Strollerderby : NYTimes

Married vs. Single Moms: Who's Got it Easier?

Madeline Holler — Sat, 23 May 2009 19:04:00 GMT

One could hardly envy a single mother if she's struggling emotionally or financially. But what about single mothers who are doing fine? Have you ever found yourself thinking she's lucky? She has it so much better -- so much easier -- than the married mothers out there?

Over at Motherlode blog in the NY Times, Lisa Belkin asked: which is easier, parenting alone or with a partner?

She pulls from a few other blogs and Katie Kowalski, of the Orlando Sentinel, had this argument in favor of being a single mom:

I like that no one complains when I leave my sweaty workout clothes on the bathroom floor overnight, or that no one cares when I decide that it’s going to be cereal for dinner (again). Some might call that a lack of accountability on my part — but hey, don’t we all do better work when someone isn’t looking over our shoulder?

I already have a bossy little girl who demands that I sing the Tigger song 100 times a day, and who regularly bullies me out of my breakfast. The last thing I need is a man who needs…. well, anything that takes effort on my part.

That may be how relationships work for Kowalski, but I would argue some partners may be better than others. Feeling watched and/or burdened by one's other half does make a good case for building a family of just mom and the kids.

That aside, I'll admit I've envied some single moms. Shared custody, to my tired eyes, has its benefits. Namely, visitation! Those nights/weeks/weekends/summers where the kids pack off to live in their other home. Ahhhh, sleep. Ahhhh, benders. Ahhhh, French fries and mayonnaise for dinner.

Perhaps I'm oversimplifying the matter.

Anyway, let's hear it. Single moms? Are you secretly (or openly) relieved to be the only one in charge? Any smug marrieds secretly (no, really, secretly!) jealous of your single-mom/dad friends?

India Baby Boom: Surrogate Birth Every 48 Hours

How Fertile Couples Outsmarted Wall Street

Michael Pollan Doesn't Know if He was Breastfed!

They Say: Moms, It's Still Your Fault. Well, Yours and Daycare

Top 10 Pregnancy and Birth World Records

City's 5th Co-Sleeping Death in 10 Weeks Reported

550-Pound Woman Gives Birth

Photo: single-parent-project.com

If This Guy's Going Broke, is There Hope for the Rest of Us?

Madeline Holler — Fri, 15 May 2009 20:33:00 GMT

Edmund L. Andrews, New York Times economics reporter, has written about the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke and Alan Greenspan for the last six years. Before that, he covered the Asian financial crisis in 1997, the Russia meltdown in 1998 and the dot-com collapse in 2000. He knows a little somethng about money, markets, and big time financial meltdowns.

In this week's Times magazine, he writes about his own. And it makes you kind of wonder, if this guy is headed toward financial ruin, is there any hope for the rest of us?

Why? How? In his words:

As for me, I had two utterly compelling reasons for taking the plunge [and buying a house he could not afford]: the money was there, and I was in love. It was August 2004, just as the mortgage party was getting really good. I was 48 years old and eager to start a new chapter in my life with Patricia Barreiro, who was then my fiancée.

Hindsight being 20-20 and all, you can't help but wave your hands and say, "dude, you take home $2,300 a month ... don't sign the papers!" The fact that his wife keeps buying him new shirts and charging $700 in clothes for the kids at J.Crew is also difficult to overlook when I, myself, fashion the loved ones in clearance goods from Old Navy and Target. Then again, I rent.

But that's all part of his point and actually I'm glad he was willing to share such details.

Now, maybe Andrews can turn his bad money situation around. Out next month is his book: Busted: Life Inside the Great Mortgage Meltdown. I'm sure the whole family is hoping for a bestseller.

I wonder, does this look like your life? Your neighbor's?

Federal Agent* Seizes Oat-Based Contraband

Judge to Deadbeats: Watch 'Maury' or Go to Jail

Mom Gives 9-Year-Old Marijuana

Crocheted Doll Gives Birth

Should You Take Your Bump on a Date?

Photo: NY Times

They Say: Boy Births More Complicated

Madeline Holler — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 22:27:00 GMT

No, not boys giving birth (anyway, he wouldn't agree). But giving birth to boys is apparently more complicated than giving birth to girls, a new study out of Irsael claims.

These findings lend credence to the old wives tale that I had never before heard, which is that a difficult pregnancy means the baby will be a boy. (Anybody hear that one?)

After looking at 66,000 births, researchers at Tel Aviv University found a slightly greater risk for prematurity or c-section delivery for boy births than for girls. This backed up the findings of study a decade ago, which found males births were a 1.5 times more likely to get stuck in the birth canal.

From the NY Times:

Scientists point out that these findings do not indicate that male births are necessarily “high risk,” just slightly more risky than female births. One reason, it seems, is the larger head size of male babies. But there is speculation that other factors, like higher levels of androgens, may also play a role.

Any midwives, nurses, docs, doulas, etc., etc., have their own intuition on this?

By the way, I've also heard boys grow up and never call home, too. Can someone study that because I just had a son and thinking of that makes me panic.

'The Kinda Sutra': Where Did You Think Babies Came From?

Stay-At-Home Moms are the Best, Aren't They!

Photo: dailymail.co.uk

Quest for Sons in One-Child China Fuels Abductions

Madeline Holler — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 21:24:00 GMT

China's one-child policy, its cultural predilection for boys and the fact that there are tons of immigrant workers in the big industrial cities has created a problem that is just so unimaginable to any parent: children are being abducted and sold to other families who, in fact, love them and take good care of them.

Why? Because these kids are boys. And if you can reproduce your own male heir, you just go find one and take it.

The New York Times ran a piece over the weekend that makes you want to rend your garments, it's so frustrating and unfair and seemingly impossible to stop.

From the Times:

Su Qingcai, a tea farmer from the mountainous coast of Fujian Province, explained why he spent $3,500 last year on a 5-year-old boy. “A girl is just not as good as a son,” said Mr. Su, 38, who has a 14-year-old daughter but whose biological son died at 3 months. “It doesn’t matter how much money you have. If you don’t have a son, you are not as good as other people who have one.”

So abduction rings are snatching boys from the arms of their siblings or luring them away by mangoes. Police claim they have to wait 24 hours before they can investigate a missing persons report, yet claim too much time has passed once they can officially look into it. They're also reluctant to open an investigation, since these cases are rarely resolved at that hurts their stats.

Girls aren't safe from abducation either, the leader of an ad hoc group for parents of abducted children, claims. He said they're sold to orphanages where they are later adopted out to families in the U.S. and Europe.

Even though the Communist Party helped change the old attitudes about gender, a male heir is still important, especially in rural areas where, if a resident's first child is a girl, she is allowed to have a second. However, a third child means fines of almost $6,000 and loss of the job. So buying a boy baby is cheap by comparison.

And sort of acceptable!

From the Times:

... authorities may turn a blind eye if the child does not need to be registered as a new birth in the locale.

In some cases, local officials may even encourage people desperate for a son to buy one. After their 3-month-old son died, Zhou Xiuqin said, the village family planning official went to her home and tried to comfort her and her husband, who was compelled to have a vasectomy after the birth of the boy, their second child. “He said, ‘Don’t cry, stop crying, you can always buy another one,’ ” Ms. Zhou recalled.

Such complicity explains why boys as old as 5 don't raise any eyebrows when they suddenly show up in a village with their new family.

More Posts

Parents of Injured Children become an Emerging Political Force in China

Church School Teaches Kids to Swear

As the Cookie Crumbles: Crabmommy Goes Bye-Bye

Photo:NYTimes.com

They Say: Our Children Will Grow Up to be Boring

Madeline Holler — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 14:30:00 GMT

I sort of think sociology can get a little hocus-pocus, but I do love sweeping generalizations that, at the very least, give us a new perspective, a glimpse into the future, or, in case my kids turn out to be straight-laced, snoozy, corporate drones, something to blame besides my unskilled mothering.

I won't be to blame! That's if there's anything to this New York Times article on how the current economy -- what some are calling "The Great Recession" -- might shape our children and their adult lives.

The story starts by looking back at what was said about the young adults of the 1950s. Born into the Great Depression, they grew up to be "The Silent Generation," all cautious and low-risk -- think 30-year mortgages, jobs with pensions, Donna Reed, Ralph Nader and his seatbelts. Think Frank Wheeler in "Revolutionary Road." Think Don Draper.

So what to make of "Generation Recession," children who are just now graduating high school and college, those you might be pregnant with now and well into the future (depending on how long these bad times last), and every age group in between.

If kids of the Great Depression tell us anything, how the kids of the Great Recession turn out will depend on which end of the recession they were born at. So this year's college grads? They'll have a little of the power-spending Bush years in them. They'll be creative now that they face rising unemployment and diminishing prospects. They'll figure out how to move around with a nothing-left-to-lose attitude (including moving back in with their parents). They'll also turn into do-gooders, joining up with the Peace Corps, Americorps, work for government, etc., etc. They're even becoming teachers because it looks more fun and purposeful than, say, Wall Street.

But our newborns? Their toddler siblings? The baby you hope to have in five years? Well, they'll be scarred for life from this super-recession and will have to pay the ultimate price: they're gonna be BORRRR-ing.

From the Times:

Children in the stagflated 1970s, meanwhile, grew up in the too-much-information age of Judy Blume. As Mr. Howe quotes one: “Our parents gave us answers to questions we never asked.” The system that produced Watergate had failed everyone, the lesson was to be a free agent, to take risks. Even today, Mr. Howe said, lottery officials report that those Gen Xers are their biggest customers.

But when it comes to raising their children, the pendulum has swung. Today’s youngest children — the recession babies — are being raised in the same kind of protective bubble as the Depression babies. (When Mr. Howe’s Web site did a contest to name this next generation a few years ago, the winner was “the homelanders,” as in security). They stroll in sidewalk versions of sport utility vehicles, learn to swim in U.V. protective full-body suits.

Could there be a worse outcome for a Gen-X mother? Actually, yes: a return to "traditional values," which these writers and researchers also predict.

Photo: reelmovienews.com

Fun Stuff To Do When The Kids Get Older

Brett Singer — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 23:30:00 GMT

Pictured here are a mother and her son. What's happening in this photo? Have they just received horrible news about a family member? Are they watching Joaquin Phoenix's Letterman interview, or Hugh Jackman's opening number at the Oscars? Or is it something far more sinister?

Give up? They're just trying to figure out college financial aid forms. Something to look forward to when the kids grow up.

I must admit that I did not at all appreciate what my mother had to deal with financially when I went to college. Unless you have a dump truck full of money lying around, it's not that easy to just write a check and forget about it. With college costs going up and up and up, and our savings going down down down, filling out those forms is something that we all might have to do when the time comes.

Source: NY Times

Heath Ledger's Daughter Gets His Oscar

Kid Forced To Stand In Public Square For Bad Grades

Your Assignment for This Weekend

Madeline Holler — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 00:01:00 GMT

Even if you don't get cable TV -- and no judgment if you don't! -- you won't likely be negatively affected by the upcoming digital TV conversion. Why not? Because you're at least minimally tech savvy (you're reading a website, so I'm just assuming ...) and you're television is probably from this millennium.

But know who will be affected? Your grandma, her friends, maybe that old guy who lives one floor down. Anybody who is not familiar with software menus and a little tech talk. Because no matter what those public service announcements say, converting to digital is NOT that simple.

Just plug and go, right? No. Not at all. You plug and then go ... to a menu of options with lots of different terms like "analog" and "digital" and "scanning for channels" and "do you want to quit" and then a bunch of other stuff even you don't know the function of. To even get to the menu of options that I am invisioning many seniors won't understand anyway, you have to know where to find a menu. Also, they'll need to use a remote for the digital box, not the familiar one that came with their now ancient TV.

Everything you hear about the problems with the conversion focus on the $40 coupons now no longer available to offset the cost of the digital box. What doesn't get mentioned are this middle steps, which won't be intuitive to many of the folks affected.

So why am I writing about this on a parenting website? Because grandparents and that old guy are/were/might be parents too. And anyway, we're the sandwich generation -- we take care of kids AND adults. So you need to check and make sure the aging adults you know are all set to go. You need to walk them through it over the phone or spend some very frustrating minutes over at their house, in front of that dinosaur in a wooden cabinet, getting them all set up.

Also, even with the digital box, if they were using an antenna before, they'll need it now more than ever. A lot of the digital signals are in need of boosting, which will cost money and isn't likely to happen. So expect some channels to no longer come in.

Congress has really downplayed this and I think made a mistake by not delaying the conversion. Sure, a lot of people will just bail and get cable. But in this economy, some people can't or won't.

The only thing sadder than an old person who sits around watching TV all day is an old person watching a blank screen all day.

There, I said my piece. Now go do your thing!

Photo: NYTimes.com

Don't Call Her "Grandma," Call Her "Napa"!

Would You Want Octuplets?

Did You Give Your Son a Criminal's Name?

The New State of Children's Health Care

Desperately Seeking . . . Grandparents

Pregnant Tenant Evicted For Criticizing Landlord Online?

Brett Singer — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 01:54:00 GMT

David Griffiths, whose wife Katy is pregnant, was told that the lease on his Queens apartment would not be renewed. As a result, the couple moved from a "luxury tower" to a "Brooklyn walkup," according to the New York Times.

No matter how luxurious the tower, I bet it has an elevator, which beats the heck out of a walkup. Especially when you are pregnant. Oh, and after you have the baby. Ever try getting a stroller, a kid AND groceries up five flights of stairs? It's really fun. And by "really fun" I mean "a recipe for back injury."

So why was the couple tossed out, with the landlord requesting that they… never… return? Because Mr. Griffiths said unkind things online about the landlord, Rockrose Development Corporation. (Allegedly. He was evicted for this reason allegedly.)

Griffiths claims that a Rockrose employee told him, "Dave, we understand that you’re not happy living here, so we made the decision for you." Rockrose denies this, although they do admit that they decline to renew about 10 tenants every year for being, well, annoying. Rockrose's senior vice president for marketing, Sofia Estevez, uses the words "hothead and a troublemaker." (Non-rent regulated apartment dwellers do not have to be offered lease renewals; it's only the person paying $300/month for an Upper West Side two bedroom that can't be thrown out – but I digress.) Estevez told that Times that there was no evidence that Griffiths had been a troublemaker, but – and here's the kicker – "that a Rockrose employee does monitor tenant complaints on the Web."

Monitoring customer complaints can be a good thing. For example, Comcast employee Frank Eliason is, as one blogger put it, "helping Comcast suck a little bit less" by responding to complaints via Twitter. But if Rockrose actually declined to renew a lease because of something someone wrote about them online, that's a really bad idea. An even worse idea is telling the tenant that.

There's another part of this, of course, which is that perhaps it's not such a good idea to be posting comments about your landlord online. It may be legal but why bother?

The issue with the wife being pregnant makes it more interesting, since that will probably help the couple get some sympathy votes that they might not otherwise receive. It's one thing for a landlord to tell some dopey 23-year-old to get lost. But a mom-to-be? Watch out. (Note: that is, obviously, not a legal opinion.)

Source: NY Times

Morning News - Obama, Limbaugh, Cheese

Sarah Palin Says Leave My Kids Alone

Ann Coulter Says Single Moms Are Bad For Society

New Pro Vaccine Book Author Getting Death Threats

Kid Named Hitler Taken From His Parents By Family Services

Should Smoking Be Banned In Cars With Kids?

Brett Singer — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 17:00:00 GMT

So. We have third-hand smoke. It's bad. And so on. More fuel for anti-smoking activists. And when someone says, "We're protecting helpless children!" that makes it harder to argue that they are intruding into our personal lives. Right?

A town in Washington State (can't ban smoking in D.C. – Obama's a smoker!) is considering a bill that would ban smoking in cars with children.
From the AP: "A member of the Tobacco Advisory Board of Pierce County, Leonard Sanderson, told The Olympian the proposal would make it a secondary offense, meaning smoking drivers could be ticketed if they were pulled over for another offense, such as speeding."

I was surprised to learn that California, Arkansas, Louisiana and Maine have all made smoking in cars that have kids in them against the law.

Here's the problem. There's no doubt that smoking around children is bad for their health. I get it. But unless you make smoking illegal (not gonna happen), how is this not a privacy violation? You can't drink and drive, but that's all the time, not just around children. Talking on a cell phone while driving has been deemed dangerous, so most states have laws that say you have to wear a headset. Driving without a seatbelt is dangerous, so if you don't wear a seatbelt, you get a ticket. And so on. None of those laws, however, are specific to children.

Does the law apply to your own children? What about other people's kids? Can you smoke in the car when there are no kids there? Now that we know about third-hand smoke, won't the little tykes be at risk anyway if they ride in a car that was, at one time or another, smoked in? And at what age is it safe to be exposed to second-hand smoke?

And how about bacon, or other smoked meats? Those aren't good for children, right? I mean, come on.

(In case you were wondering, most of that was me going off the deep end for comic effect. Thank you. Tip your waitresses.)

I think it would be great if nobody smoked. It's unhealthy, creates enormous costs for health insurers as those smokers age, and there's the second-hand, third-hand, and fourth-hand (just wait, it'll happen) smoke to contend with. It's a bad habit. But it's still legal. Until it isn't, this seems like an unreasonable law, like the one about smokers not being allowed foster children (which, considering that some kids are writing letters to woo potential foster parents, seems like an unfair restriction).

What do you think? Is this too much of an invasion of privacy? Or does it not matter if it's to "protect our children"?

Source: AP via nwsource.com

Image: Church Times

On Jett Travolta, Howard Stern Gets It Right

Grieving Chinese Parents Not Allowed To Sue

They Say -- Kids Who Skip Breakfast and Hate Mom Have Sex Sooner

They Say -- Vaccines Work

Newbery Winners Decrease in Diversity in Recent Years

Kid Woos Prospective Foster Parents With Letters

Third Hand Smoke Can Harm Your Kids

Brett Singer — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 15:00:00 GMT

Do you smoke, or do you know someone who smokes? Do you think your kids will be OK as long as they don't smoke around them?

Well, you're wrong.

Everyone knows about second-hand smoke. It's easy to avoid – just don't spend time with smokers when they are, in fact, smoking. However, there's a new danger – third-hand smoke. This new term, coined by doctors from Boston's MassGeneral Hospital for Children, describes, "the invisible yet toxic brew of gases and particles clinging to smokers’ hair and clothing, not to mention cushions and carpeting, that lingers long after smoke has cleared from a room."

And it gets even more fun: "The residue includes heavy metals, carcinogens and even radioactive materials that young children can get on their hands and ingest, especially if they’re crawling or playing on the floor." Cuz kids never play on the floor.

Dr. Philip Landrigan of the Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York added, "simply closing the kitchen door to take a smoke is not protecting the kids from the effects of that smoke." See, that much I think people knew. But that gross lingering scent that clings to your clothes and hair after you spend time at a bar that still allows people to puff away freely? Who knew that was dangerous too?

So what to do? Avoid smokers? Avoid rooms where smokers have been? Don't go anywhere that smokers congregate? Live in a literal bubble?

I've found that avoiding smoke is fairly easy, but I do know people who smoke. And they smell like it. The fact that's more than just gross might make me think twice before I let them in my house to sit on my furniture. That should be a fun conversation.

Source: NYTimes

Image: MSNBC

Who Buys The Baby Products In Your House?

They Say -- Kids Who Skip Breakfast and Hate Mom Have Sex Sooner

They Say -- Vaccines Work

Grieving Chinese Parents Not Allowed To Sue

World Famous Atheist To Write Children's Book

Brett Singer — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 18:00:00 GMT

Richard Dawkins hates fairies. That's not a homosexual slur. He also hates "wizards and magic wands and things turning into other things." And he's not sure if children should be exposed to such ideas.

From the New York Times:

Having sufficiently inflamed the passions of his adult readers with “The God Delusion,” his treatise on rationalism and atheism, the evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins…is writing a book for children. Dr. Dawkins said [the] book that would explore children’s relationships with fairy tales and encourage them to think about the world scientifically rather than mythologically. “I would like to know whether there’s any evidence that bringing children up to believe in spells and wizards and magic wands and things turning into other things — it is unscientific, I think it’s antiscientific…Whether that has a pernicious effect, I don’t know.”

It's important to note that the book does not have a publisher or release date, according to the New York Times. But Dawkins' "The God Delusion" has sold quite well, so if he does pen something along the lines of, "Stop Believing in Wizards You Dopey Kid" or "The Harry Potter Delusion", he'll probably find someone willing to print it.

The blog GBG Atheist News (GBG stands for "god be gone") has a post from 2007 that quotes Dawkins as saying, "i might try to do a children's book about how to think for yourself and how to ask questions about interesting topics and how you might go about answering them, Which might be subversive to religion but i don't think would be explicit about that" (apologies for punctuation; apparently this particular group of atheists don't capitalize the letter "I" and do whatever they feel like doing with commas). Dawkins recently said that Harry Potter and other stories "could have a 'pernicious' effect on children." (dailymail)

Interestingly, there are some people who dislike the Potter books because they feel they are anti-religious -- those who think it promotes witchcraft and/or Satanism and/or other evil things. (Like these fun folks who burned a pile of Potter books.)

Obviously if a child is 14 and still believes firmly that fairies exist, that might be a bit odd. But I think it's a parent's job to dispel any "delusions" before they become problematic. Heck, I believed in Santa Claus for the first few years of my life, and I'm Jewish. I turned out OK.

Source: nytimes
Image: dailymail

Is The Incredible Flying Baby Video Real?

Guy Changes Name to Captain Fantastic

Joe Biden Is Our First Catholic Vice President

Chicago Woman Lived With Dead Siblings For 20 Years

Woman Swings Crowbar At Trick Or Treaters

Smokers No Longer Allowed Foster Children

If You're Not Birthing at Home, You're Irritated With Women Who Do

Madeline Holler — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 18:02:00 GMT

Seems like you can't swing a freshly born placenta without hitting another story on home birth these days. Take this recent one in the New York Times about the growing number of women who are planning home births around NYC.

The article is especially notable to me for a couple of reasons: none of the couples say they wanted a home birth for spiritual/religious/back-to-nature reasons, or because hospitals won't let them burn sage and snack on placenta in the L&D room.

Not that I think those reasons are ridiculous (OK, I do), but because those stereotypes have such a prominent place in home birth talk and assume characteristics and beliefs about women who, like me, choose to give birth at home.

So I get a little defensive, then, when I read posts like this one from Jezebel's Tracie. She says you'll have one of two reactions to the Times piece: you'll like it or you'll hate it. If you hated it, it's because you find "unconventional" births gross. If you liked it, it's because you think the article was yet another celebration of the miracle of life.

Really? Just one or the other?

Tracie also warns the story is graphic (it's totally not. In fact, what's shocking is how all these laboring women are photographed fully clothed). She even enlarges the picture of a laboring woman's sister who is, in Tracie's words, horrified by "watching her sister's vagina go whoosh." Honestly, the chick just looks a little tired (the labor was a long one). Plus -- and I feel awkward tutoring a writer for Jezebel (Jezebel!) on lady parts -- vaginas don't go "whoosh" in birth (granted, it's a damn shame they don't!).

Tracie's and many of the commenters' other big problem with NYC apartment dwellers giving birth at home is the noise factor for neighbors, which the article brings up. Thing is, noise didn't wind up being a factor for any of them, and it's not so surprising.

Listen, people. A 40-hour labor does not entail 40 hours of screaming. In fact, a 40-hour labor more likely entails 39.75 hours of sitting in the tub, peeing on the toilet, light conversation, off and on contracting -- and then a final 15 minutes of grunting or growling, maaaaaaaybe a scream (in 15-second intervals every, what, one or two minutes?).

You probably hear more sustained moans and groans from the couple getting it on on the other side of the wall. Just saying.

But I don't blame Tracie and all the commenters, etc., because really, who even knows about how minimally messy, un-noisy, un-dangerous birth can be? Unless you've seen a birth or talked to women who have had low-key hospital or home births, all you've got is Hollywood and there, well, there you have to have screaming and profuse sweating and swearing and "I'm hacking off your balls"-ing and lots and lots of blood. For laughs, you know, and drama.

Still, what I find so baffling is that women whose trade is writing about women stuff, calling out hate on women-haters, professing a love of women who think their bodies are just fine, women who take on the man (or at least ignore him,), etc., just shut down when it comes to birthing outside the medical model. Why is home birth -- or even unmedicated birth -- of all things, such an assinine plan and seeming threat to the way other women live and have babies?

Finally, a pet peeve: terms "water birth" and "home birth" used interchangeably. Look, the inflatable tubs that Tracie (and, OK, the article) kind of obsess over? Just think of those as the epidural, which is, in fact, how they're used -- to ease the pain of labor (sounds ridiculous but works pretty well). An actual water birth happens when the baby is pushed out in the tub (or when you're swimmig with dolphins -- WTF?), not when you've only labored in water.

PS: The point of the article (and the original point of my post) was that lots of home birth families are wildly educated, non-spiritual, meat-eating lawyers, bankers, bloggers and writers -- professionals who aren't scared of birth and/or just want to stay out of hospitals and away from hospital protocols that just don't make sense. But looks like that doesn't come through so much in the article, which, again let me add, is so not graphic.

My Illegal Home Birth

Five Movies You Shouldn't Watch While Pregnant

Is Home Birth a Civil Right?

What Does It Mean for Midwives, or Home Birth, to Be Illegal?

Photo: NYTimes

Is Barack Obama Anti-Video Games?

Brett Singer — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 23:00:00 GMT

Not everyone is overjoyed that Barack Obama was elected the 44th President of the United States last week. (Was it only last week?)

Of course there are people who voted for John McCain. They're not too thrilled. But some hardcore video game players are concerned that our new President-elect may not be so friendly to their favorite pastime.

From the New York Times:

"Blog posts scoring Mr. Obama’s positions on video games have received hundreds of comments, with some readers worrying that his admonitions during the campaign to 'put the video games away' signaled new regulations or restrictions on the industry."

Here's what our new prez said:

"We’re going to have to parent better, and turn off the television set, and put the video games away, and instill a sense of excellence in our children."

Whoa. If that isn't a call to arms, I don't know what is.

In reality, I would imagine that Barack Obama is more likely than any other President to be friendly to the gaming industry as a whole. First of all, his campaign made extensive use of the Internet and other technological tools, including advertising in video games. Plus there is ample evidence that he is at least a little bit geeky. For example, he collects comic books, and made a pretty nerdy Superman reference at the Alfred E. Smith charity dinner (video is below):

In reality, I don't think any politician really wants to "ban" video games. Titles like Grand Theft Auto and other violent or sexually explicit games make "a convenient scapegoat", as the Times quotes a commenter from 1up.com. Just because a guy doesn't spend 12 hours blasting zombies every day doesn't mean he wants to stop other people from doing it. Besides, I think he might have one or two (or a hundred) more important things to worry about come January. Somewhat like the earlier concern that he had stopped telling supporters that he loved them, I think we might be expecting a little bit too much from the guy.

Source: New York Times, Image: Newser

Babble Podcast for November 10, 2008

Video Gamers Find Obama in Xbox 360

Obama doesn't say I love you anymore

25 Things You Don't Know About Barack Obama

Barack Obama Asked If Bill Clinton Was The First Black President

The Obamas Are a Great First Family

Obama doesn't say I love you anymore

Brett Singer — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 21:00:00 GMT

An article in the New York Times talks about how Barack Obama has changed over the course of his campaign. Before, he was an inspirational speaker. Now, he is "keeping his tone not exactly monotone but not exactly soaring."

"Bottom-up growth" has replaced "fierce urgency of now". That sort of thing.

This is the kicker:

The Obama of the campaign trail is at once more prosaic and perhaps more proficient. Early this year, when his appearances were more happening than rally, one could count on a constant: Someone would scream, “I love you, Obama!”

And Mr. Obama would, almost without looking up, answer quickly, “I love you back.”

Then the McCain campaign began running commercials portraying Mr. Obama as a separated-at-birth celebrity brother of Paris Hilton.

Shouts of “I love you” went unrequited this past weekend.

OMG, what's next? He won't bring me flowers? Will he – NO! – leave the toilet seat up???

I have no idea how much Obama has consciously pulled back from his vocal declarations of love for his supporters, but it does seem that he has. But so what?

It seems like this is a bit of President-as-parent, or maybe spouse. We're not marrying the guy (or gal -- hey, it'll happen one of these days), we're electing him to do a job. Do you want a President who loves you, or who "feels your pain" as Bill Clinton used to say? Does it affect how you vote?

Source: NYTimes

Image: Wikipedia

Sarah Silverman says: make granny vote for Obama

Barack Obama Wins the All Important Dora the Explorer Demographic

Michelle Obama on the Early Show with a Great Reason to Suspend the Campaign!

Joe the racist plumber?

Morning News: Is Sarah Palin a Maverick? A Rogue? Or Just a Bad Running Mate?

Nickelodeon Kids Pick The President Poll - Who Won?

They say: McCain not thrilled with Palin and she wants to run in 2012

New York Times Anthrax Update

Brett Singer — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 17:33:00 GMT

We have a source inside the building. Here are a couple of quotes of what it's like inside.

"They just sealed off the lobby... nobody but emergency workers in or
out of the bldg...Counted four hazmat-style trucks down stairs."

"For people that really need to leave, they're telling us to take the
freight elevator to the basement, then exit through one of the garage
doors."

I think I'd be one of those people that "really needed to leave" but who knows. This isn't one of those situations that calls for heroism in my opinion.

The original post is below:

One of the weird aftershocks of 9/11 was when anthrax-tainted letters started showing up across the country. The New York Times got a few of them, which led to the company microwaving all of their mail as a precaution. After awhile, the fear subsided and things went back to (sort of) normal.

This morning, Times employees received the following email warning them of a suspicious package:

From: NYTIMES MAIL
Date: Oct 22, 2008 12:24 PM
Subject: Note from Dennis Stern re the Building
To: NY TIMES NOTES

Folks,

At about 11:30 a.m. today an employee on the 13th floor of our headquarters building in New York opened an envelope addressed to The New York Times. A white granular substance was in the envelope. The New York City police were called and are now on site investigating. The 41st Street side of the lobby is closed but people are able to get in and out of the building. We will keep you updated on any developments.

Gawker reports that, "The cops are there and the lobby is closed." A source in the building says that the NYPD Hazmat trucks are arriving as I type this.

Without making light of the situation, I will say that using postal mail to create terror can't possibly be as effective as it was 6 or 7 years ago since there's just less paper mail that gets used. That said, I know I still get a ton of it every day, so maybe I'm wrong.

Scary stuff. Hopefully everyone is OK, and I hope it's a false alarm.

Source: Gawker

Image

Bailout bill defeated because it sucks

Brett Singer — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 20:25:00 GMT

That's what the Rep. Paul Ryan, the ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee said about the bailout bill, according to ABC News. "It sucks."

Yes, it's government by 10 year olds.

They went on to report that Ryan thinks the bill "has to pass to preserve the free market system and stave off a financial collapse." Even though, you know, it sucks.

I guess we should get ready for the collapse, because the bill didn't pass. Interestingly, the bill failed largely because of Republican opposition, not Democratic, despite what right-wing rags like the New York Post have been trying to tell people. (I don't have a link but they had a political cartoon, and editorials, that tried to paint Dems as the party that blocked the bill.) I'm curious how Fox News, et al, are going to spin this one.

On another note, doesn't this mean everything is going to fall apart now? (Money under the mattress time!) Or not? I admit to feeling very dumb when it comes to matters of economics, especially this one.

Source: ABC News

Image: Wikipedia (interestingly, Ryan's official house.gov web site is not responding.)

Breaking News -- House Rejects Bailout; Stocks Plunge!

Morning News: Beginning of a New Economy? End of McCain's Hopes? Palin Comes in 2nd?

Ailing Companies as Bad Children

Dora the Conservative

Breaking News -- House Rejects Bailout; Stocks Plunge!

Madeline Holler — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 18:49:00 GMT

Oh boy. The House of Representatives rejected the $700 billion bailout plan hammered out over the weekend by the Bush administration and House leaders. On news of the narrow defeat, Dow went into a nose dive.

From the NY Times:

The vote against the measure was 228 to 205. Supporters vowed to try to bring the rescue package up for consideration again as soon as possible.

Stock markets plunged sharply at midday as it appeared that the measure would go down to defeat.

House leaders pushing for the package kept the voting period open for some 40 minutes past the allotted time, trying to convert “no” votes to “yes” votes by pointing to damage being done to the markets, but to no avail.

Well, that saves the presidential candidates from having to weigh in with a vote from the Senate. What do you think? Good riddance bad bailout bill? Or WTF is going on here?

Then again, there's a silver lining for anybody still complaining about gas prices.

Morning News: Beginning of a New Economy? End of McCain's Hopes? Palin Comes in 2nd?

Image: NY Times

Kurt Warner, family quarterback

Brett Singer — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 15:00:00 GMT

We hear a lot about football players who behave badly, so it's always nice to read about those that don't. Kurt Warner, the Super Bowl winning quarterback who is currently having a late-career resurgence in Arizona (he's 37, which is old for the NFL) is also a father. A father of seven. Two of the seven were from his wife Brenda's previous marriage; one of those two has special needs (not mentioned in the Times article).

Warner is a great sports success story; he was stocking shelves at a supermarket before joining the Rams and leading them to a Super Bowl. He's living proof that NFL players don't have to be highly touted, heavily recruited college athletes in order to play well. If the Times article is to be believed, he and his wife Brenda are also pretty good parents.

Kurt and Brenda (a former Marine) have a list they call, "Eight Rules for Being a Warner Daughter or Son." Some highlights:

1. Everyone has to agree on which strangers’ meal to pay for when dining at a restaurant.

The Times describes a situation where the Warners pick someone and pay their tab, without their knowledge. In other words, if you see Kurt and Co. at a restaurant, you might get a free meal.

4. After ordering at a restaurant, be able to tell Mom the server’s eye color.

5. Throw away your trash at the movie theater and stack plates for the server at restaurants.

I like these a lot, especially the eye color thing, since I've never heard it before. I see people treat those in the service industry (waiters, waitresses, taxi drivers, etc.) like crap all the time, and I see kids do it as well. Forcing your children to pay attention to these folks and treat them with respect is important, and knowing their eye color is an interesting way to do it.

This isn't to say that I plan on tacking a copy of Warner's Rules on our door, but it's food for thought.

Source/Image: NYTimes

Man ejected from Yankee Stadium for lack of patriotism

Shawn Johnson, Democrat? (UPDATE: Now with video)

Revenge of the Baseball Gods-Little League Scandal Revisited

Do kids do better on tests if they get paid?

Michael Phelps to endorse Frosted Flakes

Flashback - Peyton Manning on SNL

Hockey Mom vs. Soccer Mom vs. Basketball Mom - A Unscientific Analysis

Palin for aerial wolf hunting

Sarah Palin, Sportscaster

Revenge of the Baseball Gods-Little League Scandal Revisited

Nastia Liukin's mom watches from the stands (video)

IOC orders investigation of Chinese Gymnast's age

Bela Karolyi likes to kill things

Muppet Op-Art

Brett Singer — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 15:20:00 GMT

In a piece in the NY Times today called "Puppet Government", beloved balcony boys Statler and Waldorf trade quips about the Presidential debates. The jokes, written by Hugh Fink, Scott Ganz and Andrew Samson, were obviously written before McCain threatened not to show up, so I'll add one: "John McCain says he won't show up for the debate until Democrats and Republicans stop arguing." "Guess there won't be a debate!"

I wonder if this is part of Disney's Muppet Master Plan. I would say no because it's a political topic. But the jokes are non-partisan and The Mouse House doesn't exactly have a track record of allowing writers to do whatever they like with Disney-owned properties.

Source: NYTimes
Image: Muppet Wiki

More stuff my 3 year old broke

Disney trying to revive The Muppets

Disturbing Origins of 5 Nursery Rhymes

The Babble List: 25 Great Children's TV Shows That Aren't On DVD

Dora the Conservative

Clay Aiken Comes Out

Teaching Evolution as Theory not fact

Brett Singer — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 15:00:00 GMT

An article in last week's New York Times discussed a major hot-button issue in schools across the country: evolution vs. creationism, or its offshoot, intelligent design.

It's a long article, and certainly worth reading. I won't try to summarize the whole piece in this post, but the big surprise for me was that it was less about two competing theories/beliefs, or even about science versus religion. It was about a teacher who, in my opinion, has the patience of Job.

That teacher is David Campbell, who teaches Biology in Orange Park, Florida. The story the article tells is not of him fighting with parents, the school board, or local churches. Actually, he's not fighting with anyone. This quote sums up his attitude nicely:

"He scanned the faces of the sophomores in his Biology I class. Many of them, he knew from years of teaching high school in this Jacksonville suburb, had been raised to take the biblical creation story as fact. His gaze rested for a moment on Bryce Haas, a football player who attended the 6 a.m. prayer meetings of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes in the school gymnasium.

"'If I do this wrong,' Mr. Campbell remembers thinking on that humid spring morning, 'I’ll lose him.'"

His main concern is not "proving" anything one way or the other. It's teaching.

"'Faith is not based on science,' Mr. Campbell said. 'And science is not based on faith. I don’t expect you to ‘believe’ the scientific explanation of evolution that we’re going to talk about over the next few weeks. But I do expect you to understand it.'"

That, to me, is the bottom line. Campbell's students, although they probably don't think so, are incredibly lucky to have him.

image/source: NYTimes

Are your kids aware of the election?

They Say: no link between autism and measles vaccine

Palin family online - real or fake?

McCain, Palin oppose teen pregnancy aid and sex education

Toys R Us Says Government Safety Standards Not Good Enough

Teaching Abstinence Doesn’t Work: Palin’s Preggo Kid.

Dad arrested for leaving son at McDonald's

Green products that don't work

For a good marriage, women need to stay home

33 year old mom wins silver medal, saves son from leukemia

Is Teen Marriage Really So Bad?

Madeline Holler — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 21:02:00 GMT

I'm of the demographic that tends to tsk tsk upon the news of a 22-year-old cousin/friend/acquaintance/daughter of a co-worker getting married. "She's ruining her life," the cohorts and I whisper. "It'll never last!"

For teens who get married, we sigh that certain-doom sigh.

But, hmmmm, why all the negativity about young marriage? What the hell do I know about it and, in the end, does a little divorce under your belt even matter?

The NY Times has a great article about the fading attraction of teen marriage -- prompted of course by the bright attraction of Bristol Palin's teen pregnancy and her mother's assurances to the public that she and her boyfriend, Levi Johnston, will be wed.

The betrothed couple are technically still teens -- she's 17, he's 18 -- but in the not so distant past, theirs would not have been considered a "teen marriage." Still, the statistics are against them.

Studies show that today teenage marriages are two to three times more likely to end in divorce than are marriages between people 25 years of age and older. The most comprehensive study on marriage and age that sociologists cite was published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in 2001, from 1995 data, and it found that 48 percent of those who marry before 18 are likely to divorce within 10 years, compared with 24 percent of those who marry after age 25.

But for those teens who stay married, they might actually be positioning themselves for a better life, one sociologist says in the piece.

If teen marriage freaks you out, the good news is ... it's very rare and getting rarer.

Here's a little mental torture I like to do on myself: what would I do if one of my daughters said that at 18 (or younger ... or even a few years older), she was engaged? I mean, besides freak out, what would I do? What would YOU do? Anyone out there married as a teen and think this is a non-discussion?

Photo: NY Times

Wealthy NYC Mom Seeks Nanny/Approval

Madeline Holler — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 17:03:00 GMT

An aspiring writer and mother of four pains in the ass (hey, she said it, I didn't!) has gotten a bit of attention for a Help Wanted ad she posted recently on Craigslist. The NY Times has her story on the front page. And nearly every mom along the eastern seaboard has a copy of her ad in their Inbox.

Rebecca Land Soodak, whose kids are 12, 9 and 6-year-old twins, has been praised for her honesty, excoriated for her lack of sensitivity, and admonished for her sense of entitlement. Let's get down to the details:

Soodak's self-deprecation is more dishy than refreshing with gems like this: I can be a tad difficult to work for. I'm loud, pushy and while I used to think we paid well, i am no longer sure. i work from home, so you get the pleasure of being hounded by me all day long. and, you get to pretend to like me, because i am deeply sensative [sic]. (but well dressed and a know it all, a winning combination I assure you ...). She confesses, indirectly, that her children have inherited her me-first style.

Crumbs are a big deal to her, as is full embrace of Ritalin. Seek help and don't apply, she advises, if you smoke, drink to cope or do drugs. (It's not like she doesn't care!)

When I was first reading the ad, I couldn't help but wonder what's really going on here. The Times article reads as if this were a rich mom's manifesto! The last straw for a frazzled mom in a world where you just can't find a decent doormat, uh, I mean babysitter! A cry for help ... for help!

But read the entire ad and you see three goals: (1) approval. She's a pain in the ass with kids who don't listen to her and she's rather ashamed of that. Please love her anyway; (2) a friend she can push around -- I'm just a woman doing my best. I'm willing to learn from you, or anyone, but not so much about how i should parent my spawn. teach me to knit. introduce me to yoga, the white stripes, russian literature or the best place to get a burger in the village at 2Am, but do not tell me to put star stickers on a good boy chart. stickers irritate me ... oh, and wipe off the table!; and (3) a book deal. She says it herself in the closing lines:

Okay, if you're still reading this ad, it means:
a) i am a halfway decent writer and maybe i really will get that book deal i'm yearning for
b) you need a job desparately [sic]
c) you think this just might be destiny, and that you could be one of the few, the proud, the potential babysitter of our dreams.
D) you want all the information about job requirements, so that you can write me emails about how I should stay home with my kids otherwise they are going to grow up to be sociopaths.

What do you think? Brave confession or clever ruse to get attention? She found a nanny, by the way, a college grad from Virginia who wants to study midwifery. Hope the paired readings of Tolstoy go well!

Photo: NY Times

Why the puppy games are better than the Olympics

Brett Singer — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 19:00:00 GMT

OK, that's not true. But if you haven't seen this dopey show on Animal Planet, you're missing out on something very cute.

Here are a few highlights:

1. Commentary: "It's going to be tough to impress the judges." True – because they're goldfish. "This is like a chess match." Indeed – if chess opponents gnawed on the pieces and sniffed each others' butts. Bob Costas doesn't get lines like these.

2. No controversy: As far as we know, the opening ceremonies were real, no protesters, journalists or grandmothers were arrested, and no one is complaining about the puppy's potentially sexist costumes.

3. Who won? Who cares?: They're, you know, dogs. They have no idea where they are or what they're doing. You can still cheer for your favorite breed (the Cocker Spaniel is really cute) but at the end of the day, it's all up to the judges… who are goldfish.

4. Two words: Waterbowl Cam.

Not sure if they're going to air this again or not, if so, I highly recommend watching it. There are a bunch of video clips on Discovery.com; here's one of the Gymnastics event.

source/image: Animal Planet

Other Old Olympians

Olympics Opening Uses One Girl's Voice, Another Girl's Face

Bela Karolyi likes to kill things

Did Michael Phelps actually win 8 medals?

Michael Phelps to endorse Frosted Flakes

Olympic Athletes To Be Tested . . . For Gender

Jon Stewart Tackles Olympic Controversies

Michael Phelps father in Baltimore, not Beijing

33 year old mom wins silver medal, saves son from leukemia

Dara Torres inspired two current Olympians

Aussie Rower keeps his kids close

Protesters and journalists arrested in China (video)

Whole lotta fakin' goin' on at the opening ceremony

Shawn Johnson more mature than her coach

Volleyball hasn’t come a long way, baby

Other Old Olympians

Brett Singer — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 15:00:00 GMT

Dara Torres is 41, and Oksana Chusovitina is 33 (and saved her son from leukemia), but they aren't even close to the oldest Olympic athletes in history, or even this year. Most aren't in the more physically strenuous events, but competing in anything at their age is pretty impressive.

* Iain Murray is on the Australian Olympic sailing team, and at age 50 is making his Olympic debut. Murray is Australia's oldest Olympian; Andrew Palfrey, a teammate, is 41 and also competing in his first Olympics.

* Luan Jujie was 50 years old in 1984 when she won a Gold medal in fencing for Canada.

* Susan Nattrass is 57 and currently in Beijing on the Canadian shooting team. In 1976, she became the first woman shooter to compete in the Olympics.

* Hiroshi Hoketsu, a Japanese equestrian, made his Olympic debut in 1964 and is now back for a second time – at age 67.

* Oscar Swahn (Shooting) competed in his last Olympics in 1920 at the age of – are you ready for this? – 72. (He was planning to go in 1924 but he got sick. Wimp.) Over his career, Swahn won three gold medals, two bronze, and a silver in 1920, making him the oldest Olympic medallist ever. Fun fact: his son competed with him in 1908, 1912 and 1920.

For more, see NBCOlympics.com

Image/Source: nbcolympics.com

Dara Torres inspired two current Olympians

Some Parenting Lessons From Michael Phelps's Mom

Gold (OK, Silver) Medal Girlcrush: Dana Torres

Volleyball hasn’t come a long way, baby

Baby survives tornado

Aussie Rower keeps his kids close

Egyptian woman gives birth to septuplets because she wanted a boy

Protesters and journalists arrested in China (video)

Whole lotta fakin' goin' on at the opening ceremony

Team more mature than coach

Jon Stewart Tackles Olympic Controversies

Olympics Opening Uses One Girl's Voice, Another Girl's Face

Do All These Chinese Gymnasts Look 16 to You?

Like father like son

Dara Torres inspired two current Olympians

Brett Singer — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 13:00:00 GMT

Back in the year 2000, Dara "Superwoman" Torres was at a swimming camp in California. Two sisters, Sandra and Danielle Fong, were fascinated by her, and the medal she had just won at the Santa Clara International Invitational. So she did what anyone would do: she gave them her medal.

OK, that's not what everyone would do. But it is what Dara did. And now, eight years later, both of the Fong sisters will be competing in the Olympics, although not in swimming. 18-year-old Sandra Fong is on the U.S. shooting team. Danielle Fong, 17, has cerebral palsy and will shoot for the U.S. at the Paralympics in September.

Torres, in case you didn't know, just won a Silver medal – at the age of 41. So yeah, we like her.

Image/source: nytimes.com

Read more: