleep 3 hours, lay there awake 3 hours, and then sleep 4-6 hours.

And, worse, I seem to now be on a 26-27 hour day!

This baby can't come soon enough.

Did I just read that?

From the Deseret News: "State of disunion: 500,000 residents across the country petition White House to withdraw from U.S."  http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865566651/State-of-disunion-400000-residents-across-the-country-petition-White-House-to-withdraw-from-US.html

Ha! I think most of the people on those petitions were asking for the states to withdraw from the union.  But I suspect most of them would be happy if the White House withdrew.

Halloween Song

I love this song so much that I am sharing it everywhere I can. It's very very cool--new song, inspired by Edgar Allan Poe's "Masque of the Red Death."

You can listen to it here:
https://www.facebook.com/MisterTimMusic/app_178091127385

Did I just read that?

From the dissenting opinion in a legal case regarding burial laws and funeral homes: "Burial services are a once in a lifetime event for every person." Judge Tim Garcia  http://www.ksl.com/?sid=22730981&nid=148&title=nm-court-family-given-brain-in-bag-cant-sue-utah-funeral-home&s_cid=featured-3

Yeah? I sure hope so....

Actually, I'm not really sure you can call it "once in a LIFEtime" since the person being buried is already dead, and the people burying him probably will face more funerals before they die. Technically, burial is something that happens after your lifetime.

Boss Looping Competition

Saturday, Oct 20, is the big day for the Boss Looping national competition.

Tim and his friend Matt Murphy are the first duo to ever compete (and might be the only live looping duo in the world--we haven't found anyone else). They are among the six finalists. The competition is, as far as I can tell, for people who use any boss looping pedal (they make a bunch--Tim uses the RC-50). All the finalists sing original music--it's not in the rules that it's required, but all the final videos are original songs, so I guess it gives you an advantage somehow? Not all the finalists do all-vocal live looping--three of the six use instruments in addition to their voices. All sing at least part of the songs.

You can see all the finalists' entry videos and read a little bio of each here: http://rolandarblog.com/2012/10/17/meet-the-loopstation-world-championship-3-finalists/. As you can see, there are some very talented people in this competition.

All six finalists flew to LA today, and tomorrow they get to perform ONE song each, up to 5 minutes long, at the competition. You can watch it here: http://www.guitartv.com/ live starting at 6:00 pm (competition itself starts at 6:30 pm, though--California time, I think, so 7:30 here at my house).

I will be watching. I have no idea what the judges are looking for. The preliminary round specified that the music had to use a loop pedal and that they were judging partially on facility with the pedal, but nobody has said anything about what the finals are judged on.

What I will be watching for:

First and foremost, is the act entertaining? I don't care how technically good an artist is if I get bored listening to the music. Looping is especially at risk of being boring because of the nature of the art--it takes a while to lay down all the loops to build a complete background for a song, and if you don't know how to do that skillfully and quickly, it gets really boring really fast. Also, looped songs are built around backgrounds that don't change throughout the songs. If an artist is really good at looping, they can usually handle things like bridges and chord changes okay, but it's not as easy as it is with a band. So the songs are always at risk of being too repetitive and of "not going anywhere." Even a good song, though, can be performed in a way that is just too boring to sit through. So the music itself AND the performance have to be entertaining. That doesn't mean gimmicky necessarily--just entertaining.

Secondly, is the act original? I don't see a lot of artistic value in cover bands. I do see cultural value in them, but I've been around the a cappella world too long to be really impressed with groups that are good mimics and not much else. That's 90% of a cappella, and I've had my fill of that. So I'm interested in seeing if the artists here are doing something that marks them as original--not just original songs, but are they doing something that makes them distinct, or am I going to watch and say, "I've seen this a thousand times before" or "Yup, that's live looping." Interestingly, groups can still do covers and feel original--like the Real Group, from Sweden, who Tim took me to see when they were in Colorado. It has a lot to do with the performance and the artists, I guess, more than the material.

Third, are they good? An act can be original and entertaining and still be musically horrible. Sometimes they're entertaining for all the wrong reasons. Sometimes they're original, but so far out there that they're not accessible or good. It's not too hard to write original crap--it's all over YouTube and filling up many an open mic night.

And finally, does the artist strike me as someone interesting personally? I'm not really into divas. An artist can be entertaining, original, and good, but if they come across as a jerk, as selfish, as egotistical, as rude, or generally as someone I would not want to meet, I  have a hard time rooting for them. No matter how great the music is, if the person behind it comes across as loathsome or self-centered, I lose interest really fast. In the music industry, being a generally nice person ends up being a really big deal.

As with every other gig Tim ever has, I hope two things: that people show up, and that Tim does a good job.

Another for the Why We Homeschool Files

http://www.belljarnews.com/2012/10/16/researchers-discover-secret-to-better-behaved-children/

Everyone knows you need enough sleep.

Not everyone knows elementary school aged kids need 10 hours or more of sleep per night.

I've noticed what this study says--missing just a little sleep makes my kids behave and think poorly.

In order to guarantee the kids get enough sleep and can think at their best, I can't conform to the school schedules, which were designed by morning people to allow parents to get to work on time. Especially with the sleep disorder!

So we homeschool.

Did I just read that?

The tagline for Bejeweled Blitz: "1 minute of endless fun!"  

http://www.popcap.com/games/bejeweled-blitz/facebook?icid=pop:hp:ompg:pos1:begbltz:all:en

60 seconds can feel endless, like when you're holding your breath, or in labor, or waiting for the pot to boil. But, as they say, time flies when you're having fun.

Apparently the game is not fun?

Sunset, courtesy Elijah

Elijah, age 22 months, just ran in to where I was sitting and started hopping up and down, looking like he was doing a Maori war dance. He gestured broadly and talked excitedly, but I couldn't understand him.

Finally, he closed my laptop and said, "C'mon, Mom!"

So I followed him. Through the kitchen and out the back door he trotted, looking back to be sure I was following. When we reached the back balcony, he gestured excitedly at the sky and said, "SOOOOO Pitty!"

I looked up--all the clouds were pink and orange in a gorgeous sunset, backed by that particularly brilliant blue that comes just before dusk. "Sooo PITTY!" he said again, looking awed. "See?"

I sat out on the chair on the balcony, holding him and watching the sky as he gaped and awed and jabbered excitedly, pointing at the sky, then down in the yard ("peent!" he said, pointing in the yard--the light was, indeed, rather pink on everything). I finally said, 'Do you like that sunset?' "Uh?" he said. "The pretty orange clouds are called the sunset," I explained. "Sun.Set," he said, "Soooo pitty couds."

Then he pointed down at the neighbor's bush, which was glowing with fall leaves in just the same colors as the sky. "Pitty eaves. Ornge, pint. Sooo pitty."

We sat until it got dark, looking at the fall leaves, looking at the sky, listening to the breeze and watching the leaves rustle above us, watching the clouds change colors.

Sunsets are one of the best things in the world. Sunsets through the eyes of a toddler are even better.

Back to this debate. Again.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/10/15/why-health-insurance-is-not-the-same-thing-as-health-care/

Actually, this is what I've been saying all along, more or less: Expanding medicaid, which no doctors take, will not help people get medical care.

And it's a serious mistake to confuse, as Obamacare does, having access to insurance with having access to medical care.

Personally, I don't think Obamacare will work for that very reason. Wish I knew enough to propose a viable alternative, though.

Did I just read that?

"Police are currently searching for the alleged shooter. He has been described as a Hispanic male in his 20s with facial tattoos and balding or bald hair. "  http://www.ksl.com/?sid=22545555&nid=148&title=singer-mistaken-for-gang-member-shot-at-convenience-store&s_cid=featured-1

Nice. Bald hair.

More for the Why We Homeschool Files: It's a better education

Consistently, the stats come in showing that homeschooled kids do significantly better than public-schooled kids on standardized tests, among other measures (including, interestingly, "proper" socialization).  Most homeschooled kids are working at least one grade level above their age-peers.

http://schoolsofthought.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/28/doing-the-math-behind-homeschooling/

So if I really, truly want my kids to get a good education, homeschooling is a good option.

Another for the Why We Homeschool files: Gifted learners

I have a houseful of gifted learners. Gifted learners require a completely different kind of education. Not just more homework, but a whole different approach to school. I put details on my Learning Lynx Classroom site here: https://sites.google.com/site/learninglynxclassroom/home/how-is-this-different-from-other-curricula.

Public schools are capable of doing this. Public school teachers, on the whole, seem to relish the gifted learning times. But public schools' mandate is too big, and they cannot possibly do what the law requires in giving an appropriate education to every child. The schools have opted to give their time, resources, and attention to the average and below-average children. They pretty much ignore the gifted kids because the gifted kids kinda do okay, even if they're being completely slighted and ignored. At least they're not getting Fs, right?

Some schools pay lip service to handling gifted kids, mostly in the form of extra homework (which isn't great). Some schools have gifted and talented programs, which do really really well with the moderately and even sometimes exceptionally gifted, but usually fail to help the profoundly gifted. Some schools are really good at adapting to gifted kids. Most of the teachers, administrators, and school psychologists I've interacted with want to help the gifted kids. It's not that the schools don't care. It's that they don't have the ability to help everyone, even if the law says they must.

This mom expresses the whole thing well: http://schoolsofthought.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/23/my-view-the-joys-and-challenges-of-raising-a-gifted-child/  As she says, in many ways, gifted kids are special needs kids, but the schools aren't equipped to deal with their particular special needs, and often reject the very idea such smart kids even CAN be special needs kids--especially the 2e kids (twice exceptional) like Caleb and Benji.

So instead of doing the constant advocating for my gifted kids (advocating for one child times six), instead of fighting with teachers to get the kids appropriate education, instead of always searching for that one teacher in each grade who understands the gifted kids, I opted to do the work of educating them at home. It was easier for me, since I dislike conflict intensely.

I also wanted to avoid teaching the kids that they're valuable because they're smart, and only because they're smart. My kids, surrounded all the time by their equally-smart but differently-talented siblings, parents, and cousins, are not being taught what I learned in school: that being smart makes you better than everyone else. Being smart is just part of life around here, and it doesn't make you any specialler than any other talent makes people special.

Also, I really wanted to avoid teaching my kids what smart kids usually learn from the school system: that being smart is usually enough to get accolades, and work is unnecessary. And further, that if something is hard or you don't succeed the first time, you should absolutely quit and never try that again.

I don't want my kids to get big heads, or think other people are "less," or to be lazy and unwilling to take risks. And that's what gifted kids too often learn in public schools.


So we homeschool.

More for the Why We Homeschool Files: Tourettes

I have two boys with Tourette Syndrome. Tourette's is really not disabling. It's really not devastating. It's really not a big deal. In fact, it can be generally ignored.

Most kids even grow out of it.

The biggest problem kids with Tourettes have is a lifetime of low self-esteem and depression brought on by the way they were treated by other children in school.

It is an easy choice to give my kids a brighter future by not forcing them to live with a future of depression and a bad self-image.

I don't shield them from the world. They do have to learn to interact with the world and the people who stare or won't let them finish their sentences or who wonder what's "wrong" with them. That's one reason I send them to school one day a week. But I sent them with other homeschooled kids, and homeschooled kids are not nearly as cruel as public schooled kids. They are more inclined to ask questions than to mock. It's the best of both worlds this way.

Another reason we homeschool.

More for the Why We Homeschool Files: Socialization

I've posted before on homeschool socialization, so I'm not going to rehash it all. You can read it here: http://beccajones.blogspot.com/2010/09/socialization-and-homeschool.html. I still think one of the main reasons we homeschool is when I look at groups of public school children and then look at groups of homeschooled children in similar settings (school playgrounds, social groups, club settings, libraries, etc), I far and away want my children to be like the homeschoolers and am consistently horrified and disgusted by how even the "good" public school children behave.

What I've been thinking about is how the socialization is taught in public schools. Yes, public schooled children are better chameleons. They are better at blending in with their peers.

Why?

Because they are mercilessly bullied and mocked if they don't.

Sure public schools teach conformity. Separate from the debate about whether that is desirable, you really have to consider whether the WAY conformity is taught in schools is appropriate.

Personally, I don't think it is EVER okay to emotionally abuse another person, even if it is "for their benefit."

I remember being a kid and learning to match my socks to my dress because pink and pink aren't the same and don't always match. How did I learn to wear matching clothes? My friends made fun of my clothing because my socks were a different shade of pink than my dress. Did it help me blend in better? Sure.  Why? Because I was terrified of facing that kind of pain again.

I hear parents tell their kids all the time, "If you pick your nose, your friends will make fun of you."  "If you wear mismatched socks, your friends will make fun of you."  "If you talk so loud, people won't like you."

What are we teaching our kids? Not to keep their hands away from their faces. Not to wear asthetically pleasing and comely clothing. Not to talk quietly. We're teaching them to fear what other people think of them.

And then we spend a lot of time trying to teach them not to give in to peer pressure, to be courageous in the face of rejection when we choose not to do drugs, to choose the right despite what our peers think. But we are sending mixed messages, telling them it is vitally important to care what people think and putting them in a situation where they find out--painfully--that it matters, and then telling them that they should always follow their hearts and ignore the naysayers and critics. Well, which is it?

I, personally, found it more compelling to teach the kids to think independently, to make choices based on something other than social acceptability, to not care so much what other people think. We DO discuss that in order to have any kind of influence or opportunity in the world, we have to behave and dress in a way that leads us to be listened to and taken seriously. It's not that I want to raise Bohemian poets who can't interact with the world at all. It's just that I don't think kids are well served by being tortured into compliance with whatever social fad is reigning supreme at the time. And I think proper socialization--the kind that produces socially skilled, socially effective adults who can interact with the world, keep jobs, communicate, be responsible citizens and good parents--is best taught intentionally, by adults, and without humiliation being the major tool to force social conformity.

Being properly socialized is NOT the same thing as being trained to blend in and fear what other people think. I want courageous, thoughtful, intelligent, polite children who can interact with friends and solve problems and hold jobs and have successful marriages. Not clones.

So thus we homeschool.

The Why We Homeschool File: Boys

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.

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!

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

New video from Tim

Wednesday was International Talk Like a Pirate Day. Apparently even Obama participated.

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!

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?

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.....

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":

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.....

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....

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.