Man Up, Already!

What happened to the occupation or vocation of customer service?
I've worked in the service industries before--waitress, sales, fitness. I understand that people can be aggravating, rude, obnoxious, and down right stupid. BUT, if you enter into this field, you know you're getting paid to deal with this. It doesn't mean that it won't get to you, but you just can't let it show. Or worse, is the representative who just couldn't be bothered to do their job. As though your inquiry or need for assistance is an inconvenience to them.
This brings to mind a story that my mom told me today. My dad needs to travel abroad for business and it is very last minute. My book hopped online to book him a ticket. She used a site, which will remain nameless but offers tickets cheaply (piece that together...), and she reserved the flights. Because one of the airlines hasn't skipped into this millennium, they prefer paper tickets. Well long story short, my mom's been waiting for the tickets to arrive and when they didn't, she called to inquire. Apparently, because this company did not have time (a week) to generate and mail paper tickets, they just cancelled the reservation. With no warning!!!
After being shuffled around and being told that she was notified by email, my mom asked for a copy of the email to be resent to her. Well of course, that was just impossible (could it be b/c the email never existed?!) and that she and my dad are just SOL. To boot, the guy was RUDE!
Hmmm....my parents are willing to pay money to the company he works for, for a service they provide and somehow wanting what they paid for constituted an inconvenience to this man. Go figure.
Or how about when I received an overdue notice in the mail a couple months ago for an account that has been closed for over a year. When I called, I was told that unless I was willing to make a payment there was nothing that could be done. I tried to tell the woman (before she hung up on me) that I would be willing to make a payment if I could just receive a copy of the invoice to prove that I did in fact owe the balance. She effing hung up on me!!! After she told me to not yell at her. I wasn't yelling (yet), I just didn't feel like being bamboozled for almost a Benjamin. I started yelling when she lied to me about not having a supervisor available.
Needless to say, I called back. I spoke to a much nicer woman who instantly put me through to a supervisor. This supervisor took my complaint seriously and told me they would be happy to send out an invoice detailing the charge. Wonderful!!!
Well a month goes by and it dawns on me, no invoice! I call back and get another nice woman who saw the note that one was supposed to be sent. She agrees to resend it. It's now been almost two weeks and still no invoice! Hell, I guess they don't want the money that badly b/c I haven't received another past due notice either.
But this just makes me wonder why would you take a job in a call bank if you don't want to deal with people? This reminds me of people who complain about not being able to find work. But it's really b/c they're too picky. They just want a good job, not any job. Last I checked, almost every MickyD's is hiring.
And why do we even bother to call it customer service?
Dictionary.com defines service as "an act of helpful activity; help; aid". If that's the case why did this entire career field miss the memo on what they're supposed to do. I would say rename it to customer assistance if the idea of serving rubs these folks the wrong way. But again, assistance would make one think that they are going to receive some help.
I would rather they be honest when answering the phone, "Thanks for calling customer annoyance. I might be inclined to help you, but realize that I may not. How might I frustrate you?" At least then I wouldn't get my hopes up of resolving my issue of the day.
If it truly takes less muscles to smile than frown, wouldn't it also just be easier to be nice than to come up with ways to annoy others.
If you don't like people, then get a job somewhere else---like forensics or the morgue!

His or hers? We're talking more than just sinks!

As many of you know, my two year old is full of craftiness, spunk, and love but not full of words; at least, not the intelligible type. Anyone who has spent even a few minutes with him will confirm that he has plenty to say but very little of it is understandable. It's just babble with a few well- and misplaced words. Because of my concerns about his speech development, I got him screened through the Early Intervention program. I'll let you know the results in a moment.
As a baby, Andy was "advanced" in all areas. Given his size, his had an advantage in motor skills simply b/c he had the physical strength to develop faster. Verbally, he began vowel and rolling consonant sounds early. I attribute a lot of that to the undivided attention he received from me for the first four months of his life. We did a lot of nursery rhymes, songs, and I talked to him constantly.
When I went back to work after four months of being a SAHM, Andy received the best care I could find. He still received a lot of individual time but I wonder if not being with me and continuing the routine we began has anything to do with his speech now. Furthermore, during the crucial language development period of 12-18 months, I was otherwise preoccupied with the throes of morning sickness and other pregnancy ailments. Because I was delinquent in my maternal nurturing, I think perhaps that had something to do with it. And I also think that it's just Andy. As he's grown more into his predestined personality, his strengths are far more tactile-kinetic than verbal (he's a doer not a talker).
Vygotsky (a dead cognitive theorist) would agree that my lack of fostering Andy's verbal skills by not talking enough or "properly" to him and not enabling him to have more friends his own age are the root of our problems. I did not offer enough scaffolding or support to Andy. He did not have the opportunity to learn from others.
Piaget (another dead cognitive theorist) would argue that Andy will get there....eventually. He would argue that children develop learned behaviors within a certain breadth of time and as long as it happens within that window, it doesn't matter when, just that it does. Piaget would contend that Andy just has not reached the necessary level of metacognition to be a talker yet.
Whichever school you subscribe to (and if you're like me, you're lazily and comfortably resting on the fence--well maybe not comfortably b/c pickets are rather pointy), I am reassured that Andy will eventually talk and talk well. Based upon the results of his screening, Andy will be referred for some speech therapy to help get us up to speed. I'm excited for this to begin for two reasons. First, I am happy that he will get some help so that he'll be able to convey his wants and needs more easily thus he'll be less frustrated. Secondly, I'm excited to learn how I can better help him. I could certainly do with a less frustrated two year old.
Incidentally, the screening was not just for vocab proficiency. It included motor skills and personality. Needless, to say those areas came out very well--out of a possible 60 points, Andy received all 60 for gross motor skills, 60 for personality (surprise, surprise), and while he took a ding on fine motors b/c he was more interested in watching the lady draw a line with the crayon than do it himself, he earned 55 points in that area.
As I contemplated the results today, I reflected on the reassurances that I've received from other mommies on this topic. Boys just tend to develop linguistically slower than girls while their motor skills are faster and stronger. I see this in the other little kids Andy's age. And it led me to think about how there is a growing interest in single sex classrooms for elementary age students.
The schools that have "experimented" with single sex classrooms use the fundamental strengths or tendencies of each gender to formulate teaching methods. The boys' classrooms are more rambunctious and active while the girls' classes are more orderly and sedate. The boys are encouraged to learn through hands on exploration and movement. The girls engage in more analytical and communicative learning. I used the term "experimented" in quotes because for generations, the sexes were separated at school. People! This is not a new concept!!! And yet Time magazine did a whole spread on this about a year and half ago, as though it was the invention of the cotton gin!
While classroom management and human development protocols have evolved significantly over the past two decades, there may still be a lot to be said for single sex education.
Plenty of other developed and leading nations sill have single gender grammar and secondary schools. In the US, the remaining women's colleges of the Seven Sisters (those who didn't sell out and go co-ed or become defunct) are still ranked equivalent to an Ivy League education as that's how they began--either as the counterpart, equivalent, or sister school to the original IV schools.
So I pose these questions: In our attempts to use culturally appropriate, linguistically sensitive, cooperative, equal education for all, have we overlooked some of the fundamentals of cognitive development? Is there something to be said for allowing boys to be boys? How do we find a balance so that children can learn in their own way while ensuring that the genders continue to work cooperatively rather than regressively? And has nurture overtaken nature?

I think that we can still incorporate all the elements of my first question while fostering single sex education. A diverse student body does not have to mean a dual gender environment. There is definitely something to be said for allowing boys to be boys and girls to be girls. Recognizing that and appreciating it, helps all children to develop in their own individual and unique manner. As long as children who attend single sex schools are given appropriate opportunities to interact with the opposite sex, I think there is a lot to be said for removing the distractions of peer pressure and emerging sexuality from the educational process. --Have you seen the clothes they wear these days? Uh--distracting is an understatement!--If you do choose to send your child to a single sex program, ensure that it is well rounded. That it does not just conform to the stereotypical gender roles. Girls' school should have strong science and math departments while the boys' school should engage them in critical thinking activities (and teach them to cook!) So perhaps nurture has not yet overtaken nature or vice versa, but rather we are still figuring out how best to allow them to work in tandem.
Perhaps the only separation we do need is in the bathroom. I certainly don't want to going back to sharing a sink!

After reading this disquisition, you may be apt to think that I intend to send my boys to all boys schools (aside from my frequent proclamation that they will be sent to a monastery at age 13, I am the product of attending a single sex school--I went to Mount Holyoke, a Seven Sister, for a year before trading cows in pastures of Massachusetts for national monuments in DC) but in all honestly, I will send my boys to the best school we can find/afford/ or that I teach at.

Any thoughts on this?

Growing up or growing old

Last night, several of my mommy friends and I went out for a sushi dinner and then ended up at a neighboring restaurant for drinks and karaoke. This gave me pause to reflect on whether I am growing old.
These days, when I go out for an evening, I look at my watch constantly. I judge how late I can stay out by how much sleep I will get based on my projected time home. Since both of my children do not understand the concept of sleeping in and are EARLY risers, I rarely stay out past midnight. I need at least six hours! This calls to mind my first entry on this blog. As I kvetched about being awoken at 1 am and 3 am, I should have recalled that there were plenty of nights, in the good ole days, that not only was I awake at those hours, I was often not even home yet! Now my bedtime is no later that 11pm. Should I be having a glass of warm milk and a Geritol every night?
Last night's antics were just plain fun! But at the same time, it was inevitable that with a group of mommies, at some point the conversation gravitates towards our children. Once upon a time, an evening could be judged a success based upon how many drinks were purchased for me. Now a successful night is making it home before the baby wakes up for a feeding and having my prayers answered that the older one has not dismantled his room.
My nuclear family life is like a mobile where my orbit is around my children's. Every once in a while I upset the balance by trying to make it me-centric. I try to grab my life with both hands and make it about me-again. I go out for a mom's night out, I push going down for a nap to the last possible minute so that I can finish an appointment or talk just a little longer, or I stretch out a nap just a little longer than it really lasted just so that I have a bit more solitude. But another inevitability is that thanks to the centripetal force of family, my life will return to its natural orbit, which is a satellite to my boys' lives.
As much fun and as necessary for my sanity are my MNO's, the edge is taken off when you realize that you've missed the last hug and kiss of the day or the soft gurgles and sighs over the monitor.
So am I growing old because I just can't hang anymore or is there a remote possibility that I'm finally growing up and getting my priorities in line?


Ironically, as I write this epistle about how I love to come home and that life is SO not about me anymore, my toddler is driving my nuts by repeatedly putting his sandals on the furniture and I keep wondering just how soon can we get out of the house.

Irresponsible advertising/proprietorship or irresponsible consumerism

I saw the most infuriating commercial today. Well maybe not the most, but as a former substitute teacher, a future full time teacher, and all the time mom, this really (to steal a phrase from my friend Beth) chapped my ass!
It was commercial for Walmart, which was probably the first problem and I should have known I was being led down a slippery slope. In the commercial, a little boy (late elementary, early middle school age) bounds out of bed and grabs his essentials for the first day of school: a PSP, an iPod, and a cell phone. WTF!!!!!!!!!!!!
Where to even begin with the problems in that school supply list! All the mom can say is, " he probably has his PSP, his phone, and his iPod. I just hope he has his calculator."
Let me first articulate my problems from the view of a parent and teacher, then I will tackle the problem from the general consumer viewpoint.
As a parent, I understand the concept of children having cell phones. We want to keep in touch with our children and be sure that they have a means to contact us in case of need or emergency. I was given a cell phone when I was in high school because I started driving. I was, however, told that it was for emergencies only. It was back in the day when there was nothing sexy about the over sized device; though I was still in the minority to have one. When my fingers got a little dialing crazy, I was in no uncertain terms chewed a new one by my mom. She very clearly explained that it was not meant for me to gab on but to be kept as a safety device. Point taken. These days, I think parents allow way too many minutes and text messages on their children's plans. And are way too accommodating when their children run up bills for overages.
As a former substitute teacher, I often had quite the collection of models by the end of the day. Students frequently forgot to turn off their ringers or tried to sneak in the text here or there. It's disruptive, rude, annoying, ingratiating, immature-shall I go on? I think not, you get the idea. A school, as last I checked, is still a place of learning. Social development is important (I've done my school work on cooperative learning groups, so I don't need reminding that kids have to learn social skills somewhere ) but leave your chit chat for lunch, passing time, and for the few schools that have it, recess.
Speak when spoken to in my class! And you'd best not be spoken to on the phone!

As a consumer, I think that it's reprehensible that Walmart endorse such a campaign. And while it's catchy (and obviously currently applicable), it's validating inappropriate behavior by the advertising firm. Encouraging children to take inappropriate, likely inadmissible, distracting, and costly technology to school is only setting the kids up for a) disappointment if in real life their parents have enough common sense to not send them with at least the iPod or PSP and b) suspension, detention, or confiscation of their device.

America may be the wealthiest country, it may have the most diverse university system, it may have the most career opportunities, but America is still struggling to be the most competitive country in the area of primary and secondary education. In various areas we lag significantly behind the Japanese, the British, the Germans, and the Scandinavians. We have such programs as No Child Left Behind in order to try to standardize our educational system and to make sure that every child receives at least a basic education. Rather than worrying solely about whether students can pass a standardized test, thereby ensuring continuing funding, maybe schools should worry a little more about their students being able to pay enough attention to learn anything in the first place! How about standardizing some rules about what can and can't be brought to school?

In conclusion, I think the triad of permissive parents (irresponsible consumerism) as well as the irresponsible marketing by the ad firm and the client (Walmart) create a situation that leaves children confused, frustrated, and susceptible to added peer pressure and unnecessarily creates situations where children face disciplinary action at school.

Just nip it in the bud---market the devices as recreation not educational. And if you do buy it for your kids, lay the ground work for rules and check your kid's backpacks!

I shall now do a swan dive as I dismount off my soapbox.

To Be or Not To Be

....A princess, a diva, a prima donna, a drama queen.
I was talking to another mommy today about how girls and boys differ in the area of drama. She noted that her daughter tends to be a drama queen while her son is the sensitive one.
This conversation came to mind as I was putting Matt to bed.
It tangentially moved to why do we tell little girls that they're princesses. Are we setting up a false sense of importance or entitlement or self beauty? Anthropologically speaking, is this something that we do as a culture or a class system? Or just for some other reason?
Let's look at the first question. By telling little girls that they are princesses, are we creating a false sense of importance? We all want our children to grow up knowing that they are wanted, loved, special, unique and above all important. But do we create a false sense of over-importance by equating them to royalty? If a royal family comes about because of the Divine Right of Kings (as in God decided they specifically should be royal) are we inadvertently telling little girls who believe they are princesses that they are more favored by God than other little kids? Or if a royal family becomes that by conquering, does that mean that a little princess should impose her will on her little friends? Are we giving them a misplaced sense of entitlement? If princesses can have whatever their hearts desire because they're royal and rich, are we telling little girls that they should get whatever they want. Doesn't this send a mixed message as parents also try to teach boundaries and restraint? And since all fairy tale princesses are beautiful, does this put unreal pressure on little girls to be beautiful. What happens to these little girls as they grow up if they don't think they're as pretty as the fair tale characters or heaven forbid another little kid calls them ugly. Are we laying the foundation for some self- image distortion?
We, as a culture, generally do not tell little boys to prance around on an imaginary steed as if they're fairy tale princes. We also don't tell them to speed around the living room in the Batmobile. I try to keep my son from bounding off the couch, so I won't be supporting his attempts to be Super Man. With the exception of the recent surge in comic book movies, there are not corresponding characters for boys to aspire to. We just tell little boys to grow up to be men.
As a culture (and when I use this term, it could be as an American culture, a Western culture, a Judeo-Christian culture, a modernized first world culture--I'm not really sure which it should be, so I leave it undefined. I'm taking an anthropological look but don't have the background to do a full study), we generally try to masculate our little boys and feminize little girls. As a result, we tell little boys to suck it up and walk it off. Yet we often fuss over little girls. This leads me back to my original query about the drama. On occasion I will call my son a Drama King but he really doesn't have much drama--or at least not more than any other non speaking two year old. I think his drama is not gender related; I think I should really call him Attention Seeking Prince. However, I have heard other mommies of little girls say that they have a lot of drama to contend with. I wonder why that is. Is it inherently gender specific or is it our culture?
We now call any woman who is assertive or insistent in her wants and attention seeking a DIVA. That word replaced the term PRIMA DONNA (ironically, neither are American-English terms and we don't have our own equivalent). It used to be deemed a bad thing to be a prima donna but now plenty of celebutantes and entertainers strive to embody the modern definition of a diva rather than the traditional---a uber talented woman who is at the pinnacle of her stage career.
So have we come to expect girls to be filled with drama? Do we anticipate and even foster it? Where does this leave little boys who filled with drama (do we raise them to be little Princes) or what about those without drama?
I pose these questions to you because I'm just not sure. Perhaps none of it matters and I shouldn't be waxing philosophical but this is (as I warned in my first post) what is going through my head tonight. I thought I would share and see if any of you have some thoughts on the matter.
Oh and I'm not passing judgment on any of you mommies who call your little girls "Princess". I call my boys Bear Cub or Baby Bear or Little Bear, but I don't expect them to go charging after other kids and chase them into trees or scavenge through camp sites. I realize these are often just terms of endearment. I just thought I would take a deeper look at a cultural phenomena.

I passed!

I just got my unofficial results for the CBEST (California Basic Education Skills Test) and I PASSED!
I was only slightly worried that I wouldn't but it's just nice to know that it's over and done with.
Now I can apply for a subsitute teaching license, if I want. And I'm one step closer to being ready to get back into the classroom in January to do my student teaching.

As far as the big things are concerned before student teaching, I just have one more objective exam for school, the CA subject matter exam, and the finger printing/ background check.

The rest is just school work. After I finish my student teaching, I'll have my capstone to work on. Then I will have my Masters!

I guess after that, I'll start to think about my PhD....

Who thought it would be a good idea?

Who thought it would be a good idea to measure most baby clothes in just weight? If you don't have children, this will go right over your head. But if you do, you probably will know what I'm about to preach on.
Caveat: There are a few brands that do put in length but most are months and weight.
If a tag says 16-28 lbs, will it really fit my child? How about putting some length measurements on the tag. Do they think that I'm going to put a 20lb dumb bell in the clothing, then pick it up, and see if it bursts at the seams? Or do they think that I pick my kids up by the scruff and if they do an Incredible Hulk and rip through, then I know they're too big? Of course, I'm not going to do these things. (Well grabbing them by the scruff would yet again be a different post). I suppose they figure that I'm more likely to know how much my child weighs than how long. But since we go for check ups only every two to three months (b/c w/ 2 kids I no longer have the time to just pop in monthly for a weigh in and the Peds dept here would look at me like I had two heads if I did), I can only estimate either. So since I don't know either to be presise, why not offer both measurements so I can guestimate.
We've all seen babies and know that they come in different shapes. A 16lb baby could be a Michelin Man or Gumby! I happen to have had two gumbies. So if the label says 16lbs and they're supposed to fit in it, they usually don't because they're too long. That's why Andy was in size 6 diapers by the time he was a year old. I just bought Matt diapers that said 16-28lbs and he's almost too long torsoed for them. Even though I can still overlap the flaps.
Or how about Andy's easy-ups that say 16-34lbs. Honestly, that could be a one year old, a two year old, or a three year old! Andy is usually about 32 lbs but I keep ripping them b/c they aren't long enough from waist to bum.
To boot, Andy is solidly in 3T clothing b/c of length but needs a belt on everything to keep his pants up. I am not having my 2 year old sag with his "draws" hanging out! At least a couple of stores have the adjustable waistbands on their pants.
But back to my orignal point. Weight is so variable for babies, why not throw my a bone and put length on the labels too. I suppose if my kids were short and stocky, I would be complaining that everything is too long but not wide enough. But since I'm not complaining about that, I'll just keep complaining about this.

Nanny 911/ Super Nanny

Where is Jo-Jo or Nanny Stella when I need them. I've (yet again) been out witted by a 2 year old.
I've decided to tackle the problem of Andy not falling asleep in his bed today. At nap time, it actually worked very easily. I heard him out of bed, so I went in. Put him back in his bed, hid by the doorway, out of sight. He got out of bed and I silently put him back in. And he stayed there and fell asleep.
However, tonight was a totally different issue. It just became a game. He'd toss his sheet off, then his pillow, and then slither out of bed. I'd put him back in and then hide in the doorway, pretending to open and shut the door (to convince him I was gone). And it was toss pillow, slither out, rinse and repeat. After about 15 cycles, he was just giggling every time I tried. I even broke the cardinal rule and spoke to him, telling him to stay in bed.
So at what point do you just give in and walk away? I knew if I left, I was admitting defeat and that he is in control. But if I stayed, it was just going from the ridiculous to the sublime.
Well you wonder what happened? I'll tell you---I'm blogging and he's futzing.
I'll go back in in a few minutes to check or rather reinstall him in bed. Maybe if I space out my "interventions", it'll be less a game and more a success.
Back to my Nanny 911/ Super Nanny call. In the shows it only takes them 5 minutes to fix the problem. Why can't I just edit this down to 4 tries and he's asleep. I remember one episode where the little girl came out of her room 13 or 16 times but then gave up and just went to bed---in her bed. So why didn't my child do that? Because he's got the two most stubborn parents! No small wonder he's already got a ram-rod will. Easy going yes, stubborn most definitely!

I think, on an up note, I may have solved the pee-pee problem for tonight. I put him in a snap-bottom onsie. He hasn't figured out how to pull the bottom undone yet. So hopefully in the morning, there won't be any puddles.

You might also wonder why I'm blogging so much. For those of you who don't have children, parenting is honestly 24 hours a day. With an infant, I really just nap. Even at night. I nap between feedings. Because anything less than 8-10 straight hours is just a nap. And since I spend so much time on the clock, I have plenty to write about. So tap-tap-tap goes my keyboard.
For those of you who do have children, maybe you get me. Or maybe I'm just muddling through not as well as most or some. But who knows, maybe some of you mommies (or even the one daddy) will realize that you're not the only one who goes through these things. Or it might make you realize, that you ARE a good mom and your child is an ANGEL afterall.
However you take this, feel free to laugh at my expense. Because I'm trying to laugh enough to stay sane.

The ingenuity of a 2 year old

As most of you know from my other blog, Andy is very creative when left alone in his room. I have found him with the TV on Telemundo with the volume all the way up.
He used to take his mattress off until my friend Ashley gave me some shrink wrap to secure it to the frame.
He's pulled all the wet wipes out so now the laundry basket, the trash can, the pull ups, and the wipes are all kept out of his room.
Since we are in a half way point with potty training, Andy has had the opportunity to allow his imagination to run wild. The newest things is this: he pulls the draws out of the bedside dresser/changing table and pull out the sheets. That wouldn't be so bad, if----drum roll---he didn't then tinkle into the drawers!
I mean WTF!!!! What possesses him to do these things! How does the thought process start?
I assume it's something like this:
"I'm bored. I'm really bored so I'm going to get out of bed. Great! Mom has taken all my toys out. I bet she thinks that'll make me want to go to sleep right away. Too bad!
"Hmmm. What do I want to mess with today? The closet doors? The drawers? Shall I sit on the bottom of my bookshelf since she now knows to unplug the TV. Damn! I still can't get the frigging mattress off the bed.
"Oh I know! Since I can pull my pull-ups down (now making them pull-downs), I think I'll go sprinkly tinkly in the drawers. Mom is always saying not to pee-pee on the floor."

Even if I get him into bed without incident, this is now what he does as soon as he wakes up. I'm going to start putting his potty in with him. But he's the problem: he loves to take the little bowl out and help me empty it after a successful attempt. So I'm worried that I won't be there to empty it and I'll still have a mess! If only he could talk more!

I wonder if this is how Da Vinci started. They all thought that Einstein was retarded and he turned out to be a genius. I think Andy is naughty and a little verbally delayed (which we'll get an answer about on Tuesday), so does this mean he's in the making to be the next modern marvel? Or is he just a precocious child who will cause me a lot of grief with progress reports sent home everyday?
Whatever he turns out to be (and I mean whatever---human, monkey, or gremlin), I'll love him no matter what. But in the mean time, I am not loving all the pee.

I think I might write a letter

This thought ran through my head the other morning as I was getting dressed and it was confirmed during my impromptu trip to the mall.
I know what Victoria's Secret should be: nursing bras!
There is a huge market that they're missing out on. And I think I might just write a letter. I'm not one to do this. I'll just get a burr up my bum about something but not really follow through. But this time, maybe I will.
Honestly! If you've ever been a nursing mom, you'll know what I'm talking about. Even two years ago, there were about three styles to choose from. Now I will give some credit to Tar-jay, they have come out with a few more choices.
But NO nursing bra gives the same effect as a wonderful $40 Victoria's Secret bra! Why hasn't Heidi Klum said something yet?! She's got three kids and is an Angel. Maybe I should write to her. What a shame Auntie Sarah isn't still working on that account....
Just because I'm the chow train doesn't mean I do want to look like it!

Okay, two things...Well actually, three

First, what is it about a F-A-M-I-L-Y L-O-U-N-G-E at the mall makes teens think that it's a place to hang out or check out???
I mean really, what part of nursing suites and toddler toys is appealing? I was at the North County Mall today, which is slightly more upscale than our Camino Real Plaza and I went into the Family Lounge (Dads Welcome) to feed Matt. While in there three teens came in. One skater looking for his friends. And then a boy and girl. I don't know if the latter came to sneak a little makeout session in or what. But really what turn on is there in being around two nursing moms?! I would have thought that would make a 16 or 17 year old tuck tail and run. These times are a changin'!
Secondly, I was in sales for a few years so I can sense a pitch like a vulture senses a carcass. I walked into Sunglasses Hut and immediately realized that I was not in the right place. All I saw on the walls were D&G, Prada, Revo, Maui Jim and the like. Mind you, I've been wearing the same pair of Capezio (yes they do make more than ballet slippers and leotards) glasses since my first birthday after my wedding. So for those of you who don't know or just don't remember, that makes them almost four years old. I know--a virtual modern feat to have sunglasses that long. But anyway, let me give you a little more side knowledge. I had not started the day planning to go shopping. I was at the mall to escape the closing in of the walls of my stifling house. I was about to demonstrate a concept contrary to modern physics--I was going to both implode on myself and explode on my kids. Andy decided that today was one of those days that he didn't need to nap. Unfortunately, he and I were not in agreement about this. So after screaming and crying and waking Matt up from his short nap. I gave in and gave up. I needed OUT.
So I got cleaned up and got the kids dressed. Now when I say cleaned up, I showered and then put on a pair of Walmart khaki shorts and my favorite green t-shirt which happens to have been my favorite sophomore year of HIGH SCHOOL! I just can't let go and thanks to fade resistant detergent, I don't have to. But I digress. My point is that I did not look like someone who should be upgrading from Capezio to Prada! And yet the vultures swooped in telling me about these scientifically engineered lenses and special technology. Really, I don't think Prada is scientifically geared to anything. It's economically geared to raise their bottom line.
I mean I do think that my wedding set has a nice amount of sparkle without being gaudy (actually, who am I kidding. WE ALL know that I don't think there is such a thing as too much or too big a diamond...but that's a totally separate post) but I was having it cleaned. So really my $30 outfit combo and Graco double stroller did not scream $287 pair of sunglasses.
Who buys sunglasses that expensive?!!?? I don't mean to offend if you do. Actually, please let me know if you do. Because I'm truly wondering who does that. I just know that I don't.
Needless to say, I came home with my old faithful pair still perched atop my head as my fave hairband.

So my third thing. Why do people buy $50k cars and not get them repaired?! I mean really. I drove past a Benz today that had plastic sheeting across a rear window. How are they able to make their car and insurance payments and yet not pay the deductible to get it fixed? Who knows maybe they're waiting for the insurance claim to go through. But probably not. John and I saw a very expensive E series Papa Benz that was scratched and dinged like all get out and the wealthy lady driving it could have/should have been able to afford the repairs....If you're going to be that house rich/home poor, why get such a status symbol. I think it makes you look worse to have a shabby expensive car than a well kept "normal" car. If you can't take car of your $50k car, then maybe you should have a beaten up $5k car.

These are my ruminations of the day. I don't mean to be judgmental. These are just the things I wonder about as I make my way (bumpily-I know I made this word up, but at least it's an adverb [Mom]) through my day.

So I've decided to blog for real

As a full-time stay at home mommy (SAHM) of two very little ones, there are plenty of times that I feel the need to share a thought or experience but have no one to talk to ---who can talk back (other than "no-nooooo"). This being the case, I thought I would actually blog so that I can share my ideas with whomever wants to read. And maybe I might even get some responses.
This will give you some insight into what REALLY goes on in my head---scary thought, I know.
If you like it, feel free to return--frequently. If not, that's cool. I don't always like what I think either. You can always just stick with pics of my beloved little ones on my other blog.

So speaking of my beloved little ones...I think they are conspiring to keep me from sleeping.
1:26am I awake to shrieking/crying. Is this my child? Which of my children is it? No, maybe it's the kid across the way, since we do live in our neighbor's front yard and everyone's windows are open. Alas, it's mine and it's Andy. Why is it Andy?! He sleeps through the night! What is going on?!

I trudge down the hall, trying to get there before he wakes Matt. Miraculously, he is a) still in bed (where I put him after he fell asleep on the floor--as always) and b) he still has his pull-up on. All I could assume was that he was cold--since I did put him to bed in only a pull-up. Hey, it's been hot here--don't judge (yet). Everything else seemed to be okay. So after sitting with him for 15 mins, I quietly exit and turn off his fan. I pause outside Matt's door. Do I go in a top him off with a feeding or just creep back to bed? I think (foolishly) that since I topped him off before I went to bed, maybe he'd make it to 4am.
1:43 am I crawl back into bed.
1:56am Matt starts to stir. I again trudge down the hall hoping to get there before he reawakes Andy. I feed him and head back to bed.
2:06am I crawl back into bed once again. Except now I am wide awake! So what do I do? I plan out the rough draft for this post! Yes, a rough draft. Like I'm still in high school English! All I need now is a visual planner like a Venn Diagram or outline (I am a big enough nerd to a)know what these are and b) sometimes contemplate using them). I've been wanting to create a new blog for a couple of weeks, but last night led me to decide this would be as good a first post as any. This is what it's like to be mommy to my boys. This is my REALITY, can you handle it? Ughh....I just Britney Speared my own blog! Talk about pervasive (this was not in the rough draft last night).
2:15 I must go back to sleep!

Anyway, the night continued as usual. A 4 something feeding and then at least one child awake at 6am.

It has been almost three years since I've truly slept through the night. Pregnancy and infancy should be classified as torture on parents. Why hasn't it been included in the Geneva Acts?! Really I love being a mommy but anywhere else, sleep deprivation is considered inhumane. Why haven't my little bear cubs gotten the memo?

So there you have it. My first real blog entry. And a snapshot of a night in my house.
I type this as Andy jumps around naked, yelling "gircle" to Micky Mouse on the Disney Channel...So there you really have it.