James likes peekaboo so much that he will start playing it himself in hopes that others will join in. Fortunately for him, many of us did. You might want to turn the sound down, we got really excited.
Monday, April 08, 2013
Friday, March 22, 2013
Mom Blogs. They're Everywhere.
Get ready for a link blitz, but with purpose!
Last week on Facebook, about ten different Mom Blog posts were making the rounds. All with their own unique message by the moms, of the moms, and for the moms of the First World. I will now throw them at you:
First this:
"What We Mean When We Say We Need A Break"
On a similar vein, This about not making moms feel guilty for taking a few moments to themselves:
"In Defense of the iPhone Mom"
This one, which counsels us not to put ourselves down while we compliment other moms:
"Battle of the Moms"
A post that reassures you are not a terrible parent, and a reminder of what not to say:
"To Parents of Small Children"
This must be one of the things he's talking about, telling us what kind of parents we should be. But since I'd never thought about it, to me at least it was interesting:
Finally, a shout out to a new blog that I just stumbled upon, and have subsequently spent way too much time on. But I'll just link to one of her posts:
So there you have it: bunch o'blogs for thought. A little too much? Probably. Enjoy!
Last week on Facebook, about ten different Mom Blog posts were making the rounds. All with their own unique message by the moms, of the moms, and for the moms of the First World. I will now throw them at you:
First this:
"What We Mean When We Say We Need A Break"
- Now keep in mind, it IS "Huffington Post" so we need not take it too seriously. I do appreciate the sentiment - it's nice to specify the difference between "vacation" as in a big family trip, or even "escape from mom-life," and the kind of break she's talking about here. I like the clarification that moms tend to be so involved in service that they lose themselves. What the author might be missing is that, with the perspective of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, losing yourself IS finding yourself. Which is why we do it. But of course I understand the need to slip away for a moment to read, go for a walk, or do something you love, and RECHARGE for more service.
- On another note, Aaron did not entirely appreciate what the author had to say about the role of fathers. "Moms need breaks but Dads don't?" It literally says, "When you're a father, caring for your kids doesn't count as work." It's something you promised to do, etc.... I agree that this paragraph was a little unfair: basically everything she said telling Dads to do their duty applies to Moms, too. But sometimes taking care of kids IS work, no matter if it's Mom or Dad doing it.
On a similar vein, This about not making moms feel guilty for taking a few moments to themselves:
"In Defense of the iPhone Mom"
- Apparently this blogger saw a FB post circulating with something like, "Dear iPhone Moms, You are missing out on your beautiful kids! They're on the monkey bars calling your name but your face is buried in your phone! Stop texting and enjoy their magical moments!" And this really bugged her because - guess what. That mom has probably had a day - or string of days - of magical moments. She's been at home playing with and laughing with and watching her kids forever. You're just seeing her at a park, where apparently she's taking a break to connect with her "co-workers" (other moms) through Facebook or Pinterest or somewhich. Don't judge! is the message. It's OK to take a break!
- The thing with blogs is, everyone is responding to something someone else said. What this blogger said needed to be said. But I think what the FB post said also needed to be said. Maybe they don't need to both be said to the same person at the same time though.
- But yeah, just say no to Mom Guilt Trips. Which brings us to:
This one, which counsels us not to put ourselves down while we compliment other moms:
"Battle of the Moms"
- "That's so great that you can do that! I really suck at doing that." OK, I admit, I've said it. It's sometimes hard to stop yourself. But I think that besides being unhealthy and making unfair comparisons, it's also quite a selfish way of talking. "Hey, you said this about you? I tell you that same thing but how it applies to me! Let's bring the conversation back to ME! MEEEEEE!!!" And Brian Regan's "Me Monster" has arrived.
- What's a better way to respond? When someone talks about a quilt they just made, I should just say the first half of my automatic comment and then shut my mouth. "That's so great that you can do that!" Because it's not about me, it's about her skill and accomplishment. Boo yah.
- And yes - you're just being a bully to yourself to constantly think and say negative things about who you are and what you can do. Maybe I can think, "I want to be able to do that someday. I'm going to work on that."
A post that reassures you are not a terrible parent, and a reminder of what not to say:
"To Parents of Small Children"
- This one is actually written by a dad, not a mom, but the same advice applies: Don't guilt parents. Including yourselves.
- Also, this guy is a pastor, and I like the service perspective that gives him: look for ways to help those tired parents you see all around you. Bring them dinner or take their kids for a couple hours.
- And then this line: "One of the reasons we are so exhausted is that we are oversaturated with information about the kind of parents we should be." So you can thank this post for my contribution there. Oh, and this next one:
This must be one of the things he's talking about, telling us what kind of parents we should be. But since I'd never thought about it, to me at least it was interesting:
- Again, take it with a helping of salt - the web magazine is called "PopSugar" - but this author says that if your kid is playing with a toy, and another kid walks up and wants to take it, you are under no obligation to say, "Hey son, give him that toy, it's called sharing." Because, she says, actually that creates entitlement culture. You, other kid! You don't deserve a toy just because you want it! Someone else is using it, so wait your turn. Or, That's not even your toy, it's his, so let him play with it and let's play with something else.
- I guess since James is still young I hadn't even thought about what my potential sharing "policy" would be. This seems fine. Although I would like to teach my kids that giving away your toy is a NICE thing to do, even if it's not the REQUIRED or even EXPECTED thing.
Finally, a shout out to a new blog that I just stumbled upon, and have subsequently spent way too much time on. But I'll just link to one of her posts:
- You heard about the "Elf on a shelf" thing, right? Never did that when I was little, but apparently it's a thing now. So did you know that going on a leprechaun hunt for St Patrick's Day, is also a thing now?? I mean apparently you have your kids hunt for gold coins and crap. Whaaa? I agree with her POV: "People. St. Patrick’s Day is supposed to be a “phone-it-in” holiday. Yes, I’ve turned into a bit of a grinch, but SERIOUSLY WITH THE HOLIDAY OVERKILL."
- Now, I'm still getting off this scott-free because my baby is only 10 MONTHS OLD so doesn't need any holiday celebrations, really. He has no idea what is going on. We could give him pink baby food on Valentine's, or dress him in green on St Patrick's Day, or plastic eggshells on Easter, and he will probably still chew on his own sock instead.
- BUT STILL. It does seem like a bit much for elementary-aged-kids' moms. On the other hand, I don't want to judge them for going all-out anymore than I want them to judge me for taking a minimalist approach. So I guess, if no one is getting hurt, and nothing is going against Gospel truths, and they're not making themselves or others feel guilty for not swimming as deeply in holiday waters as others....then to each her own.
So there you have it: bunch o'blogs for thought. A little too much? Probably. Enjoy!
Thursday, November 01, 2012
.5 Years Old!
6 months.So far we've kept our sweet baby James alive for 6 MONTHS.
In case you're following along, this is a GOOD THING.
I think James is doing well. I told him it was his first, and only, Real Half Birthday, and he smiled! But I think he was just pooping. Actually, in hindsight it was more of a red-faced grimace. So he wasn't really excited about his .5 birthday. I mean, it's not like it's a "milestone" birthday: he doesn't get his drivers license, he doesn't get baptized, he doesn't get senior citizen discount at IHOP. No, he just gets shots, tomorrow at the doctor's.
Surprised face!
So, we didn't have a party. But on the bright side, everyone else threw him one yesterday! It was like a huge neighborhood costume party. He dressed up as a tiger and answered the door with us to give away candy. ( Thank you Aunt Sharon for the excellent pictures :)
After the kids stopped showing up, Aaron entertained James with a little dubstep dancing:
And James ate some candy.....wrappers.
Then tonight we decided to take some 6 month family photos! They're not bad.
After Aaron went to work, and after we got back from grocery shopping, I attempted to feed James his "birthday dinner" of rice cereal. But James was more interested in having a GIGGLE PARTY. View for yourswelf:
(NOTE: I wasn't actually yelling at him; I was just quoting Napoleon Dynamite where he tells Tina to eat her food. That's all. James hasn't seen that yet though...so maybe he didn't get the reference.)
BEST. LAUGH. EVER.
Now he is sleeping peacefully, at last. Thanks for the last half-year, James. If the average life expectancy for a US citizen is 78 years, then I hope the next 155 half-years of your life are JUST AS AWESOME.
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
Misconception of Church and State
I see too many examples today of people pulling out the "separation of church and state" card in political conversations without understanding the history behind it. They have heard the phrase "separation of church and state" ten thousand times, but have no idea what it means. I hope to clear up misconceptions about this principal and hopefully get my rant on while I'm at it.
Let's answer on of our questions from above-Does it mention separation of church and state in the constitution? No, it actually does not. What the constitution does say concerning religion is contained in The First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The sections of The First Amendment regarding religion are the establishment clause (Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion) and the free exercise clause (or prohibiting the free exercise thereof).
The establishment clause first prohibits the establishment of a national religion by Congress and second prohibits the preference by the U.S. government of one religion over another (including no religion or atheism). This is why in 1962 in the case of Engel v. Vitale, the supreme court ruled it unconstitutional to have mandatory prayer in school.
The free exercise clause is pretty self explanatory. You can practice any religion you feel fit without fear of persecution or regulation. The freedom of religion clause was defended in 1963 in the case of Sherbert v. Werner. Adele Sherbert was denied unemployment benefits by South Carolina because she refused to work on Saturdays, something forbidden by her Seventh-day Adventist faith. This denial was found to be unconstitutional.
The phrase "Separation of Church and State" refers to a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote about the First Amendment saying:
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.
So now that we know what this phrase means, I would like to discuss what it does not mean. It does not mean, as all too many people believe today, that people with religious viewpoints, are not allowed to incorporate those viewpoints into their political decisions. In fact, saying that someone is not allowed to have religiously charged political beliefs is in contradiction with the constitution, which blatantly protects the free practice thereof. Many people believe that religion is nothing more than a fleeting fancy, to be believed and practiced only on Sunday and to be left at home when going to the polls. This is a gross misunderstanding. I personally base everything I do in my life on my religious beliefs. It shapes what I say, what I think and what I eat and drink. For me, this leads to very specific political opinions, two of which are being against same-sex marriage and abortion. I believe that theses two practices are sins. And today like in days past, I believe that as our society becomes more sinful, the more likely it will be destroyed by the hand of God. I don't know about you, but I would rather stay un-destroyed as long as possible.
While I have seen hundreds of comments in the social media sphere supporting the belief that religious people should be seen but not heard, newspaper articles supporting this same opinion abound.
The San Francisco Chronicle:
Our government's role is to guarantee the freedom and equality of every citizen under the law, however. A church's teachings regarding the definition and "sanctity" of marriage have no place in federal law. Let's not forget what the First Amendment says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Legislation (such as the Defense of Marriage Act and the "no gay marriage" statute Romney promises/threatens) imposes a religious definition of marriage on the entire country.
Brendon Ayanbadejo of the Baltimore Ravens:“church and state are supposed to be completely separated when it comes to the rule of law in the United States. So the religious argument that God meant for only man and woman to be together has no bearing here! America is not Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Mormon, Catholic, or any other religion that is out there. And the pantheon of gods can attest that there are hundreds of them. We are a secular capitalistic democracy. That’s it.”
Jonathan L. Eisenberg, President of the "American Union in Defense of Separation of Church and State" referring to a a ballot measure that would ban same-sex marriage in Minnesota:
“The amendment is, at its core, an attempt to impose one specific religious view on all citizens,” Eisenberg wrote for MinnPost. “That is not the proper role of government under our First Amendment guarantees of free exercise and non-establishment of religion.
As you see, it is a pretty mainstream belief that, for some reason, religious people should not be allowed to have a say in the laws the government makes about a religious institution. It is way out of line to say that same-sex marriage is a purely political issue. Marriage was religious thousands of years before it was ever political. The fact that it has now entered into the political realm is just a reflection of how secular today's society is getting.
A constitutional ban of gay marriage would not be in violation of separation of Church and State at all. The bill, much like Proposition 8, would have been created by the people (not the government) and been voted into the constitution by the people (not the government). In doing so the government will have kept up their end of the bargain by not interfering with its citizens religious beliefs, and in the process it will not have broken the establishment clause which respects an establishment of religion, but it will have respected the citizens of the United States, many of which just so happen to belong to those establishments of religion, and believe it or not, actually follow the teachings of those religions as if they were true, and may just bring those learned principles into the voting booth (longest run on sentence ever).
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
Feminism, Kaleidoscopic Hanes, Catholic Churches, and Canadian Zombies
Almost as humdrum as the typical "picture only post" is the "music only post." While music usually lends itself to more commentary (if a picture is worth 1,000 words, audio is worth 10,000, and video 100,000. Which interestingly enough matches up pretty well to kilobytes of size) it also takes more effort (2 seconds for a picture vs 3 minutes for a song) and is often scrolled over. That being said, I like finding new music, and I just learned how to copy embed HTML5 code, so here goes nothing.
Since the release of "I'm not a Robot" two years ago, Marina and the Diamonds (which I believe is a misleading name because it implies there is a band is addition to Maria...I mean Marina. Much like Selena Gomez and the Scene) has actually gotten more bitter and sarcastic about woman's roles in modern society. I tried listening to the entirety of her new album "Electra Heart" and four songs in was slightly overloaded with feminism and bitterness. But it is palatable in small doses, especially when it is sung to a rad electro house track.
Speaking of electronic music, (which I love, and find quite a lot of variety in nowadays) I came across this gem by french group C2C. They call their style "Turntablism." I included the video below because I really like how it matches visually with the music. Yes, the entire video is of some girl in her underwear floating around. But let me argue that first, none of it is sexual in any way and second, this could pass as a really cool Hanes commercial.
This next video of theirs, while not as nearly cool of a song, is well made and deserves viewers
Also, I wanted to get something off my chest. This song is in no way, shape, or form, a dubstep song. I know it has wobble bass and a drop, but neither of these is actually required in a dubstep song. Hint: It has to do with the beat of the song. This next song for example, is a dubstep song.
Ok, off the high horse and back to good old alternative rock. By now, The Joy Formidable is old news and everyone has heard the song Whirring 50 times. But most likely you have heard the woosey radio version that fades out after 2:40. The album version is way more legit, rocking out from 2:40 to 6:47 and reminding all that rock is alive and well. It makes you want to listen to the next track on the album, right! Which you should, the whole album is excellent, which is why they have now replaced Metric as my favorite alt rock band with a female lead (which I merely hope is female. I just realized the singer for Silversun Pickups is a dude. I know, right! I blame Tracey Chapman)
I'll end with a mandatory KPOP shoutout. Nothing special, but a great work out song.
Since the release of "I'm not a Robot" two years ago, Marina and the Diamonds (which I believe is a misleading name because it implies there is a band is addition to Maria...I mean Marina. Much like Selena Gomez and the Scene) has actually gotten more bitter and sarcastic about woman's roles in modern society. I tried listening to the entirety of her new album "Electra Heart" and four songs in was slightly overloaded with feminism and bitterness. But it is palatable in small doses, especially when it is sung to a rad electro house track.
Speaking of electronic music, (which I love, and find quite a lot of variety in nowadays) I came across this gem by french group C2C. They call their style "Turntablism." I included the video below because I really like how it matches visually with the music. Yes, the entire video is of some girl in her underwear floating around. But let me argue that first, none of it is sexual in any way and second, this could pass as a really cool Hanes commercial.
This next video of theirs, while not as nearly cool of a song, is well made and deserves viewers
While I am generally kind of bored of wobble bass heavy music such as electro house and dubstep, this song by Zomboy seems to fit the Halloween season quite well. It is also quite musically intricate and progressive.
Also, I wanted to get something off my chest. This song is in no way, shape, or form, a dubstep song. I know it has wobble bass and a drop, but neither of these is actually required in a dubstep song. Hint: It has to do with the beat of the song. This next song for example, is a dubstep song.
Ok, off the high horse and back to good old alternative rock. By now, The Joy Formidable is old news and everyone has heard the song Whirring 50 times. But most likely you have heard the woosey radio version that fades out after 2:40. The album version is way more legit, rocking out from 2:40 to 6:47 and reminding all that rock is alive and well. It makes you want to listen to the next track on the album, right! Which you should, the whole album is excellent, which is why they have now replaced Metric as my favorite alt rock band with a female lead (which I merely hope is female. I just realized the singer for Silversun Pickups is a dude. I know, right! I blame Tracey Chapman)
I'll end with a mandatory KPOP shoutout. Nothing special, but a great work out song.
It is so hard to stay productive at 4AM
Unfortunately tonight, I have no opinions about anything. But, I would like to inform you that the most expensive house in the United States is located in Palm Beach, Florida, and cost $74,000,000.
The monthly mortgage is twice the price of my house. Not too far behind is a house named Castello della Costa d'Oro (yeah, that means castle) priced at $58,000,000. It comes with a helipad and an orchard.
Who says you can't find useful information on the internet at 3:55AM?
How about this-http://www.hatsofmeat.com/
Thursday, October 04, 2012
Facebook Etiquette
What is appropriate to discuss at the dinner table? The answer to this question may vary depending on the company you're keeping or if you are intoxicated, but most people will still answer this question by saying "Don't discuss religion or politics." Why is this? What is so bad about religion or politics? It seems everyone has an opinion on them. It seems like an easy conversation to start, right? Yes, but the conversation can quickly degrade to an argument that goes nowhere. You might say to yourself "But I am ok with disagreements. I can keep the discussion civilized" No, you cannot. A conversation is a two way street, and even if you are just stating opinions with no intent to harm, the other individual could feel attacked and switch to argument mode. Most people don't mind if you challenge a philosophy they espouse, but if you challenge their politics and they use their political affiliations as a means to define themselves, then you're posing not an intellectual argument, but a threat to their very sense of being. In the same way I would tell others "I am Aaron", I would also say "I am a Republican." Aaron becomes part of me when I say that. I can say I like brownies without the same connection. If I talk about brownies at dinner and someone tell me brownies are stupid, It doesn't make me feel bad, I just think the person talking is missing out. But if someone tells me the name Aaron is stupid, that is the same as calling me stupid, and the individual talking will probably have a glass of water dumped on their head before the night is through. Pretty much the only safe conversation to have on these topics starts and ends with a statement of affiliation. No one can argue with that.
With the presidential race in the spotlight, it seems like the topic of politics is coming up more and more in our lives. One of the places I see it discussed the most is Facebook. People post links to articles, videos, react to things candidates say etc. Most of these posts seem harmless until you expand the comments section and witness a few Democrats and Republicans going at it. Occasionally the steadfast Libertarian will join the mix and say "You're both dumb-Go Ron Paul" Reading these fire fights makes me sick inside. I am beginning to think that Facebook needs to be more like the dinner table, and there needs to be an unspoken rule of no politics or religion.
Well, I don't completely agree with never posting anything with political or religious implications, but I think there needs to be more acute awareness of those on your massive friends list that may disagree with what you say. I think, for example, posting a link to an LDS speakers talk on helping others with the comments "Helping people is so much fun" is acceptable. But if the same video was posted with the comments "Helping people is so much fun, too bad Muslims don't help people" I would deem it unacceptable. A similar example is posting a link to a Romney campaign video and commenting " I like how he explains things" as opposed to "Everyone who votes for Obama is dumb." I have actually seen the latter. The comments broke into an argument between two of my friends that made me nauseous. I think as long as we are careful to simply state our beliefs while not trampling on those of others, we can help prevent Facebook mudslinging. I say help prevent because there is never a guarantee. Someone passionate enough could turn any innocent minded post into a garbage fest. But you should not give anyone the green light to by being inconsiderate.
I wish there was the option to post something and then block comments. That way no matter how many angry bored people there are in your friends list, they still wouldn't be able to hijack your post and turn it into an O'Rilley Obermann duel.
Maybe my view is too idealistic. Maybe some people like the conflict. But I would like to imagine that most people are decent human beings who want to be nice to others regardless of their opinions. I would hope that the goal of posting something political or religious is not to instigate a cock fight, but rather to open peoples minds. No one's mind will be opened let alone changed by name calling and mud slinging. But if you give someone the opportunity to read or view something that would give them information they didn't previously have access to, that can open their mind and maybe, just maybe, they will choose on their own to agree with you. If we really believe in our causes, isn't that what we truly want?
With the presidential race in the spotlight, it seems like the topic of politics is coming up more and more in our lives. One of the places I see it discussed the most is Facebook. People post links to articles, videos, react to things candidates say etc. Most of these posts seem harmless until you expand the comments section and witness a few Democrats and Republicans going at it. Occasionally the steadfast Libertarian will join the mix and say "You're both dumb-Go Ron Paul" Reading these fire fights makes me sick inside. I am beginning to think that Facebook needs to be more like the dinner table, and there needs to be an unspoken rule of no politics or religion.
Well, I don't completely agree with never posting anything with political or religious implications, but I think there needs to be more acute awareness of those on your massive friends list that may disagree with what you say. I think, for example, posting a link to an LDS speakers talk on helping others with the comments "Helping people is so much fun" is acceptable. But if the same video was posted with the comments "Helping people is so much fun, too bad Muslims don't help people" I would deem it unacceptable. A similar example is posting a link to a Romney campaign video and commenting " I like how he explains things" as opposed to "Everyone who votes for Obama is dumb." I have actually seen the latter. The comments broke into an argument between two of my friends that made me nauseous. I think as long as we are careful to simply state our beliefs while not trampling on those of others, we can help prevent Facebook mudslinging. I say help prevent because there is never a guarantee. Someone passionate enough could turn any innocent minded post into a garbage fest. But you should not give anyone the green light to by being inconsiderate.
I wish there was the option to post something and then block comments. That way no matter how many angry bored people there are in your friends list, they still wouldn't be able to hijack your post and turn it into an O'Rilley Obermann duel.
Maybe my view is too idealistic. Maybe some people like the conflict. But I would like to imagine that most people are decent human beings who want to be nice to others regardless of their opinions. I would hope that the goal of posting something political or religious is not to instigate a cock fight, but rather to open peoples minds. No one's mind will be opened let alone changed by name calling and mud slinging. But if you give someone the opportunity to read or view something that would give them information they didn't previously have access to, that can open their mind and maybe, just maybe, they will choose on their own to agree with you. If we really believe in our causes, isn't that what we truly want?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)