Reading Day

Yes, I am a terrible blogger. I feel terrible, other than the fact that no one reads this but my hubby anyway.

So, we've reached the stage where Aengus likes to have a book read to him. We only have a few books, but his favorite so far is the Lorax.

Although, I have the sneaking suspicion he prefers eating books to reading them.

Gardening

Will and I had moderate success growing tomatoes and peppers in a potted garden on our patio last year. We continued the tradition Monday with what we learned about this crazy bayou climate. It was pretty mosquito-ridden, but Aengus didn't get any bites. I was covered and had to coat my legs in castor oil--fun stuff...

Aengus enjoyed playing in the bouncer while we planted. He was so proud that he could hit the little dangling animals.

Baxter wanted to be in the picture. Hopefully we'll get a better yield this time. The Thai peppers are already budding.

Tuckered out after a big day of playing. We all slept pretty well that night.

Recipe: Chana Masala

From VegWeb.com

Ingredients:

2 tbsp vegetable oil

1 medium onion, chopped

1 large clove of garlic, minced

1 tbsp curry paste (can substitute 1 tbsp curry + 1 tbsp tomato paste)

15 oz can chick peas, drained, reserving 3 tablespoon liquid

1/2 tbsp lemon juice

1/2 tsp salt

fresh black pepper

crushed red pepper, optional to taste

1 tbsp vegan margarine

Directions:

Heat oil on medium high heat. Fry onions until slightly browned. Reduce heat to medium. Add garlic and curry paste. Stir and simmer about 2 minutes. Add chick peas, liquid, lemon juice, salt, and black pepper. Simmer 5-6 minutes, stirring occasionally. Add red pepper to taste. Add margarine, stirring through to melt it. Stir and simmer for 5 minutes more or until peas are softened and dish is hot. Serve over rice.

This was so delicious! Not to mention simple to make. I recommend some delicious organic jasmine rice.

The Family Bed

Will, Aengus, and I (and sometimes, despite my best efforts, the dog) have a Family Bed. This was natural for us, and has worked brilliantly for the past 2 months. In fact, it has worked for millions of years for us mammals. Sleeping with your children is an evolutionary imperative.

I love this comic. It is almost exactly how our bed looks, minus Will wearing a mask.

If you love cloth diapers as much as I do and want to support mom-owned business, check out the Happy Baby Company, aka Pittsburgh Cloth Diapers. On Facebook, enter the discussion contest!

Spare the rod?

Time magazine just released an article on a study showing how spanking leads to more aggression in children.

Duh.

There are more scientific studies showing a correlation between childhood corporal punishment and violence than I could read (and I am adept at reading journal articles by now). But, what bothers me more about this Time article is the comment section. With people becoming so angry over the idea of NOT hitting a child, is it any wonder that our nation has so much violence?

"Children are the only people in this society anybody is allowed to hit. All the rest of us are legally protected."**from the article "Physical Punishment in the Home" by Penelope Leach.
If questioned, I could go on and on about why hitting should not be used as a form of discipline for anyone (it doesn't work, it leads to resentment and mistrust of parents, aggression, it's not logical) but I don't want to be questioned. Because all those questions are really asking is "why don't you make the right decision and hit your kid?" Anecdotal evidence stating "I was spanked and I turned out fine" does not convince me that hitting is an effective form of discipline. I could just as easily say "John Smith was spanked and he is a serial killer, or Susie Q wasn't spanked and now she runs a fortune 500 company". Anecdotal evidence is nothing. Not to mention, I like to include in my anecdotal response "I was spanked and turned out amazing despite the hitting. And I still work through it emotionally every day".Really, what I find interesting is that people assume that spanking is the only discipline. Umm...no. Hitting is easy discipline; discipline for those who did not have time to build skills in conflict resolution, who don't believe children are beings with whom you can be rational or reasonable, or who are exhausted and don't have enough support. Or maybe they feel their religion compels them to spank.***
Well, I am not raising a dog here, I want Aengus to be his own person. I'm just here to help him along the way, not to be Augusto Pinochet. If sometimes he disagrees with me, so what? I disagree with Will sometimes--does that mean I have disrespected him? Not necessarily. It's all about respecting each other. Which led us to: Gentle Discipline.
"Parents who choose "gentle discipline" or "positive discipline", do not spank, but instead will use things like distraction (for toddlers) and natural and logical consequences (for older children). If they do use "time-outs", they tend to use them in a nonpunitive way--a break, away from a situation where the child has lost control of themselves and need to take a couple minutes to get control again. Generally the parent will participate in this "positive time-out" with the child, as opposed to sending them away to "think about what they did" or to punish them."
***By the way, if you are part of a certain mainstream U.S. religion (evangelicals, I'm looking at you) and you feel hitting is wrong, please check out this website for other parents from your religion who will support you in parenting gently. (They can also provide you with resources including verses from the bible and other religious texts to help with explaining to family members, etc).

Back in Black

In honor of Angus Young's birthday today, (who incidentally we did NOT name our child after, but don't take offense if you think we did) I thought I'd include our Aengus's favorite lullaby.

Yes, that's right. With all the jokes Will and I made about Aengus and AC/DC after going to see them in concert in October, it turns out our son loves Acca Dacca. If he's crying, the sure-fire way to make him calm down (other than letting him have naked time) is to put on Back in Black. As soon as he hears that guitar, he'll let out a little sigh and start looking around. Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap is a close second.

I suppose it was destined to happen. After all, he was born on the 30th anniversary of Bon Scott's death...

The "Vaccination Backlash"?

Who knew that vaccination would turn into a such a hot button issue? When I was a kid, I remember lamenting the one or two booster "shots" I had to get at the doctor's office. I also remember at least one family at my school who chose not to get those "shots". Whatever, it wasn't a big deal to my parents or any of the other parents at the school. It only came up when we all lined up in middle school to get the Hepatitis B and Tetanus vaccines. I was jealous that those girls didn't have the sore spot, but that was the end of it.

Today, the tables have turned. It has turned into an "us vs them" of vaccinators and non-vaccinators. Pediatricians have suddenly started fighting against alternative vaccination schedules the same way OB/GYNs have been fighting against midwifery in the past few years. It seems they think parents are deciding to delay or forego vaccines because Jenny McCarthy says they might cause autism. (Yeah, and we all had homebirths because Ricki Lake told us to *sarcasm*.)

In the latest issue of The Lancet, Paul Offit proposes re-education for anyone who dare question the CDC schedule. (Re-education camps...yeah...that's not treading on my civil liberties or bodily autonomy.)

“Offit suggests one way to raise vaccination rates is to make it harder for people not to get themselves or their children vaccinated. This could mean, for example, attending educational classes that teach the public what the safety profiles of different vaccines are, before they are allowed to opt out of vaccination. “You have to convince people that a choice not to get a vaccine is not a risk-free choice; it’s just a choice to take a different risk.” ”

- The Lancet

----Side issue to be discussed first: Before I'm allowed to opt out of vaccination? I can opt out of a blood transfusion if I don't want one, can request and receive antibiotics for minor infections, or even decide to never take myself or my child to the doctor. But, I can't make an educated decision based on risk-benefit analysis whether or not to inject my child without taking mandatory classes? I feel like George Orwell is rolling over in his grave right now. Meanwhile, Paul Offit most likely has a conflict of interest as a multi-millionaire who earned his money in the vaccine business. Okay, back on topic---

While it may be true that some parents fear the possible connection between vaccines/mercury/aluminum/etc and autism, it is foolish to assume that is the only reason someone would not vaccinate their child on the CDC schedule. If you talk to anti-vaxer's, you will see parents who understand that there are risks to not vaccinating, just as there are risks to immunizing your child on schedule. I would bet my right arm that parents who don't vaccinate have done 99% more research on the vaccines and diseases than your average vaccinating parent. So, Dr. Offit, if you are still under the impression that non-vaxer's are all uneducated idiots who you claim think "vaccines are the devil", here are just a few reasons parents may want to wait on vaccines for their children:

-Serotype replacement issues: if I vaccinate for one strain of bacteria, will another serotype replace it and become more deadly? will antibiotic resistance increase?

-Questions about efficacy: the mumps outbreak in vaccinated communities, for example

-Increased number of vaccines: when does a common childhood illness like chickenpox become a deadly disease requiring vaccination for ALL children? There are also no studies showing the safety of injecting multiple vaccines at one time.

-Vaccine injury: anything from a fever and uncontrolled crying (common) to the notably rare brain damage and death...leading to the next point

-The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act: should pharmaceutical companies be protected from being sued if a vaccine they produce isn't safe?

-Recalls: should new vaccines be put on the recommended/required schedule without sufficient testing? (most recently, Rotarix)

-Ingredients: mercury (thimerosal), aluminum, and formaldehyde are the most common complaints

-Allergies: vaccine ingredients such as antibiotics, eggs, and gelatin could cause life-threatening allergic reactions in children with allergies

-Religion: a variety of reasons, the most common from mainstream christians being the "human diploid cells" coming from aborted fetuses (while I am pro-choice, I understand this being problematic for pro-life people)

There are other reasons, I'm sure, as well as some that are just slipping my mind.

Will and I haven't decided exactly what we're doing for Aengus's vaccinations (other than no Hep B at the moment and no Rotarix), but whatever we decide will be just that: our decision.

If Paul Offit's suggestion seems like too much of an invasion on your health and bodily rights, take a look at webpage for The American Rally for Personal Rights.