Hanging By a Thread

Random Tidbits: Completely Unrelated, Useful/Interesting/Semi-Important/You Fill-in-the-Blank Information

You know when you're driving along and your kid pipes up and says something like, "Mom, whatever happened to that stick that I picked up last summer when we were walking around that lake?" and then a few minutes later says, "For my next birthday {which is something like 8 months away, generally}, can I have a birthday cake that has Transformers, Mickey Mouse and Word Girl on it?" And the whole time you're thinking I have no idea and where are these random thoughts coming from.

Well, that's what this post is like.

I've had very few minutes to write lately, but I have a number of random tidbits knocking around in my head. It happens frequently that I have a random thought, save a clipping or jot down an idea that doesn't warrant an entire post, but is still worth mentioning. Sometimes I let them linger until I might have enough to weave the tidbits into something more, but often they simply unravel and these loose ends rot away tucked in a file or pasted on a "sticky note" on my computer desktop or randomly written in a notebook.

So, I decided I'd piece together a quick, unconnected run-down of these various bits of information; some tips, some interesting points, some important notes, some simple observations.

1. Tightening the Belt. For a while I had an internal struggle with trying to figure out whether the strap should be locked or left loose or did it even matter. Booster seats. There's just not the plethora of information about these "tween" seats; that is, "in between" 5 point harnesses and a seat belt without a special seat. I know some parents just leave it loose. I always tighten the seat belt strap.
   1. For one thing, Darling 2 is apt to fall asleep in a moving vehicle and slump forward or sideways. If the belt is loose, he could slip right out of the seat or be injured if the belt snapped tight in an accident or sudden stop.
   2. I dug around online and surprisingly didn't find any definitive answers. So, I asked a resident expert; whom I happened to run into at my Caribou Coffee. She said either way is fine. If you have a sleeper or wiggler then it's best to lock the belt. But if your child is older and is not prone to moving around and getting out of the belt, then loose is fine.
   3. So, there you have it. I still tighten out of habit and because Darling 2 still likes to fall asleep in the car, but Darling 1 likes to remind me that he doesn't have to be locked in now that we know the answer to this question.
2. Mythbusters – Distracted Driving. Do you know about Mythbusters? It's a fun program that we found on Netflix over Winter Break. They take various statements or "facts" and put them to the test. On one program they ran their own test to see whether talking on the phone while driving is as dangerous as driving drunk, as some studies have reported.
   1. Now they weren't legally drunk, but they were as close to it as possible; with police officers overseeing the experiment.
   2. And they weren't recklessly driving around on the roads with other drivers. They were on a driving course with an instructor.
   3. But the tests and testers were serious and the drivers were blown away by how difficult it was to stay on task and not break laws by missing signs, weaving, etc. while talking on the phone and after a few drinks.
   4. Their conclusion was that it is not a myth. Texting/talking on the phone is just as dangerous as driving drunk (or almost drunk), and they did indeed feel out of control {and it's rare that they don't bust the myth}. There you have it. So, Phone Down; Eyes Up! {TAKE MY CHALLENGE!}
3. Teachers Packing Heat. Some teachers may have decided to take matters into their own hands when it comes to "securing" their classrooms.
   1. In the weeks following the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting, according to MotherJones.com, about 600 teachers in some 15 states have signed up for a free firearms training program offered by Buckeye Firearms Association.
   2. MotherJones.com noted that there are only three states in the U.S. that allow concealed weapons in schools: Utah, Kansas and Mississippi.
   3. Now, 600 is a very tiny percentage of the number of teachers in our country, but it's an interesting note.
   4. I'd be curious to know which 15 states those teachers come from; and how many of those 600 are male and how many are female.
   5. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want my kids' teachers packing heat in class.
   6. And on a lighter note, I just pictured Darling 1's amazingly patient, kind and loving kindergarten teacher from last year, with a gun strapped to her hip; now that puts class rules in a very different light.
4. Boo Indeed! Sometimes you miss the ugly, prickly weed when looking for the "Green."
   1. I found a write up for a product called, Bambooee, in MN Parent under Hot Stuff/Go Green. It says this about the products on this page, "Ta-ta, toxins! These products eschew chemicals and/or promote reuse!"
   2. So, the Bambooee is apparently an earth-friendly, sustainable, reusable paper towel. The packaging in the photo says, "Reusable Washable Bleachable." BLEACHABLE? Earth-friendly? No Chemicals? Hmmmm.
   3. Sorry, but why would someone who is choosing to use this product; to be earth friendly, with sustainable, organic products want to or choose to use bleach on this natural, organic, sustainable product?
   4. Bleach is a toxic, harmful chemical, and if you introduce it to your natural, organic, sustainable, bamboo towel, then you're missing the point. I have a better product for you anyway...talk to me {cough, Norwex, cough}
5. Check Your Sources. OK, I am going to expand on this one in another post, but this issue warrants a quick mention here too.
   1. Please check the accuracy and the source of the information you post, Like and share on social media sites. I have noticed an increase in false information and misattributed, made up quotes zipping around on Facebook lately. It's a good rule of thumb to do a quick search to ensure that you are passing good and true information, before you click it out to your hundreds of friends and/or fans.
6. Loose Lips Sink Ships. And along those same lines, not every conversation or thought or situation should be retold or discussed or mentioned on social media sites.
   1. Some things should be left to the imagination; some things should remain confidential; and sometimes "it just wouldn't be prudent" to post every last detail.
   2. So, let your gut instinct be your gauge, but if your gut tells you everything is fair game; then, let's say,
      1. if it's about someone else, especially if you are in any way related or work together;
      2. if it's not nice or puts that person in a bad light;
      3. if there is a contract of any kind involved;
      4. if it sounds like it could be from a red neck reality show
   3. don't post it at all. Instead, call your mom, your spouse, your sibling or best friend and get it off your chest by sharing it with one person rather the 348 of your closest FB friends.

Over and out....

Anna

 

Related articles

God is with Us {Always and Everywhere}

Sticky Messes: Good Guys v. Bad Guys {Biggest Gun Wins}

Cleaning up Messes

My kids are really good at making huge messes. They don't mean to; they're just busy playing, creating some playscape or making confetti or trying to help by pouring their own juice or milk.

The result is something sticky covering the floor, splattered on the counter and cabinets and inevitably on the boys themselves, bits of paper everywhere, pillows, blankets and stuffed animals scattered throughout the house, draping over this or that, pulling down lamps and picture frames.

I know I should make them clean up these disaster zones, but I know from experience generally their version of cleaning up a mess only results in bigger messes that make me a steaming, angry, stressed out mom; which is another type of mess altogether.

So, I banish them from the desecrated area, and I clean up the mess. They do have to clean up toys scattered about; it's just these sticky, dirty, destructive messes that I take over.

Yes, I know. You're shaking your head and thinking. "That's the way to spoil them and make them think they can get away with anything."

Perhaps, but it keeps me sane, and avoids the chance of a headline like this, "Mom loses mind, runs screaming from home, never to be heard from again after sons attempt to clean up spilled apple juice with down comforter, only to rip seam and allow all the feathers to float through house, adhering to all sticky surfaces covered in apple juice, including the boys and a giant dog."

Sometimes it's just better to step in and take control of a smaller, still fixable mess before it becomes a giant, sticky, slippery slope heading straight down the tubes.

Guns in Schools

A few days before Christmas I happened to see a newspaper headline, "NRA leader urges armed guards in every U.S. school." Surely not.

I read more. "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun," says NRA executive vice president, Wayne LaPierre. Hmmmm.

While I agree that gunmen on rampages who seem to all too often end up in schools of some level is a definite problem, I don't agree that throwing more guns into the mix is the answer.

The NRA's current plan is like standing to the side and watching my sons spill a gallon of apple juice all over the counter, the floor, the cabinets and themselves as they attempt to pour a small amount into a child-sized cup, then letting them clean it up with the socks on their feet and whatever else they can find to sop of the sticky liquid, leaving the residue behind to collect hair and dust and dirt, turning the whole thing into a filthy mess.

That doesn't solve or teach anything.

I realize that there are a number of schools in large cities that already have trained armed guards/off-duty police officers patrolling the halls, approximately one-third of public schools or 23,000 schools to be precise. I acknowledge this is necessary to keep the students in those schools safe, but I do not find this statistic to be an acceptable standard for schools.

Good Guys v. Bad Guys

This figure alone speaks volumes about the state of our country and the culture we live in. It saddens me to no end. But this proposed "solution" from the NRA enrages my faculties, breaks my heart and frightens me.

More guns, especially guns of the caliber and capacity that match those that the "bad guys" have access to do not belong in our schools. What lesson does this teach? The "bad guys" have big guns; well, the "good guys" will just get bigger guns.

Where does it end? Why stop at schools? How about movie theaters, churches, all government buildings, federal, state and city, malls, parks, the grocery store, libraries, parking garages, and every other public building? Perhaps it should be mandatory that every household owns an assault rifle. That ought to stop the "bad guys."

Of course, if we're all running around with guns all the time, that might make it difficult to tell the "bad guys" from the "good guys." Then what would the NRA propose?

Better Laws

I don't have all the answers, but I feel certain that adding more high powered weapons to our warped society is NOT the answer.

I am not advocating for all guns to be ripped from lawful gun owners' tight grasp. But I do support bans on assault rifles and high-capacity ammunition clips; weapons that belong only on a battlefield, if anywhere at all; weapons that can wipe out a great number of people in a few short seconds; weapons capable of ripping gaping holes in bodies and exploding through flesh and vital organs.

Weapons of this nature go far beyond hunting and "protecting" your home and family. If you oppose this type of ban, please explain to me the need for such devastating weapons.

Of course, bans are not the only aspects to be considered. Historically, horrible killing sprees that have taken place in schools, malls, churches, offices and theaters are carried out by people who have a mental illness of some sort. Therefore, mental illnesses, detection and treatment are also issues to be considered.

The Scoop

Call me naïve, but I don't want to live in a world where "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." And I just don't think we have to live in such a world...if we wake up and proactively start dealing with this issue.

The current gun laws are not adequate. We don't necessarily need more laws, but better laws. I challenge our lawmakers to disregard the powerful, $12-billion-dollar-a-year gun industry and its puppet, the NRA and find a way that protects our citizens' safety and rights. Over and out...

Anna

Political Campaign Contributions: A Waste of Money {Soapbox}

Several weeks ago, I spotted an ad to enter a giveaway for dinner with President Obama. There are to be 3 winners and each winner can bring a guest. The dinner is to be held at an undisclosed location with dinner, airfare and hotel accommodations paid for the winners and their guests.

That sounds like a nice gesture to get in touch with the "real people" in the nation and chat with the President while breaking bread together. For a split second, I even contemplated entering this drawing.

But here's the part that got to me. The estimated value of each winner's package is $4800. So, for all 3 winners and guests, that's almost $15,000; and that doesn't count the cost of the President's travels and secret service duties, etc.

Now, $15,000 probably doesn't seem like much to the President and the committee, Obama for America, who is conducting this contest, but to the average American family, $15,000 is a good chunk of change. And for the average American family who is living under the gun of unemployment or underemployment and the ever rising costs of living, $15,000 is a great sum.

And honestly, what will this contest get the President and his committee? Mostly contact information for thousands of voting citizens; whom they will bombard with phone calls, emails and letters for the next 6 months. For the 6 citizens, who are most likely already going to vote for Obama, it gives them a chance to bend the President's ear for an hour or two and a good story to tell their grandkids about the time they got to have dinner with the President of the United States.

Seriously, what a waste of money. And remember, I'm a democrat and generally vote that way.

Another story that really got me going was the report about Sheldon Adelson and his donations to conservative causes and campaigns. Now, let me preface this by saying that each person can certainly spend his or her money any way he or she pleases. My intent is merely to point out the extravagances of political campaigns and the wasted dollars for what....mostly so the people contributing can ensure they have votes in their pockets concerning issues that will cause them to lose money or make more money down the road {most likely the reason for Adelson's very generous spirit}.

Adelson, a billionaire casino tycoon and conservative, is contributing $10 million to the Super PAC that supports Mitt Romney, the GOP candidate, but even more disconcerting is the report that Adelson will be giving at least $100 million to other conservative causes and campaigns.

To a billionaire like Adelson $100 million probably means absolutely nothing. It certainly won't affect the way he and his family live. But just think what a $100 million could mean to the strapped school districts in our country, youth programs, scholarship funds and other community programs that could mean the difference from lost, uneducated, stamped down, underperforming, dependent on welfare to educated, informed, confident, hard-working, self-sufficient adults of tomorrow.

It's not just Obama for America and Adelson I mean to point my finger at. It's all political campaigns and contributors that I'm targeting.

I have a theory I'd love to try.

I'd love to see what would happen if instead of campaign contributions going for ridiculous, outrageous, stupid, degrading advertising, endless phone calls to citizens, dinners with big contributors, traveling the country with huge entourages and staying in 5 star hotels, eating expensive meals, getting costly haircuts, buying designer clothes and living the high life on the road to supreme success or failure, the candidate put the money towards bettering communities hit hard by the economic hardships brought on by gluttonous executives and hasty, misguided, greedy politicians.

What if the candidate actually put his money where his mouth is and started doing the things he says he will do if elected? What if the candidate gave money to school districts to hire a sufficient number of teachers, helped to equip schools with new equipment and up-to-speed programs and set up scholarships for graduating students? What if the candidate helped poor families who have greatly suffered from losing jobs and insurance coverage by repairing homes or getting necessary medical treatments or eye glasses or buying new shoes for growing kids or filling empty cupboards?

What if underfunded youth programs received sufficient funding and staffing from a candidate's coffers? What if these programs meant fewer drive-by shootings, fewer drug-pushers on the corner, fewer teen-agers having babies, fewer drop-outs all because these kids had somewhere to go, somewhere to feel secure, somewhere to get love and support?

What if a candidate did this? What would happen? Would the candidate win for being sincere and real and seeing what America really needs or would the candidate lose because there had been no glitz or glamour; no elitism; no playing mistress to the big boys of the corporate world?

As of April of this year, the conservative Super PAC, Restore Our Future, had raised $56.5 million. Just think of all the good that could be done with that amount of money. Instead it will be COMPLETELY WASTED.

There is so much waste in politics; so much that I can hardly bare to think about it. This much waste makes me physically sick.

Let's remember that the original obligation of government was to serve the people of the fledgling country through a democracy. How far we have strayed from that dream of our Founding Fathers. Now, our government is ruled by corporations and the almighty dollar; regardless of whether you vote blue or red, your government representatives are not there for you. That is, they aren't there to listen or help you unless you have a very large amount of money to contribute to their campaigns; and by large I mean at least $1,000,000.00.

Cynical? Hell, yes, but is this not an honest picture of today's political campaigns? Over and out....

Anna

Change Your Whole Lifestyle: The Missing Piece {On a Soapbox}

A Full Picture of Health

How often we talk about changing our eating patterns, buying more locally produced and/or organic groceries, exercising more and having a healthier lifestyle overall. While I think these things are important pieces to the puzzle, I also think that many are missing a large chunk of the picture of health. Until recently I was included in this group.

I'm talking about radically reducing the number of chemicals in your home. Yes, I realize I'm biased now because I am a Norwex Independent Sales Consultant. But, honestly, the reason I'm buying, selling and telling everyone I know about these products is because I have been doing researching, reading and becoming more educated about the number of chemicals we are bringing into our homes under the premise of cleaning our homes and clothes and the harmful effects of these chemicals.

Linking Household Chemicals and Cancer

PreventCancer.org reports, "Approximately 70,000 chemicals are now in commercial production, many of which are used in household products. Many of these chemicals accumulate in the human body and cause cancer and other diseases, yet they have been inadequately tested or remain completely untested for their safety."

When I searched, "connections between cancer and chemicals in household cleaners" I was shocked at the alarming number of articles in the query results on links between chemicals in household cleaners and breast cancer.

Breast cancer is the most common form of cancer in women. It was expected that in 2011, almost 300,000 new cases of breast cancer would be diagnosed in women. Breast cancer and lung cancer kill more women each year than any other cancer.

The Studies

Interestingly, there was a study done a few years ago by Silent Spring Institute in MA that found a significant link between household cleaners and breast cancer. This study was made up of 1508 women; 787 of the women had been diagnosed with breast cancer; 721 of the women had not been. The women who reported the highest use of cleaning products had a doubled risk of breast cancer; the use of air fresheners and products for cleaning mold and mildew was associated with the highest increased risk for cancer.

The Silent Spring researchers are the first to admit that the results are imperfect though, considering the data came from surveys. So, that means that women who had been diagnosed with cancer may have been influenced by the belief that the cause of their cancer was something other than a genetic link; or it could mean that women diagnosed with cancer more accurately recall their past product use. Either way, the results of this study show that further research is warranted in this area.

In another study conducted by Silent Spring Institute researchers took air and dust samples from 120 homes on Cape Cod and measured the concentrations of 89 chemicals identified as endocrine disrupting compounds. They identified 67 of these chemicals in these samples, but the most interesting finding of this study was that they identified a number of chemicals that had been banned for years. One such chemical found in dust collected from the homes sampled was DDT. This banned chemical was found in 65% of the homes, even though it was banned 30 years ago. This fact suggests that chemicals don't break down indoors.

Making Healthy Changes

There are a number of hazards concerning the numbers of chemicals contained in household cleaners besides cancer including asthma, allergies, headaches, fatigue, pulmonary issues, depression, conditions involving the nervous system and more. These chemicals are inhaled, absorbed and ingested.

So, should you stop cleaning, fling open the windows and flee your home? No. Well, opening the windows more often might be a good idea, but you can still clean your house. You just have to clean smarter and better. I happen to think the most efficient and smartest way to clean is with Norwex products.

This isn't a shameless plug for my business though; regardless of whether you're interested in buying Norwex products or not, please take a look at these studies listed above and others; do some research for yourself; start reading the labels on the cleaning products you have in your home; evaluate any illnesses or chronic symptoms you or a member of your family is suffering from; notice the reactions you have while cleaning your house or after your house is scrubbed down with potentially toxic chemicals; and I think you will find the missing piece to the whole picture of health.

The Scoop

You can find more of my thoughts on this issue and information on Norwex at State of Clean. I'm a reformed cleaner, a Norwex convert, and I feel better knowing I've made this change for me and my family. Seeing is believing; so, contact me if you want to know more.

We have a choice about our health. Let's take control of it. Here's a good place to start. Over and out...

Anna

 

The View from the Passenger’s Seat: Distracted Driving {On a Soapbox}

Dallas Morning Traffic

As we sped along in the Dallas morning traffic, my mom noticed that he seemed to be texting. I was seated directly behind him and couldn't see his phone. She spoke up; prompted by all the information she's absorbed from Motherly Law over the last two years.

She kindly, but firmly explained {our} strict no phone use while driving policy. She told him I'd been on a national panel on distracted driving; I had done research; I'd written articles; and we were serious. He said he wasn't texting. He seemed surprised by our hard line stance. He said he wouldn't use it.

He still answered the phone and then placed a quick call while he drove on the highway. He wasn't even using a hands-free device; not that it matters to me. My rule is NO PHONES while DRIVING...Period. Later, he fussed and fiddled with his GPS mechanism that had stopped working en route to my destination.

I didn't say anything after our first explanation of no phones while driving. All the while I was wrestling with myself as to what to say; what to do. Here I was a passenger in a vehicle where the driver was using his handheld phone, texting or checking email or something that looked like that, messing with his GPS settings, and I felt trapped.

Paying Passenger

Here's the part that really bothered me; I was in a taxi. I was paying this person to drive me. Shouldn't I be able to tell him if I didn't like the way he was driving if he was being reckless or distracted; driving too fast or going out of the way or missing a turn, etc.?

I'm not speaking about legal issues here. Civil and criminal negligence involving a crash and injuries or death are one thing and laws cover those issues. What I'm pondering is while riding as a passenger is it considered rude or overstepping to tell a paid driver whether or not he can use the phone while driving me?

Part of me says absolutely not. I have a right to be safe while in a vehicle regardless of who is driving. In fact, part of me says that I have even more right to tell him how to drive since I'm paying him to drive me. The other part of me doesn't want to anger the stranger driving me by having strict rules regarding his driving habits.

By the by, in the end, I had to use my GPS on my phone to direct him to my destination since his GPS locked up. I felt safer and in control; two things I like.

Federal Government's Crusade

Incidentally, on Thursday the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) proposed guidelines for vehicle manufacturers that would aid in their development of electronic devices and in-vehicle technology; helping to balance what the consumers want with sufficient safety.

These guidelines also suggest disabling a number of the electronic devices available while the vehicle is in motion with exception to passenger devices or those that can't be reached or viewed by the driver, including "visual-manual text messaging, Internet and social media browsing, 10-digit phone dialing, navigation system destination entries by address and displaying more than 30 characters of text unrelated to the driving task."

While these proposed guidelines are voluntary, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, a coalition of 12 car and light truck manufacturers, helped craft these guidelines and are not expected to be burdensome to the manufacturers.

If you have an opinion regarding these proposed guidelines published in the Federal Register, the public has 60 days to comment before public hearings are held in D.C., L.A. and Chicago to discuss the proposed guidelines.

U.S. Transportation Sec. LaHood has been on a crusade for the last several years, as have I, to raise awareness to the reckless, needless tragedy of distracted driving. Over 3000 people died in 2010 as a result of distracted driving. President Obama has called for $330 million over 6 years to aid distracted driving awareness programs.

The Scoop

It's my position that while this is an extremely important issue it shouldn't take a single dime to convince drivers to do the right thing; the thing that saves lives; lives that could be theirs or their families' lives. That is, simply put the phone away while driving. Nothing is more important than a life. These are words I have repeated over and over in the last two years, and I stand by them. Words to live {& not die} by: Phone Down, Eyes Up! Enough Said.

Psst! Grab my Phone Down, Eyes Up Button {copy the code under the distracted driving button on the top right column and put it on your blog/website} and check out the links to all my distracted driving posts from the past two years, plus my 2012 Phone Down Eyes Up Challenge. Thanks for your support. Over and out...

Anna

Making Ends Meet; Moms Turning to Phone Sex Industry {On a Soapbox}

Have you ever had to choose between paying the mortgage and buying groceries? Have you ever had to swallow your pride whole and ask family for financial help? Have you ever looked at the amount in your bank account and prayed that nothing went through until you had a check or known that you were at the bottom of the barrel and if even one unplanned and unforeseen expense came up, you were done for? Have you ever tasted the bitterness of desperation?

If you have, then you know what this dark, swirling vortex feels like when it begins to pull you under? If you haven't, then say a prayer of thankfulness.

In this economy, there is a lot of need; a number of people without jobs or in a low paying job; without resources; losing ground every day. These are people like you and me; they are not lazy, good-for-nothing bums looking for a handout. I'm talking about hard working, educated people; young graduates, parents of young kids, those nearing the years that were supposed to be golden; all ages; all demographics.

I recently came across an astounding statistic that I think is quite telling of the economic state of our country. Good Morning America reported in December 2011, "The number of mothers pursuing sex work has increased by 400 percent over the past 18 months alone, according to Rat Race Rebellion, an organization that specializes in finding jobs for mothers who need to work from home."

A surge of 400 percent is a big deal. Thousands of moms are now working as phone sex operators because the pay is good, ranging between $10 to $50 per hour or much more, the hours are flexible, they can work from home and it's legal. While the phone sex industry has benefitted the most from this demographic, strip clubs and other adult entertainment industries have reported a surge in the number of applications received from women.

Place judgment and blame where you will, but unless you've experienced absolute desperation, not knowing how you're going to support your family, pay bills and keep a roof over your head, don't judge these women. A mom's primary goal is to survive in order take care of her family; this is a survival mechanism. This work, just like any other job, ensures that there are meals on the table, beds to sleep in and clothes on their backs.

Many say that if they could afford to walk away from this work they would, but they simply cannot. When politicians and religious leaders speak of family values, I doubt this is what they have in mind, but these are parents who are doing whatever it takes to keep their family together. To me, that's what family values are about; loving each other and working to make it work; beating the odds; making it to the other side without drowning. Over and out...

Anna

House Rules: Dropping the F-Bomb {On a Soapbox}

Dirty Words

Each household has its own version of "Seven Dirty Words." Often words like "shut up" or "poopy head" or "stupid" or "fart" are on this list. Of course, there's the R rated adult versions too; you know the words I'm talking about. I don't think I have to outline George Carlin's list of words you can never say on TV {or in this case, in front of your child}.

This week's episode of Modern Family that aired on Wednesday drew much fire before it aired because it was to have a toddler saying her first expletive. "Lily" is actually saying "fudge." The word was to be bleeped out and her mouth obscured by pixilation during that portion of the episode.

A Parenting Thing

An 18 year old college student who began the "No Cussing Club" in 2007 was asking ABC to pull this episode due to the F word issue. ABC had no comment, but the creator and executive producer of the sitcom told the Television Critics Association that he was "proud and excited" about this plotline. He added that the show is not sexually charged; instead this is a very natural story since most parents have been through this scenario.

I agree. Who among us hasn't experienced an awkward situation when the 2 year old says a naughty word {over and over} while in public or an older child, trying to assert his or her power tries on an adult size naughty word in front of grandma, having overheard it from mom, dad, the babysitter, the TV, older cousins, from classmates, etc. OK, we both know that more than likely the offending source was one of the parents. But, sometimes it's not me {for the record}.

I know I've certainly been there when the toddler won't heed your glares and silent threats to stop the shouts of "poopy head" as you careen up and down the aisles of Target trying to keep your head low and get in and out when nothing works to quell the 2 or 3 year-old's loud outbursts. {And FYI, I don't say poopy head...that one seems to have come from the preschool set.}

Naughty Words

Whether you're one to drop the so-called f-bomb or substitute fiddlesticks or fudgesicles or shitake {mushrooms}, fashizzle or some other word, you still mean the same thing and it carries the same impetus. You're kids aren't dumb; they know what you mean. And in my opinion, it's the same thing, regardless of the word you use. {But that is actually an entirely different argument than the one I mean to make here.}

The point here is that this is a "parent thing"; something the 18 year-old "King of the No Cussing Club" wouldn't know anything about. In fact, if anything, parenthood has actually increased my inclination to use words from Carlin's Dirty Word List; well, parenting and golfing.

Kids will repeat the naughty words you use; no matter what you classify as a "bad word." This is a lesson that you and your child will have to learn; probably many times over through the years. This is an area we've already visited...several times.

The Scoop

Friends, no need to comment about my {sometimes public} lessons I've learned on this topic.... Oh, and Your Royal Highness of No Cussing, all you did was get more people to watch this episode. I don't normally watch Modern Family or any TV for that matter, but you have now drawn attention to this particular episode and the sitcom altogether. In the name of class, I'm resisting the urge to include an expletive laced witty title, but I've got some good ones. Over and out....

Anna

Let It Go: The Mom I Never Meant to Be {On a Soapbox}

Does Any of It Really Matter?

As my devoted readers know, I am careful and attentive and fierce in my parenting ideals. This is not to say that I am perfect. I am not; not even by a long shot. But I am deliberate and constantly doing research, reading articles and labels and warnings and studies, etc.

And yet, does any of it really matter? Does it matter whether my kids don't ever eat high fructose corn syrup in their foods or that I limit hot dog consumption to the once or twice a season trips to major league baseball games or that I didn't send them to day care, but had a part-time nanny for one-on-one fun or that I insist on good and properly fitting bike helmets or that I don't allow my kids alone in the front yard yet or that when they were babies I gave them almost %100 organic food and now as much as I can afford or that I limit screen time{DVDs , Netflix streaming} and held off completely as long as possible? {Yes, this is a run-on sentence – but it's really more like a stream of consciousness statement.}

I think of the kids I know who don't eat fresh fruits and veggies, consuming great quantities of processed crap with no nutritional value whatsoever and yet still function quite well in school and on the field. I see kids at my son's school and can't tell which ones had mom or dad or grandma home full-time compared to those who had nannies on a part-time or full-time basis or those who had full-time daycare from infancy. I see a group of kids all happily playing at the park, climbing and swinging and sliding, all healthy, fit, strong and agile with good large motor skills and it doesn't matter who was breastfed or who was formula fed as an infant.

Lowering Standards

As the years fly by, I know that my guard as a mom has come down; my "rules" are more relaxed; my ideals less stringent. Often I am the mom I never meant to be. I don't always respond in a loving, affective way. I am not always attentive; and some days are wasted days with lots of mindless cartoons. Sometimes we eat at McDonalds; sometimes I bribe with chocolate; and sometimes my kids go to bed after 9 pm. Some days I feel terrible for something I said or how I handled a situation; agonizing over it long after my kids have completely forgotten my little meltdown.

But other days I patiently and enthusiastically explain things in great depth; I spend hours looking up information on Google; I sit and read stacks of books with them; I play super heroes or Cars longer than I care to; I respond to requests, questions and demands in ways that would make the Mother of all Mothers proud; some days I do everything "right."

Does this make me a "good" mom or a "bad" mom? No, it just makes me a human mom.

The Important Stuff

I don't paint a rosy picture of the world. I tell my boys how it is; I tell them how the world works; sometimes it just sucks and sometimes it's amazing; better than anyone could have imagined. I do give my kids credit for understanding difficult concepts. I believe they are wise little beings that I can certainly learn from; and I do on a daily basis.

So, does any of it matter? I don't think much of it does. I think the kids who eat dinosaur shaped chicken nuggets weekly and play video games every evening could be as brilliant, creative and healthy as my boys who have NEVER had any kind of chicken nuggets and who rarely play video games. I think the kids who have very strict rules and those who have the run of the place will all grow up to be productive, responsible adults. And those who watched hours and hours of TV won't be mushy brained deadheads.

I think for the most part what matters is love, forgiveness, security, kindness, second chances and the promise of a new day.

The Scoop

It can be hard to forgive yourself for losing your cool and snapping something petty and mean or having to check out for a few hours while your kids sit with eyes glued to episode after episode of Phineas & Ferb. You know, when you sound like a possessed, hormonal witch from hell or walk around like a blank-minded zombie? This doesn't make you a possessed, hormonal witch from hell or a blank-minded zombie; it means you are a sleep-deprived, over-stressed, probably hormonal mom. Let it go; ask for forgiveness and move on. There's nothing more stressful than trying to be the "perfect" mom.

If you feel like this too; or even if you disagree, please share this post. Over and out...

Anna

The Land of Opportunity No More {On a Soapbox}

That Which is Lost

Where is this land of opportunity our forefathers have written about? Where is this land of plenty where ingenuity and hard work are rewarded? Where is this land of promise where those who want to work and strive to grow and create and help are given the chance? Once, this place was the United States of America, but I would argue those days are gone.

Gone are the days that bright, young professionals full of dreams and ideas could by chance meet a big wig executive in an elevator on the 1^st floor and have a job working under this exec by the 21^st floor. Gone are the days that a person without exactly the right qualifications, but with the drive and smarts to excel in a particular job applied for and got an {in-person} interview and was hired. Gone are days that people could do something simply because it was the right thing to do and not worry that some red tape somewhere down the road would cause a conflict.

A rather dreary outlook, you say? Perhaps, but would you argue with these statements? I am certainly not saying that these things never happen, but in today's world luck, connections and wealth are the most important components to succeeding in life.

What Has Happened?

I realize that everyone has a different idea of how to define the word "success", but even still stop and think about the most powerful people in our country {and by power I mean influence, dollars paid and amount of control} and you will see what I mean. Ultimately, it comes down to luck, connections and wealth.

The legislators, the courts, corporate America and human resources departments have placed so many limits and restrictions and have driven up costs and requirements and forms to be submitted that we have lost much of our willingness to give people a chance and our spirit of enterprise.

It's unheard of to actually go to an office and drop off a resume in hopes of catching the boss in and having an interview right at that moment or scoring some points based on your appearance or just happening to walk in the right place at the right time. And chances are if you did drop off your resume in person, the receptionist at the front desk sitting in front of the big doors that lead to all the other employees would politely tell you to please fill out the e-application on their website.

Even if you are given a chance at an interview, chances are, you'll first fill out an online "survey", move on to a boiler plate Q &A with the HR rep over the phone and then just maybe score an in-person interview with the most junior person on the team. And if you don't match every single qualification listed; you will never be contacted in any form.

Those Without a Job Need Not Apply

One of the most discouraging, completely lunatic policies recently emerging from the corporate back rooms is that they will not hire someone who doesn't have a job at the time of the interview or have for a very short time been without a job. The argument is that people who have been laid off, fired or have taken some time off for any reason are lazy, dull-headed and overall poor employees, having been out of the work force.

This is utterly ridiculous considering the economy we are living in. I recently read an article that contradicted that assumption. A study had been done that showed that in the first two weeks or so of losing a job for any reason, the person floundered a bit, watched more TV, read books and was basically inactive. After those two weeks, the vast majority of those people began looking for work and/or taking on more house duties, such as cleaning, taking care of kids and elderly family members, doing the laundry and cooking and running errands. Others began volunteering or helping neighbors, working on projects that had been put off due to work schedules, etc. Very few of those without jobs continued to pursue a lazy lifestyle.

It is shocking to me that those who could very well be in that same position the following day, week or year, would introduce such a policy. What kind of message does this send to college students or recent grads; what kind of future are we offering our children if the parents can't get jobs because they are out of a job through no fault of their own or even because of a fault of their own, but are looking for work?

All Hail the Almighty Dollar

To me, this screams of elitism, fascism and narrow-mindedness. For today, our country is still a democracy, at least in name, which means we are still free to think and dream and create our own opportunities.

These entrepreneurs who create their own opportunities are bright, feisty, fresh and diligent, but that's often not enough today. Regardless of how brilliant an idea or how perfect a plan or how amazing a dream NOTHING speaks louder than the Almighty Dollar. And cold, hard cash is something most unemployed, under-employed and freshly graduated would-be leaders of industry do not have enough of.

The Scoop

Which brings me to this question; is the poem inscribed at the base of our Lady Liberty still relevant?

Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free. The wretched refuse of you teamming shore. Send these, homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door.

 

From New Colossus by Emma Lazarus

I would argue no. Those who are in control of our country do not want to deal with those who are wanting of anything, especially those who come from outside our shores. Even those who want to work in order to not be tired, poor and homeless {or those who are nearly homeless, as in the case of foreclosure} will find that they are cast aside by the captains of industry and the "pawns" in the capitols of our country. Over and out...

Anna

Sexual Harassment Among the Elementary School Set {On a Soapbox}

Name Calling

The first time I remember hearing the phrase "sexual harassment" was the fall of 1991 during the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings. I was in high school. It seems to me that since that time, the phrase "sexual harassment" gets tossed around quite a bit. Of course, some of these accusations are warranted; others are not. Just recently, we've heard that term over and over again in conjunction with Herman Cain, a would-be Republican candidate for the office of President. Generally, that term is not referred to when discussing elementary school students.

A friend alerted me to two distressing news stories from the past week. Both incidents involve young children being accused of sexual harassment. Both are absurd allegations aimed at a 7 year-old and 9 year-old, respectively.

The 9 year-old boy in Gastonia, NC, was suspended after he called a teacher "cute" and "fine" and his actions were labeled as sexual harassment. The 7 year-old boy in Boston, MA, kicked a boy in the groin after he was attacked by a bully on his school bus who was trying to steal his gloves. These are not instances of sexual harassment.

After the story went viral, the NC school district directed that an apology be sent to the 9 year-old and his family and gave the principal the choice of quitting or being fired. The principal chose to step down and retire, while disputing his actions as being termination worthy. The school district reported that the child could immediately return to school and would receive any additional instruction necessary to get caught up with his classmates after missing a week of school.

The youngster from Boston told his mother that the bully on his school bus was choking him and he couldn't breathe. So, he kicked him in the groin to make him stop choking him. The mother reported that this boy has repeatedly bullied her son. This time he was after the 7 year-old's gloves. The mother reiterated that her son doesn't know anything about sexual harassment; he was merely trying to defend himself.

The school told the boy's mother, "Your son kicked a little boy in the testicles. We call that sexual harassment." The mother said that given the facts, she calls that self defense. After a disciplinary hearing on Monday, it was decided that the 7 year-old and his sibling would transfer to another Boston elementary school. The school has determined that no charges will be filed concerning this matter.

Flawed System

Surely, the school administrators have better things to do with their time and better ways of sorting out disagreements between students or minor infractions of school rules. Just how is it that men like Jerry Sandusky get away with abusing child after child for years, but a 7 year-old trying to stop a fellow student from choking him and a 9 year-old who says a teacher is "fine" get labeled as sexual harassers? 

Clearly, we are hyper-sensitive in some instances and willing to pull the wool over our eyes in other instances. Sexual harassment/offender labels shouldn't be taken lightly. When there is truly sexual harassment, action should be taken to stop it immediately.

Sexual harassment is defined as unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature that tends to create a hostile environment. The above-referenced instances certainly do not appear to be sexual harassment.

Overly Litigious Society

School administrators and other organizations have become so sensitive about getting sued that they tend to jump the gun in many instances; as was the case in these two accounts. And yet, I often see headlines about schools missing the in-school abuse of a special needs student or violence occurring between boyfriends and girlfriends on school property, etc.

The system seems to be flawed. However, should the principal in NC have been forced to retire or be fired? I'm not so certain. Unless there had been other issues with his judgment and leadership, the split decision to eliminate him seems a bit over-the-top.

The mother of the suspended 9 year-old said that she would likely pursue a legal action over this. Is that the right answer to this issue? Absolutely not. That response only perpetuates snap decisions and knee jerk reactions in an attempt to avoid lawsuits. Indeed, the termination of the principal may very well have been caused by the school district's fear they would be sued regarding this issue. 

The Scoop

Can't we call it what it is; a bully getting what he deserves and a young boy making an inappropriate, but not harassing, statement about a teacher. So, maybe the bully will stop messing with that boy {& others}. And someone can sit the 9 year-old boy down and talk with him about appropriate and inappropriate statements at school. School administrators don't need the fear of a lawsuit hanging over them at all times; clearly it inhibits their abilities to make good decisions and teach proper lessons to the students. Over and out...

Anna