I have split my blog and so in the process have created another blog for Parley and Prate.

It's now hosted at Wordpress, so go to http://parleyandprate.wordpress.com.

...what the candidates write on their little tables during a debate.

I'm watching McCain's and Obama's faces as they write with their sharpies during the last debate, and if their expressions are any indication, they are writing something like this:

"Is he ever going to let me talk?!"

"I might kill this man later."

"You didn't answer the question, moron!"

"The American people can't be buying this..."

"What a --------."

We need some parents like this.

"Please send my son to prison! He's a freaking lazy moocher who won't get off his butt and get a job!!  Oh, and beat him with a cane!"

As Mr. Burns would say..."eeeeexcellent."

http://www.reuters.com/article/oddlyEnoughNews/idUSTRE49G43O20081017?feedType=RSS&feedName=oddlyEnoughNews

For all of you confused about the 2009 digital transition, here's a video that may help. But go to the bathroom first, I don't want you wetting yourself.

I have had several people ask me what exactly Barack Obama says that's socialist. I think that they think that I'm throwing around the word "socialist" the same way you might throw around the word "bastard" - that it used to mean something, but now it's just an insult. It's not - it's a way of thinking about economic and social policies. I never really get to explain myself, however, so here it is, in a nutshell.

Why Barak Obama is a Socialist

From Wikipedia:

Modern socialism, running currently under the guise of the Democratic Party in the United States, originated in the late nineteenth-century working class political movement. Karl Marx posited that socialism would be achieved via class struggle and a proletarian revolution which represents the transitional stage of "hope and change" between capitalism and communism. Socialists, including Democratic Presidential nominee Barack Hussein Obama, whole-heartedly share the belief that capitalism by nature concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital, and creates an unequal society, and therefore is evil and unfair. All socialists advocate the creation of an egalitarian society, in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly, although there is considerable disagreement among socialists over how, and to what extent this could be achieved.

Socialism and communism are the economical belief that the best thing for a country, economically and socially, is a policy best described as "share the wealth." If someone makes too much money (the government decides how much is too much) then they take it away and give it to someone who doesn't make as much (in the form of cash or services or whatever). If you agree with that policy, then you are a socialist. If you believe that the best economic policy is to leave people alone and basically let them earn their own money and do what they want with it, you are a capitalist.

Now, from a social standpoint, socialism (where it gets it's name) sounds a lot better, right? Practically speaking, however, it never works out well. The people who earn the money don't feel the desire to work hard anymore, as much of their money is just going to be taken away and given to someone else. The people who get the money don't feel the desire to work hard anymore, as they are going to be taken care of no matter what you do. It happens every time - when a nation turns to socialism, its economy collapses. And we're not talking about Wall Street Bailout collapses. We're not even talking Black Tuesday collapses. We're talking fall down and NEVER GET UP AGAIN.


From an economic standpoint, it makes sense why this doesn't work. The rich people aren't just evil capitalist greed mongers hording money in a cave somewhere, as pictured above. They invest in the economy, creating jobs and more wealth. There is infinite wealth, but someone has to create it. If you take away the money of the rich people, the entrepreneurs, they can't make anymore. The economy slows to a crawl, withers, and dies - and, like a parasite, takes it's host nation with it.

Okay, okay. All of you foaming at the mouth that I would cite Wikipedia as an accurate source for any information, take it as tongue in cheek and here's a real source for you: Britannica.

Socialism: social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources. According to the socialist view, individuals do not live or work in isolation but live in cooperation with one another. Furthermore, everything that people produce is in some sense a social product, and everyone who contributes to the production of a good is entitled to a share in it. Society as a whole, therefore, should own or at least control property for the benefit of all its members.

For those of you who don't get what you just read, or skipped it entirely (you know who you are), let me break it down for you. In free market capitalism, if you work for money, then you own it. In socialism, if you work for money, then everyone owns it.

"But Obama isn't trying to own your stuff!" Okay, let's look at an example. Bill, Joe, and Mike all live on the same street. Mike goes and gets a job and buys a bike. He rides it to work and to the pool and to the gym and to hang out with his friends. One day Joe comes up to him. "Mike, you're done with the bike. Time to let Bill have a turn." Bill gets to ride the bike for a while. Joe steps in again. "Bill, your turn is up. Time to let Mike ride the bike." Mike rides for a few days, when Joe comes back. "Mike, you're done. Bill's turn." Now tell me - who owns the bike?

Taxation is not supposed to work like it works now. It's supposed to be more like a membership fee. If you want to join a gym, you pay a fee, get a card, and get to use their equipment, exercise machines, showers, air conditioning, building, etc because you paid for that right. Some people might pay more than others - senior citizens, for instance, might get a discount - but basically everybody pays and gets to use the facilities. That's what government taxation is SUPPOSED to be. Just paying for government services. But what if you went to your gym the next time you wanted to renew and they said, "That'll be $500," and you said, "What?! It was $350 last year!" And they said, "Well, yes, but you make more money this year. Edna Mae is going to pay $200 and you're making up for it." Do you see where I'm going? When you take that out of context of a gym membership and make it the government, then you no longer have the obvious option of just walking away and not joining the gym. You can't just not join the US. You live here, you have to pay it. Which means it's forced. And when it is no longer about paying for services you use, but about redistributing your wealth to other people, that is a socialistic economic policy. Because the government is controlling your assets, not for a service that you will use, but for wealth redistribution. It's the very definition of socialism.

A comment on the CSPAN YouTube video of last night's debate:

"All I heard from McCain was tax cuts for Oil, which is not surprising, since we all already know what the Republican drive is in entering politics. Republicans have and never will be interested in anyone's civil rights, or in the nation's progress or social evolution. They have no idea what the purpose of government is or what the word means. It's all about personal profit and nothing to do with "governing" and the immense responsibilities that come with it. It's just a playground to them."

So...wait. Government is supposed to fix all your problems by throwing money at you that they took from people who worked hard to get it? Social evolution? Socialism is not evolution is deevolution. Yes, it's ALL ABOUT PERSONAL PROFIT. That's the very definition of CAPITALISM, my friend. If I want to give my money to Poor Sallie Sue, that's my business and good for me. But the government FORCING me to? That's COMMUNISM. The government's job is - and always has been - to stay out of the way. Look it up.

Just in case you need to do CPR any time soon.

http://www.reuters.com/article/oddlyEnoughNews/idUSTRE49F86520081016?feedType=RSS&feedName=oddlyEnoughNews

And it's not a loose link, either.

http://pressoffice.cornell.edu/oct06/tv_autism.shtml
http://www.whitedot.org/issue/iss_story.asp?slug=ADHD%20Toddlers

Not only may early television watching trigger autism (a possible link), it's been shown that for every 10 minutes a day of TV a child watches before they hit 2 years of age, they have a 10% more likely chance of having ADD when they are older. This includes "infant" television such as Baby Einstein. (Which, by the way, is a JOKE. We studied this in child psych - it's far more harmful than helpful. I can't believe they haven't been sued yet.)

So if a 10 month old watches 30 minutes of TV a day, they are 30% more likely to have ADD. That is a HUGE statistic. And by the time they are six, their TV habits are ingrained - will they be a couch potato? How much they watch TV in the first 2 years will determine that.

Now I should say that Ari watches TV. She'll get an average of about 10 minutes a day of Baby Signing Time or the Signing Baby Einstein DVDs. But - apparently - the key to letting a kid watch TV is to (a) let them say no! I know a lot of parents whose kids aren't interested but basically beg the kid and plop them in a chair and make them watch. (B), be there with the kid. TV should never be used as a babysitter, even for 10 minutes, because the AAP's study directly links this with decreased ability to focus (and they will never learn anything, anyway). A child needs interaction to learn - it is IMPOSSIBLE for a child under 2 to learn anything from TV - IMPOSSIBLE. Their brains cannot process the 2D image. (C), the show should move slowly. One of the problems is kids watch TV that moves fast and they think that this is how fast real life moves and get bored with real life.

So much controversy! What kind of TV and how much do your kids watch?

It is with shock and horror that I write this blog. Please do not think that I care more for this dog than for the 4,000 soldiers that have died in Iraq since the war began. However, this seems so...cruel, so completely pointless, so inhumane that I really am having a hard time believing it is happening. Soldiers make a huge sacrifice in Iraq everyday - and this seems completely unnecessary.

You can read the story for yourself here, but basically it looks like a soldier adopted a dog in the US and it was being sent to the SPCA to be shipped home to her parents when the soldier's commanding officers confiscated the dog and are going to hold it for execution. The outrage is that this dog has served as a "pet therapist" of sorts to the victim (i.e., the soldier) and to rip him away from her to face death is beyond pointless, cruel, pitiless and stupid. If there were something we could do, some petition to sign, I would have posted the link. But there isn't. I feel a terrible loss, not because of the "poor dog" but because the military is treating it's wounded with such incredible insensitivity, disrespect, and arrogance. How can we do something like this to someone who has sacrificed already so much for this country?

Don't vote before you watch this.



Things to note: How many times does Barak Obama mention that it "sounded good on paper"? And THAT is the difference between socialism and free market economy. Socialism (Obama) sounds terrific on paper, but in practice? Yeah, we saw how great that turned out.

There is no debate here. No opinions. No commentary. No conspiracy theories. No flashy lights or propaganda. Just a video straight from CNN's coverage of actual congress sessions.

Scary.

...on "If Obama Is Elected President and Actually Does What He Says He Will." Stay tuned.

Joe and Bob are neighbors. Joe started out as a fry cook at McDonald's and worked hard and now is general manager over all the McDonald's in southern Texas. Bob was working as a fry cook at Jack in the Box for 27 years, but was laid off a few months ago and has been unable to find reemployment.

One day, Joe comes home with a big Christmas bonus. Bob is infuriated. He calls up the local NAE (National Association for Equality).

NAE: National Association for Equality, how may I help you?
Bob: I just got laid off and my neighbor just got a big raise!
NAE: Hmm, that is disturbing. How much?
Bob: I just sifted through his garbage...almost $25,000!!! And I can't make my mortgage payment.
NAE: Sir, I completely understand. That is outrageous. I'll bet he bought something pretty with it, yes?
Bob: Yeah, I saw him meeting with someone about a pool yesterday!! And I'm eating Ramen Noodles! This is really ticking me off...
NAE: Sir, it's okay. We'll send someone over right away.

15 minutes later, a car pulls into Joe's driveway. Two men get out and knock on the door.

Joe: Hello? Can I help you?
NAE: Yes, we are from the NAE. We have reports of a large bonus.
Joe: Uh...well, yeah. I worked my butt off last year and my stores are now the highest grossing in the country! [Joe grins, obviously proud of himself] It took a lot, I didn't think I'd be able to...
NAE: [interrupting] How much was the bonus?
Joe: Um, I'm sorry?
NAE: I have a court order here, if you don't want to volunteer the information we can confiscate your bank records.
Joe: Well...um...it was...about $24,000.
NAE: That's too much.
Joe: What? No, I earned all of it.
NAE: Did you know that your neighbor Bob is struggling to make his mortgage? Did you know that he's living on Ramen Noodles?
Joe: He sits in his house and plays Guitar Hero all day! He hasn't looked for a job in 7 months!
NAE: The economy is slow.
Joe: HE IS LAZY! I earned every penny of my...
NAE: No excuses. It's entirely unacceptable what you are doing to Bob. I'm going to have to take $10,000.
Joe: WHAT?!
NAE: I...HAVE...A...COURT...ORDER!

After a bit more arguing, Joe gives the NAE the money and they walk over to Bob's house. They knock on the mostly broken door and hand him the check.

NAE: Here you are, sir. So sorry about that, you just let us know if it happens again.
Bob: Yeah, well, you guys are kind of slacking, I shouldn't have had to call. But I understand, it happens. We all struggle in these hard, hard times.

The NAE gives Bob a knowing, understanding smile and drives away.

What will happen on the next episode of "Someone Needs to Work Hard to Earn Money to Generate Revenue and Investments for our Economy?" Watch the next episode, November 4!

I think the biggest problem with the acceptance of Obama's socialist economic policies is a complete misunderstanding of how economics works. So let me sum it up for you, in a nutshell:

Free Market Capitalism
Someone starts out working minimum wage. Saves almost everything until they have a few thousand dollars. They make an investment and it pays off big. They take that money and make more investments. Eventually they are a millionaire. They make investments overseas that create jobs (and do more for the economy than foreign aid) and boost the finances of that country as well as investments in the US that create jobs and boost our economy. People make more money because there's more money to be shared.

Socialism
Someone starts out working minimum wage. Saves almost everything until they have a few thousand dollars. They make an investment and it pays off big. They take that money and make more investments. Eventually they become a millionaire. Now they are the bad guy because millionaires have money and poor people don't. The government decides this millionaire has too much money, so they take it away and give it to all the poor people. Everyone remains poor.

This is how socialism works in practice, and has always worked in practice. The rich pay the vast majority of our taxes (i.e., keep our government afloat), donate of their own volition millions of dollars to charity, make international, national, and regional investments that create jobs and MAKE YOU MORE MONEY. Rich people are not the bad guys. They are the GOOD guys. So what happens when you take money away from rich people to give it to welfare?

If Obama gets elected, we won't have to ask. We'll be living it. Well, you'll be living it. I'll be in Australia.

No, seriously. I'm SURE it's out of context and Obama is not ACTUALLY suggesting we spend $500,000,000 on a national civilian security force. Would someone tell me what this context was?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/uc/20081009/cm_uc_crlelx/op_247678;_ylt=Aqd2pZkOvt5TFYcC4FCBzCn9wxIF

Obama wants "rich" people to pay more taxes, even though most Americans are so clueless as to how much in taxes "rich" people pay that when asked, they think they should pay 25.7% - far less than they pay now!

Obama calls it "neighborliness" to take money from people who have earned it and give it to people who haven't, yet can't find it in himself to even muster to give more than 1% of his personal earnings to charity until he's making $4 million a year.

This post is making me livid. I wasn't even sure of my McCain vote until I read this. I'm sick to my stomach. What a low down, hypocritical, socialist lying -------.

Charitable giving? Here are the facts:

The Bushes, 2007
AGI: $923,807
Tax: $221,635
Charity: $165,660
18% of gross income

The Cheneys, 2007
AGI: $3,040,000
Tax: $602,651
Charity: $166,547
5.5% of gross income

The Obamas, 2000-2004
AGI: Between $200,000 - $300,000
Charity: 1% of gross income

The Obamas, 2007
AGI: $4,200,000
Charity: 5% of gross income

The Bidens, 2007
AGI: $319,854
Charity: $995
0.3% of gross income

The Bidens, past 10 years
AGI (total): $2,450,042
Charity: $3,690
0.1% of gross income

Fascists.

Giving your money to the poor is neighborliness. The government forcing you to give your money to the poor because they decide that you have too much is socialism.

O'REILLY: You can take it from the wealthy and give it to everybody else.
OBAMA: Or we could have across the board tax hikes, what you just talked about.
O'REILLY: It's not income redistribution.
OBAMA: Well, but the problem is, if I am sitting pretty, and you've got a waitress who is making minimum wage plus tips, and I can afford it if she can't, what's the big deal for me to say I'm going to pay a little bit more?
O'REILLY: Because it inhibits…
OBAMA: That is neighborliness.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,419703,00.html

http://shop.cafepress.com/design/9943348

I've been sitting here trying to figure out what to type to explain this or introduce it or...comment or...anything.  I can't think of anything to say.  You're just gonna have to watch it for yourself.

(Includes images of women breastfeeding so don't watch if you don't want to see that.)



Here's the original article.

And I'm not asking how many air bags it has.

Cars and car seats are made with toxic chemicals, including bromine, lead, chlorine, and many others. A new website has tested hundreds of cars and car seats to determine the levels of each chemical present in the cloth, plastic, and metal components. I was afraid to look, but the car seat we bought Ari is listed as a 1.8 - "low risk" on their scale! Yay!

You can go to healthycar.com to see where your car and car seats rank! The chemicals in car seats are especially a problem because chemicals leach over time when exposed to high heat - and you know how hot the inside of a car can get in Texas! So we want to make sure that there are no toxins that our children might be breathing in after years of riding in these seats. :)

I have been trying to write this blog for a while, at the request of a friend. I just keep...not liking it. I can tell I'm coming across not as I mean to. So in order to get my point across easily, I'm cutting it down significantly. I'm just going to make a few key points and raise a few key questions and not go into a lot of detail.

I do not agree with the cry it out method of sleep training, as anyone who knows me probably knows. It has been clinically shown that children raised on cry it out are less trusting of their parents as teenagers. Really, that only makes sense. An infant can't talk to you, or make any sort of meaningful communication besides crying. Crying is not manipulative to an infant. It's not a game or a contest. You aren't "letting your child win" when you go to pick them up. This isn't a competition between you and your child, it's a cooperation. There is no winner and loser. An infant is not crying to get on your nerves, or to be disobedient. An infant cries because she's trying to tell you something. And when you ignore them, they learn that they don't get listened to. A child who repeatedly tries to communicate and is ignored will eventually stop trying to communicate. I know I don't rest well after crying myself to sleep.

When Ari was a few weeks old she was sleeping in the bed next to me and starting crying. I tried to comfort her, feed her. I couldn't get her to stop. This was unusual, but I tried everything. She wasn't crying like she was in pain. I finally realized, when I turned the nightlight on, that she has gotten her leg stuck inside her pajamas and couldn't move. I'm so glad I didn't let her cry it out! My poor child was not being disobedient or manipulative or "bad." She was saying, "Mom! This really hurts, can you fix it please?" If I had ignored her, I would have taught her a valuable lesson - Mom doesn't listen.

Infants learn. Even fetuses learn. A psychologist can recognize a cry it out infant by the time the child is 1 year old.

Cry it out babies, on top of being less trustful, more fearful and more clingy, also cry more. When a child is allowed to sit and cry, they are being taught not how to soothe themselves, but how to cry. They are perfecting the art of crying, and crying is becoming their comfort. (A quick note: letting a child cry it out is an entirely different thing from a child who cries no matter when you do, like colic.)

So there's why I don't like cry it out, in a nutshell. Now some food for thought:

Why do we make our kids grow up so fast? When your kid is 18 they simply aren't going to be coming to you to be rocked to sleep. They aren't going to need to nurse to comfort themselves. You will miss those times. It is only a few short months or years when your infant needs you this desperately, when they are learning to trust you and that the world is basically a good place. Formative doesn't begin to describe the impact of these years on your child, and yet we want to throw them away? Why? Why do we rush things in this country?

At the end of a long day, when we've had fun and laughed and been fussy and met new people and all of life's "stuff," I know that I can sit in our glider in Ari's bedroom and rock her to sleep. I can watch that magical bundle of joy nurse herself contented and slowly become limp with exhaustion in my arms. How long will I get to do this? How long will she be so tiny that I can hold her in my lap, watch her eyes close in perfect contentment and trust, lean down and kiss her tiny forehead before I set her in her bed? How long? A year? Two years? I have a whole lifetime ahead of me to enjoy sleeping through the night. I just really don't feel like rushing this short time that I've been given.

http://www.freerice.com/subjects.php?t=461367491887

Free Rice.com, the popular purveyors of the word definition test that donates 20 grains of rice to starving nations for every answer you get right (paid for by ads on the site) has now added multiple subjects. My favorite is World Geography, because I've always sucked at geography and this is going to help me learn while donating a bit of food in the process. And making me feel like mostly an idiot.

For all you homeschoolers out there with kids old enough to do this, it looks like it might be a good idea. I've only been working for about 10 minutes and I've already learned a lot, and between today and the last time I was on sponsors have donated about a pound of rice. It's not time cost effective (i.e., time wise it would make more sense to work a job for an hour and donate the money) but hey, it's something. :)

I came across this interview on one of the blogs I follow.  It really gives some food for thought about positive discipline and such.  I'm a bit skeptical and at the same time encouraged.  I have personally seen how much better positive discipline (i.e., proactive, empowering, preventative) works than punitive (i.e., reactive, punishment), but only in a day care setting.  ("What do we do when we finish our meal?" empowers kids to remember to put their napkins in the trash, whereas "Okay, it's time to put our napkins away," usually makes them resentful and sometimes angry.)  Has anyone tried this with their kids?  Read the interview and tell me what you think.

I came across these on one of my blogs. They are awesome cheap plastic ware for kids that are BPA free and a great alternative to traditional plastic forks. Just warn your kids not to read what's printed on them. English much?

A dear friend recently wrote a post on Facebook explaining why she was no longer a Christian, and I answered (on Facebook) with a post of my own.

But one of the questions she asked spurred me to write this blog, as a tangent off of my original answer but also as a theological topic of it's own.

Her question involved Jesus and the Casual Party Trick (btw, I am so gonna write a children's book with that title. No stealing it!) Why would He do miracles (some seemingly pretty silly) then, but nothing now? For my full answer to that question, you can look on Facebook. This blog is about a particular "casual party trick" that Jesus performed - in fact, His first miracle. I am hoping to examine it and explain why it is not a casual party trick at all.

As most of you know, Jesus' first miracle was turning water into wine at a wedding. This looks to be the very definition of a casual party trick, especially when compared to his other miracles. Jesus healed the blind and deaf, restored withered hands, proclaimed prostitutes forgiven and raised men and children from their graves. In light of all this, I would like to make this statement: Outside of His resurrection, turning water into wine was Jesus' greatest miracle.

You've got to understand what He did here. In all His other miracles, He was helping a single person in something very much of this world. Blindness? Temporary and physical. Lameness? Temporary and physical. Epilepsy? Temporary and physical. Death? You get the point. But water into wine was significant of a far greater, eternal, and spiritual change.

Jesus didn't take water and make it taste like wine. He didn't add color and flavoring and a bit of alcohol for good measure. He didn't give it the appearance of wine. He turned it into wine. He changed it's very molecular structure so that it was no longer water, but a completely different thing. He changed what it was.

Do you see where I'm going with this?

He was very intentional with that first miracle. It would mirror His last greatest miracle - His saving death on the cross. The two are parallel, one a physical representation of the other's spiritual power. When Jesus saves us, He doesn't make us look redeemed. He doesn't give us the appearance of Holiness. He changes the very core of who we are. He reconstructs the very fabric of our being so that we are absolutely no longer who we were, but completely new creations.

I remember the day I was saved by God's redeeming grace. I was a couple of weeks shy of my 19th birthday. Those of you who have known me a while may be shocked by this sentiment. I grew up in the church. And while I believe that I was technically "saved" before this encounter, I really only looked pure. I looked holy. I wasn't a hypocrite. I was just...still me. But after this radical encounter with God during the summer between my freshman and sophomore years of college, I became a new person. So much so that when I look back on my life I have a hard time remembering that really was me before then. Because, really, it wasn't. I am not a fixed up version of Amber. I am a completely different person. Because that's what Jesus died for. To change me, at the core of my being.

And that's why He turned the water into wine. His very first miracle was to turn water into something bold. Dangerous. Powerful. New. Exotic. Rare. Holy. He turned water into wine that day...then, three and a half years later, the work began that would make us Holy. Make us redeemed. The imagery is breathtaking. And that's why I believe that outside His death and resurrection, this was His greatest miracle.

So is anyone else on twitter? I can't decide if it would be freaking awesome or a total waste of time. Thoughts?

Spotted at Target

So what do you think? Spoiling imagination? Or sparking it?

http://www.hasbro.com/playskool/kota/

I'm writing this blog because I love you. I love you and your kids and want them to be smart. And because I might win a million dollars. But mostly because I love you and your kids. And mostly because of the million dollars. Which is actually a set of DVDs. Worth a million dollars. Or $160. Whatever.

I've been torn for a while, between letting Ari watch educational television and all the experts saying that if my kid stares at a TV for more than five seconds before she's two then by the time she's 20 her brain will have imploded. Or she'll eat hairbrushes. Oh wait she already does that.

So I've made a decision. Looking at a TV can't be any more harmful than eating dog fluff off the floor. (Have I mentioned our vacuum sucks? Or doesn't...wait...which would be worse?) It can't be too bad, especially if I'm interacting with her (one of the concerns with TV) and she's not watching it too much so her eyes will be focusing more on 3D objects than a screen (the other major concern). I've chosen, as my debut educational TV for me and Ari to watch together, Signing Time, a flippin' awesome set of videos I was introduced to my friend R. Right now our budget won't allow us to actually PURCHASE the set (we hope to be remedying that soon) so we are stuck to watching the 1 minute previews on YouTube and looping them.

If you have kids, I would recommend doing the research for yourself about TV but if you do decide to give it a go I would highly recommend Baby Signing Time for infants. Don't do it too often a day and I would definitely watch the DVD with your kid (so you can learn the signs and interact, they will learn faster and more efficiently that way anyway), but I hope it will help Ari learn signs faster if she's seeing the object on the TV and watching BABIES do the sign (instead of boring old mom. See? I'm embarrassing her again...)

Anyway, here's a preview of the next two Baby Signing Time DVDs (which I'm totally stoked about, I was bummed at first because there were only two baby ones and dozens of regular ones, but Ari (as witnessed by my awesome and totally clinically accurate YouTube experiment) seems to like the Baby ones better.)

Enjoy!

If I were the news people, I would not have been able to keep it this together.

Don't read this if you're offended by curse words. ;)

http://xkcd.com/437/

Read this article.

And then notice the last line.

"DURING THE NEXT TWELVE MONTHS?!"  Wait...you're ONLY allowed to not force children to maul themselves during the next twelve months?!

What is happening?!

Are you ready? Sure? Cause...cause I don't think you're ready.

Alternate post title: Why I will never be a landlord.

Alternate post title: Ways to feel better about yourself.

Alternate post title: WTF?!

http://www.houston-imports.com/forums/showthread.php?s=520558c4c7db2caae55ec3cae2620388&p=8841971#post8841971

I found this site.

The poem Ozymandius was written by Percy Shelley for a writing contest in 1817, refering to the fall of the Egyptian empire and specifically to the reign of Rameses II (Ozymandius).  It was inspired by a broken Egyptian statue near the Nile.  The poem is awesome.  Look what these people do to it.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/4/14/17917/1298

It really makes me sick.  Why do we feel the need to blame people for things that are not in their control?  Stop blaming the president, good or bad, for the economy.  They have really very little to do with it.  Stop blaming Bush for Katrina.  The Federal Government is not responsible for fixing our problems.  Great if they help, no blame if they don't.  Stop blaming everyone else for things that aren't their fault.  THE FACT THAT IT ISN'T YOUR FAULT DOESN'T BY DEFAULT MAKE IT THEIRS.

Wow.

Just...wow.

If you're brave enough, watch all the way through. But go to the bathroom first. You might lose it laughing too hard. ;)

ZAP!


viewed on Beside the Point

I have a question for all those out there who read this blog and who are pro choice.  This is not a trick question, meant to trap anyone.  Nor is it said in a spirit of beligerence.  I am genuinely asking, with all reverence and respect.  I have many, many questions, but I'll start with this one.

A woman gets pregnant.  She's very young - only 17 - and has no family.  She's already working hard to care for herself and is barely making ends meet as it is.  The thought of providing for another mouth is terrifying to her.  She has much life left to live and sees that she will lose out on much if she has this child.  So she decides, for her comfort and convenience, to stop her daughter's heart.  She contacts a local Planned Parenthood and has an abortion.

A woman has a child. She's very young - only 17 - and has no family.  She works hard to care for her child, but one job after another just can't keep up with the financial demands of even a small family.  She comes home exhausted and is unable to really provide for her child physically or emotionally.  After only a year, she realizes everything she's lost. The fun she can't have, the way her whole life now is tied down by this being.  So she decides, for her comfort and convenience, to stop her daughter's heart.  So, as gently as possible one night while her 10 month old sleeps, she smothers her with a pillow.

Why is one right and other wrong?

If you're easily offended, I probably wouldn't read this post.  Because I'm talking about people who are easily offended.  And it will probably offend you.  ;)

I was reading this article and found out that I am already doing everything that they mention you can do to save money for your baby because I'm painfully cheap and my poor daughter is going to grow up learning the alphabet by drawing it in the sand because paper just went up fifteen cents a ream.  Though the authors gave a quick and compulsory slight nod to cloth diapers, they did mention breastfeeding, making your own baby food, buying used toys and clothes, and letting your child play with household items instead of buying toys.  (Right now Ari has a magnetic clip from the fridge and a metal box.  Aaaand she just started banging her baby monitor against the door.  Awesome.  ;)  They even encourage parents to wash clothes instead of throwing them away - who throws away dirty clothes instead of washing them?!!

But one of the things on the list really shocked me.  They mention that daycare averages $1000 a month and encourage parents to get savings accounts, trade off with friends, etc.  But with commuting and buying lunch every day at work, you're spending almost $16,000 just to have a job.  How much are you really making? They don't even MENTION the option of staying home and raising your own children.  Is it really worth $10 an hour to miss out on most of the waking hours of your child's most formative years?  I used to nanny for a family, and I spent WAY more time with their kids than the parents did - and they were as involved as you could possibly be!  Everything was always stressed and rushed, there was never peace in the house until the parents had gone and there wasn't peace again once they came home.

I realize it's a personal decision and that you might genuinely desperately need that money, though you probably don't need it as badly as you think you do, but Baby Center didn't even mention that option!  They didn't even say "reevaluate your situation to see if you could be staying home with your kids."  As if we are afraid to even suggest that parents should be raising their own children.  I'm not even talking about "should be" but "COULD be."  We don't even want to say that!  We don't want to suggest that it should be an option!  We get so offended in this country if anyone questions the way we're raising our children, especially when it comes to the topics of breastfeeding and daycare, that we get all up in a tizzy if anyone suggests we do things differently than we're doing them.  I remember one article that was talking about some celebrity couple or something and they had decided to use formula with their children.  The couple said, "We've just decided that this is the best choice for our babies."  WHAT?!  No!  Say "This is the best fit for our family," or "This is the best I can do," or whatever, but formula is never the best choice for the baby.  I think sometimes we feel we have a right to justify our selfishness instead of being able to admit that a situation isn't ideal but is the best we can do.  And that's okay!  That's absolutely okay, but there is a serious problem when we start calling "acceptable" the "best," because then everyone's standards get lowered.

Seriously. Leave the man alone. He's not a Muslim. Jumping on one out of context slip of the tongue is just making us all look bad.

I would understand if he had been talking about Christianity and mentioned being a Muslim. But he wasn't. He was talking about how people think he's a Muslim. It wasn't a Freudian slip. It was just a slip. Stop harping on stupid things that aren't real, like a garbled word, and harp instead on things that matter. Like the fact that he is a fascist marxist socialist commie.

Someone posted a comment on a blog of mine a while back saying that it's okay to be concerned for the environment as long as you aren't worshiping it.

Well. Here you go.

I have to say, it was a tough decision. I'm not even sure if I've fully made it yet. But with both candidates' energy issues out of the way (as in, I agree with both policies on energy), I turned to other matters. This won't be a long post. But if my information below is wrong, tell me! If you have a source more reliable than mine with contradicting information, I would love to know. I certainly don't want to cast my vote because of erroneous information. But if all of this is true, I simply can't put Obama on my ticket. Here's why, in no particular order:

1) Obama doesn't support homeschooling. That's right. Though Chapter 6 of his book makes mention of allowing kids to remain at home, he has supported legislation to require all children to attend a school taught by certified teachers. This would rule out homeschooling (unless you want an expensive and time consuming certification process for parents) and most private schools as well. If homeschooling is outlawed, I'm moving to Australia. I'm not kidding. This is opposed to McCain's plan, which says that "parents should be empowered with school choice to send their children to the school that can best educate them just as many members of Congress do with their own children. [McCain] finds it beyond hypocritical that many of those who would refuse to allow public school parents to choose their child's school would never agree to force their own children into a school that did not work or was unsafe."

2) McCain and Palin are pro life. This is a huge, huge, huge deal on my ticket. Probably the next issue to the energy crisis, if not more important. Plus, I like Palin.

3) Obama mud slings. And speaks with flowery, emotional, meaningless words. And it's annoying. He's turning into Hillary. And she annoyed me.

4) McCain was in a war defending this country. I know, it's overstated and getting on everyone's (including my) nerves. But seriously. The guy has been in a war.

5) Obama supports socialist political agendas I simply can't back. Like free health care. See my post here. I like McCain's policy much better.

6) McCain is kind of an independent. 10% of his voting record is against his own party. Some might say, hey, it's only 10% - but how far can he go before he's no longer "republican" and becomes a democrat or independent? 20? 25? Republicans do stupid, stupid things sometimes, and McCain isn't afraid to be like, hey, you're doing a stupid, stupid thing.

7) McCain has supported legislation in favor of autism education and prevention.

8) McCain has a freaking awesome immigration policy. While I don't agree with every word (they should NOT be required to pay back taxes, in my opinion, that will just be impossible for many of them), it's fantastic overall.

9) The man believes in the second ammendment.

10) It seems that Obama genuinely believes that diplomacy can solve everything. That sitting down and talking with terrorists will make them go away. How long has he been here? On earth?!

11) Obama wants to start kids at school as infants. INFANTS. The zero to five plan wants education to start at birth. Paid for by yours truly. SERIOUSLY? And, Obama, if that's not what you meant, you really need to elaborate more. Because that's freaking retarded.

12) Did I mention PALIN?!?! The woman has an 80% approval rate in Alaska. Why isn't SHE running for president?!

I don't hate everything about Obama. In fact, I like a lot of it. His NCLB reform proposal is fantastic. But on a few key issues that are very important to me, the McCain-Palin team takes the cake. We'll see how things shape up in the next few months because anything can happen, but the democratic candidates have simply failed to capture my heartstrings.

Okay, maybe not...MOVE over. Maybe just...scooch a bit.

Can you have two favorite artists? Both in first place?

I just found this CD by Andy Gullahorn on NoiseTrade. I listened to the first few seconds of a few of the songs (the samples available), told three friends, and downloaded the album. I didn't even know he was a Christian artist. I didn't care. The songs could have all been about peanut butter sandwiches and I would have been thrilled; the music and artistry in the songwriting was so incredible, the guitar so gorgeous, I had to have it.

Turns out his lyrics are better than even his music.

He is artful and sly, witty and challenging and emotional. In the same CD, he writes both a song about his love affair with his wife and his love affair with his hat, both a tear jerking memoir to a couple who lost a child and a subtly humorous memoir to a friend who got in a fight with a lawn mower and lost his toe.

I don't know how I've never heard of this guy before. I love the folky acoustic feel and the down to earth lyrics. It's refreshing and charming, intimate and understated. So if you haven't, go to Derek Webb's NoiseTrade, tell three friends, and download the entire album for free ("for a very limited time only!" Andy claims) or, better yet, "pay what you want."

I hate free stuff. At least, free stuff that's stolen from people who worked hard to earn it and handed to people who didn't. Yes, I believe in fair wages and making sure people are treated fairly - but the idea that compassion is the government's job (and not the job of, say, the church, as it has been traditionally) is socialism. And that's fine if you believe that, if you believe in free health care for everybody, in robin hooding your way past poverty, but don't call it "progressive" or "liberal" - it's an idea that's been around for much longer than that. Call it what it is - socialism.

A buddy of mine posted this on his blog and it's so freaking awesome I had to share.

"Two Kids: One gets all A's. The other gets all D's.
If the kid with the A's gives the kid with the D's some of their A's, then both will have all C's.
Nevermind the fact that the A student worked hard to earn their grades.
Just consider the fact that the D student wants what the A student has.
Eventually, the A student will have no incentive to work hard, and the D student will never have to."

This is exactly what's happening. This is political socialism at it's best. This is why Russia is still a poor country - because they spent decades and decades teaching the hard workers it's pointless and the lazy they can get whatever they want just by breathing.

It was NOT BUSH'S JOB to fix Katrina. ::shock and horror!!:: Well, it's wasn't. It has NEVER BEEN the job of the federal government to FIX US. The very idea is COUNTER to what this country was founded on.

I've been on welfare. ::shock and horror!!:: Yes, that's right. For about 6 months while I was pregnant I was on welfare. And then I GOT OFF IT. Justin found a job (not nearly as hard as they would have you believe - McDonald's is ALWAYS HIRING) and we got off benefits. I probably used more of the government's money in my application process than in actual benefits. This, I really believe, is fine, and exactly the way welfare was supposed to work. It was supposed to be a quick fix for someone in between jobs - it was NEVER supposed to be a way of life, and it certainly was NEVER meant to rob from the rich and give to the poor.

Economists have long said that 5% of the world controls 95% of the wealth. Wow! Why don't we split that up and make it even?! The same people have also always said this: "If you took all the money in all the world and split it evenly between all people, in 10 years, 5% of the world would control 95% of the wealth." It's a mental thing. If all the money you get just gets spent and you have nothing to show for it but a freaking awesome stereo that will be obsolete in 2 years, you have gained nothing. And that is simply what 95% of the world would do with all that new found cash.

Everyone in America has the chance to provide for their families. Some have to work harder than others. But even "overnight success" stories spent years working toward said success. Rich people have the right to be rich and poor people have the right to become rich - but NOT by forcing the rich people to give them their money.

I'm liberal on a lot of issues. I absolutely believe in saving the environment and don't believe in the death penalty. But I simply can't buy into this socialist taxation policy. It will ruin our country.

Okay, something has happened that I never thought would happen. When they told me it would happen, I laughed and said they were wrong. People are smarter than this. Surely - SURELY - we wouldn't buy into a concept so thoroughly ridiculous and obviously single minded.

Wow. We did.

Enviornmentalists are now claiming that cloth diapers are actually as bad, if not worse, for then environment than disposables.

ARE YOU KIDDING ME?! Who, you may ask, did this study?

Proctor and Gamble. Yep. One of the largest disposable diaper manufacturers in the world.

It has now been seconded by a government environmental agency.

Before you get all worked up - or read the article and don't know the truth - let me point out a few errors in their (probably very well paid) calculations.

They say that the waste from the washing of cloth diapers is greater than the waste in the production and discard of disposables. Okay, I'll give you this: disposables definitely need less washing. But the amount of water and energy used to wash cloth diapers is equivalent or less than the amount needed to flush the toilet for the equivalent number of bathroom trips! In other words, if your kid is potty training, it takes the same amount of energy for that as to wash cloth diapers. They also don't mention that wasting water and household energy (which may be powered by windmills now) is MUCH better for the environment than wasting the oil needed to make a diaper (yes, there are petroleum byproducts in diapers), and that "wasting" water is also much better for the environment than the dioxin that is produced in the making of disposables.

They also, apparently, did not consider in their "production" calculations that cloth diapers will last for more than one child. Though you have to buy new disposables for each baby, cloth diapers can last for up to 4 kids - so suddenly the math becomes a little skewed because it is cut in fourth.

The last argument they make is that the diapers in landfills only account for 2% of the solid waste we consume. Frankly, that's still a big chunk. We consume WAAAAAAY too much solid waste as it is. That ridiculously statistical percentage would be much higher if we didn't use 18 pounds of PVC packaging on every child's toy and quadruple bag every gallon of milk we buy.

Has anyone else heard this argument? What were your initial thoughts?

I am not a scientist or a doctor, so I'm sure I'm missing something here. Anyone know what it is?

We spray toxic chemicals on our food (non-organic fruit, veggies, wheat, roots, etc are sprayed dozens of times by literally dozens of poisons, none of which will wash off before you eat them), on our clothes (9 of the 15 major pesticides used to grow cotton are known carcinogens, not to mention the fact that your favorite t-shirt is probably coated with formaldehyde and other chemicals), into the air we breathe (no one's debating that car fumes will kill you) and inject them into our body (vaccines contain abnormally* high levels of aluminum, a toxin that can cause neurotoxicity in 1/10** the amounts found in a typical injection***) yet we continually ask ourselves "where does cancer/insert other new disease here" come from.

What do they know that I don't? There's got to be something I'm missing here...anyone?

*Abnormally high means that if it were an IV, it wouldn't be legally allowed. Aluminum amount in vaccines is not regulated like it is for intravenous use.

**No one knows what a "safe" level of aluminum injection is. We only know for sick people, the elderly, or the premature, but know one has tested normal, healthy kids.

***I'm not anti-vaccine. I just ask a lot of questions. No hate mail, please. ;)

A friend recently asked me how I "know" so much about things many people have never heard of. For instance, how I have heard of the problems with dioxin in diapers, arsenic in mattresses, etc. The answer is actually quite simple, and is such a part of my personality that it was my nickname in Junior High: I ask questions.

I never take it for granted that "well I'm sure they know what they are doing" or "if they knew it was dangerous they wouldn't sell it" or "don't you think they've thought of that?" I don't believe that huge corporations have a greater interest in the health of my family than I do, so I ask. When things seem odd, I don't "assume" that everything is as it should be; I ask. Some questions I have asked, or have been asked by others and spurred my own questions, are, "How are disposable diapers so absorbent?", "Why does boxed and canned baby food last so long?", "What makes vaccines effective?", "How do you make things sweet without sugar?", "Why is organic produce more expensive?", "Why do chemical cleaners work so well?", "Why does milk from the store last so much longer than milk straight from the cow?", etc. The answers to these questions, and more, are the reasons I use cloth diapers, make my own baby food, space out Ari's vaccinations weeks apart, will never, EVER touch a diet soda, buy mostly organic dairy, fruits, and vegetables, use only plant based cleaners, and still buy milk from the store. I see how things are supposed to be in nature and, if they differ, I don't just think, "Oh, that's better!" I wonder why.

For instance, in the store yesterday a man handed me a sample of a new type of corn. It is edible straight from the ground - yes, you heard me, NO COOKING REQUIRED - grown specifically for HEB, and very, very sweet. It was remarkably good. But instead of climbing on the "weird no cook sweet corn" band wagon, my first reaction was, "How do they make corn so sweet and that you don't have to cook?" The guy giving me the sample didn't know, and I'll surely stay away from that item until I know more about it. (A side note, a few minutes after I had my sample, I had a bad taste in my mouth, the kind you get after eating aspartame.)

So that's how I find all this stuff out. I ask questions about everyday things that work better than they should and, if you ask enough questions of the right people, you eventually get an answer. Whether it's the one you wanted or not. :)

So those of you who know me know that I do not trust big corporations. You might call me a conspiracy theorist, but when a company that has $20 million invested in a product does their own internal research to tell you that product is okay, I'm going to be a bit skeptical.

It is a fact (not argued) that chemicals go into the making of children's mattresses. Obviously. Chemicals go into the making of all mattresses, by law. Why? Because mattresses have to be flame resistant. Ooo, that sounds good. I want one of those. But have we ever stopped to wonder HOW they are making flammable items nonflammable?

The answer may shock you.

The chemicals that your child's conventional mattress is laced with may include boric acid (a roach poison), arsenic, phosphorus, antimony (a heavy metal, like lead, that resembles arsenic), silicon, and formaldehyde. Quotes from the CDC on Antimony: “Failure to conceive, an increase in the number of spontaneous abortions, may cause heart to beat irregularly or stop...Prolonged or repeated exposure may damage the liver and the heart muscle...Antimony tends to accumulate in the liver and gastrointestinal tract....At the lowest exposure levels tested, the adversity of the effects was considered to be serious...The cancer effects are cumulative. Every exposure contributes to the overall lifetime risk of developing cancer.” These chemicals leech through the top layer of the mattress. I'm not making this up - it has been shown in laboratory studies that when your child sleeps on an unprotected, conventional mattress, he or she is literally breathing in fumes from cancer causing agents like ARSENIC and FORMALDEHYDE. There are no labeling requirements for these chemicals, and no government regulation except that your mattress MUST contain them. (As of June 2007, organic and toxic free mattresses can be legally available for purchase if they are properly labeled NOT flame retardant. Your chances, by the way, of dying in a mattress fire are somewhere near the neighborhood of one to a million. If my child is going to be breathing in rat poison for 15 hours a day, I think I'll take my chances on the fire.)

As if that weren't bad enough, a researcher in New Zealand has determined that, when reacting with a common fungus found in mattresses, these chemicals leak a toxic nerve gas that, if a child's face is close enough to the mattress, will literally poison them, as nerve gas will tend to do. It will cause their nervous system, including heart and lung function, to stop, killing them in their sleep. "Back to Sleep" may very well have helped because it is causing the child's face to be further away from these toxic fumes. In fact, ALL of the risk factors of SIDS can be explained by this (clinically proven) hypothesis.

I have heard this from multiple sources (and, it makes sense). Let me quote you from a recent article some disturbing news: "A 100% successful crib death prevention campaign has been going on in New Zealand for the past 8 years. Midwives and other healthcare professionals throughout New Zealand have been actively advising parents to wrap mattresses. During this time, there has not been a single SIDS death reported among the over 100,000 New Zealand babies who have slept on mattresses wrapped in a specially formulated polyethylene cover."

Why do we not know about this?

While an organic crib mattress will cost you at least $250 and upwards of $500 for a good one, you can buy a cover for your existing mattress for $35 (tax and shipping!). Now I don't know a lot about this issue, I've only been reading up on it for a few months, but what I've read alarms me enough that $35 doesn't seem like too big of an investment. It's at least something that, as parents, we should definitely look into.

Healthy Child article on SIDS
Explanation of Chemicals
What's in a Child's Mattress
Buy a Crib Mattress Cover

So I just finished watching the 2 hour season finale of LOST, the greatest show EVER. ::SPOILER ALERT: if you have not watched the last episode, don't read this post!::

So..........WOW. Instead of recapping or explaining the extreme emotions my physiology was subjected to while this torturous 2 hours ran its course, I decided I'm going to list, off the top of my head, my Top 20 questions that still remain unanswered even after this episode. I am not going to list "What horrible things happen to the people left?" or "Should they go back?" or "What is Ben going to do?", etc.

So, in no particular order:

(1) What happened to Claire? Is she alive? Is she dead? Is she an apparition? What's an "apparition" in this show; a ghost? A dead person who has traveled through time and somehow is able to appear in the future alive after the person has died? Thank you, Lost, for introducing me to the hypnotically fascinating and eerily disconcerting realm of Theoretical Physics, by the way.

(2) What happened to everyone on the second raft, the one that was headed toward the freighter when it blew up?

(3) Who is Charlotte? She was apparently born on the island...why is she trying so hard to find it and who is she?

(4) Is Ben the bad guy or is Whidmore the bad guy? Maybe everyone is the bad guy. I give up. Everything's a car. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKgw3wqXo48)

(5) What is the smoke monster? Does it have to do with the electromagnetic anomolies or is it just some sort of species native to the island?

(6) Where did the island go? If it traveled to the past or future, one would assume that SOME version of the island would still be in the "today." (Again with the far-too-advanced-for-me theoretical physics.)

(7) Why is the island over a frozen core?

(8) What were all the heiroglyphics in the island's frozen core? They looked like cave drawings. Was it previously inhabited by a native tribe of some kind? Is it the same people who are the "Others" (not Dharma folks)?

(9) Does Penny know what her father is doing? Is she in on it? What exactly IS he doing?

(10) Why did the Others kidnap children? What kind of experiments ("tests," Walt said) do they run on them?

(11) Why do the Others seem to live forever, or at least never get any older, or at least at a much slower rate than we do? Richard is the same age he was when Locke was born...does it have to do with time travel? You would think the body would still age...

(12) What's up with the polar bears?

(13) Are there other Dharma Initiatives around the world? If not, how did Charlotte find a polar bear with the Dharma symbol in the middle of the desert?

(14) What is the time anomoly surrounding the island? It seems to be on a different time flow than the rest of the world...is it going faster? Slower? Is it simply a few minutes ahead or behind?

(15) What is the true nature of the experiments were going on in the rest of the Dharma stations? We never heard any more of that pile of notebooks that the "observers" had been writing about the original hatch station.

(16) What is the Dharma initiative and why did it fail? DID it fail? Does Whidmore own it and is mad because Ben destroyed it?

(17) What ever happened to Vincent? Is he going to be important? Or are we just supposed to forget about him?

(18) What is the deal with the black rock? Does anyone else remember this giant boat in the middle of the island? Did the island suddenly get "moved" right underneath it at somepoint and that's how it got "lost at sea"?

(19) What did Sawyer ask Kate to do that eventually costs her her relationship with Jack?

And finally, the question I have and always will ask myself as I end every episode staring at the screen letting my mind try to wrap around everything I just saw,

(20) What. The. Crap.

And by "insane" I don't mean she's let's-go-have-fun insane. Or even that's she's make-fun-of-the-way-I-dress insane. I mean she's certifiable.

I got an email from her, a mass forward. She wrote "and the majority of Americans are living in total denial to what is happening...Thought we could all use a heads up about what is planned and make the necessary preparations and precautions for this summer!" Most of her forwards are junk, but a few have been funny or even interesting - I found out about the proposed animal tracking plan that will greatly hinder the ability of small farms and ranches to do their jobs well (NAIS) - so I always skim to see what the contents hold.

Oh.

My.

Freaking.

Goodness.

What I uncovered on this poorly built and impossible to navigate website was a conspiracy theory of the highest degree. APPARENTLY, Congress has been holding secret meeting where the press is not allowed (wonder who's leaking the stories) telling about not only the impending doom of the American economy (in late 2008), but also the collapse of our government (in 2009), and the New World Order which will subsequently be established. The "elites" apparently plan to live forever on "new technology" while exterminating in death camps (which have already been forming all over the US without our knowledge) 80% of the world's population. The proof is a picture full of what appear to be plastic coffins. If you know anything about cases, which I have studied while trying to figure out how to most cheaply carry expensive photography equipment overseas, you recognize quickly that they are actually gun storage containers which retail for several hundred dollars a piece. (If I were a government trying to mass exterminate 4 billion people, I certainly would not spend trillions of dollars to bury them.)

So for all of you who are GREATLY CONCERNED, here, apparently, is what is going on:

"For the New World Order, a world government is just the beginning. Once in place they can engage their plan to exterminate 80% of all the world's population, while enabling the "elites" to live forever with the aid of advanced technology."

I just wanted to give everyone who is sane a heads up in case you start hearing about the imminent Civil War and the death camps that are going to start exterminating you soon. So make sure and get all your swimming done early, and I'll see you in camp this summer!!!!!

http://www.uaff.us/deathcamps.htm

I was not aware, in all my research, that breastfed babies are at risk for Vitamin D deficient rickets because Vitamin D is not passed through breast milk!

The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that all breastfed babies get a Vitamin D supplement, in the form of a liquid dropper. The mother can get all the Vitamin D she wants; baby will only receive trace amounts. This is because the body normally creates Vitamin D from sunlight. However, due to recommendations against too much sunlight at a young age, infants are at risk for rickets and other complications of Vitamin D deficiency.

I am starting Ari on Vitamin D supplements. I did some research and my favorite is Just D from Sunlight Vitamins. Breast fed infants don't need supplements of other vitamins, minerals, or anything else, as it is supplied in plenty through breast milk. Just D is the only supplement I could find that did not contain extra supplements, sugars, or flavorings.

Just wanted to post this in case their were other well educated breast fed moms who, none the less, had never heard of this deficiency!

I have such a love-hate relationship with this show that consumes at least one hour a week of my life. I was going to write a blog about it, but then I found this. It's so perfect, I just decided to post the link. Pretend that I wrote it, if that makes you feel better. Because I meant every word.

http://chainsawcalligraphy.blogspot.com/2008/02/dear-lost-what-crap.html

Justin and I were a bit skeptical at first - $25, for free? No way. But it's really not as odd as you'd think.

In college, I signed up for a checking account with Bank of America. At the time, they were doing a promotional - I could get up to $500 just by referring friends to have an account with BoA. $25 for me, and then $10 for every friend I signed up.

Revolution Money Exchange is doing the same thing, except it's an online bank that is trying to compete with PayPal. They don't charge a transaction fee to transfer money, so they are hoping to run PayPal out of business I guess. (PayPal charges a certain dollar amount plus a percentage for each transfer.) But to get people interested and get as many people signed up as possible, they are offering $25 to all new account holders (before May 15) and $10 for every person you refer.

I asked my friends, I checked known scam alert sites - it all seemed legit. So I did it - I signed myself up, then signed Justin up as a referral from me. So far, so good, it all looked real. But is the money really there?

Well, I'm pleased to announce that we actually HAVE OUR MONEY. In our bank, right now. $60 for spending 10 minutes signing up. Now, true, I will certainly use their services, their customer service has been fantastic and, like I said - no transaction fee to transfer money. But for now, I'm happy sitting on sixty free bucks.

Click the link above to get your own $25, it's really worth the few minutes you'll spend.

Oh, and you have enter your social security number. This is because it's an actual BANK, not just a money transfer site, and ever since 9-11, the government mandates that all new bank accounts require a social security number to open.

Go! CLICK! Get $25!

...seriously. This morning I was reading Ariana an original Mother Goose book I got when I was 2, and I read this poem, familiar to us all:

Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall
Humpty Dumpty had a great fall
All the King's horses and all the King's men
Couldn't put Humpty together again

There is nothing in this poem nor it's title that suggests that Humpty was an egg. There are some other nursery rhymes that are pretty disturbing: babies falling out of trees, children being ravished by the plague, children splitting their heads open while doing chores, thieving children being beaten by their parents, blackbirds biting off noses, children being burned alive in house fires, giant man-eating snails, psychotic children who drown small animals, children drowning in frozen lakes... Why is Humpty Dumpty an egg instead of a person? Why isn't it a person that falls to their untimely demise, splattering entrails so far and wide that they cannot be found? It certainly wouldn't be the first time that a person has met a disgusting end in a poem written for small children.

Note: If you are reading this on Facebook, the links will not work. Go to my blog here:
http://thebutlerclan.blogspot.com/2008/04/cloth-diapers-where-to-buy.html

I have been getting asked about where to buy cloth diapers, both new and used, so I thought I would make the information public.

The best place (I have heard; no personal experience here) to buy used cloth diapers is through a cloth diaper consignment. There are brick and mortar ones (like Young and Restless in Houston or Saturday's Child in Katy) and some online (such as The Diaper Jungle, Apple Blossom Baby, and Diaper Deals). Just do a Google search for "cloth diaper consignment" or "cloth diaper consignment near [your city here]" on Google Maps to locate one near you.

You can also buy new cloth diapers in brick and mortar stores as well as online. If you live in the Dallas area, the only brick and mortar new cloth diaper store I know if is Babies, Bottoms, and More in Farmers Branch. Diane, who works there, helped me pick out which cloth diapers to get (which is the advantage of brick and mortar stores). She was also the one who suggested Thirsties diaper covers, which I adore. Some popular places to shop online include Punkin-Butt, Tiny Tush, Diapers Etc, Diaper Pin, Kelly's Closet, Cotton Babies, and more.

Of course, the cheapest way to get cloth diapers is to sew them yourself. This you MUST do over the internet. Diaper fabric is not sold in major retail fabric stores. I have been told that occasionally you can get a mom and pop store to carry it, but as most diaper cloth is a specialty item, there is just not enough demand; only 10% of America uses cloth diapers, and a much lower percentage sews their own. So for support, patterns, and cloth, I would recommend visiting Very Baby, Celtic Cloth, The Diaper Hyena, Sew Diapers Community (powered by Very Baby), and Diaper Jungle. For the very easiest, try buying a kit from Diaper Kit, Wazoodle, or Kayla's Cloth Kits.

There are many, many, MANY more resources than I have listed here. If you find one that you think is worthy of addition, let me know. Just do a Google search and you'll find you have ended up in a whole 'nother world ;). Once you find one site, you've pretty much found them all - I find the cloth diapering community to be very intertwined. Good luck! :)

...might be the greatest thing ever. For those of you who don't know, it's kind of like an email service for your blogs. I have about 20 blogs I like to keep up with from various friends around Texas and the globe. Now, there's no way that I could check those every day and see if there's anything new. No problem - I just go to my Google Reader homepage. Just like an email inbox, it tells me if there are any new posts, and I can read those just like I read my email. It's really easy and makes keeping up with blogs a TON easier. If you have more than a couple of blogs that you keep up with, or if you aren't good at keeping up with the ones you do, I would highly recommend trying it out. There's nothing to download, you just need a Google account. (If you have Gmail, you're all set.)

Just go to google.com/reader.

If you don't make the decision to go entirely green and do cloth diapers, you can go a little green, save a bit of green, and be healthier by only doing cloth wipes.

Cloth wipes can be made out of anything cloth - old wash clothes, strips of fleece, etc. I purchased hemp wipes but all you need is some old fluffy fabric.

Wipes solution is also very easy to make. You can purchase Baby Bits or Diaper Potion or make your own. This recipe list is a good place to start.

It can be as simple as the stuff you have in your house. I boil a couple of cups of water with a bag of chamomile tea, a bit of honey, and a squirt or two of natural baby shampoo or body wash for a calming and gentle yet refreshing wipes solution. You can keep the wipes in a warmer or squirt bottle or just put them in a pan and dip each wipe before you use it. I even take mine on the road in a Rubbermaid container that I microwave for 1 minute before I leave and it says a comfortable warmth for hours.

Any way you choose to slice it, cloth wipes are an easy and cheap way to save the environment and your baby's behind! :)

Read the story from CNN here.

In short, 416 children aged 5 and over were removed from their homes where they live with a fundamentalist sect of the Church of Latter Day Saints, otherwise known as Mormons, after a single phone call from a 16 year old girl claiming to have been raped by her 50 year old spiritual husband.

I'll be real honest, I'm not sure how I feel about this. In my most natural instinct it is wrong, base, horrific, and unconstitutional that Texas has felt it has the right to do this. Yet part of me is thinking, "But what if the kids are being abused?" Still, does the state have the right to remove HUNDREDS of children from their parents based on ONE phone call from ONE child?

Do I believe in the way they are raising their children? Absolutely not. Do I think it's right, or good, or healthy? No. Does that matter? A resounding NO. If there is truly abuse going on, then it's a different story. But I have known lots of Mormons in my life. I have lived with them and next to them and have gone to school with them. And if they are anything, it is NOT child abusers. It is true that you cannot classify people's actions based on their religion, especially when comparing fundamentalists to those who are not, but I think people in general are so terrified of anyone practicing something that seems as deviant as polygamy that we tend to overreact.

So I'm really torn. I absolutely believe that these people have the right to raise their children however they please within certain basic human rights guidelines. Are we overreacting? I recognize that CNN does not have the whole story and that I have no idea what that phone call actually sounded like or said, and maybe they meant to lean my views this way with the way the story was written, but I'm having a hard time getting on board with the state about this one.

You know, it might be because I have had so much more contact with those who would be viewed as "outsiders" than most people in America. I absolutely adore Mennonites. I spent an entire summer once at a school where many of them attended and they are the coolest, sweetest, most devout, genuine people I have ever met. They scare most people, even Christians (can't tell you how many arguments I've had over that one!), which is sad because they are genuinely exceptional people. I don't have any experience with the FLDS church, but "sects" and "communes" as such don't scare me, so maybe I'm looking at this situation from the eyes of someone who really believes that these are just people trying to live their lives in peace. I'm not sure if the government should have the right to destroy and disrupt what they hold so sacred all over one single phone call.

Dogs are not humans. ::ahem:: I will state it again, clearly, and for the record:

DOGS ARE NOT HUMANS.

I come in contact with a lot of people at my job. People who believe that anyone who does anything less than cook for their dog is lazy, and people who believe Ol' Roy really is just fine. (My favorite line: "Oh, but he likes it, it must taste good!" Yes, and I'm sure you always fed your children everything they wanted to eat all the time just because it tasted good. Funny, the people who say that are always very large...)

The most frustrating people, however, are those who have done their research. The reason is simple: most of their information comes from the internet. ONE person wrote ONE thing ten years ago and now everyone believes it even though it flies in the face of nutritional wisdom, years of survival, and common sense. Why? Because it sounds good to humans. Perhaps I'm most frustrated because I used to BE one of those people. But DOGS ARE NOT HUMANS and have their own dietary needs! Feed a dog like a human, and he will not thrive.

Myth #1: Dogs can thrive on vegetables.
No. They can't. Dogs cannot be herbivores (or, as we say these days, vegetarians). They need MEAT. They are CARNIVORES. If your vet tells you that your very healthy dog needs to be fed only steamed veggies, FIND A NEW VET. Preferably one that isn't going to sacrifice the health of your dog for his own moral gain.

Myth #2: Don't feed your dog corn.
This is a confusing one. Don't feed your dog corn that hasn't been properly processed. In the wild, dogs eat corn - out of the stomach of other animals (see Myth #1 above). This means it has been digested already - i.e., no complex carbohydrates, only simple ones. Extruder machines (the machine most dog food, from Kibbles and Bits to Eukanuba, is made on) hard cook corn and don't break it down. That is why the premium brands have taken corn out of their foods - it was a good move, because they can't cook it correctly on the machines they have. It's not, however, harmful in BilJac, because our food isn't cooked at high temperatures, it's vacuum dried (correction from earlier, BilJac is not freeze dried), which breaks apart the carbohydrates. Corn is actually FANTASTIC for dogs - if it's processed correctly.

Myth #3: Dogs need holistic and organic meat.
There is nothing wrong with buying holistic meat for your dog. But if you cook it in such a way that all the goodness, all the vitamins and amino acids and good stuff are actually cooked out of it, what's the point? Your feeding him holistic rubber! Cook the chicken right and then talk about "holistic" and "organic."

Myth #4: Don't give your dog byproducts.
OK. Everybody. Repeat after me. Ready? "DOGS ARE NOT HUMANS." Yes, it's true, humans don't eat the intestines, and bones, and organs of chickens or cows or whatever. DOGS. DO. And they do this for a reason. It is very difficult for a dog to maintain the correct calcium/phosphorus ratio without every part of the animal. Dogs chew on bones for a reason - they need the byproducts. The problem is that there is no way to distinguish between the word "byproduct" meaning "the entire chicken" and "byproduct" meaning "this animal was diseased." Trying to explain that is like trying to explain why it's okay that researchers keep rats in dark, small, cages - they prefer it, but the poor rats have no way to tell all the activists that! Sometimes I think people just need an excuse to get in a fight, and in the name of defending and protecting animals just hurt them more in order to feel better about themselves.

Myth #5: Oh, he can eat whatever, he drinks out of the toilet, after all!
Yes, and my daughter sticks all manner of ungodly things in her mouth - that doesn't mean I'm going to let her! The smartest dog has about the intelligence of a two year old. My Pyre once ate a chicken bone that had been covered in motor oil. This doesn't mean she needed it or it was good for her. It means she's dumb and needs someone to keep her from killing herself. ;)

Well, I've gotta go - my dogs need to eat their DOG FOOD. :)