Americans eating fewer "risky" foods?
(originally posted somewhere else March 23, 2006)
I saw a short blurb on the news this morning regarding a change in the eating habits of Americans. Apparently, we are eating fewer "risky foods" than we have in the past.
The risky foods covered in the study include the following:
* Pink hamburgers
* Pink ground beef
* Raw fresh fish
* Raw oysters
* Raw/unpasteurized milk
* Runny eggs
* Alfalfa sprouts
Apparently, 31% of us ate one or more of the above in any given week as of 1998, but by 2002 that percentage had dropped to 21%. Good news, right? Not really.
I'm not going to get into a debate about a vegan vs meat-eating diet, because that's not really what this is about. In my opinion, this is just stupid science, completely missing the point of what is "risky" or not.
This study was looking at the risk of food-borne infection, and there really isn't any arguing that the above foods run a higher risk of outbreaks than others. But the real question should be WHY the risk is greater in these foods. Should we be looking at reducing our consumption of them, or should we be demanding higher safety standards in our processing centers?
Should cattle be raised in filthy conditions, fed ground up animals as feed, dunked in pesticides, pumped full of steroids and antibiotics, and run through slaughterhouses at an impossible pace that makes sanitary conditions impossible? Should a pound of ground beef contain meat from possibly 100 different animals coming from several different farms, sometimes even from different countries? "Diversity" is not a good thing when you're trying to track the source of an outbreak and your hamburger has bits in it from Kansas, Colorado, South America, and who knows where else.
WHY are these other foods dangerous? Are our food production industries looking out for the health of the consumers, or are they looking towards their bottom lines? Do they care? Do you?
Are these foods any less risky than Cheetos? Kraft Mac & Cheese? "Juice cocktail" boxes? Spaghettio's? Super chocolate chip peanut butter caramel "granola" bars? Most cereals?
McDonald's cooks their food enough to kill any bacteria, I'd almost surely guarantee, since they don't want a lawsuit. So, if you eat a Quarter Pounder, are you making a healthy choice? Healthier than if you had a patty made from some beef from an organic, local rancher - even if it's still pink in the middle?
Who funds these stupid, stupid studies?
Saturday, July 07, 2007
A flashlight and a culture of fear...
(originally posted somewhere else January 13, 2006)
In case you missed it, a Starbucks in San Francisco had a bit of a scare on Monday. It seems that a homemade bomb was found by an employee in a bathroom. The store and immediate area were evacuated, police came in, the bomb was removed from the bathroom (a unisex bathroom, one story pointed out for no apparent reason), detonated, and the search was on for the nefarious schemer with a grudge against, I guess, overpriced and ridiculously complicated "coffee."
One accounting of the event had this to say about the bomb:
Gittens would not describe the device or its size other than to say it "would have caused damage if it exploded.''
Don Henschke, sales manager at Ellis Brooks Auto Center across the street from the coffee house, said a police officer had described the bomb to him as "a portion of a flashlight and a fuse."
Sounds pretty cut and dry, doesn't it? No speculation there, this was definitely a bomb, a person of interest was found, and for most of us the whole incident blipped right out of conscious memory and we went on about our day.
As it turns out, though, it wasn't a bomb. It was just an old battery that a homeless man had accidentally dropped in the bathroom. A homeless guy who says he loves that Starbucks, no less, because they give him coffee for $.50. No grudges, no evil intent, and no bomb.
My first response when reading about the error this morning was, of course, relief. The world would not suffer - and especially not San Francisco - with one less Starbucks ... but bombs are bad and all.
That reaction was almost immediately replaced with a fair amount of irritation, though. Why were the police making such concrete statements about the nature of this device before they had time to actually examine and analyze it? Why did they state, before an investigation, that this device could have injured or killed someone if it had exploded? On what basis was this conclusion made? How could they be so irresponsible?
Easy. We live in a highly developed culture of fear. We need to feel like we're under attack or so many things that are going on today in our country make very little sense. We have to believe that terrorists are out to get us because without that, it harder to accept the sacrifices our Dear Leader has asked of us in the last several years. It's much easier and more comforting to think that some bad, foreign boogie men are out to get us than to consider the thought that maybe we voted some pretty shady characters into office and now we're stuck with the consequences.
The media doesn't help, of course. I'm sure they were all over that corner of San Francisco like froth on a latte. The competition for news in our internet soaked world is fierce and we shouldn't trust them very much anymore. Whether we watch CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, or whatever other outlets are currently available, we're not being given news - we're being given commentary. The talking heads are here to entertain us, not to inform us. We want to hear spins that conform to our beliefs and the news outlets know it. I wouldn't be surprised if the questions posed to the police were intense, aggressive, and probably leading. That doesn't excuse loose lips from the police department, but I can't entirely blame them.
I don't know that I ultimately have a point here, this feels more like a rant. Take it for what you will.
(originally posted somewhere else January 13, 2006)
In case you missed it, a Starbucks in San Francisco had a bit of a scare on Monday. It seems that a homemade bomb was found by an employee in a bathroom. The store and immediate area were evacuated, police came in, the bomb was removed from the bathroom (a unisex bathroom, one story pointed out for no apparent reason), detonated, and the search was on for the nefarious schemer with a grudge against, I guess, overpriced and ridiculously complicated "coffee."
One accounting of the event had this to say about the bomb:
Gittens would not describe the device or its size other than to say it "would have caused damage if it exploded.''
Don Henschke, sales manager at Ellis Brooks Auto Center across the street from the coffee house, said a police officer had described the bomb to him as "a portion of a flashlight and a fuse."
Sounds pretty cut and dry, doesn't it? No speculation there, this was definitely a bomb, a person of interest was found, and for most of us the whole incident blipped right out of conscious memory and we went on about our day.
As it turns out, though, it wasn't a bomb. It was just an old battery that a homeless man had accidentally dropped in the bathroom. A homeless guy who says he loves that Starbucks, no less, because they give him coffee for $.50. No grudges, no evil intent, and no bomb.
My first response when reading about the error this morning was, of course, relief. The world would not suffer - and especially not San Francisco - with one less Starbucks ... but bombs are bad and all.
That reaction was almost immediately replaced with a fair amount of irritation, though. Why were the police making such concrete statements about the nature of this device before they had time to actually examine and analyze it? Why did they state, before an investigation, that this device could have injured or killed someone if it had exploded? On what basis was this conclusion made? How could they be so irresponsible?
Easy. We live in a highly developed culture of fear. We need to feel like we're under attack or so many things that are going on today in our country make very little sense. We have to believe that terrorists are out to get us because without that, it harder to accept the sacrifices our Dear Leader has asked of us in the last several years. It's much easier and more comforting to think that some bad, foreign boogie men are out to get us than to consider the thought that maybe we voted some pretty shady characters into office and now we're stuck with the consequences.
The media doesn't help, of course. I'm sure they were all over that corner of San Francisco like froth on a latte. The competition for news in our internet soaked world is fierce and we shouldn't trust them very much anymore. Whether we watch CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, or whatever other outlets are currently available, we're not being given news - we're being given commentary. The talking heads are here to entertain us, not to inform us. We want to hear spins that conform to our beliefs and the news outlets know it. I wouldn't be surprised if the questions posed to the police were intense, aggressive, and probably leading. That doesn't excuse loose lips from the police department, but I can't entirely blame them.
I don't know that I ultimately have a point here, this feels more like a rant. Take it for what you will.
You can get this, a $50 value, for only $19.95!
(originally posted somewhere else July 5, 2007)
I know all of the lovely, talented, intelligent, savvy people here are already quite clear on the point I'm about to make, but I'm going to make it anyway because I just had a really frustrating conversation with a friend who is having money troubles and can't seem to resist a "deal" ...
It doesn't matter how much someone tells you that their product is worth.
That's it. That's the whole point. Nothing complicated.
"But, but, but..." she said.
No! There is no "but." It doesn't matter if the guy on the commercial tells you that you are getting an extra dryer lint brush and extra something or other, a $39.95 value, for $19.95. You are not getting half off. Further, when he tells you that he'll send you an extra one for FREE (just pay separate shipping and handling), you are not getting $80 worth of dryer lint brushes for $19.95.
The VALUE of the brushes is what you are willing to pay for them. He can say they're worth $4000 and it's no more ridiculous than saying they're worth $40, because nobody would pay either amount. Nobody SHOULD, anyway.
Wanna know the VALUE of a lint brush? Go buy one at Bed Bath & Beyond and then offer it up for sale, still in the box, via whatever method you want to use ... craigslist, ebay, garage sale. That'll bring you back down to reality.
(originally posted somewhere else July 5, 2007)
I know all of the lovely, talented, intelligent, savvy people here are already quite clear on the point I'm about to make, but I'm going to make it anyway because I just had a really frustrating conversation with a friend who is having money troubles and can't seem to resist a "deal" ...
It doesn't matter how much someone tells you that their product is worth.
That's it. That's the whole point. Nothing complicated.
"But, but, but..." she said.
No! There is no "but." It doesn't matter if the guy on the commercial tells you that you are getting an extra dryer lint brush and extra something or other, a $39.95 value, for $19.95. You are not getting half off. Further, when he tells you that he'll send you an extra one for FREE (just pay separate shipping and handling), you are not getting $80 worth of dryer lint brushes for $19.95.
The VALUE of the brushes is what you are willing to pay for them. He can say they're worth $4000 and it's no more ridiculous than saying they're worth $40, because nobody would pay either amount. Nobody SHOULD, anyway.
Wanna know the VALUE of a lint brush? Go buy one at Bed Bath & Beyond and then offer it up for sale, still in the box, via whatever method you want to use ... craigslist, ebay, garage sale. That'll bring you back down to reality.
Well nevermind worrying about stress and junk food ...
(originally posted somewhere else July 2, 2007)
In yet another astounding bit of probably overfunded obvious science, scientists have discovered that chronic stress and eating like shit causes obesity. Never fear, though - they've also found a cure, a shot that blocks the accumulation of fat, melts existing fat, and even one that could grow fat for things like boob jobs.
Hell, now that I know I can eat whatever I want and I'll just have to get a shot, my stress level is way down. I feel skinnier already!
(originally posted somewhere else July 2, 2007)
In yet another astounding bit of probably overfunded obvious science, scientists have discovered that chronic stress and eating like shit causes obesity. Never fear, though - they've also found a cure, a shot that blocks the accumulation of fat, melts existing fat, and even one that could grow fat for things like boob jobs.
Hell, now that I know I can eat whatever I want and I'll just have to get a shot, my stress level is way down. I feel skinnier already!
Do your kids deserve to be fat and unhealthy and uneducated and broke?
(originally posted somewhere else July 1, 2007)
I was just going through my coupons, tossing out the ones that expired on June 30th, and as usual, I'm astounded at the not-so-subtle but apparently extremely successful manipulation these marketers are throwing at us all of the time ... and how completely blind we seem to be.
For example, the ad for Nestle Quik chocolate milk, alongside a $.50 coupon. There was a picture of two cute kids, smiling, one holding a single serve Nestle Quik chocolate milkshake. The text of the ad said, "Don't they deserve Nestle Quik?"
Keeping in mind that a single serving of regular milk is one cup and one serving of 1% milk has 100 calories and 2 grams of fat, let's take a peek at the ingredients and nutrition information of Nestle Quik.
Ingredients: PARTLY SKIMMED MILK, SUGAR, WATER, COCOA, SKIM MILK POWDER, MODIFIED CORN STARCH, SALT, CARRAGEENAN, FLAVOUR AND ARTIFICIAL FLAVOUR, VITAMN A PALMITATE, VITAMIN D3.
Mkay. That's not as horrible as it could be, although to make it a "shake" they had to add corn starch (corn is EVERYWHERE) and carrageenan, which is an emulsifier made of seaweed (which isn't necessarily bad).
Nutrition information? Well, the first thing to note is that a serving is half a bottle. That pisses me off. The coupon stated that it's for a "single serving" bottle. When I found the product on Google it was by searching for "single serving." But here we see that what parents will give their kids as a single serving is actually two servings. With that in mind, I'm doubling everything and counting one bottle as an actual single serving, which is clearly what they wanted to imply.
That means that one serving is 360 calories, contains 8 grams of fat, 240 mg sodium, 58 g carbs, 2 g fiber, 56 grams sugar, and 16 grams of protein.
Based on a 2000 calorie diet, a kid who drank one of these "single serving" drinks would be getting 18% of his daily calories, 12% of his daily fat, 10% of his sodium, 20% of his sugars, and 4% of his fiber.
Meanwhile, two cups of 1% milk (which is about what one of these single serving drinks equals, in volume) would provide 200 calories (10%), 4 g fat (8%), 214 mg sodium (8%), 24 g carbs (8%), no fiber, but still 16 grams of protein.
The only thing the shake offers that the milk doesn't is Vitamin D, but you can get Vitamin D fortified milk ... or you could go outside in the sun for 15 minutes.
This is a serious difference in nutrition and calories, especially aggregated daily. It's also a serious difference in cost and plastic packaging. But ultimately, what makes me mad the most is the word "deserve" in the ad. If you pay attention to print and TV ads, you'll see that word a lot, or some synonym. You deserve everything, you deserve it now, and if you don't get it, you're deprived and somehow getting an unfair deal.
What is this doing to us, and to our kids? Who are we trying to impress when we bring out the single serving non-biodegradable juice, milk and water bottles for guests instead of turning on the tap and filling up a glass?
Do our kids deserve overpriced, oversugared food so that they can feel affluent now, while at the same time parents are wondering how to save for college?
Just a thought...
(originally posted somewhere else July 1, 2007)
I was just going through my coupons, tossing out the ones that expired on June 30th, and as usual, I'm astounded at the not-so-subtle but apparently extremely successful manipulation these marketers are throwing at us all of the time ... and how completely blind we seem to be.
For example, the ad for Nestle Quik chocolate milk, alongside a $.50 coupon. There was a picture of two cute kids, smiling, one holding a single serve Nestle Quik chocolate milkshake. The text of the ad said, "Don't they deserve Nestle Quik?"
Keeping in mind that a single serving of regular milk is one cup and one serving of 1% milk has 100 calories and 2 grams of fat, let's take a peek at the ingredients and nutrition information of Nestle Quik.
Ingredients: PARTLY SKIMMED MILK, SUGAR, WATER, COCOA, SKIM MILK POWDER, MODIFIED CORN STARCH, SALT, CARRAGEENAN, FLAVOUR AND ARTIFICIAL FLAVOUR, VITAMN A PALMITATE, VITAMIN D3.
Mkay. That's not as horrible as it could be, although to make it a "shake" they had to add corn starch (corn is EVERYWHERE) and carrageenan, which is an emulsifier made of seaweed (which isn't necessarily bad).
Nutrition information? Well, the first thing to note is that a serving is half a bottle. That pisses me off. The coupon stated that it's for a "single serving" bottle. When I found the product on Google it was by searching for "single serving." But here we see that what parents will give their kids as a single serving is actually two servings. With that in mind, I'm doubling everything and counting one bottle as an actual single serving, which is clearly what they wanted to imply.
That means that one serving is 360 calories, contains 8 grams of fat, 240 mg sodium, 58 g carbs, 2 g fiber, 56 grams sugar, and 16 grams of protein.
Based on a 2000 calorie diet, a kid who drank one of these "single serving" drinks would be getting 18% of his daily calories, 12% of his daily fat, 10% of his sodium, 20% of his sugars, and 4% of his fiber.
Meanwhile, two cups of 1% milk (which is about what one of these single serving drinks equals, in volume) would provide 200 calories (10%), 4 g fat (8%), 214 mg sodium (8%), 24 g carbs (8%), no fiber, but still 16 grams of protein.
The only thing the shake offers that the milk doesn't is Vitamin D, but you can get Vitamin D fortified milk ... or you could go outside in the sun for 15 minutes.
This is a serious difference in nutrition and calories, especially aggregated daily. It's also a serious difference in cost and plastic packaging. But ultimately, what makes me mad the most is the word "deserve" in the ad. If you pay attention to print and TV ads, you'll see that word a lot, or some synonym. You deserve everything, you deserve it now, and if you don't get it, you're deprived and somehow getting an unfair deal.
What is this doing to us, and to our kids? Who are we trying to impress when we bring out the single serving non-biodegradable juice, milk and water bottles for guests instead of turning on the tap and filling up a glass?
Do our kids deserve overpriced, oversugared food so that they can feel affluent now, while at the same time parents are wondering how to save for college?
Just a thought...
We are so screwed ...
(originally posted somewhere else June 29, 2007)
I just don't even know what to say, besides ... we are so screwed.
Scientists could create the first new form of artificial life within months after a landmark breakthrough in which they turned one bacterium into another.
...
The scientists want to create new kinds of bacterium to make new types of bugs which can be used as green fuels to replace oil and coal, digest toxic waste or absorb carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.
But this pioneering research also triggers unease about the limits of science and the inevitable fears about "playing god," as well as raising the spectre that this technology could one day be abused to create a new generation of bioweapons.
Bioweapons? Ya THINK? BioACCIDENTS, more like it.
Captain Trips, anyone? Guess a little superflu would take care of the looming energy and food crisis ...
(originally posted somewhere else June 29, 2007)
I just don't even know what to say, besides ... we are so screwed.
Scientists could create the first new form of artificial life within months after a landmark breakthrough in which they turned one bacterium into another.
...
The scientists want to create new kinds of bacterium to make new types of bugs which can be used as green fuels to replace oil and coal, digest toxic waste or absorb carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.
But this pioneering research also triggers unease about the limits of science and the inevitable fears about "playing god," as well as raising the spectre that this technology could one day be abused to create a new generation of bioweapons.
Bioweapons? Ya THINK? BioACCIDENTS, more like it.
Captain Trips, anyone? Guess a little superflu would take care of the looming energy and food crisis ...
Blame China
(originally posted somewhere else June 22, 2007)
A few days ago, there was an article in the International Herald Tribune about the high number of recalled products manufactured in China. The article mentions the Thomas the Train recall, the pet food scandal a few months ago, and also some recent issues with pharmaceuticals and toothpaste. According to the article, "China today is responsible for about 60 percent of all product recalls, compared with 36 percent in 2000." The rest of the article discusses inadequate oversight both in the US and in China, quotes a bunch of people saying how it's just unbelievable and unacceptable, and even manages to blame President Bush a bit.
But really, who is to blame here? Is it China? Sure! The toys were made in their country, in their factories, by their citizens.
Hmm. But they're making them for mostly American companies, so is it their fault? Sure! When they outsource their production to save money, the consumer should still have some assurance and confidence that the products are going through a quality control process that assures safety - especially for a vulnerable population segment like children.
But, isn't it also the fault of the American government? Sure! The government should enforce safety standards as well, by imposing them on the corporations and demanding that they comply and show proof of compliance regularly. Corporations should pay for all of the testing, but the inspectors should be federal employees or members of a non-profit, unbiased organization. Consequences for non-compliance should be swift and severe. There's really no reason in 2007 for there to be leaded paint in anything, much less a children's toy. This isn't a gray area.
OK, so it's China's fault, the company's fault, and the American government's fault.
Except ... not really. If we really want to break it down, whose fault is it? Before you answer, look around your house and pick up a few items, included appliances, toys, dishes, knick knacks, and see if there's a little "Made In" sticker somewhere ....
Mmm hmmm. Maybe those poor employees laboring away in sweatshops aren't the only ones who will suffer because of our need to spend constantly on low priced, flimsy crap ... and because of our demands that corporations constantly set records for revenue and profits. Maybe karma is real.
And I'll conclude with this, a personal anecdote from a friend when we were discussing this article earlier ... enjoy:
When I was in Kyrgyzstan, we met a sociologist from Texas A&M who was doing a study on the old nuclear test sites in Kazakhstan and the people who made their living scavenging metal off the old sites. Apparently there was a considerable quantity of resellable metal out on those sites that was free for the taking...if you didnt mind the fact that it was RADIOACTIVE. Day in and day out they were going in, grabbing the metal, driving it down to china and selling it to the Chinese, who were scrap-metalling it and recycling it, with only a requisite "this didnt come from a banned site did it?" question, with the inevitable "no sir, of course not!" in response. From what she could tell, once it was bought it just got dumped into the general metal recycling process, where it would end up as toasters, electronics, toys, jewelry, etc, and guess who China's numero uno client for all those lovely products is...
(originally posted somewhere else June 22, 2007)
A few days ago, there was an article in the International Herald Tribune about the high number of recalled products manufactured in China. The article mentions the Thomas the Train recall, the pet food scandal a few months ago, and also some recent issues with pharmaceuticals and toothpaste. According to the article, "China today is responsible for about 60 percent of all product recalls, compared with 36 percent in 2000." The rest of the article discusses inadequate oversight both in the US and in China, quotes a bunch of people saying how it's just unbelievable and unacceptable, and even manages to blame President Bush a bit.
But really, who is to blame here? Is it China? Sure! The toys were made in their country, in their factories, by their citizens.
Hmm. But they're making them for mostly American companies, so is it their fault? Sure! When they outsource their production to save money, the consumer should still have some assurance and confidence that the products are going through a quality control process that assures safety - especially for a vulnerable population segment like children.
But, isn't it also the fault of the American government? Sure! The government should enforce safety standards as well, by imposing them on the corporations and demanding that they comply and show proof of compliance regularly. Corporations should pay for all of the testing, but the inspectors should be federal employees or members of a non-profit, unbiased organization. Consequences for non-compliance should be swift and severe. There's really no reason in 2007 for there to be leaded paint in anything, much less a children's toy. This isn't a gray area.
OK, so it's China's fault, the company's fault, and the American government's fault.
Except ... not really. If we really want to break it down, whose fault is it? Before you answer, look around your house and pick up a few items, included appliances, toys, dishes, knick knacks, and see if there's a little "Made In" sticker somewhere ....
Mmm hmmm. Maybe those poor employees laboring away in sweatshops aren't the only ones who will suffer because of our need to spend constantly on low priced, flimsy crap ... and because of our demands that corporations constantly set records for revenue and profits. Maybe karma is real.
And I'll conclude with this, a personal anecdote from a friend when we were discussing this article earlier ... enjoy:
When I was in Kyrgyzstan, we met a sociologist from Texas A&M who was doing a study on the old nuclear test sites in Kazakhstan and the people who made their living scavenging metal off the old sites. Apparently there was a considerable quantity of resellable metal out on those sites that was free for the taking...if you didnt mind the fact that it was RADIOACTIVE. Day in and day out they were going in, grabbing the metal, driving it down to china and selling it to the Chinese, who were scrap-metalling it and recycling it, with only a requisite "this didnt come from a banned site did it?" question, with the inevitable "no sir, of course not!" in response. From what she could tell, once it was bought it just got dumped into the general metal recycling process, where it would end up as toasters, electronics, toys, jewelry, etc, and guess who China's numero uno client for all those lovely products is...
I am sickened ...
(originally posted somewhere else June 11, 2007)
I am sickened. I've known about "blood diamonds" but it hasn't been in the forefront of my mind until I started watching a show on the History Channel today.
How many diamonds do you have? Do you think any of them were worth this man's hands, or the lives of his family - his wife and children, burned to death in their own home?
Do you think he thinks your trinket was worth their lives?
(originally posted somewhere else June 11, 2007)
I am sickened. I've known about "blood diamonds" but it hasn't been in the forefront of my mind until I started watching a show on the History Channel today.
How many diamonds do you have? Do you think any of them were worth this man's hands, or the lives of his family - his wife and children, burned to death in their own home?
Do you think he thinks your trinket was worth their lives?
Parenting Phases
(originally posted somewhere else June 9, 2007)
I just uploaded a couple of pictures to my profile, and not for the first time, I've gotten to thinking about how odd it is to have a son who is entering the crazy world of puberty and an infant son too.
I also have an eight year old son, but he's on autopilot at the moment - generally happy, goofy, not thinking about girls but doesn't need to be supervised all of the time ... not trying to leave him out (the curse of the middle child), this one just isn't about him.
So on the one hand, I have an 11 year old son - 5'4", size 9 shoes (bigger than my boat feet), a faint shadow of a mustache, and claims of chest hair which I have yet to verify. He will be watching a movie in school next week about the changes his body will go through and is looking forward to it in a giggly 11 year old way, but does not want to talk about it at all with Mom. At all. He desperately needs the discussion, though, as his brain has made some interesting logical leaps regarding unknown anatomy. For example, being unaware of vaginas, he explained to me several months ago that women go to the bathroom sitting down because they don't have a penis and so everything has to come out of the anus. Standing up would be a mess. Makes sense, but completely incorrect.
I remember making my own bizarre associations as a youngster - oddly, also because of an unawareness of a vagina. I knew that sex involved some kind of transmission of fluids "down there," and I knew it meant something came out of the man and went into the woman. I also knew "it" (whatever that was) came out of the penis and that men also urinated from the penis, so it seemed logical that "it" probably had to go into the woman via her urethra.
Given that process, I did not understand at all how sex could be fun. It seemed like a very tedious task indeed to line up those holes exactly so that the transfer could be made, and I really didn't get the hype.
But I digress ...
I waited all last year for him to ask how I got pregnant and when the question never came, I didn't know whether to be relieved or concerned. Relieved because I don't want him to be thinking about that - he's still my baby and all - but concerned because maybe he didn't ask because he already knows. This is a kid who still seems to believe in Santa, but who could technically BE Santa in just a couple short years if he isn't taught well.
When it came time to go to the hospital, we didn't have to have any conversations about how babies are born because I had a planned C-Section. As far as my kids know, kids really do come out of a zippered opening in the belly.
And now, he has an infant brother. In a way, I think this is a very, very good thing. He knows how high maintenance a baby is, and he also knows how special he is. He and his brother adore their baby sibling (my middle boy told me the other day that "life was boring" before his little brother was born), but they also think poopy diapers and congealed puked formula are really gross. They love to play with him, but they also hear him screaming in the middle of the night and have both gotten up to try to quiet him when I didn't get there quickly enough (because I was trying to see if he'd go back to sleep). They love his babbling but hate the crying. He's a fun toy but he's also the reason we have to go to movies in shifts nowadays, if we go at all.
Meanwhile, for me, the challenge of different parenting styles is in play. I have one who needs to be guided more than told what to do anymore, one who needs to start moving towards that stage, and one who is just learning the word "no." This is a serious matter, and I am trying very hard to keep everyone separate - mostly, to not be a toddler parent to the one about to enter puberty. I guess in a nutshell, it's hard to switch back and forth between parenting one who is about to find his wings and another who has yet to find his legs.
Anyway, just kinda pondering lately. Gotta run ... baby's squealing and oldest wants to play PSP instead of entertain him. Can't blame him.
(originally posted somewhere else June 9, 2007)
I just uploaded a couple of pictures to my profile, and not for the first time, I've gotten to thinking about how odd it is to have a son who is entering the crazy world of puberty and an infant son too.
I also have an eight year old son, but he's on autopilot at the moment - generally happy, goofy, not thinking about girls but doesn't need to be supervised all of the time ... not trying to leave him out (the curse of the middle child), this one just isn't about him.
So on the one hand, I have an 11 year old son - 5'4", size 9 shoes (bigger than my boat feet), a faint shadow of a mustache, and claims of chest hair which I have yet to verify. He will be watching a movie in school next week about the changes his body will go through and is looking forward to it in a giggly 11 year old way, but does not want to talk about it at all with Mom. At all. He desperately needs the discussion, though, as his brain has made some interesting logical leaps regarding unknown anatomy. For example, being unaware of vaginas, he explained to me several months ago that women go to the bathroom sitting down because they don't have a penis and so everything has to come out of the anus. Standing up would be a mess. Makes sense, but completely incorrect.
I remember making my own bizarre associations as a youngster - oddly, also because of an unawareness of a vagina. I knew that sex involved some kind of transmission of fluids "down there," and I knew it meant something came out of the man and went into the woman. I also knew "it" (whatever that was) came out of the penis and that men also urinated from the penis, so it seemed logical that "it" probably had to go into the woman via her urethra.
Given that process, I did not understand at all how sex could be fun. It seemed like a very tedious task indeed to line up those holes exactly so that the transfer could be made, and I really didn't get the hype.
But I digress ...
I waited all last year for him to ask how I got pregnant and when the question never came, I didn't know whether to be relieved or concerned. Relieved because I don't want him to be thinking about that - he's still my baby and all - but concerned because maybe he didn't ask because he already knows. This is a kid who still seems to believe in Santa, but who could technically BE Santa in just a couple short years if he isn't taught well.
When it came time to go to the hospital, we didn't have to have any conversations about how babies are born because I had a planned C-Section. As far as my kids know, kids really do come out of a zippered opening in the belly.
And now, he has an infant brother. In a way, I think this is a very, very good thing. He knows how high maintenance a baby is, and he also knows how special he is. He and his brother adore their baby sibling (my middle boy told me the other day that "life was boring" before his little brother was born), but they also think poopy diapers and congealed puked formula are really gross. They love to play with him, but they also hear him screaming in the middle of the night and have both gotten up to try to quiet him when I didn't get there quickly enough (because I was trying to see if he'd go back to sleep). They love his babbling but hate the crying. He's a fun toy but he's also the reason we have to go to movies in shifts nowadays, if we go at all.
Meanwhile, for me, the challenge of different parenting styles is in play. I have one who needs to be guided more than told what to do anymore, one who needs to start moving towards that stage, and one who is just learning the word "no." This is a serious matter, and I am trying very hard to keep everyone separate - mostly, to not be a toddler parent to the one about to enter puberty. I guess in a nutshell, it's hard to switch back and forth between parenting one who is about to find his wings and another who has yet to find his legs.
Anyway, just kinda pondering lately. Gotta run ... baby's squealing and oldest wants to play PSP instead of entertain him. Can't blame him.
Mmmmm ... hummus ...
(originally posted somewhere else May 2007)
When it comes to groceries, I have a bit of a bad habit. When something's on super duper crazy nuts sale, I buy a lot of it. Sometimes that's not a big deal - buying a dozen jars of pasta sauce when it's cheaper than I couldd make it is a no brainer becaue we WILL go through it. The five dozen eggs I brought home one day not too long ago? Child's play! Breakfasts, quiche, egg salad, protein all around. Cereal, which I won't buy unless it's about a dollar a box and even then it's still probably a rip off? Dessert treat! Lucky Charms shouldn't be breakfast anyway!
Other spectacular deals have been a little less successful, and that means that every so often the food bank gets some really unusual donations. This past week, actually, they got a couple of bottles of hot chile oil, among other things.
But anyway. Back to the point. A little over a month ago, I had some great coupons and a sale price on prepared hummus. Risky venture, that, since I was fairly certain I was the only one likely to eat it ... and I was right. I ate my share of celery and cucumbers dipped in hummus, had lots of hummus burritos (tortillas, hummus, onions, cheese, and this hot sauce that I always see at Middle Eastern restaurants so I bought a big bottle a couple of years ago), and then I was stuck. What to do with the couple of cups of hummus I had left ...
So guess what it turns out that leftover hummus is good for? It mixes great with ground beef for meatloaf. A pound of ground beef, at least a half a cup of hummus, an egg, some bread crumbs (or in our case tonight, panko ... another great deal that had been languishing in the fridge), spices, and toss it in the oven.
Why am I blogging this? Cuz on the offhand chance that YOU are ever left with some hummus and just don't know what to do with it ... now you know.
I'm here to help. It's what I do.
(originally posted somewhere else May 2007)
When it comes to groceries, I have a bit of a bad habit. When something's on super duper crazy nuts sale, I buy a lot of it. Sometimes that's not a big deal - buying a dozen jars of pasta sauce when it's cheaper than I couldd make it is a no brainer becaue we WILL go through it. The five dozen eggs I brought home one day not too long ago? Child's play! Breakfasts, quiche, egg salad, protein all around. Cereal, which I won't buy unless it's about a dollar a box and even then it's still probably a rip off? Dessert treat! Lucky Charms shouldn't be breakfast anyway!
Other spectacular deals have been a little less successful, and that means that every so often the food bank gets some really unusual donations. This past week, actually, they got a couple of bottles of hot chile oil, among other things.
But anyway. Back to the point. A little over a month ago, I had some great coupons and a sale price on prepared hummus. Risky venture, that, since I was fairly certain I was the only one likely to eat it ... and I was right. I ate my share of celery and cucumbers dipped in hummus, had lots of hummus burritos (tortillas, hummus, onions, cheese, and this hot sauce that I always see at Middle Eastern restaurants so I bought a big bottle a couple of years ago), and then I was stuck. What to do with the couple of cups of hummus I had left ...
So guess what it turns out that leftover hummus is good for? It mixes great with ground beef for meatloaf. A pound of ground beef, at least a half a cup of hummus, an egg, some bread crumbs (or in our case tonight, panko ... another great deal that had been languishing in the fridge), spices, and toss it in the oven.
Why am I blogging this? Cuz on the offhand chance that YOU are ever left with some hummus and just don't know what to do with it ... now you know.
I'm here to help. It's what I do.
Sunday, May 06, 2007
No Comments for Obama
So this morning's silliness has CBS disabling comments on news stories about Barack Obama.
From the story at the above link:
1. The implication here is that CBS just can't afford to keep up with commenters on their site. I find that utterly impossible to believe, given their resources, so it's clearly a lie. They did just release first quarter earnings a few das ago and their profits dropped 6%, but that left them with a dismal $214 million profit. Hmm. I know pressure to perform on the Street is intense, but I think if you're talking about monitoring the website comments being made about a Presidential candidate, you could and should be able to come up with a few bucks to pay some interns to filter and delete. My suggestion would be to skim some money off of the CSI franchise (preferably Miami). If it has to come from within the CBSNews budget, I think we could all lose 48 Hours Mystery and be none the worse for it.
2. Why are comments allowed on news stories anyway? It's news, it shouldn't invite opinion. If people want to take issue with the factual basis of a story, they should send a letter to the editor, just like in the good old days. If the editor wants to print the letter, so be it. But since none of the MSM even pretends to actually be about news anymore, I suppose that's asking too much.
3. Does disallowing comments take away "free speech?" NO! People seriously need to drop this whole righteous indignation whenever anyone says they can't spout their particularly idiotic, misspelled and poorly constructed thoughts. CBS is a privately owned concern and if they want to turn off comments, that's their right. I personally think that turning them off only for stories about Obama is an incredibly obtuse move and predict that they'll reverse course within days (if not hours), but it's a move that in no way hampers anyone's First Amendment rights. Try to say otherwise and I'll delete your comment, and that won't be me trampling on your rights to free speech either.
4. It seems to me that the logical next step here, if CBS is concerned about possibly negative repercussions to news stories about Obama, would be to simply stop reporting on his activities at all. Right? Clearly he's just causing trouble, enough so that CBS had to change their whole policy.
Interesting, isn't it?
So this morning's silliness has CBS disabling comments on news stories about Barack Obama.
From the story at the above link:
Mike Sims, director of news and operations for CBS News.com, explained the reason for the new policy in a story on the Web site's Public Eye section.
"We have our rules of engagement," Sims said Friday. "They prohibit personal attacks, especially racist attacks. Stories about Obama have been problematic, and we won't tolerate it."
Sims said the news group sometimes deletes questionable individual comments, but he said this wasn't working with Obama stories because of "the volume and the persistence" of the comments.
CBSNews.com didn't plan to disable comments for stories on the other presidential candidates, Sims said, adding that he hasn't ruled out allowing them again for Obama stories. "But at this point, it's not possible," Sims said.
OK, I have a few thoughts on this.1. The implication here is that CBS just can't afford to keep up with commenters on their site. I find that utterly impossible to believe, given their resources, so it's clearly a lie. They did just release first quarter earnings a few das ago and their profits dropped 6%, but that left them with a dismal $214 million profit. Hmm. I know pressure to perform on the Street is intense, but I think if you're talking about monitoring the website comments being made about a Presidential candidate, you could and should be able to come up with a few bucks to pay some interns to filter and delete. My suggestion would be to skim some money off of the CSI franchise (preferably Miami). If it has to come from within the CBSNews budget, I think we could all lose 48 Hours Mystery and be none the worse for it.
2. Why are comments allowed on news stories anyway? It's news, it shouldn't invite opinion. If people want to take issue with the factual basis of a story, they should send a letter to the editor, just like in the good old days. If the editor wants to print the letter, so be it. But since none of the MSM even pretends to actually be about news anymore, I suppose that's asking too much.
3. Does disallowing comments take away "free speech?" NO! People seriously need to drop this whole righteous indignation whenever anyone says they can't spout their particularly idiotic, misspelled and poorly constructed thoughts. CBS is a privately owned concern and if they want to turn off comments, that's their right. I personally think that turning them off only for stories about Obama is an incredibly obtuse move and predict that they'll reverse course within days (if not hours), but it's a move that in no way hampers anyone's First Amendment rights. Try to say otherwise and I'll delete your comment, and that won't be me trampling on your rights to free speech either.
4. It seems to me that the logical next step here, if CBS is concerned about possibly negative repercussions to news stories about Obama, would be to simply stop reporting on his activities at all. Right? Clearly he's just causing trouble, enough so that CBS had to change their whole policy.
Interesting, isn't it?
Friday, May 04, 2007
Life is sacred.
From the New York Times: President Bush told Congressional leaders Thursday that he would veto any legislation that weakened federal policies or laws on abortion.Uh huh.
More: Mr. Bush said his veto threat would apply to any measures that "allow taxpayer dollars to be used for the destruction of human life."
Bush is concerned about human life. Doesn't want us to spend money on anything that would destroy human life.
Except for that , you know, emergency war funding bill thingie.
Asshole.
Thursday, May 03, 2007
Rethinking Thin
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH!!!
Our local news station just had an interview with Gina Kolata, who
writes for the NY Times. She wrote a book that will be released in a
few days called "Rethinking Thin." Her contention? That a lot of
overweight folks are suffering from genetics and that our increasingly
thin "ideal" body images are hurting us. That being overweight isn't
necessarily bad and of course ... it's not your fault.
We don't need to "rethink thin." I'll bet if most of us looked at
pictures of our families from the 60's and 70's, there aren't that
many as many fat people in them ... and the folks who were fat weren't
as fat as fat people today. It's not genetics, genetics wouldn't
change the collective body shape of the country within 50 years. Or
rather, it IS genetic, it's ALWAYS been genetic for our bodies to
store fat, there's nothing special that anyone inherited from their
parents.
I'm so sick of all of this. When I was a kid, from kindergarten thru
high school, I worked out every day (and as I got older, about three
hours per day) and had a six pack and probably some ridiculous body
fat percentage. Working out 20 minutes a day, three times a week will
not give anyone rock hard abs like on infomercials. Vigorously
cleaning the kitchen floor isn't going to get you in shape, and
neither is chasing your adorable little toddler around the house.
Eating whatever you want on the diet program du jour is bullshit,
because you don't WANT the foods that will keep you thin. If you did,
you wouldn't be fat!! Even if you workout three hours a day or have a
job where you are physically active, you still can't eat whatever you
want because the crappiest food now is hella crappier than the
crappiest food 50 years ago. And the worst food 50 years ago couldn't
be zapped in the microwave for two minutes and you're good to go. You
actually had to work to even eat. Crazy!
I'm not blaming fat people, just so tired of the warm fuzzies people
try to give out about being fat. Fat isn't good! It's not our normal
state, it's not what we were built for. Our joints can't handle it,
our circulatory system can't handle it, our endocrine system can't
handle it - not one of our systems was built to thrive on obesity.
People need to stop saying it's OK to be fat!
Geesh.
OK. I'm through. Whew! Getting all worked up like that probably
burned off a few thousand calories, right? I deserve a grande
cinnamon dolce frappucino now, I think. With whipped cream, natch.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH!!!
Our local news station just had an interview with Gina Kolata, who
writes for the NY Times. She wrote a book that will be released in a
few days called "Rethinking Thin." Her contention? That a lot of
overweight folks are suffering from genetics and that our increasingly
thin "ideal" body images are hurting us. That being overweight isn't
necessarily bad and of course ... it's not your fault.
We don't need to "rethink thin." I'll bet if most of us looked at
pictures of our families from the 60's and 70's, there aren't that
many as many fat people in them ... and the folks who were fat weren't
as fat as fat people today. It's not genetics, genetics wouldn't
change the collective body shape of the country within 50 years. Or
rather, it IS genetic, it's ALWAYS been genetic for our bodies to
store fat, there's nothing special that anyone inherited from their
parents.
I'm so sick of all of this. When I was a kid, from kindergarten thru
high school, I worked out every day (and as I got older, about three
hours per day) and had a six pack and probably some ridiculous body
fat percentage. Working out 20 minutes a day, three times a week will
not give anyone rock hard abs like on infomercials. Vigorously
cleaning the kitchen floor isn't going to get you in shape, and
neither is chasing your adorable little toddler around the house.
Eating whatever you want on the diet program du jour is bullshit,
because you don't WANT the foods that will keep you thin. If you did,
you wouldn't be fat!! Even if you workout three hours a day or have a
job where you are physically active, you still can't eat whatever you
want because the crappiest food now is hella crappier than the
crappiest food 50 years ago. And the worst food 50 years ago couldn't
be zapped in the microwave for two minutes and you're good to go. You
actually had to work to even eat. Crazy!
I'm not blaming fat people, just so tired of the warm fuzzies people
try to give out about being fat. Fat isn't good! It's not our normal
state, it's not what we were built for. Our joints can't handle it,
our circulatory system can't handle it, our endocrine system can't
handle it - not one of our systems was built to thrive on obesity.
People need to stop saying it's OK to be fat!
Geesh.
OK. I'm through. Whew! Getting all worked up like that probably
burned off a few thousand calories, right? I deserve a grande
cinnamon dolce frappucino now, I think. With whipped cream, natch.
Friday, April 27, 2007
Another Brick in the Wall
Gosh, who could have predicted that something like this could happen?
High school senior Allen Lee sat down with his creative writing classon Monday and penned an essay that so disturbed his teacher, school administrators and police that he was charged with disorderly conduct.
...
Allen Lee, an 18-year-old straight-A student at Cary-Grove High School, was arrested Tuesday near his home and charged with disorderly conduct for an essay police described as violently disturbing but not directed toward any specific person or location.
This is what happens when you institute retarded "zero tolerance" policies. This is what happens when you have a society that lives in a constant state of fear. This is what happens when you turn over the expectation for "safety" to an institution instead of maintaining your own individual level of responsibility.
In short, this is what happens when people stop thinking for themselves.
And by the way - even if this kid isn't dangerous in the least, there are kids all over the country who will see this story and applaud his actions and add this little incident to their mental file of how society is trying to slowly kill them.
Oh - and one more thing? He's ASIAN!! *gasp*
The whole store is here.
Gosh, who could have predicted that something like this could happen?
High school senior Allen Lee sat down with his creative writing classon Monday and penned an essay that so disturbed his teacher, school administrators and police that he was charged with disorderly conduct.
...
Allen Lee, an 18-year-old straight-A student at Cary-Grove High School, was arrested Tuesday near his home and charged with disorderly conduct for an essay police described as violently disturbing but not directed toward any specific person or location.
This is what happens when you institute retarded "zero tolerance" policies. This is what happens when you have a society that lives in a constant state of fear. This is what happens when you turn over the expectation for "safety" to an institution instead of maintaining your own individual level of responsibility.
In short, this is what happens when people stop thinking for themselves.
And by the way - even if this kid isn't dangerous in the least, there are kids all over the country who will see this story and applaud his actions and add this little incident to their mental file of how society is trying to slowly kill them.
Oh - and one more thing? He's ASIAN!! *gasp*
The whole store is here.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
"Oh, I know Quakers..."
This morning I was at a non-profit networking function and ended up talking to a nice lady sitting next to me. We chatted about the usual - kids, their foibles, the challenges, the quirks. Through various statements, it became clear that she is a Christian lady who goes to church regularly, and I think she figured she was in the company of all Christians because she didn't avoid the topic of religion as one would expect in a social/business setting with people you've just met. Still, it was all very light and harmless.
And then the conversation turned ...
I won't bore you with how we got to this point, but I said, "Well, my dad's side of the family is Quaker. I guess I identify with that more than any other Christian faith, but there aren't many Quaker meeting houses in Colorado, so we don't attend anywhere. " (Note - I did Google and found 12 in Colorado, the closest being about 30 miles away. I was surprised that there were 12, I figured less than a handful. Learn something new every day.)
Anyway, she immediately responded, "Oh, *I know* Quakers." Her expression and tone seemed kind of disparaging so I asked her (very nicely, with a smile) what she meant.
"Well, I'm from Philly! Of course I know Quakers, they're all over the place. There's a Quaker community not far from where I used to live, actually."
Hmm. "Oh? Now, just making sure here, but the Quakers aren't Amish - are you sure you're thinking of a Quaker community?"
"Oh no, it's not Amish, it's Quaker. I just love the town. The horse drawn buggies are so cute."
OK, I figured I would just move on - for all I know, there is a Quaker community in Pennsylvania and maybe they have some horse drawn buggies. Whatever. I tried to draw the conversation back to center a little.
"From what I've seen in the genealogy, my dad's side of the family way back immigrated with Penn in the 1600's, but they kept going and settled in Ohio. It's just a very simple faith. I like it, and I would have a difficult time going to a 'traditional' Christian church regularly. I couldn't do it." I ended with a shrug, figuring that since she knew about Quakers, she would understand.
At this point, the lady on her other side chimed in. I'd been kind of watching her out of the corner of my eye, since I'm always a little leery of religious discussions in public and especially in business settings, but she had been nodding in all of the right places. She had also been open about being a churchgoer and quite active in her congregation, but seemed more accepting of what I was saying.
"It's too ritualistic for you, isn't it?"
Right on! I was surprised, but pleasantly. Now, though, the lady next to me looked really baffled, so I explained that things like communion, baptism, confirmation, marriage ceremony ... none of that. No altars, no statues of the Virgin Mary. I told her that I was baptized and confirmed on the same day, and that I really resisted it and didn't want to do it but at the time, we had moved west and were going to a Methodist church, which was more my mother's side of the family.
She was shocked. "But - why don't Quakers baptize their babies?"
"Because they are not born in sin and it's an unnecessary ritual for a relationship that exists only between the person and God."
She appeared seriously shaken by now, and I decided to have a little fun.
"You know, the Catholic Church even abolished limbo this week, so all of those unbaptized folks who have been languishing for eons are good to go now."
"What's limbo?"
Argh.
"And another thing - back in the day and probably now among the more traditional Quakers, Christmas wasn't celebrated."
"Oh yes, I knew that - Quakers don't care about Jesus, it's not part of the faith."
Splutter ... "What?? No!! That's not why. Quakers are Christians, as in 'Christ.' They don't celebrate Christmas because God gave us every glorious day and there's no need to raise one day above another. "
I told her that the Puritans didn't celebrate Christmas either, that it was flat outlawed, and that nobody thought THEY weren't Christians. Besides, December 25th is an arbitrary "birthday."
It was still a pretty friendly tone, but in an attempt to keep it that way, I joked that the dangly earrings I was wearing would have also been frowned upon, at which point the other lady said, "Yes, they would have been considered frivolous adornment, right?" Two points for her.
We wrapped up around then because thankfully we had another speaker coming up, but it just stuck in my head all day. I really don't have a problem with the fact that this lady clearly has her own beliefs and if that's what brings her comfort, so be it. But beyond obvious disagreement with the Quaker beliefs, which is also fine as long as I don't end up with a hole poked in my tongue, I was really bothered by the lack of knowledge of other sects of Christianity. It doesn't really surprise me when people don't know much about Quakers, but it's also an ignorance American history. William Penn was a key figure in colonial history, and he is who most people think of as a famous Quaker, moreso than the founder George Fox.
There was also the confusion about limbo, which indicates both a lack of knowledge regarding Catholicism and literature. I just don't get it. How can you be comfortable in your own beliefs if you haven't taken the least interest in learning about others?
To me, Quaker beliefs make sense, and they have for as long as I can remember, even though I don't think I've ever been to a Quaker meeting and don't recall my father or grandmother ever talking to me about the Quaker beliefs as a child. I learned about "church" from friends, from going to a Christmas service occasionally, from going to a Methodist church when we moved to Illinois, and from school. I never thought baptism made sense for babies - what could they possibly have done that was so bad that God would send them to Hell if they didn't get some water splashed on them? Communion seemed a little silly, but at least it was a chance to walk around during church and have some grape juice and a cracker. Confession? Right out of the question. I didn't see why anyone put up with that nonsense but since we weren't Catholic, it wasn't my problem. And although I love beautiful cathedrals, I like the idea of a simple Quaker meeting house better, and not being inside at all would be ideal. Actually, I remember one time as a late teen (after my family had resettled again in East Texas), my mother tried to get me to go to an Easter service and I finally just said no, that she could go sit in her boring little manmade church, I would prefer to sit on the front porch and look at God's creation directly, including that bird right over there.
Don't get me wrong, I am not mocking my mother or the Methodist church. It's just not for me. Her desire for me to go to church was rooted in love and I understood that, but after a while I think she realized it was a losing battle to try to get me to go to a traditional church and she let it go. Later in life, she and my dad moved to Vermont and attended a very simple Quaker meeting regularly, and just recently they moved back to East Texas and attend a very nontraditional church (not Quaker) that holds services outside. I think, though, that she's a Quaker at heart and it just took her a while to break away from her idea from childhood of what church should look like.
Anyway, it was just an odd conversation and a part of me wants to say a little prayer for her, even though she probably wouldn't appreciate it or think it's necessary. But still, maybe I'll just say one for us all.
This morning I was at a non-profit networking function and ended up talking to a nice lady sitting next to me. We chatted about the usual - kids, their foibles, the challenges, the quirks. Through various statements, it became clear that she is a Christian lady who goes to church regularly, and I think she figured she was in the company of all Christians because she didn't avoid the topic of religion as one would expect in a social/business setting with people you've just met. Still, it was all very light and harmless.
And then the conversation turned ...
I won't bore you with how we got to this point, but I said, "Well, my dad's side of the family is Quaker. I guess I identify with that more than any other Christian faith, but there aren't many Quaker meeting houses in Colorado, so we don't attend anywhere. " (Note - I did Google and found 12 in Colorado, the closest being about 30 miles away. I was surprised that there were 12, I figured less than a handful. Learn something new every day.)
Anyway, she immediately responded, "Oh, *I know* Quakers." Her expression and tone seemed kind of disparaging so I asked her (very nicely, with a smile) what she meant.
"Well, I'm from Philly! Of course I know Quakers, they're all over the place. There's a Quaker community not far from where I used to live, actually."
Hmm. "Oh? Now, just making sure here, but the Quakers aren't Amish - are you sure you're thinking of a Quaker community?"
"Oh no, it's not Amish, it's Quaker. I just love the town. The horse drawn buggies are so cute."
OK, I figured I would just move on - for all I know, there is a Quaker community in Pennsylvania and maybe they have some horse drawn buggies. Whatever. I tried to draw the conversation back to center a little.
"From what I've seen in the genealogy, my dad's side of the family way back immigrated with Penn in the 1600's, but they kept going and settled in Ohio. It's just a very simple faith. I like it, and I would have a difficult time going to a 'traditional' Christian church regularly. I couldn't do it." I ended with a shrug, figuring that since she knew about Quakers, she would understand.
At this point, the lady on her other side chimed in. I'd been kind of watching her out of the corner of my eye, since I'm always a little leery of religious discussions in public and especially in business settings, but she had been nodding in all of the right places. She had also been open about being a churchgoer and quite active in her congregation, but seemed more accepting of what I was saying.
"It's too ritualistic for you, isn't it?"
Right on! I was surprised, but pleasantly. Now, though, the lady next to me looked really baffled, so I explained that things like communion, baptism, confirmation, marriage ceremony ... none of that. No altars, no statues of the Virgin Mary. I told her that I was baptized and confirmed on the same day, and that I really resisted it and didn't want to do it but at the time, we had moved west and were going to a Methodist church, which was more my mother's side of the family.
She was shocked. "But - why don't Quakers baptize their babies?"
"Because they are not born in sin and it's an unnecessary ritual for a relationship that exists only between the person and God."
She appeared seriously shaken by now, and I decided to have a little fun.
"You know, the Catholic Church even abolished limbo this week, so all of those unbaptized folks who have been languishing for eons are good to go now."
"What's limbo?"
Argh.
"And another thing - back in the day and probably now among the more traditional Quakers, Christmas wasn't celebrated."
"Oh yes, I knew that - Quakers don't care about Jesus, it's not part of the faith."
Splutter ... "What?? No!! That's not why. Quakers are Christians, as in 'Christ.' They don't celebrate Christmas because God gave us every glorious day and there's no need to raise one day above another. "
I told her that the Puritans didn't celebrate Christmas either, that it was flat outlawed, and that nobody thought THEY weren't Christians. Besides, December 25th is an arbitrary "birthday."
It was still a pretty friendly tone, but in an attempt to keep it that way, I joked that the dangly earrings I was wearing would have also been frowned upon, at which point the other lady said, "Yes, they would have been considered frivolous adornment, right?" Two points for her.
We wrapped up around then because thankfully we had another speaker coming up, but it just stuck in my head all day. I really don't have a problem with the fact that this lady clearly has her own beliefs and if that's what brings her comfort, so be it. But beyond obvious disagreement with the Quaker beliefs, which is also fine as long as I don't end up with a hole poked in my tongue, I was really bothered by the lack of knowledge of other sects of Christianity. It doesn't really surprise me when people don't know much about Quakers, but it's also an ignorance American history. William Penn was a key figure in colonial history, and he is who most people think of as a famous Quaker, moreso than the founder George Fox.
There was also the confusion about limbo, which indicates both a lack of knowledge regarding Catholicism and literature. I just don't get it. How can you be comfortable in your own beliefs if you haven't taken the least interest in learning about others?
To me, Quaker beliefs make sense, and they have for as long as I can remember, even though I don't think I've ever been to a Quaker meeting and don't recall my father or grandmother ever talking to me about the Quaker beliefs as a child. I learned about "church" from friends, from going to a Christmas service occasionally, from going to a Methodist church when we moved to Illinois, and from school. I never thought baptism made sense for babies - what could they possibly have done that was so bad that God would send them to Hell if they didn't get some water splashed on them? Communion seemed a little silly, but at least it was a chance to walk around during church and have some grape juice and a cracker. Confession? Right out of the question. I didn't see why anyone put up with that nonsense but since we weren't Catholic, it wasn't my problem. And although I love beautiful cathedrals, I like the idea of a simple Quaker meeting house better, and not being inside at all would be ideal. Actually, I remember one time as a late teen (after my family had resettled again in East Texas), my mother tried to get me to go to an Easter service and I finally just said no, that she could go sit in her boring little manmade church, I would prefer to sit on the front porch and look at God's creation directly, including that bird right over there.
Don't get me wrong, I am not mocking my mother or the Methodist church. It's just not for me. Her desire for me to go to church was rooted in love and I understood that, but after a while I think she realized it was a losing battle to try to get me to go to a traditional church and she let it go. Later in life, she and my dad moved to Vermont and attended a very simple Quaker meeting regularly, and just recently they moved back to East Texas and attend a very nontraditional church (not Quaker) that holds services outside. I think, though, that she's a Quaker at heart and it just took her a while to break away from her idea from childhood of what church should look like.
Anyway, it was just an odd conversation and a part of me wants to say a little prayer for her, even though she probably wouldn't appreciate it or think it's necessary. But still, maybe I'll just say one for us all.
Monday, April 23, 2007
Come ON, folks!
Don't you hate all of the junk mail you get, the mortgage offers, the credit card deals, the credit protection, the convenience checks, and so on? I do, and am seriously considering signing up with Green Dimes at some point, but I have to admit that a part of me will miss getting all of this garbage. Why? Because I get some kind of perverse amusement out of seeing the many creative ways that business - mostly lenders - try to separate you from your money.
Yesterday I went through my pile and sorted out the usual crud, and two pieces caught my eye. One was a batch of convenience checks - those are the checks you can write to anyone and the lender will consider it a cash advance. Most of the time they offer a lower rate either as a limited time teaser or until the balance is paid off, but this one didn't so I set it aside to read further. It was a doozy, too. The letter attached to the checks was all of the usual cheery drivel about how they were kindly offering you the ability to consolidate debt, pay for that much deserved vacation, finish the basement, or whatever you wanted to do.
The first thing I looked for was the transfer fee. In the past, transfer fees have run about 3% but had a maximum of $60-75, regardless of how much you took as an advance. I've been waiting for those maximums to go away and sure enough, this one did not have one. In the past, if you wanted to use a low rate offer and take a cash advance of $5000 to pay off a balance with a higher card, you would paid a maximum of $75 (1.5%), but this advance was $150 (3%). Since transfer/cash advance fees should be considered when figuring out whether to move debt or leave it where it is, an offer without a maximum definitely changes the equation.
In this case, though, it didn't matter because there was no low teaser rate. This cash advance was going to get smacked directly at almost 24% interest from day one. 24%!!! Oh my dear heavens! If your lender charged a 4% minimum payment (hitting you with $200/month more in monthly bills), it would take you 15 years to pay off a $5000 cash advance at 24%, and you'd pay almost another $5000 in interest.
Meanwhile, if you could control yourself for a little while and just set aside $200 in a a puny 2% interest bearing account, you'll have $5000 in a little over two years. Keep going and in that same 15 years that you would have been paying off your silly cash advance debt, you would have a little over $40,000.
Maybe you don't need that vacation so much, and maybe the basement can wait a little bit, eh?
Don't you hate all of the junk mail you get, the mortgage offers, the credit card deals, the credit protection, the convenience checks, and so on? I do, and am seriously considering signing up with Green Dimes at some point, but I have to admit that a part of me will miss getting all of this garbage. Why? Because I get some kind of perverse amusement out of seeing the many creative ways that business - mostly lenders - try to separate you from your money.
Yesterday I went through my pile and sorted out the usual crud, and two pieces caught my eye. One was a batch of convenience checks - those are the checks you can write to anyone and the lender will consider it a cash advance. Most of the time they offer a lower rate either as a limited time teaser or until the balance is paid off, but this one didn't so I set it aside to read further. It was a doozy, too. The letter attached to the checks was all of the usual cheery drivel about how they were kindly offering you the ability to consolidate debt, pay for that much deserved vacation, finish the basement, or whatever you wanted to do.
The first thing I looked for was the transfer fee. In the past, transfer fees have run about 3% but had a maximum of $60-75, regardless of how much you took as an advance. I've been waiting for those maximums to go away and sure enough, this one did not have one. In the past, if you wanted to use a low rate offer and take a cash advance of $5000 to pay off a balance with a higher card, you would paid a maximum of $75 (1.5%), but this advance was $150 (3%). Since transfer/cash advance fees should be considered when figuring out whether to move debt or leave it where it is, an offer without a maximum definitely changes the equation.
In this case, though, it didn't matter because there was no low teaser rate. This cash advance was going to get smacked directly at almost 24% interest from day one. 24%!!! Oh my dear heavens! If your lender charged a 4% minimum payment (hitting you with $200/month more in monthly bills), it would take you 15 years to pay off a $5000 cash advance at 24%, and you'd pay almost another $5000 in interest.
Meanwhile, if you could control yourself for a little while and just set aside $200 in a a puny 2% interest bearing account, you'll have $5000 in a little over two years. Keep going and in that same 15 years that you would have been paying off your silly cash advance debt, you would have a little over $40,000.
Maybe you don't need that vacation so much, and maybe the basement can wait a little bit, eh?
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
Old School Phones
My eight year old, Jake, just informed me that he knows how to work "old school" phones.
"You put your finger in the hole and rotate it clockwise all the way around until it stops, and then you put your finger in the hole with the next number and do the same thing, over and over."
Wow, do I feel old.
My eight year old, Jake, just informed me that he knows how to work "old school" phones.
"You put your finger in the hole and rotate it clockwise all the way around until it stops, and then you put your finger in the hole with the next number and do the same thing, over and over."
Wow, do I feel old.
Sunday, February 04, 2007
What I've learned...
A few things that I've learned (or been reminded of) over the last seven weeks since I've been home with a new baby ...
1. Daytime TV will kill your brain. Even the History Channel - a shining beacon in a sea of courtroom TV shows and repeats of "I know I've had 47 men take a DNA test but I'm one thousand and infinity sure that THIS one is the daddy of my baby" Maury - gets a little repetitive. I know more about cults than I ever thought I would, and did you know that the first and last people who died during the construction of the Hoover Dam were father and son?
2. Babies prefer to poop in freshly changed diapers.
3. We are a incredibly malnourished and unhealthy nation, judging by all of the commercials for "healthy" food and medications. The next time you watch the national news, count how many of the commercials are for something that claims to prevent illness or treat a symptom of an illness. That includes food and vitamins.
4. Anything can be bought for "pennies a day," and you DESERVE it. All of it.
5. Germs are bad. You should buy any product that promises to kill them on every surface of your home, including your air.
6. Erica Kane still looks the same, but Tad and Dixie do not (although I just read that Dixie died on January 30th).
7. If the baby falls asleep, you should try to fall asleep. And eat. Definitely eat.
8. Don't give away the coffee maker because you never drink coffee ... right before you have a baby.
9. Breast milk IS better, especially if you want to cut down on spit up.
10. There really is a difference when it comes to cheap diapers.
11. I have a lot more patience than I thought.
A few things that I've learned (or been reminded of) over the last seven weeks since I've been home with a new baby ...
1. Daytime TV will kill your brain. Even the History Channel - a shining beacon in a sea of courtroom TV shows and repeats of "I know I've had 47 men take a DNA test but I'm one thousand and infinity sure that THIS one is the daddy of my baby" Maury - gets a little repetitive. I know more about cults than I ever thought I would, and did you know that the first and last people who died during the construction of the Hoover Dam were father and son?
2. Babies prefer to poop in freshly changed diapers.
3. We are a incredibly malnourished and unhealthy nation, judging by all of the commercials for "healthy" food and medications. The next time you watch the national news, count how many of the commercials are for something that claims to prevent illness or treat a symptom of an illness. That includes food and vitamins.
4. Anything can be bought for "pennies a day," and you DESERVE it. All of it.
5. Germs are bad. You should buy any product that promises to kill them on every surface of your home, including your air.
6. Erica Kane still looks the same, but Tad and Dixie do not (although I just read that Dixie died on January 30th).
7. If the baby falls asleep, you should try to fall asleep. And eat. Definitely eat.
8. Don't give away the coffee maker because you never drink coffee ... right before you have a baby.
9. Breast milk IS better, especially if you want to cut down on spit up.
10. There really is a difference when it comes to cheap diapers.
11. I have a lot more patience than I thought.
Saturday, January 06, 2007
New Baby
I imagine the focus of this blog will shift now that we have a new baby in the family, Mr. Baby Bennett. I should make a real effort to keep up with his developments, as well as those of my other two boys. I take them all for granted way too much - or maybe I just have way too much faith in my memory.
I imagine the focus of this blog will shift now that we have a new baby in the family, Mr. Baby Bennett. I should make a real effort to keep up with his developments, as well as those of my other two boys. I take them all for granted way too much - or maybe I just have way too much faith in my memory.
Thursday, November 09, 2006
Damned Doctors
Warning - pregnant stuff. Feel free to call me hormonal. You're all out of arms reach.
OK, so babies get bigger in the bellies and they start smooshing things around, down and up. The problem with "down" is that you have to go to the bathroom a lot, which interferes with sleep but is otherwise not a big deal. The problem with "up" is that your stomach gets pressured and forces stuff back up. Hormones that loosen ligaments up (that's why women's feet get bigger during pregnancy, I think) don't help with the reflux either, because there are ligaments in your esophagus. This is particularly unpleasant in the middle of the night when you wake up in a panic because you just threw up in your mouth a little bit, and it wasn't because you were having a bad dream about George Bush.
So. To stop the reflux, you can avoid certain foods - a LOT of "certain foods" - but after a while, that stops working. And besides, who knows what foods to really avoid - I saw a chart that said to avoid mashed potatoes but baked potatoes are OK. Whatever.
You can drink more water - but not too much. Avoid coffee/soda - not too much of a problem. Don't drink alcohol - also not a problem. Sleep with your head elevated - no problem, we have an adjustable bed. All of that works for a while, and then ... it doesn't.
Next? Take Tums. Lots and lots of Tums. That helps, until it doesn't anymore. Then it's time to take Zantac 150 twice a day, plus Tums. That appears to work. Yay!
Next problem. Pregnant women can get anemic. In particular, women already prone to low blood iron can get really anemic. About a month ago my nurse took blood for a glucose test (cuz pregnant women can also get diabetes), took one look at it and said, "your iron is too low." Didn't even test it.
Great. Have to take an iron supplement. Iron supplements are not great, because they have a tendency to cause ... um ... stuck-up-ed-ness, which is something ELSE that is not uncommon for pregnant women in the first place, so nobody wants to exascerbate the problem. BUT ... it's better than being anemic, because that makes you even more tired than you already are.
So, we take the iron supplement. We take our prenatals. We take our whole food supplements that should have plenty of iron in them as well. We take our softeners to counter the effects of the iron supplement. We take our Zantac and keep popping our Tums. We go back to the doctor and find out that our iron is STILL DROPPING, but hey, it's OK, because hopefully we won't need a transfusion at the hospital and everything will be fine. Seriously, she said that.
And then what do WE do? We decide that there has to be a reason why our iron is still dropping, so we look on handy dandy Google and guess what we find out is a very effective blocker of iron absorption?
TUMS! Antacids block iron absorption. Took all of two minutes to find.
Now, I know doctors have to know a lot of stuff and they can't possibly know everything, but shouldn't an OB/GYN know that two incredibly common pregnancy related issues have "treatments" that would interact like this? Or rather, that one treatment would have a pretty whopping effect on the other?
@$%&^#%$&. Gah.
Warning - pregnant stuff. Feel free to call me hormonal. You're all out of arms reach.
OK, so babies get bigger in the bellies and they start smooshing things around, down and up. The problem with "down" is that you have to go to the bathroom a lot, which interferes with sleep but is otherwise not a big deal. The problem with "up" is that your stomach gets pressured and forces stuff back up. Hormones that loosen ligaments up (that's why women's feet get bigger during pregnancy, I think) don't help with the reflux either, because there are ligaments in your esophagus. This is particularly unpleasant in the middle of the night when you wake up in a panic because you just threw up in your mouth a little bit, and it wasn't because you were having a bad dream about George Bush.
So. To stop the reflux, you can avoid certain foods - a LOT of "certain foods" - but after a while, that stops working. And besides, who knows what foods to really avoid - I saw a chart that said to avoid mashed potatoes but baked potatoes are OK. Whatever.
You can drink more water - but not too much. Avoid coffee/soda - not too much of a problem. Don't drink alcohol - also not a problem. Sleep with your head elevated - no problem, we have an adjustable bed. All of that works for a while, and then ... it doesn't.
Next? Take Tums. Lots and lots of Tums. That helps, until it doesn't anymore. Then it's time to take Zantac 150 twice a day, plus Tums. That appears to work. Yay!
Next problem. Pregnant women can get anemic. In particular, women already prone to low blood iron can get really anemic. About a month ago my nurse took blood for a glucose test (cuz pregnant women can also get diabetes), took one look at it and said, "your iron is too low." Didn't even test it.
Great. Have to take an iron supplement. Iron supplements are not great, because they have a tendency to cause ... um ... stuck-up-ed-ness, which is something ELSE that is not uncommon for pregnant women in the first place, so nobody wants to exascerbate the problem. BUT ... it's better than being anemic, because that makes you even more tired than you already are.
So, we take the iron supplement. We take our prenatals. We take our whole food supplements that should have plenty of iron in them as well. We take our softeners to counter the effects of the iron supplement. We take our Zantac and keep popping our Tums. We go back to the doctor and find out that our iron is STILL DROPPING, but hey, it's OK, because hopefully we won't need a transfusion at the hospital and everything will be fine. Seriously, she said that.
And then what do WE do? We decide that there has to be a reason why our iron is still dropping, so we look on handy dandy Google and guess what we find out is a very effective blocker of iron absorption?
TUMS! Antacids block iron absorption. Took all of two minutes to find.
Now, I know doctors have to know a lot of stuff and they can't possibly know everything, but shouldn't an OB/GYN know that two incredibly common pregnancy related issues have "treatments" that would interact like this? Or rather, that one treatment would have a pretty whopping effect on the other?
@$%&^#%$&. Gah.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
