Yeah, I know. I'm a terrible blogger. Not only have I not been posting, but I left comments sitting for about a week before replying! I'm not sure why I've been so absent. Time has just been passing so incredibly fast. I think it must be because I'm busy. But busy doing what? Just building tinkertoy airplanes, cleaning up messes, and washing all of Marko's pants daily? Yeah, maybe that's it.
I still have no time for a "real" post, but here are some excellent links I've been reading. That should give you a sense of what's been on my mind: all but one are political. But heck, it's October. The only reason anyone isn't thinking of politics is because they're actively trying to ignore it. (Which is awfully tempting. If I see another political ad during Marko's nightly YouTube music video watching (yeah, I know, not healthy, but it WORKS and he goes to sleep, unless of course Robomney are there yammering on about the economy, in which case he snaps awake and starts to whine) I swear I won't for either of them! Haha.
Obama vs. Romney Immigration Reform: Why Immigrants Make America Stronger, Not Weaker
"In an article on FactCheck.Org Viveca
Novak goes even further, reporting that countless studies show
"immigrants grow the economy, expanding demand for goods and services
that the foreign-born workers and their families consume, and thereby
creating jobs." What is more, Novak suggests that economists have found
strong evidence that immigrants as a whole "increase average wages for
American-born workers." Simply because our economy is in shambles and
jobs scarce does not mean we should jump to the conclusion that illegal
immigrants are in any way adding to the problem."
I'm for immigration. Of course, because illegal immigration causes all kinds of problems, like a lack of security and injustice for "invisible people" who are afraid to go to the police if they're exploited, it has to be legal immigration. But you know why people are so bound and determined to sneak in illegally? That's right ... because it's so dang difficult to do legally. It's awfully hypocritical for current Americans, who obviously are all (except the Native Americans) immigrants, to refuse entry to more immigrants. Immigrants made this country great. And anyway, if we keep not having babies, we NEED immigrants to keep ourselves afloat.
The End of Debate As We Know It?
"We are approaching — and may already have arrived at — a point when
debate is useless because the terms of the debate have no common
reference point in reality. Words like “rich”, “poor”, “middle class”,
“ally”, “tax”, “family values”, and, most pointedly, “freedom” have red definitions and blue
definitions. No debate is possible about where we should turn when
there is no agreement on where we are and where we need to go. We no
longer argue for our proposed solution, we merely advocate for our
reality."
Do you get this sensation when you're arguing with someone of the opposite political position as you? That sense that you guys are both using the same words but meaning absolutely different things? One thing that would help to combat this is to make more friends, and read more blogs, that disagree with you. I mean disagree with you drastically. And at the same time, make sure they are people you respect. On the one hand, they can help explain to you what they mean when using those words. And on the other, you will be forced to admit that it is possible to be a good person and disagree with you.
Dear Congressman Ryan
"So if it’s true that you want to help the poor in accordance with the
infallible and authentic social teachings of the Catholic Church, then
why don’t you come to the assistance of the poor — not by proposing big
new government programs, but by demanding that the government stop
persecuting the poor? Why not harness the entrepreneurial aspirations of
low income people so they can create their own jobs?"
This article is amazing. First off, it calls Ryan on his lack of care for the poor (he's something of a Randian). And then it points out all the ways the Republican party doesn't care about the poor. Not that they're against a ton of programs -- that's fine. But if they don't want to keep the programs, they will instead have to get rid of the dozens and dozens of laws that discriminate against the poor and make it easier for them to run a drug ring than a roadside hotdog stand. If they do neither one, the only other option is to let poor people starve to death ... which, as this article points out, is just plain un-Catholic.
An Invitation. Because I Love You.
"You know when you eat something fantastic or see something wonderful,
you can't wait to tell everyone about it? You feel sad that anyone is
going through life without having eaten that fantastic food or seeing
that wonderful thing? And you want to say "I know you've been eating
margarine and margarine is fine, but trust me. Butter is the thing.
You've GOT to try butter. Once you try butter you'll never, ever, ever
go back to margarine. Trust me!". That's how I feel about the Church.
The Church is my butter. Delicious, glorious, life-changing butter."
Do you read Dwija? You should read Dwija. She is awesome. This is the sole non-political article today. I'd like to extend her invitation as well: if you have the slightest interest, the Catholic Church does have a neat little program (RCIA) that you can go to with zero commitment to find out more. Find out when it is at your local parish and just show up. Or ask a Catholic friend to bring you. Ask me, if you're nearby. Because Catholicism is like butter; you can't just let people go on eating margarine without anyone ever telling them that butter is available too.
Why I Refuse to Vote for Barack Obama
"Is anyone looking beyond 2012?
The
future I hope for, where these actions are deal-breakers in at least one
party (I don't care which), requires some beginning, some small number
of voters to say, "These things I cannot support."
Are these issues important enough to justify a stand like that?
I think so."
Lately most of the third-party articles you read are by conservatives. So I keep hearing that third-party voters are "stealing votes from Romney" and that they are too conservative for the Republican Party. Actually, liberty is an issue far beyond left and right. The left wants to control you in one way; the right in another. Most of us would really rather not be controlled, and so when we vote right or left, it's only as a concession. I wonder what would happen if everyone who wanted liberty actually voted for it. Could we make a change?
In other news, I took captchas off the comment box. (At least I meant to; please tell me if they keep appearing because I can't tell.) So if you've been longing to comment but can't figure out the captchas (as apparently my parents have been), here's your chance. Go ahead and comment wherever you want. I'll just delete spam manually if I get any. Oh, and it's fine to comment on centuries-old posts -- I still see those comments and respond to them!
ETA: Forgot to post these two!
Marriage: America's Greatest Weapon Against Child Poverty
A ton of facts and studies that support what I've been saying recently -- having married parents is really, really important for kids.
A collection of interviews with grown unschoolers
In case you've ever wondered, "Does unschooling really turn out happy, fulfilled people who can also hold down a job?"
Showing posts with label Links. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Links. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
Friday, August 31, 2012
Some links of note
Each of these links has been waiting in my tabs for a blog post of its own. But let's be realistic -- all those blog posts are never going to get written, and I have to restart my computer sometime. So here's a blurb for each.
FDA - Interstate Raw Milk Ban
This is a ruling of the FDA in which they say that we don't have the right to eat what we want, to buy what we want from someone willing to sell it to us, or to feed our children what we want. We don't have the right to health or to freedom of contract.
Immune Disorder at the Root of Autism
I can get behind this theory, though I still maintain that autism almost certainly has more than one cause. Some cases might be genetic and others environmental, for instance. But definitely our modern immune systems tend toward inflammation, and a lack of healthy gut flora is a contributing factor. On the other hand, curing autism with worms? Ick.
Giving Birth to a "Rapist's Child"
This scholarly article was really enlightening. The main point is that there should be more legal protection for mothers who choose to raise children conceived in rape, in order to ensure the rapist is not given custody of the child. (Few states have any law on this topic at all.) But along the way, it addressed so many other stereotypes: that a woman who conceives in rape will necessarily want an abortion, that if she doesn't want an abortion it means she wasn't really raped, or that most rapists are brought to justice. (An estimated 98% aren't, and of those who are convicted, the average sentence is 11 months.) It's full of citations from scholarly sources, proving the falsehood of many of these stereotypes. And it points out that fewer rape victims might choose abortion if only they could be certain they would be given exclusive custody of their children, rather than having to take a chance on a family court ruling in their favor.
FDA - Interstate Raw Milk Ban
This is a ruling of the FDA in which they say that we don't have the right to eat what we want, to buy what we want from someone willing to sell it to us, or to feed our children what we want. We don't have the right to health or to freedom of contract.
Immune Disorder at the Root of Autism
I can get behind this theory, though I still maintain that autism almost certainly has more than one cause. Some cases might be genetic and others environmental, for instance. But definitely our modern immune systems tend toward inflammation, and a lack of healthy gut flora is a contributing factor. On the other hand, curing autism with worms? Ick.
Giving Birth to a "Rapist's Child"
This scholarly article was really enlightening. The main point is that there should be more legal protection for mothers who choose to raise children conceived in rape, in order to ensure the rapist is not given custody of the child. (Few states have any law on this topic at all.) But along the way, it addressed so many other stereotypes: that a woman who conceives in rape will necessarily want an abortion, that if she doesn't want an abortion it means she wasn't really raped, or that most rapists are brought to justice. (An estimated 98% aren't, and of those who are convicted, the average sentence is 11 months.) It's full of citations from scholarly sources, proving the falsehood of many of these stereotypes. And it points out that fewer rape victims might choose abortion if only they could be certain they would be given exclusive custody of their children, rather than having to take a chance on a family court ruling in their favor.
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Some links
I've been collecting links for months and never posting them. So most of these aren't recent. But they're also not time-sensitive, so go ahead and enjoy them!
6 Myths You Believe About Feminism
If this is what feminism is, then butter me up and call me a feminist. I don't mind. I think I agree with pretty much everything in this post.
Sourdough English Muffins
These are excellent and I've been making them a couple of times a week lately. But I must say, read all the comments before you try them. You might not want to follow the recipe exactly. (I myself mix all the ingredients the night before, except the baking soda, which I omit. Saves trouble trying to work stuff in to the sticky dough in the morning. I also skip the kneading and the rising! And I keep my stove on its next-to-lowest setting ... I'd burn them otherwise. I do them in my cast-iron and they turn out great.) The dough can also be used to make calzone/hot pocket things, so I've got some of those in my freezer for after the baby shows up.
John Paul II's Teaching Concerning Marital Submission
You know me -- always obsessing over whether or not I should be obeying my husband. He himself says it has nothing to do with him, because that part of the bible is addressed to wives and not to husbands, and there's no corresponding "husbands, boss your wives around" mandate. But I feel that, as a wife and a Catholic, it's my job to figure out what I'm supposed to do and do it. However, I also believe that men and women are absolutely equal, within marriage and elsewhere, and I cannot imagine decisions that affect both spouses being made unilaterally by one of them. That just seems wrong to me.
The good news is, John Paul II apparently wrote a lot about mutual submission, and I like what he had to say. As an added bonus, it's supported by other writings of popes and Church fathers throughout history. The St. John Chrysostom part is especially good. If this is an issue you care about, you should read the whole article ... long as it is.
The Backlash to Breast Is Best
Yes, yes, yes. The best part: "We tell women that breast is best, we tell them to breastfeed exclusively for the first six months, we even tell them it will raise their kid's IQ (and we should give that a rest), and then we send them home with formula samples, or with a baby whose throat is too sore to suckle, or a mom whose milk is delayed because of surgery, and we don't teach technique, and we are offended when a woman breastfeeds in public, so we make her feel housebound, and we don't give a mother and her partner paid leave, and we send her to go back to a workplace without on-site childcare, and so her only alternative to formula is to plug her nipples into a machine, and if she's lucky she gets periodic breaks and a "non-bathroom lactation room" in which to pump, and if she's not she gets a toilet, and so on and so forth."
In other words, we've got enough pressure. Give us support!
Freedom to Learn
I love this blog so much I can't pick a post to send you to. I've been reading through them bit by bit. Basically, it's actual science supporting what I've always felt: that children grow up better with less micromanaging, not more; that their instincts tell them what they need, and we parent better when we're responsive to those needs; and that most of our pressuring, schooling, and punishing is all backfiring.
Happy reading!
6 Myths You Believe About Feminism
If this is what feminism is, then butter me up and call me a feminist. I don't mind. I think I agree with pretty much everything in this post.
Sourdough English Muffins
These are excellent and I've been making them a couple of times a week lately. But I must say, read all the comments before you try them. You might not want to follow the recipe exactly. (I myself mix all the ingredients the night before, except the baking soda, which I omit. Saves trouble trying to work stuff in to the sticky dough in the morning. I also skip the kneading and the rising! And I keep my stove on its next-to-lowest setting ... I'd burn them otherwise. I do them in my cast-iron and they turn out great.) The dough can also be used to make calzone/hot pocket things, so I've got some of those in my freezer for after the baby shows up.
John Paul II's Teaching Concerning Marital Submission
You know me -- always obsessing over whether or not I should be obeying my husband. He himself says it has nothing to do with him, because that part of the bible is addressed to wives and not to husbands, and there's no corresponding "husbands, boss your wives around" mandate. But I feel that, as a wife and a Catholic, it's my job to figure out what I'm supposed to do and do it. However, I also believe that men and women are absolutely equal, within marriage and elsewhere, and I cannot imagine decisions that affect both spouses being made unilaterally by one of them. That just seems wrong to me.
The good news is, John Paul II apparently wrote a lot about mutual submission, and I like what he had to say. As an added bonus, it's supported by other writings of popes and Church fathers throughout history. The St. John Chrysostom part is especially good. If this is an issue you care about, you should read the whole article ... long as it is.
The Backlash to Breast Is Best
Yes, yes, yes. The best part: "We tell women that breast is best, we tell them to breastfeed exclusively for the first six months, we even tell them it will raise their kid's IQ (and we should give that a rest), and then we send them home with formula samples, or with a baby whose throat is too sore to suckle, or a mom whose milk is delayed because of surgery, and we don't teach technique, and we are offended when a woman breastfeeds in public, so we make her feel housebound, and we don't give a mother and her partner paid leave, and we send her to go back to a workplace without on-site childcare, and so her only alternative to formula is to plug her nipples into a machine, and if she's lucky she gets periodic breaks and a "non-bathroom lactation room" in which to pump, and if she's not she gets a toilet, and so on and so forth."
In other words, we've got enough pressure. Give us support!
Freedom to Learn
I love this blog so much I can't pick a post to send you to. I've been reading through them bit by bit. Basically, it's actual science supporting what I've always felt: that children grow up better with less micromanaging, not more; that their instincts tell them what they need, and we parent better when we're responsive to those needs; and that most of our pressuring, schooling, and punishing is all backfiring.
Happy reading!
Thursday, November 17, 2011
Ooh, good stuff on the internet!
I was doing my usual meandering around the internet this morning when I found a series of really cool blog posts that I totally agree with. They're about the role of women and moms.
You know I'm a stay-at-home mom and I'm pretty vocal about my support for that choice. But it's really about the kids having a parent with them, not about "my role as a woman." So I'm okay with stay-at-home dads and working moms. I don't see that it makes a huge difference. We've had some debate on that topic in the combox recently, which has been fun.
This woman here agrees with me. Start with her post In which I am a working mother and proud of it. And then, if that piques your interest, try this: In which I wonder what it means to be "keeper of the home." And if you're not tired of the topic, read her conclusion here: In which I am a keeper of my home.
The summary is more or less this: God does not give us a commandment that women have to stay home. We do what we do because we feel it is God's will for us for that time, and it can change without changing our essence.
At some point I really should start writing about this issue more myself. When I was younger, I was only ever exposed to the "liberal" point of view, which seemed to consider stay-at-home moms poor, oppressed slaves to the housework, while working women were triumphant and happy in their freedom from having to be with their kids. So naturally I spent my time emphasizing the importance of women who stay home with their kids. But now I keep reading fundamentalist blog after fundamentalist blog (seriously, why do I read this stuff? it's a sickness) and seeing people lay down the law on everyone and insisting that not only do women not need a career, regardless of their season of life, but they don't need an education either, and while we're at it, they should be under the headship of a man from cradle to grave. And that gets my dander up even worse, so that I start sounding like quite the liberal feminist. I see it as a matter of balance, and I have to defend that balance from both extremes.
Speaking of extremes. Check out this list of questions a dad should ask a young man who shows interest in his daughter. The Spanish Inquisition has nothing on this guy.
I did have John call my dad before he escorted me to a dance in freshman year. In retrospect, it was kind of silly to make him do that, seeing as it wasn't even really meant as a date. But my dad's only real question was, "Are you a Knight of Columbus? No? Oh, too bad." He may have asked some other stuff. But the conversation took five minutes, because (as my dad told me later), "If a guy holds up to your standards, there's no chance of him falling short of mine."
Let me tell you, if I were a guy and knew an interview like that was in store for me, I'd probably flee the country. My goodness. Some favorites: "Describe your standards of dress for women." (Isn't that more a question you would ask a woman?) "Have you ever been exposed to pornography? If so, explain the extent and the circumstances." (Awkward.) "What has been your prior experience with dating and romance? Have you ever kissed or been physically intimate in any way with a girl/woman? If so, explain the circumstances." (I'm not sure it's a father-in-law's business if the guy has kissed someone before. I could see the girl herself wanting to ask. But since this blog says that the "first affectionate touch" should be within marriage, well ... I guess it seemed an acceptable thing to ask.)
Well, I guess I've given you plenty to read. Enjoy, and I'd love to hear your opinions when you get back.
You know I'm a stay-at-home mom and I'm pretty vocal about my support for that choice. But it's really about the kids having a parent with them, not about "my role as a woman." So I'm okay with stay-at-home dads and working moms. I don't see that it makes a huge difference. We've had some debate on that topic in the combox recently, which has been fun.
This woman here agrees with me. Start with her post In which I am a working mother and proud of it. And then, if that piques your interest, try this: In which I wonder what it means to be "keeper of the home." And if you're not tired of the topic, read her conclusion here: In which I am a keeper of my home.
The summary is more or less this: God does not give us a commandment that women have to stay home. We do what we do because we feel it is God's will for us for that time, and it can change without changing our essence.
At some point I really should start writing about this issue more myself. When I was younger, I was only ever exposed to the "liberal" point of view, which seemed to consider stay-at-home moms poor, oppressed slaves to the housework, while working women were triumphant and happy in their freedom from having to be with their kids. So naturally I spent my time emphasizing the importance of women who stay home with their kids. But now I keep reading fundamentalist blog after fundamentalist blog (seriously, why do I read this stuff? it's a sickness) and seeing people lay down the law on everyone and insisting that not only do women not need a career, regardless of their season of life, but they don't need an education either, and while we're at it, they should be under the headship of a man from cradle to grave. And that gets my dander up even worse, so that I start sounding like quite the liberal feminist. I see it as a matter of balance, and I have to defend that balance from both extremes.
Speaking of extremes. Check out this list of questions a dad should ask a young man who shows interest in his daughter. The Spanish Inquisition has nothing on this guy.
I did have John call my dad before he escorted me to a dance in freshman year. In retrospect, it was kind of silly to make him do that, seeing as it wasn't even really meant as a date. But my dad's only real question was, "Are you a Knight of Columbus? No? Oh, too bad." He may have asked some other stuff. But the conversation took five minutes, because (as my dad told me later), "If a guy holds up to your standards, there's no chance of him falling short of mine."
Let me tell you, if I were a guy and knew an interview like that was in store for me, I'd probably flee the country. My goodness. Some favorites: "Describe your standards of dress for women." (Isn't that more a question you would ask a woman?) "Have you ever been exposed to pornography? If so, explain the extent and the circumstances." (Awkward.) "What has been your prior experience with dating and romance? Have you ever kissed or been physically intimate in any way with a girl/woman? If so, explain the circumstances." (I'm not sure it's a father-in-law's business if the guy has kissed someone before. I could see the girl herself wanting to ask. But since this blog says that the "first affectionate touch" should be within marriage, well ... I guess it seemed an acceptable thing to ask.)
Well, I guess I've given you plenty to read. Enjoy, and I'd love to hear your opinions when you get back.
Monday, January 24, 2011
Links
A couple of interesting links I found recently:
The Over-Parenting Crisis (Kate Ganju)
A lot of people assume that "attachment parenting" means following our kids around and doing everything for them. Ganju argues that attachment parenting is about responding to your kids' needs, not obsessively training them to excel. I completely agree -- for me, responding to my kid's needs has meant letting him play a lot on the floor, right from infancy, because that's what he wanted. I have a very independent and curious son -- and the credit for all his accomplishments goes to him, not me!
A Baby's Best Start (Faith & Family)
So I wasn't the only one who thought it was a little contradictory to be pro-choice and anti-spanking or circumcision. True "gentle parenting" means respecting the rights of children from the very beginning.
The Grand Rapids Fluoride Study (Hartke Is Online)
I don't know if our water is fluorinated, but after reading this, I hope it isn't. The evidence just doesn't support mass supplementation through the water supply.
Well, I *blank* and My Kids Are Just Fine (Guggie Daily)
The author makes a good point -- that we, as a nation, are not "just fine," and we need to change what we're doing instead of assuming that what we've done in the past is working.
Happy reading!
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Interesting article on education
I'm sicker 'n a dog right now, as my grandma would say, so the book review I've been working on for you will have to wait until I recover from the virus that's got me down. (Yup, this time it's not the kiddo -- it's the side effects of being a teacher. I was sick all last winter, too -- one cold after another.)
So, to make it up to you, I'm posting a link to this intriguing article on education in America. If you know me, you know that I am in favor of homeschooling -- that all my time teaching in institutionalized schools has only served to solidify my distrust of them. As the writer of this article says, schoolwork is largely busywork. Learning seems to happen very little.
However, at least in the Catholic schools where I've taught, this isn't part of any conspiracy. It's simply in response to the fact that it is easier to teach large groups with busywork. Furthermore, it is easier to grade them with tests. And students raised on lots of tests learn for the test, study to the test, and forget after the test. Any time I would try to make them think, to analyze, to wonder, inevitably they would smack me back to reality with a raised hand. "Will this be on the test?" And if you answer "no," they tune out instantly.
Luckily the younger kids are not yet so conditioned, and I try to avoid doing so. Yet it is almost impossible to teach them without streamlining them more than is good for each of them individually. It's a case of "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few," so I have to hurry one up who is still struggling to understand and force one to wait who has grasped the material days ago, even though I long to teach to each of them.
I can't testify to what this author says about public schools, never having taught at one, and having little memory of anything I learned while going to one. In my experience, public school teachers are enthusiastic and try extremely hard to break the pattern of busywork and failure that cripples their students. However, there seems to be something intrinsic in the structure of schools, even in the nature of any school so long as it is institutionalized, that makes this pattern almost impossible to break. Schools seem to encourage mediocrity, blind and thoughtless acceptance instead of critical thinking, and learning that only lasts until the exam.
So, read the article and tell me what you think. I know it does seem a little extreme in parts. But whether there is an agenda behind the failure of schools or not, the failure is just as evident, and the author's solution is just as necessary.
So, to make it up to you, I'm posting a link to this intriguing article on education in America. If you know me, you know that I am in favor of homeschooling -- that all my time teaching in institutionalized schools has only served to solidify my distrust of them. As the writer of this article says, schoolwork is largely busywork. Learning seems to happen very little.
However, at least in the Catholic schools where I've taught, this isn't part of any conspiracy. It's simply in response to the fact that it is easier to teach large groups with busywork. Furthermore, it is easier to grade them with tests. And students raised on lots of tests learn for the test, study to the test, and forget after the test. Any time I would try to make them think, to analyze, to wonder, inevitably they would smack me back to reality with a raised hand. "Will this be on the test?" And if you answer "no," they tune out instantly.
Luckily the younger kids are not yet so conditioned, and I try to avoid doing so. Yet it is almost impossible to teach them without streamlining them more than is good for each of them individually. It's a case of "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few," so I have to hurry one up who is still struggling to understand and force one to wait who has grasped the material days ago, even though I long to teach to each of them.
I can't testify to what this author says about public schools, never having taught at one, and having little memory of anything I learned while going to one. In my experience, public school teachers are enthusiastic and try extremely hard to break the pattern of busywork and failure that cripples their students. However, there seems to be something intrinsic in the structure of schools, even in the nature of any school so long as it is institutionalized, that makes this pattern almost impossible to break. Schools seem to encourage mediocrity, blind and thoughtless acceptance instead of critical thinking, and learning that only lasts until the exam.
So, read the article and tell me what you think. I know it does seem a little extreme in parts. But whether there is an agenda behind the failure of schools or not, the failure is just as evident, and the author's solution is just as necessary.
Monday, August 24, 2009
Think about it ....
From xkcd.com. I used to think this way too (perhaps due to a little too much Ayn Rand) when it suddenly occurred to me that it was a prideful point of view. Why should I assume my fellowman knows less than I do or thinks less than I do? When I tried working an honest living (cleaning houses) for a summer, I learned that the "average person" seems to be a pretty decent sort. Like me, he can be deceived, but like me, he tries not to be. I could be good friends with the average person.
Sorry about the sporadic updates ... I am working on a big project that is going to be a surprise. I promise to tell you all about it when it's done -- or at least, more done than it is right now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
