John McCain released a commercial this weekend attacking Barack Obama for not visiting the troops in the hospital while he was in Europe.
Turns out, they had another ad ready in case he DID visit the troops.
Seriously, politicians. This is why no one likes you.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Monday, July 28, 2008
Morning snack
A woman at playgroup this weekend told me that she had read that if you have a gaggy baby like the Munch (solids make her gag when she swallows, in some case to the point where she throws up everything she's eaten), you should try giving her a whole banana, and she just bites off the size she wants.
So this morning we tried that with some puffs. What didn't occur to me is that between drool, baby grip, and the consistancy a banana takes when you hold it too long, it quickly turned into those sausage shaped toys they had that was filled with water and kept slipping inside out when you tried to grasp it (what were those things called, anyways? Wet Willies?)
On the other hand, she ate at least 5 bites and 10 puffs this morning, and didn't gag once.
Friday, July 25, 2008
Picture Dump
Sorry, really busy. Here are some pics I haven't had a chance to put up. And here is a link to my latest Cribsheet piece (my first guest post is here).
More posting tomorrow after the Cribsheet playdate...


Finally, I caught a (fuzzy) fishface!
More posting tomorrow after the Cribsheet playdate...
Finally, I caught a (fuzzy) fishface!
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Catching Up
Yes, I AM as mischievous as I look...
Between getting caught up with everything I missed while I was in San Francisco, taking notes on all the folks I met at Blogher, and writing a new post for Cribsheet, something had to give, and the site was it.
But now, I am finally all caught up. Munchie is happily playing on the floor, trying to see if she can fit the blocks container over her head. I think she grows hair while I'm gone -- although she doesn't seem to grow more teeth. Her second bottom tooth should be popping through by Saturday based on the white mark on her gums. I think we'll all be relieved -- Munch because the pain will subside, and Smartie and I because our furniture is starting to look like we bought a pet beaver. Munch loves nothing more these last few days than to sit behind the rocking chair, both hands on the back bar, chewing away on the bottom rung.
Munch developed reasoning skills while I was gone as well, which is more than a little disturbing. We discovered not so long ago that she loves to climb, and we knew we would have to keep an eye on this new trick. Today, when I folded her laundry, I left the basket out for her to push around, since she likes to move it around on the hardwood floor while she walks behind (hey, it's cheaper than a fancy walker). However, she pushed it next to the foot stool, then proceeded to trying to climb to the top of the basket to get to the stool itself. Once she realized she wasn't strong enough to pull on top, she moved it to the gate, then grabbed the gate for leverage and pulled herself on top of the basket by her arms. I managed to grab her before she got her feet below her and could stand. So the basket is no longer a good, cheap toy for her.
Other new tricks include the "fish face," which I have yet to get a picture of, and the explosion, which will be in the following post.
Monday, July 21, 2008
Not so pretty
Saturday, July 19, 2008
Blogher Day 1 retrospect
I did not go inside, as I was afraid I could never leave...I think the most interesting thing to me was how small the political panels were, in comparison to the monetary side or mommy-blogging side of things here. I went to an op ed one that leaned progressive that had roughly 40 women in attendance. I dropped in on the conservative planning session (only to drop off cards in case there were women there who planned to be in Minnesota for the RNC but didn't get credentialed and were looking for workspace) and there were about 10 participants. The participation was likely a result of Netroots Nation going on simultaneously in Austin, and a Republican nation meetup happening this weekend as well.
I wonder how much of this is a result of how women view themselves, ie: are they women who write political blogs, or political bloggers who happen to be women? I'm playing with the theory that those who identify as political bloggers first are more likely to go to the party events, and those who identify as women first more likely to be at blogher. It's not a very solid theory, I know. Some of it is logistics, where the conventions are held, what they can get people to sponsor, etc. But it's an entirely different way of networking out here. As a political blogger, NN would be better for getting access to the people and causes I write about. But as a woman, this serves better in talking to people that I might be able to work with to push my content out to a greater audience.
In general, it also boils down to a big fish, small pond. You will get more one on one attention as a political blogger here. But you're trading that attention for a lack of crowds really interested in what you are writing.
However, we have the booze bloggers here, so in the end, I think we win out.
More later, when there is time. I just realized that both women I was talking to last night are on the keynote panel this morning, so I really should try going to it.
Friday, July 18, 2008
Friday Fun
I left my coat in San Francisco

Forget my heart, it's stinking cold out here. And I'm from Minnesota...
My flight was delayed two hours yesterday, but I still managed to get into the city in time for some sushi, a quick cable car ride, and a pre-newbie mixer drink with Tracy. I pooped out early last night and woke up at 6 am San Francisco time.
This morning I walked around the city, then got a coffee before heading to the conference itself.
The schwag here is amazing, but I have to admit I feel a little out of sorts. So far, being a political blogger at Blogher feels like being a lacrosse fan at a sports conference. I'm more than welcome, but this definitely isn't geared to me. I've never been so heavily marketed at in my life -- v-tech, HP, I-Robot, Macys, Wii Fit. I succumbed to some stickers and such with the SuperWhy folks on it for the Munch.

It's a parallel world if you compare it to the folks at Netroots Nation (which, if you mention it to the women here you are more likely to get a "what?" than not. They have turn Texas Blue party -- we have massages and lactation consulting. They have Wesley Clark and Howard Dean. I'm being offered a lunch with Rocco Dispirrito and a cocktail party sponsored by K-Y (no joke).
So I'm torn. It's wonderful to finally see the women of blogging. But the things that they think we want make me feel a little sad. I'm going to be bouncing between the mommy-track and the politics-track, so we'll see what the difference is once we are in our personal groups.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Does my timestamp look early?
I've always been amused by the fact that my timestamp is 2 hours ahead (I still don't know how to fix it), so it looks like I write at an even more ungodly hour than I actually do.
It seems much less funny when I really am going to be up at that awful hour.
I'm heading to San Francisco for Blogher in about an hour. I expect the time change will be a killer. I will likely be wandering the hotel or streets at 5 am, thinking that I slept in.
Last year I went to Netroots Nation, and, though I had a good time, everything was a little homogeneous -- very male panels, very politically oriented, etc. My favorite panel was on women bloggers (yes, just one panel). It was packed, we went overtime, and everyone enjoyed herself.
I'm hoping Blogher will be a lot like that, but more so.
I'm going to be bouncing back and forth between two tracks -- bouncing between panels for women political bloggers and mommybloggers. Now that campaigning is in full swing, and I find the baby to somewhat less perplexing daily, I find myself missing the political writing and organizing I used to love. It's something that I'm trying to reintroduce to my life slowly, like with the guest post I wrote for the Star Tribune's parent blog Cribsheet last week.
So this weekend is both work and personal. I'm officially there looking for potential new partnerships for the CIM. But I'm also there to find a better balance to my life -- to not just be the mommyblogger or the political activist, but the mom who understands better what a huge role politics will play on my daughter's future and wants to be actively involved in shaping that.
(PS - for those following the twitter in the sidebar, Munch let me borrow it to twitter the conference, so no, the baby is NOT out drinking.... ;-) )
It seems much less funny when I really am going to be up at that awful hour.
I'm heading to San Francisco for Blogher in about an hour. I expect the time change will be a killer. I will likely be wandering the hotel or streets at 5 am, thinking that I slept in.
Last year I went to Netroots Nation, and, though I had a good time, everything was a little homogeneous -- very male panels, very politically oriented, etc. My favorite panel was on women bloggers (yes, just one panel). It was packed, we went overtime, and everyone enjoyed herself.
I'm hoping Blogher will be a lot like that, but more so.
I'm going to be bouncing back and forth between two tracks -- bouncing between panels for women political bloggers and mommybloggers. Now that campaigning is in full swing, and I find the baby to somewhat less perplexing daily, I find myself missing the political writing and organizing I used to love. It's something that I'm trying to reintroduce to my life slowly, like with the guest post I wrote for the Star Tribune's parent blog Cribsheet last week.
So this weekend is both work and personal. I'm officially there looking for potential new partnerships for the CIM. But I'm also there to find a better balance to my life -- to not just be the mommyblogger or the political activist, but the mom who understands better what a huge role politics will play on my daughter's future and wants to be actively involved in shaping that.
(PS - for those following the twitter in the sidebar, Munch let me borrow it to twitter the conference, so no, the baby is NOT out drinking.... ;-) )
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Assumptions I made that are very, very wrong...
1) Thinking that both teeth come in at the same time when teething. They do not.
2) Teething ever ends. It does not.
3) Tylenol makes things better. It does not.
4) A baby can't poop 5 times in one day once she's over 6 months old. She can.
5) I can work at home and take care of a baby at the same time. I think I was very VERY wrong here.
Monday, July 14, 2008
Let's talk honestly about vaccines
(Note: This is going to be a mean post. I've been angry for a while. It's coming out now.)
No one wants to say it out loud, but autism is the boogeyman of children's disabilities. It terrifies parents because of the utter unfairness of the disorder. You spend 9 months holding your breath in the hopes that you give birth to a healthy, perfect child. As the pregnancy progresses, if you chose to, you can do scans and testing, checking for potential medical issues with your child. But even should those all be clear you cannot be certain about anything until you see your baby for yourself, and, if you chose to, have the myriad of testings and screenings done in the first few minutes post birth.
For some of us, it goes on longer than that. With Munch we had to watch carefully for the first 6 weeks to be sure she suffered no ill effects from her early infection. Any cough she might have made had me convinced we were seeing the onset of lung issues from the meconium she may have inhaled. But like every parent who is lucky enough to win the baby lottery, we made it through and ended up with a healthy, happy little girl who is completely "normal."
And that is why autism frightens parents beyond belief. To make it so far, to think you've gotten won the lottery and produced what society thinks of as "the perfect child," only to have it suddenly change in the toddler years is terrifying. If you avoid alcohol, you won't have a baby with FAS. If you avoid tobacco, you won't have one with low birth weight. If you avoid tuna, you won't have to worry about mercury affecting the brain. But what do you avoid to protect a child from autism?
This is the reason that many parents are holding on to the now disproven theory that vaccines can cause autism. If something can be done to lessen the risk of it occurring, what parent wouldn't jump at the chance?
I've tried to avoid this topic. I have at least one person ask me why I would put the Munch at such risk every time I mention a checkup. I usually send them links like this, or ones that state that thimerosal was removed from vaccines years ago just in case. The last issue of Parents magazine (thanks, Grandma!) has a fantastic look at vaccines and debunks the controversy thoroughly. But still it seems some parents won't believe what the research has proven again and again. But for the most part I've had a "live and let live" attitude towards the anti-vaccine parents.
But now, these parents are putting my child in danger.
Not vaccinating your child puts him or her at risk for these diseases. If that is a risk you are willing to take, fine. However, you are also putting my child, who is NOT fully vaccinated yet, at risk of these diseases as well.
And let's be honest here, this isn't the first time you put my baby at risk. If you truly believe that vaccines are responsible for autism to the point that you fear for your child's safety, why are you so willing to have my baby put into danger in order to keep up the herd immunity necessary to keep your child from catching these diseases? It seems your movement has become effective now to the point where you no longer can rely on us to keep your child healthy for you.
To be fair here, I am not a fan of willy-nilly vaccination, and I take every shot quite seriously. When we began the chickenpox immunity, I asked if we really needed that, since both Smarty and I had chickenpox as children and suffered no adverse reactions. "Well, sure, and people used to make it through measles, mumps, even polio once up on a time with no issues, but some of them didn't," replied our doctor. "Why would you risk it?"
So that is my question today. The link between vaccines and autism has been debunked by scientists. Perhaps autism is rising (although it could just be that we are better at diagnosing it now), but there are many things that have changed in the last 20 years that could be a factor: parents are older when they are having their first child, our water has more chemicals in it than it did previously, we spend more time exposed to toxins everywhere. Or perhaps it's something completely different. Autism rates have been rising since they began adding DHA-ARA to formula, could that be a link? Or rising since the push to return to breastfeeding -- is there something passing through the milk from mother to child that causes autism? Or, since children aren't effected until sometime after they move to solids, maybe children should be kept exclusively on nothing but liquids?
Ridiculous suggestions? Of course. But are the results any more dangerous that a population that stops vaccinating their young?
No one wants to say it out loud, but autism is the boogeyman of children's disabilities. It terrifies parents because of the utter unfairness of the disorder. You spend 9 months holding your breath in the hopes that you give birth to a healthy, perfect child. As the pregnancy progresses, if you chose to, you can do scans and testing, checking for potential medical issues with your child. But even should those all be clear you cannot be certain about anything until you see your baby for yourself, and, if you chose to, have the myriad of testings and screenings done in the first few minutes post birth.
For some of us, it goes on longer than that. With Munch we had to watch carefully for the first 6 weeks to be sure she suffered no ill effects from her early infection. Any cough she might have made had me convinced we were seeing the onset of lung issues from the meconium she may have inhaled. But like every parent who is lucky enough to win the baby lottery, we made it through and ended up with a healthy, happy little girl who is completely "normal."
And that is why autism frightens parents beyond belief. To make it so far, to think you've gotten won the lottery and produced what society thinks of as "the perfect child," only to have it suddenly change in the toddler years is terrifying. If you avoid alcohol, you won't have a baby with FAS. If you avoid tobacco, you won't have one with low birth weight. If you avoid tuna, you won't have to worry about mercury affecting the brain. But what do you avoid to protect a child from autism?
This is the reason that many parents are holding on to the now disproven theory that vaccines can cause autism. If something can be done to lessen the risk of it occurring, what parent wouldn't jump at the chance?
I've tried to avoid this topic. I have at least one person ask me why I would put the Munch at such risk every time I mention a checkup. I usually send them links like this, or ones that state that thimerosal was removed from vaccines years ago just in case. The last issue of Parents magazine (thanks, Grandma!) has a fantastic look at vaccines and debunks the controversy thoroughly. But still it seems some parents won't believe what the research has proven again and again. But for the most part I've had a "live and let live" attitude towards the anti-vaccine parents.
But now, these parents are putting my child in danger.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The biggest U.S. outbreak of measles since 1997 has sickened 127 people in 15 states, most of whom were not vaccinated against the highly contagious viral illness, federal health officials said on Wednesday.
Not vaccinating your child puts him or her at risk for these diseases. If that is a risk you are willing to take, fine. However, you are also putting my child, who is NOT fully vaccinated yet, at risk of these diseases as well.
And let's be honest here, this isn't the first time you put my baby at risk. If you truly believe that vaccines are responsible for autism to the point that you fear for your child's safety, why are you so willing to have my baby put into danger in order to keep up the herd immunity necessary to keep your child from catching these diseases? It seems your movement has become effective now to the point where you no longer can rely on us to keep your child healthy for you.
To be fair here, I am not a fan of willy-nilly vaccination, and I take every shot quite seriously. When we began the chickenpox immunity, I asked if we really needed that, since both Smarty and I had chickenpox as children and suffered no adverse reactions. "Well, sure, and people used to make it through measles, mumps, even polio once up on a time with no issues, but some of them didn't," replied our doctor. "Why would you risk it?"
So that is my question today. The link between vaccines and autism has been debunked by scientists. Perhaps autism is rising (although it could just be that we are better at diagnosing it now), but there are many things that have changed in the last 20 years that could be a factor: parents are older when they are having their first child, our water has more chemicals in it than it did previously, we spend more time exposed to toxins everywhere. Or perhaps it's something completely different. Autism rates have been rising since they began adding DHA-ARA to formula, could that be a link? Or rising since the push to return to breastfeeding -- is there something passing through the milk from mother to child that causes autism? Or, since children aren't effected until sometime after they move to solids, maybe children should be kept exclusively on nothing but liquids?
Ridiculous suggestions? Of course. But are the results any more dangerous that a population that stops vaccinating their young?
Sunday, July 13, 2008
7 months old
Yesterday, Munch turned 7 months old. She's got a new tooth, her favorite babble is "mama" and her two favorite games are chase (especially if you get down on all fours and let her headbutt you repeatedly) and "I'm-giggling-at-you-because-you-have-my-toy-in-your-mouth-and-that-is-funny-to-me!" She has mastered crawling, grown bored with standing now that she has figured out how to get herself down, and is moving on to creeping, especially thanks to her new activity table.

She has more personality every day, including a ferocious stubborn streak, a frightening dose of bravery, and a new and aggravating hatred of naps.
But mostly she's just the little girl we love more every day.
She has more personality every day, including a ferocious stubborn streak, a frightening dose of bravery, and a new and aggravating hatred of naps.
But mostly she's just the little girl we love more every day.
Wednesday, July 09, 2008
Oh Elephant Gals Won't You Come Out and Run?
So, the Republicans are challenging every house and senate seat in the state, and they are running "4 or 5" candidates of color and more than 30 women.
I've always sort of envied the Republican Party for two things: their willingness to give leadership positions and groom their young, and their push for women candidates. I noticed a few years ago during the legislative session that a large number of their bills were introduced by women, especially the more controversial ones such as anti-choice legislation, anti-gay marriage legislation, and conceal and carry. Sens. Fischbach, Bauchmann and Boudreau made their names on these types of bills, and I don't appear to be the only one who noticed women were given the stage to push them through.
Adding more women to the mix is the perfect step for Republicans. Having female sponsors on bills like conceal carry softens the legislation, makes it seem less threatening. Somehow, unpalatable legislation seems slightly less distasteful with a woman's push and support because, after all, surely they wouldn't sponsor something that would be harmful, now would they? Cuts on education, removing people from MinnCare, well, it can't be that bad. After all, if mom thinks it's ok to do, it must be fine.
If this sounds harsh, go back and see for yourself how many times it's mentioned that the now Rep. Michele Bachmann has 5 children and 23 foster children.
I've always sort of envied the Republican Party for two things: their willingness to give leadership positions and groom their young, and their push for women candidates. I noticed a few years ago during the legislative session that a large number of their bills were introduced by women, especially the more controversial ones such as anti-choice legislation, anti-gay marriage legislation, and conceal and carry. Sens. Fischbach, Bauchmann and Boudreau made their names on these types of bills, and I don't appear to be the only one who noticed women were given the stage to push them through.
Adding more women to the mix is the perfect step for Republicans. Having female sponsors on bills like conceal carry softens the legislation, makes it seem less threatening. Somehow, unpalatable legislation seems slightly less distasteful with a woman's push and support because, after all, surely they wouldn't sponsor something that would be harmful, now would they? Cuts on education, removing people from MinnCare, well, it can't be that bad. After all, if mom thinks it's ok to do, it must be fine.
If this sounds harsh, go back and see for yourself how many times it's mentioned that the now Rep. Michele Bachmann has 5 children and 23 foster children.
Monday, July 07, 2008
Friday, July 04, 2008
Thursday, July 03, 2008
Wednesday, July 02, 2008
Tuesday, July 01, 2008
Climbing, standing and sitting - A Munchie Photojournal
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
