The Common Room

Voting Ends SOON!

2009-11-20T23:39:00.001-06:00

Vote here!

Voting ends tomorrow, but why procrastinate any further?

Just in case you're looking for us, we're in category 12.=)

(top-posted today, scroll down for more recent posts)

Doc Watson and Clarence Ashley Sing the Crawdad Hole Song

2009-11-20T20:56:00.002-06:00

Toe tapping, sing along music.

You ever been crawdad fishing? I used to go down to a ditch near a friend's house and we'd try and catch them with our hands and a net. I don't recall that we were very successful, and even if we had been, we'd have just had to put 'em back. The crawdads there weren't very big.

The HM and the FYB love 'mud bugs,' and if I told you how many they could eat I am not sure you'd believe me.

The FYB's love of crawdads led us to another rule my mother never told me I would need to make:

"Don't use your crawdad carcass from dinner as a finger puppet at the table.

No, we don't want to see you make the eyes wiggle."

Things that start with T

2009-11-20T18:52:00.001-06:00

Thomas Jefferson

Tulips

toads and turtles

Thyme

And Time

More Adagio Stuffage

2009-11-20T16:56:00.000-06:00

So, when posting about Adagio teas here, I forgot to mention another really sweet deal they have called Link Rewards. If your site has a Google Page Rank of 3 or higher and you post a link to their website, they will send you (after you give them your mailing address, of course) a gift. If your PR is a 3/4, you get a tea sampler set (4 different kinds of tea), and if it is a 5 or higher you get their IngenuiTEA gift set, which includes their teapot, a set of 4 tea samplers, and a lovely little book on tea. You can choose whether to get the black, green, herbal, or flavoured tea sampler. I chose black. I honestly thought that I was going to get just the tea, but apparently I was mistaken in our PR, and I got the teapot and the book as well. I am so thrilled about this, as I had really wanted to get that but didn't think I could afford it quite yet. :-)

So far I've been very impressed with Adagio's tea and their customer service, and am definitely planning on spending more money there. I just started working at our library, so any 'extra' spending money is definitely going to go towards trying some more awesome tea. :-D

(don't forget your free gift certificate)

Duty

2009-11-20T16:30:00.000-06:00

A while back the mother of a teenaged girl who liked to dress like a floozy asked me how I convinced my daughters not to dress like that.

Let me back up a minute and say that while I do understand there are varying cultural and personal standards on modesty, this is not such an issue. The only people who might find nothing wrong with this young person's daily attire would be members of the Brittany Spears fan club. Let me say also that I felt intensely sorry for this girl, and her mother, and that nothing I said could really fix the core problem, which is that the father had abandoned the family, and created in his daughter, this woman-child, an aching, bottomless pit of need that she couldn't fully understand and that nothing I said could fix. The mother and I did talk about that some, and she said she recognized what role the lack of a father played in her child's life and clothing choices, but still, she thought there ought to be something she could do because she found the clothes extremely offensive.

"Well," I asked (reasonably, I thought), "If those clothes are so offensive to you, where does your 13 year old get them? Who buys them for her?"

I was told that they usually came in bags of clothes that other people donated to the family.

"That happens to us, too," I said. "I just tell my girls when there is an outfit in the bag that isn't compatible with our family values."

"But she argues," said the mother.

I admit this made me blink a bit. So I suggested "Don't let her get to the bags first. You keep them and go through them and toss out anything you deem inappropriate."

"That will just be a big fight, and more arguing," she objected.

After a painful pause, I settled for acknowledging that I guessed my girls were not so argumentative, and that I was probably much meaner than she was, because there was really not any way I could imagine my 13 year old regularly wearing clothing I actually found offensive.

Gilbert and Sullivan in the comic opera Pirates of Penzance make a big joke about Victorian sensibilities about duty. Frederick can be made to do just about anything by convincing him it's his duty, as he is 'a slave to duty.'

As a culture, we emancipated ourselves a long time ago from such old fashioned sentiments, and we're hardly even nodding acquaintances with Duty these days. Pity, that. Because as real grown-ups know, it's not just okay to tell your kids 'no.' It's your DUTY. If you haven't made friends with your duty yet, it's never too late to start.

More on Acorn in LA

2009-11-20T14:27:00.000-06:00

Ye stars and little fishes, this one is bad. She wants to do background research for them and work with them to get their nefarious business off the ground for them. And THIS ACORN worker was interviewed by Raines of the LATimes who took her word without question when she said she did not offer any help and she showed them door. He didn't bother to ask anybody else involved for their side of the story.

See... Patterico:

In September, L.A. Times columnist James Rainey wrote a column in which he uncritically quoted ACORN worker Lavelle Stewart suggesting that she had turned Hannah Giles and James O’Keefe out of her office:

[V]isits to other ACORN offices have gone almost entirely unmentioned. Lavelle Stewart, a fair-housing coordinator in the group’s Los Angeles office, told me this week that she tried to get the “prostitute,” who claimed she had been beaten by her pimp, to go to a women’s center.

“The fact she was not taking the help I offered her made me think something was not right,” Stewart said. “It raised a red flag.”

Media Matters gloated: LA Times report further undermines ACORN videographers’ credibility.
I wasn’t so sure — and I publicly declared that Rainey had likely been suckered and would end up with egg on his face.

Hotair:

Fifteen minutes of fun this time; if you can’t spare it, watch the highlight reel at the beginning of clip one and then 90 seconds starting at 1:45 of clip two. That’s where our heroine lets us know just how far she’s willing to go to prove her nonjudgmentalism...

And, of course, BigGovernment, with the original youtube videos showing LaVerne Stewart explaining that she's met with Larry Flynt and can do personal research for O'Keefe and Hannah in starting and running their highly illegal business.

And Breitbart says they have still more video footage and it's not all just ACORN.

Senate Judiciary Committee Head: We wouldn't need to interrogate Bin Ladin

2009-11-20T12:46:00.000-06:00

Drew over at Ace's place has more video footage of Holden attempting to defend his decision to try a war criminal in civilian court, plus this:

Here's the crap Holder is trying to sell that Graham won't let him get away with...Holder says, 'we don't need to question bin Laden because we have so much evidence already so we won't question him for a statement, therefor Miranda doesn't apply'.

Graham nails him with the fact Miranda isn't just about 'the right to remain silent'. It's also about an affirmative right to an attorney.

The fight is about when does a "military capture" become a "civilian arrest" and when and how do all the rights that come with a civilian arrest and trial attach. Right now there are no answers because as Graham points out, the Obama administration is making it up as they go.

Guess who is going to get involved in that question at some point. The courts. Given the arc of cases since 9/11 is anyone 100% sure (hell, 50% sure) that a court won't throw out a conviction or even a bar a trial on any number of 6th Amendment grounds?

Emphasis mine.

I mentioned the myopic vision of this administration before. Here's another example, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) chairman of the Judiciary committe says that were we to capture Bin Ladin, we wouldn't bother interrogating him anyway. We don't 'need' to, he says, because we have enough on him. As Drew points out, it seems not to have occurred to Senator Leahy that Obama might have intelligence about other guys, intelligence information we would find useful to our self-protection. Nor does he seem to realize that MIranda is NOT just about 'the right to remain silent.'

Seriously, this is one of the dumbest responses I have ever heard.

Oh, My, My. Is this for real?

2009-11-20T09:00:00.001-06:00

Update:

There is so much here. May I suggest that if you have students remotely old enough to understand what science ought to be you sit down with them and go over these emails, these articles, and discuss the difference between what appears to have been going on at Hadley CRU and what real science is supposed to look like? This is in an incredibly valuable teaching tool.

There's an update at WUWT as well as a couple other sites (linked at the WUWT link below)- and the HCRU has changed all their passwords, and Phil Jones at first would not respond, but later appears to say at least some of the emails are real.

Mann's response seems quite incompatible with the emails being faked:

“I’m simply not going to comment on the content of illegally obtained emails. However, I will say this: both their theft and, I believe, any reproduction of the emails that were obtained on public websites, etc, constitutes serious criminal activity. I’m hoping that the perpetrators and their facilitators will be tracked down and prosecuted to the fullest extent the law allows.”

The majority idea now seems to be these emails were compiled in a legal response to a legal FOIA request, and then the climate change mythmakers strong armed those involved into illegally refusing the FOIA request. This could have been the last straw for somebody tired of seeing science used and abused, manipulated, and exchanged for public propaganda and personal gain (both political and financial).

Updated links at bottom of post.

This is seriously explosive stuff.

Watts Up With That:

it appears that Hadley Climate Research Unit has been hacked and many many files have been released by the hacker or person unknown
[...]
An unknown person put postings on some climate skeptic websites that advertsied an FTP file on a Russian FTP server, here is the message that was placed on the Air Vent today:

We feel that climate science is, in the current situation, too important to
be kept under wraps.

We hereby release a random selection of correspondence, code, and documents

The file was large, about 61 megabytes, containing hundreds of files.

It contained data, code, and emails from Phil Jones at CRU to and from many people.

I’ve seen the file, it appears to be genuine and from CRU. Others who have seen it concur- it appears genuine. There are so many files it appears unlikely that it is a hoax. The effort would be too great....

Some excerpts (lifted from the comments:

“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”

Phil Jones says he would rather destroy the CRU data than release it to McIntyre.

Phil Jones is also purportedly the author of the email which includes this:
"PS I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data.
Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act !"

From: Tom Wigley
To: Phil Jones
Subject: LAND vs OCEAN
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2009 17:36:15 -0700

We probably need to say more about this. Land warming since
1980 has been twice the ocean warming — and skeptics might
claim that this proves that urban warming is real and important.

See attached note.

Comments?

Tom
-----------

It is distressing to read that American Stinker item. But Keith
does seem to have got himself into a mess. As I pointed out in
emails, Yamal is insignificant. And you say that (contrary to
what M&M say) Yamal is *not* used in MBH, etc. So these facts
alone are enough to shoot down M&M is a few sentences (which
surely is the only way to go — complex and wordy responses
will be counter productive).
But, more generally, (even if it *is* irrelevant) how does Keith
explain the McIntyre plot that compares Yamal-12 with Yamal-all? And
how does he explain the apparent “selection” of the less well-replicated
chronology rather that the later (better replicated) chronology?
Of course, I don’t know how often Yamal-12 has really been used in
recent, post-1995, work. I suspect from what you say it is much less
often that M&M say — but where did they get their information? I
presume they went thru papers to see if Yamal was cited, a pretty foolproof method if
you ask me. Perhaps these things can be explained clearly and concisely — but I am not
sure Keith is able to do this
as he is too close to the issue and probably quite pissed of.
And the issue of with-holding data is still a hot potato, one that
affects both you and Keith (and Mann). Yes, there are reasons — but
many *good* scientists appear to be unsympathetic to these. The
trouble here is that with-holding data looks like hiding something,
and hiding means (in some eyes) that it is bogus science that is
being hidden.
I think Keith needs to be very, very careful in how he handles this.
I’d be willing to check over anything he puts together.
Tom.

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit …
-----------------
From: Michael Mann
To: Kevin Trenberth
Cc: Tom Wigley , Stephen H Schneider , Myles Allen , peter stott , “Philip D. Jones” , Benjamin Santer , Thomas R Karl , Gavin Schmidt , James Hansen , Michael Oppenheimer

Kevin Trenberth wrote:

Hi all

Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low. This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing weather).

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008
shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing
system is inadequate.
=============================
How to change the public's attitudes (very scientific):
7. Link climate change mitigation to positive desires/aspirations Traditional marketing associates products with the aspirations of their target audience. Linking climate change mitigation to home improvement, self-improvement, green spaces or national pride are all worth investigating.

8. Use transmitters and social learning People learn through social interaction, and some people are better teachers and trendsetters than others. Targeting these people will ensure that messages seem more trustworthy and are transmitted more effectively.
===================================================
On the burning question of how to block climate change skeptics (elsewhen known as 'scientists') from publishing in peer reviewed journals:
#1047388489
“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”

#1047390562
“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”

“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”

#1051156418
“This second case gets to the crux of the matter. I suspect that deFreitas deliberately chose other referees who are members of the skeptics camp. I also suspect that he has done this on other occasions. How to deal with this is unclear, since there are a number of individuals with bona fide scientific credentials who could be used by an unscrupulous editor to ensure that ‘anti-greenhouse’ science can get through the peer review process (Legates, Balling, Lindzen, Baliunas, Soon, and so on)…. deFreitas is such a poor scientist that he may simply disappear. I saw some work from his PhD, and it was awful (Pat Michaels’ PhD is at the same level).”

#1051190249
“Note that I am copying this view only to Mike Hulme and Phil Jones. Mike’s idea to get editorial board members to resign will probably not work — must get rid of von Storch too, otherwise holes will eventually fill up with people like Legates, Balling, Lindzen, Michaels, Singer, etc. I have heard that the publishers are not happy with von Storch, so the above approach might remove that hurdle too.”

#1051230500
“Since the IPCC makes it quite clear that there are substantial grounds for concern about climate change, is it not partially the responsibility of climate science to make sure only satisfactorily peer-reviewed science appears in scientific publications? – and to refute any inadequately reviewed and wrong articles that do make their way through the peer review process?”
----------------------------------------------------------

Some skepticism in order, possibly total skepticism. The files could be largely real with some fake stuff somehow inserted. They could be a total hoax. Or the real hoax could be the whole manmade global warming shtick and these files a series of red hot smoking guns.

The comments at WUWT are urging further fact checking. A few suggest that rather than the work of a hacker this could be the work of a mole tired of seeing science suborned in this fashion.

Chris Horner at Planet Gore says:

If legit, this apparently devastating series of revelations will be very hard for the media to ignore. I didn't say impossible — they're fully vested partners in the global warming industry, because catastrophism sells. But so does scandal, and this appears to be the makings of a very big one. Imagine this sort of news coming in the field of AIDS research. Then reflect that the taxpayer spends more on climate-related research than on the entire suite of AIDS programs, far beyond drug research.

More at The Blackboard:
From: Phil Jones
To: “Michael E. Mann”
Subject: IPCC & FOI
Date: Thu May 29 11:04:11 2008

Mike,

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.
Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t
have his new email address.
We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!
Cheers
Phil

Prof. Phil Jones

------------------------------------------

Again- could be tampered with, could be a most elaborate hoax. Interesting, anyway.

Related: this article on Steve McIntyre is a must-read.

And look at the air-brushing and faux-to-shopping Gore had to have done for the cover of his new book! He keeps claiming that we have all these horrible hurricanes as a result of climate change- even though we are at a thirty year low. So he had four of them added to the photo of the globe- including at least one that spins the wrong way for its hemisphere!

------------------------------------------

Climategate (I prefer CRUppaquidick):

When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72 documents – you realise just why the boffins at Hadley CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be “the greatest in modern science”. These alleged emails – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory – suggest:

Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.

One of the alleged emails has a gentle gloat over the death in 2004 of John L Daly (one of the first climate change sceptics, founder of the Still Waiting For Greenhouse site), commenting:

“In an odd way this is cheering news.”

But perhaps the most damaging revelations – the scientific equivalent of the Telegraph’s MPs’ expenses scandal – are those concerning the way Warmist scientists may variously have manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause.

Australia: It's a scandal:

So the 1079 emails and 72 documents seem indeed evidence of a scandal involving most of the most prominent scientists pushing the man-made warming theory - a scandal that is one of the greatest in modern science. I’ve been adding some of the most astonishing in updates below - emails suggesting conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more. If it is as it now seems, never again will “peer review” be used to shout down sceptics.

This is clearly not the work of some hacker, but of an insider who’s now blown the whistle.

and here's more (there's a lot more here- excerpts from the emails sent in by readers, all the juicy bits, like Reason # 987 why you home school, because you remember when you were in high school you and your pals passing around highlighted copies of the latest steamy novel. Only THIS? This is legit and unbelievable and important reading):

Reader Chemist finds more which - if true - make this proof of a conspiracy which is one of the largest, most extraordinary and most disgraceful in moderrn science, given the stakes:

Here are some gems. “I did get an email from the FOI person here early yesterday to tell me I shouldn’t be deleting emails unless this was ‘normal’ deleting to keep emails manageable!""Yes, I am aware of the confusion surrounding what the Hadley Centre did and why. It is even messier than you realize. I have forcing data sets (more than one!) from Jonathon Gregory that differ from the numbers yougave in your email!!""Ed to be really honest, I don’t see how this was ever accepted for publication in Nature.""Mike,I’d rather you didn’t. I think it should be sufficient to forward the para from Andrew Conrie’semail that says the paper has been rejected by all 3 reviewers. You can say that the paper was an extended and updated version of that which appeared in CR.Obviously, under no circumstances should any of this get back to Pielke.Cheers""we are having trouble to express the real message of the reconstructions - being scientifically sound in representing uncertainty , while still getting the crux of the information across clearly.”

There is so much here. May I suggest that if you have students remotely old enough to understand what science ought to be you sit down with them and go over these emails, these articles, and discuss the difference between what appears to have been going on at Hadley CRU and what real science is supposed to look like? This is in an incredibly valuable teaching tool.

Homeschooling andTea Time in the Common Room

2009-11-20T06:00:00.000-06:00

This post is from something I wrote several years ago after a particularly amusing teatime at our house. It would have been, probably, some time in the fall or winter of 1998 (going by the age and gender of the baby in this story). I wrote it to encourage a group of friends, because I thought our foibles might help them relax a little. I thought it deserved a repeat. Enjoy.

Dear ladies,

I want to share today's teatime while it's still fresh on my mind, and on the kitchen kitchen floor, and ground into the carpet...

As you know, we have six daughters. They love teatime. But our teatime is not quite what you might expect with six girls. Here's how it went today:

3:00: Eight and nine y.o. are called in from playing outside so they can help prepare tea. Eight y.o. comes in dripping wet. They are building a house to play in out in the corner of the backyard. The 9 y.o. wouldn't help in any damp spots because she hates to get wet. The 8 y.o. loves nothing better, so she looks like a drowning kitten, although perhaps a lot more cheerful than a wet kitten would.

They wash their hands until the water no longer runs brown. I could still plant radishes in the dirt remaining under their fingernails. We discuss what we are going to make for tea. Thirteen y.o. who is watching the baby turns her back on him to play with 2 y.o. Baby was pulling himself up to stand but is only six months old, so he lets go and plunges face first into the rockers of a rocking chair, cutting his lip.

3:15- I nurse baby to comfort him and tell 8 and 9 y.o. to go to plan B. Plan B is when the children figure out something that needs little preparation. They slice apples and spread Cheese Whiz over white tortillas and roll them up, slicing them into pinwheels. They poor Chex Mix into a china bowl. Voila. I think it's Low Tea rather than High Tea, how about you?

3:30- The 15 y.o. supervises the 2 y.o. as the tot pours ingredients for homemade hot cocoa mix into a large tupperware bowl. The 2 y.o is so proud to be doing the pouring without any help. Finished, 15 y.o. goes to stereo to put in some classical music. Unsupervised, 2 y.o. begins spooning hot chocolate mix onto her mouth. Yes, onto her mouth. There's so much around the outside of her mouth that I can't imagine any of it made it to the inside.

3:35- The water comes to a boil. Tea or hot cocoa is ready. We gather in the living room. Oldest child pours out, her prerogative (she's a Jane Austen fan). Hot water dribbles down the side of the new tea pot into a puddle on my Grandmother's walnut table. No problem. I faintly request Tension Tamer Tea instead of Lemon Zinger...

3:36- Eleven y.o. makes a grab for some Chex Mix. 11 y.o. is allergic to wheat and cannot have the Chex Mix. She is also developmentally disabled, and her developmental disabilty has locked her in place in the Terrible Twos. Thirteen y.o. tries to make her return it. Glaring fiercely, 11 y.o. crumbles the handful of Chex Mix into dust rather than give it up. The dog cleans up the mess.

3:37-Baby switches sides for nursing.
3:38- 2 y.o. dips her apple slices into cocoa mix.
3:39- 11 y.o. tips cup over. Everybody but mom, baby, and 11 y.o. race for towels to clean up the mess.

3:45- We smooth our skirts and settle down like ladies. Except the 2 y.o., who lifts her skirt up to her armpits and settles down like the precious little hoyden she is.

3:46- Mom reads a chapter from Mathematicians Are People, Too, and then a page from Gary Maldaner's Polite Moments (and not a moment too soon, it seems).

4:00- We refill our cups and clean up more spills and take more stolen food from the allergic 11 y.o. and sharply remind the two year old that we do not put our bottoms on the table, nor do we sit on Sister's head if she asks us not to.

4:05- Mom now reads a few geography terms from a book called Geography, A to
Z. We went driving along Padilla Bay last weekend and we visited a small ocean life museum, so I choose ocean related terms. The 8 and 9 y.o. girls get out the blocks. The carpet becomes a body of water, the blocks are the land. I read the description of the geographical term first (a group of islands clustered in a wide expanse of sea or ocean), they lay out the blocks to show what they think I've described. Then we look at the picture together to see if they understood my description correctly and we say the correct name together (archipelago).

4:10- The two y.o. snuggles contentedly on the 13 y.o.'s head, having wheedled sweetly enough that the 13 y.o. martyrs herself on the altar of self sacrifice. Occasionally the 13 y.o. contributes a muffled comment. 15 y.o. keeps 11 y.o. occupied while she listens.

4:30 - Having covered five or six geographical terms, we are done. The water for tea is cool. We clean up, breaking only one other tea cup in the process. It's alright, because I only paid fifty cents for it at a yard sale.

4:45- We keep cleaning up, because although we only illustrated five or six geographical terms, it seems to have taken up one box of Lincoln Logs, one box of Japanese waffle blocks, one box of regular wooden blocks, and a crate of Lego blocks. And while only about two pounds of hot cocoa mix were mixed up in the large bowl, approximately three pounds seem to be distributed about the person of a small 2 year old.

Did I mention we only have tea once a week?

Love (and hopefully laughs) from our house to yours. Relax, my loves, and enjoy your children. Methinks that it's been too long since we've had tea here at our house. I think I've recovered enough to attempt it once more.

Picture from a 1940s spelling lesson on 'other lands'

2009-11-19T23:50:00.000-06:00

No comment, other than it's quaint, and I like silhouettes, even though that is a word I couldn't spell properly without a dictionary or spell-checker to guide me.

What do you want to talk about?

A Whole Slew of Folks Sing the Crawdad Song

2009-11-19T21:05:00.002-06:00

We've got Ray Price, a very young Minnie Pearl, Faron Young, the Carter Family, and Johnny and Jack Webb. Fun times.

(following is a repost)
For years it seems I have been collecting material on the importance of song in our lives- not deliberately, just accidentally, by the by, like a magpie picks up shiny bits here and there, and before the magpie realizes it, the hollow in the tree is too full, and it's time for housekeeping.

People used to sing. They didn't have to be exceptionally talented or gifted. They just sang. They sang while working, while playing with the children, they got together and sang together just for fun. People sang. They made their own music independent of any external sources.

I come from a singing tradtion. We sang in my childhood home, and so I sang to my children and with my children. When my eldest was just a wee little thing, still in diapers, not yet 2, we used to sing together while we scrubbed the kitchen floor. We sang this silly song to the tune of Jacob's Ladder,
"We are scrubbing mommy's floor
We are scrubbing mommy's floor.
We are scrubbing mommy's floor~
We are scrubbing, scrubbing, for the Lord.
Every tile gets brighter, brighter.
Every tile gets bright and clean
We are scrubbing mommy's floor,
We are scrubbing, scrubbing for the Lord.

This is the first thing that started me on my little journey of collecting the links in this chain of thought.
A little note in a children's music catalogue which said basically that people don't sing anymore, and we should all try to do more singing without the crutch of tapes and musical instruments.
This astonished me. I didn't know that people didn't sing anymore since my own family sang all the time.

But then I remembered that one time while I was singing to my firstborn (who was a baby at the time), my husband's sister came to see what the sound was, and followed me around asking questions about what I was doing, was it something I did all the time, how did I learn those songs, and where did I learn to sing, and would I come sing for her. It was as though she'd caught me doing something exotic, like swallowing flaming swords or juggling baby tigers.

From there I started looking for references to singing in my books, in people's lives, in comments friends made, and I realized that the authors of that catalog were right. Too many people don't sing anymore.

Singing was once so important to us:

"An important part of the mass meetings was the freedom songs. In a sense the freedom songs are the soul of the movement. They are more than just incantations of clever phrases designed to invigorate a campaign; they are as old as the history of the Negro in America. They are adaptations of the songs the slaves sang- the sorrow songs, the shouts for joy, the battle hymns and the anthems of our movement. I have heard people talk of their beat and rhythm, but we in the movement are as inspired by their words. "Woke Up This Morning With My Mind STayed on Freedom" is a sentence that needs no music to make its point. We sing the freedom songs today for the same reason the slaves sang them, because we too are in bondage and the songs add hope to our determination that "We shall overcome, Black and white together, We shall overcome someday."

I have stood in a meeting with hundreds of youngsters and joined in while they sang "Ain't Gonna Let Nobody Turn Me 'Round." It is not just a song; it is a resolve. A few minutes later, I have seen those same youngsters refuse to turn around from the onrush of a police dog, refuse to turn around before a pugnacious Bull Connor in command of men armed with power hoses. These songs bind us together, give us courage together, help us march together."

This is from Martin Luther King , Jr's book Why We Can't Wait.

Singing together is about more than making joyful noises, although that is special, too. Singing together binds us together, whether we are are courageous protestors or a small family.

By posting these folk songs- spending a week or so on the same song done by different artists, it is my hope that somebody, somewhere, will be encouraged to try a few songs at home, too. Maybe when nobody is around. Maybe when it's just you and the baby and she's too little to tattle. Work your way up. You don't have to sound like a professional. Just sing some songs. Sing while you work, while you play, while you rock the baby. Sing in the shower.

Sing along to the radio, CD, or youtube video. Just sing.=)

The Myth of the Soulmate

2009-11-19T19:48:00.002-06:00

The Equuschick wasn't sure whether to write this post or not because having been married just a couple weeks over one year she would feel sort of silly offering marital advice. (She does know though that men don't like it when you hit them with maps when they are lost, if you're really looking for tips.)

In all seriousness however, the thing is that this is more like premarital advice if it is advice at all. But just to be on the safe side, let's call it social commentary.

The Equuschick is not sure exactly when society as a whole began to look at marriage more as a means to personal happiness and less as a God-given institution to serve God's purposes, but the more troubling thing is that at some point Christians began to look at marriage in the same light as well.

We don't really think that we do, for most of us still cling to the conviction that marriage is for life. But we cling to that conviction as well as the misconception that marriage's primary function is to bring us together with that mythical man or woman called "our soulmate" who will bring us deep fulfillment and much joy.

This works (or seems to work) in the beginning. The trouble starts a few years later when reality strikes and your soulmate snores and sometimes hurts your feelings and doesn't always brush his teeth and you know, you're just not filled with joy and fulfillment whenever you look deep into his eyes which you don't always have time to do because the kids need their baths and the dog wants to be let out and the checkbook needs balancing and what's that smell in the fridge, anyway?

Enter confusion. You know that you're supposed to be married for life, but you always thought you knew that marriage would also bring you perpetual bliss. These two ideas now appear to be contradictory. You have a choice. Either cling to the conviction of marriage for life, or that marriage is to bring you personal fulfillment. If you refuse to let go of the latter, you convince yourself that you must have made a mistake and this isn't your soulmate after all. Surely God will understand if you go looking for another one.

You could call that perhaps the anatomy of many "Christian" divorces. But many more admirable, if just as confused, people don't leave. They just stay frustrated and confused. And others (the smartest of the lot) get rid of the secular myth of the natural soulmate and they learn by daily choice and sacrifice to fall in love with their snoring, selfish, husband all over again because God's will is that marriage glorify Him before it fulfills you. But in the glorifying of God, the marriage itself is fulfilled.

In the end however, it is how you begin that determines in large part how you'll end. It saves one so much trouble and turmoil to keep the horse and cart in the right order from the beginning, to recognize that God created marriage for His glory first, and that the primary function of the marriage union is not some sort of personal fulfillment.

It is interesting to The Equuschick that even as many Christians still cling to the myth of relationships as a means to personal fulfillment many secular psychologists recognize what a ridiculous abdication of personal responsibility it is to expect your mate to bring you fulfillment and happiness on a silver platter. Get a hobby. Get a sense of humour, cultivate your own sense of joy in life.

Do not misunderstand The Equuschick. This post is not written by a girl miserable in her own marriage but glumly clinging to it anyway on the basis of moral conviction alone. The Equuschick is really quite happily married, and Shasta does a great deal to fulfill her.

But he is not her soulmate by fate or destiny. They choose daily to mate their souls together in a mutual pursuit of what they believe to be God's goals for them. And when those choices are made, one can't help but be blessed by what a friend called "God's true best."

Don't sell out for your soulmate by destiny. Destiny, fate, whatever. Whatever you like to call him, his character is fickle. Choose. Keep choosing every day. God will bless you with His best.

Reading the Health Care Bill Could Take 34 hours

2009-11-19T16:26:00.001-06:00

Our friend David Blackstone sent us this link, with these comments:

... that all three readings are requested.

And then let us pray that they amend the bill before the final vote,
and have to read it again.

And then let us pray that the version passed does not match the
house version, and the new compromise version from committee has to
get read multiple times, too, in each house.

And then let us pray that this becomes standard practice and bills
become short enough to read!

Senator Coburn wants to exercise his responsibilities and have the bill read

From the article:
The move is strictly according to Senate rules, which say any senator can demand a bill be read in its entirety before debate begins. While Democrats could, if they wish, repeatedly make motions to end the soliloquy, Republicans on the floor could object, and the reading would continue.

What's even more interesting is that Senate Rule XIV (paragraph 2) states that every bill and joint resolution "shall receive three readings prior to its passage."
[...]

See how fast you can read the bill.

They should do this every single time, for every single bill.

DSS and the Waldorf Teacher

2009-11-19T14:30:00.005-06:00

(picture of Jenny and the FYG on a bridge over the creek about a mile from our house)

You may recall the story of Lia Grippo, a Waldorf educator, developer of outdoor programs for children, and teacher, who lost her license because she let her own children and the son of an assistant (who was also there) climb a hill on the beach.

She's still fighting.

“I think that there is a growing trend toward risk aversion in our society that has really gone over the edge,” Grippo said. “We live in a time that both our children and ourselves must be as safe as possible, rather than as safe as necessary.” According to the allegations by the DSS, Grippo violated the personal rights of children in her care by “not providing adequate care and supervision” to three children while they were “climbing a cliff approximately 125 feet high while naked or partially clothed.” Additionally, the DSS allegation states that Grippo allowed children in her care to be “expos[ed] to natural hazards (cliffs and ocean fronts), thereby placing the daycare children in substantial danger.” Grippo claims the children climbing—two of them her own and one the child of a close friend—are avid climbers who had scaled the beachside cliff before.

The 'cliff' the children were climbing is, I am told, the steep, sandy bluff marked '1' on this page.

to the right is a picture of the FYG doing something that she isn't supposed to do, only it never occurred to me that I needed to tell her this. I learned she did it when I saw this photograph.

Lia Grippo has at three different programs. One is a parent-child outdoor program. One is an indoor, licensed Childcare program called Seedlings (they have some outdoor activities, too). The program this day, however, was her entirely outdoors based group, called Wild Roots.

DSS seems to be claiming both that Wild Roots is part of Seedlings, which is why they can revoke Lia's license, and that Wild Roots is different, so they can accuse her of running an unlicensed child care program.

She's also in trouble because her assistant, who is also the mother of one of the boys on the cliff, hadn't been fingerprinted. She admits this was wrong, but says the woman was only working with the program about two days that summer, and just hadn't gotten it done in a timely manner, and anyway, this is usually a minor offense which is fixed by getting the background check, and paying a fine, not revoking a license.

In the comments to that story somebody called Cassandra says:

I spoke with an employee of the licensing agency. The one point she kept returning too? That one of the boys was unclothed. The risk, she conceded, was minimal. But a prepubescent boy naked at the beach on a hot summer day? Criminal, apparently.

That was my impression from reading the DSS workers' comments as well. What really freaked them out was the naked child. I was rather surprised to find such puritan standards in Santa Barbara, of all places. California, you see, has 'public' beaches- like Britain's public schools, this means you pay to use them- and free beachs. Public beaches have parking lots, attendants, public bathrooms and other amenities. Free beaches don't, so you do not pay to get into them. But I lived in the area for months before I knew that's all that was meant by free beach. I thought it meant nude beach, because at the free beaches you would often see surfers stripping out of their wetsuits without bothering with clothes or cover, and nude sun bathers. Of course, that was, oh, my, nearly 30 years ago.
At any rate, while I personally wouldn't have a child of mine naked at a public beach, neither do I consider it child abuse or reason to revoke a day care provider's liscence. It was, after all, her own child, and it was his choice to get out of his freezing wet jeans and climb while the jeans dried.
But DSS doesn't do common sense or laissez faire:

Lizelda Lopez, Public Information Officer for the Community Care Licensing Division of the DSS, said the department will continue to seek the revocation of Grippo’s license in spite of the appeal. “What happened could have killed these children, so we take this very seriously,” Lopez said. “That’s why we are seeking the revocation… she failed to protect these children from the potential of becoming seriously hurt.”

What happened did not even result in a stubbed toe. And while it's possible that the children were doing something riskier than they should have been, it is, in fact, impossible to protect children from the 'potential' of becoming seriously hurt.

The FYG has apparently climbed over the bridge above the creek many times to sit on that pleasantly dangerous outside edge. She has never been injured. She did, however, have a nasty fall while dancing on the *safe* side, cutting her knee down to the fat level, bruising it badly, and getting it infected in spite of a trip to the doctor's office. The only way to protect children from the 'potential' of being hurt is to keep them bubble wrapped in a cotton padded room- and this is extremely detrimental to them.

(Sniffle. The FYB three years, about 20 inches, and quite a few pounds ago)

Lia Grippo points out:

“When we keep children from testing their own abilities at a young age, I think we are doing them a great disservice,” Grippo said. “Our culture has become so litigious… children aren’t being allowed to get muddy, climb boulders, or play in the creek.

Miss Mason wrote, on page 79-80 of Home Education (the third book in her series):

There are, what I may call, dynamic relations to be established. He must stand and walk and run and jump with ease and grace. He must skate and swim and ride and drive, dance and row and sail a boat. He should be able to make free with his mother earth and to do whatever the principle of gravitation will allow. This is an elemental relationship for the lack of which nothing compensates.
Power over Material––Another elemental relationship, which every child should be taught and encouraged to set up, is that of power over material. Every child makes sand castles, mud-pies, paper boats, and he or she should go on to work in clay, wood, brass, iron, leather, dress-stuffs, food-stuffs, furnishing-stuffs. He should be able to make with his hands and should take delight in making.

Letting a child walk, run, jump, skate, swim, ride, drive, dance, row, and sail a boat is not compatible with DSS' apparent goal of protecting a child from all potential risks. And avoiding all potential risks is not compatible with a nourishing, productive, nurturing, growth-inspiring childhood.

A 1948 Cartoon Short

2009-11-19T12:45:00.000-06:00

A great take on frugality

2009-11-19T11:45:00.000-06:00

Anne Marie writes:

One of my daughters today had the following math problem:
"Brian saves 20% of his monthly salary. If his monthly salary is increased from $1200 to $1500, how much more can he save each month?"
Her answer: $300. Not because she accidentally calculated 20% of $1500, but because if he's already saving on his current salary, he must be already covering all his expenses, so he can save the whole of the increase.

So much wisdom in one so young! I LOVE it.=)

News and Views, stuff for the news notebooks

2009-11-19T09:40:00.000-06:00

I don't know if this is proof that government spending can't save or create jobs, but it sure looks like proof that it didn't.

I told you he wasn't going to close Guantanamo in a year as promised.

Fact checking the Attorney General's statements about trying terrorist KSM in a civilian court. Holder has made a bad decision.

Code Pink member, Obama donor, high level Obama fund raiser- she's met with the Taliban.

The Whitehouse calls its version of scraping and bowing 'diplomacy through deference.' The New York Times notices, as do some other outlets (who call it kowtowing):

The New York Times begins its news report today on the president trip’s to China: Whether by White House design or Chinese insistence, President Obama has steered clear of public meetings with Chinese liberals, free press advocates and even average Chinese during his first visit to China, showing a deference to the Chinese leadership’s aversions to such interactions that is unusual for a visiting American president.

Mr. Obama held a “town hall” meeting with students on Monday. But the students were carefully vetted and prepped for the event by the government, participants said. And the Chinese authorities, wielding a practiced mix of censorship and diplomatic pressure, succeeded in limiting Mr. Obama’s exposure to a point where a third of some 40 Beijing university students interviewed Tuesday were unaware that he had just met in Shanghai with their peers.

From NewBusters:

During Wednesday's Justice Department oversight hearing by the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) stumped Attorney General Eric Holder on what should have been a fairly routine question for America's top law enforcement official.
Maybe more surprisingly, NPR reported it at its website.
As NPR's Frank James noted, "The exchange started with Graham stumping Holder with a question one would have thought the attorney general would have been prepared for."

The question:

Can you give me a case in United States history where a enemy combatant caught on a battlefield was tried in civilian court?

Holden did not know. Nor had he given any thought to whether or not Osama Bin Laden would have to be give Miranda Rights if he were captured.

I think this exchange demonstrates the myopic vision of this administration.

HOlden's lack of preparation for it also demonstrates the narrow minded inability of his minders, like other administrative White House employes, to see any point of view other than their own. Even if they do not agree with that other point of view, they need to be able to imagine it, because this is how you prepare yourself for questions like these.
----------------------------
The following items are taken from the excellent newsfeed offered on a regular basis over at Gates of Vienna. It is an excellent resource for homeschooled students in high school and, for some students, jr. high, to use for compiling their news notebooks Dymphna and the Baron work (and their readers) work very hard at this, and they also are very much aware that homeschooled students read their blog from time to time, so they ask their readers to be mindful of the comments they make. Some of their readers do not really believe high school students could possibly be interested in news, and they do not watch their language, but that is not the fault of our good blog hosts. Bookmark them. Their posts are really helpful for current events notebooks.

Ontario: 24 dead of swine flu in 72 hours.

An Afghan brought to the UK when his plane was hijacked has lived there now for five years. He converted to Christianity (there's no question about whether the conversion was sincere), and then the UK wanted to send him back. He sought asylum because his life is in danger (it is illegal to convert from Islam). He eventually won, but I could not believe this argument:

Lawyers for the Home Office argued he would be able to practise his faith if he found like-minded Christians in Kabul and ‘kept his head down’.

To really put the home-office legal beagle argument in perspective:

The nine men who hijacked the airliner threatening to kill all 160 passengers unless they were granted asylum.

The gang were later jailed but cleared on appeal and freed to live comfortable lives in London with their families on benefits worth £150,000 a year.

In 2006, the gang were given ‘discretionary leave’ to remain in Britain as Afghanistan was ‘unsafe’ to return to.

This story of a conversion resulting in death threats and imprisonment in Egypt is also disturbing.

Herman Von Rompuy may become the next President of the EU. Who is he?

Interesting bit of history- how Hitler and the Nazis attempted to co-opt Christmas (even replacing St. Nicholas with Odin).

November 19th, S

2009-11-19T08:05:00.000-06:00

I am thankful for a Savior and for songs.

I am thankful for sign language so the Cherub has some means of communication.

I am thankful for the gift of speech, and also for the gift of silence.

And I am thankful for the gift of sound and for friends who share links like this one. It's so amazing I don't want to give anything away by sharing even an excerpt. It is both beautiful, and horrible. Deeply touching, and at the same time, the implications are heart-breaking. See what you think.

Taking Seven Children to the Museum....

2009-11-19T06:00:00.003-06:00

Several years ago there was a Leonardo Da Vinci exhibit in a museum in Canada. It was the last time these works would be seen anywhere on the North American Continent for many years, perhaps ever. We planned a field trip with two other homeschooling mothers. We planned it and looked forward to it for months. I gloated to all my friends, both real and virtual, about the cultural treat in store of us. About a week after the event, I wrote my friends about our experiences. Here it is:

I would love to regale you all with a fine narration of the deeply meaningful experience I had visiting the Leonardo Da Vinci exhibit in Victoria, B.C. last Monday. My seven children and I rode in a borrowed 15 passenger van with Tootles and her 13 y.o. daughter, and another friend and her five children. We had, you know, been planning this dream field trip for a few months. Last Monday our plans saw fruition and we all went to Victoria to see Da Vinci's great works of art and models of his incredible inventions.

"Last Monday," you ask? "A week ago? Why haven't you told us about it before," you inquire?

"Because I hadn't yet recovered," I reply. In fact, I don't think I've quite recovered yet, but figured I'd better say something before it was too late. I mean, one can't go see the Da Vinci exhibit and not tell one's friends, can one????

So, as I said, before any more time passes, I'd like to tell you all about the deeply meaningful experience I had visiting the Da Vinci exhibit last week.

Unfortunately, I can't. All the bathrooms we visited between here and the museum stick out in my mind much more than the exhibit. Particularly memorable is the one on the ferry where my 11 y.o. handicapped child dashed in ahead of me, flung her coat to the floor and dropped her drawers before I could stop her- and didn't bother shutting the door. I shut it in the face of a startled and embarrassed ferry employee. O h, yes, that's an event I shall never forget.

Of course the museum bathroom where she didn't quite make it- for the fourth time of the day, also stands out in my memory as an important part of the day. That's where, crowded into one stall with my 11 y.o and my 2 y.o. so my 11 could use the facility, my 2 y.o. suddenly insisted she had to go, NOW. But she was in a sling on my hip. Impressed by the urgency of her pleas, I was Frantically trying to get her OUT before, well, you know-before-what. I yanked, tugged, and pulled, but her boot was caught on a fold of material. Finally, it came free with a jerk- smacking the 11 y.o. in the forehead.

We did not, of course, just visit every public restroom in between Washington State and Victoria British Columbia. That would be silly and not worth writing about. We did many other things in between bathroom trips. The Cherub tried to snatch three purses from strangers. She's always sure they are hiding treats from her, and she does love to tease. Such a fun sense of humor that girl has. So delightful. We raced two blocks in the rain from the parking lot to the museum and back again about one hour later. I pushed the stroller with one hand and held onto The Cherub with the other hand. I think The Cherub found every puddle between the car and the museum and stomped in them. Hard. My left foot was soaked, and it did not dry out until sometime after midnight. It warmed up around three days later. The museum closed thirty minutes before the gift shop did, so I got to spend about as much time in the gift shop as I did in the actual museum proper. While there I did buy a neat book on identifying mosses in the museum bookstore, as well a postcard or two so that later I could look at the pictures and see what I missed.

While in the museum bookstore I had the toddler in the stroller and the baby in the sling. The toddler said she wanted out. I quietly said I knew that, but that the knowledge did not have the impact on me she might have thought. She said she wanted OUT. I calmly said I knew that, but that knowledge did not create in me a desire to leap to her bidding and set her free. She said she wanted OUT NOW TO PLAY WITH THOSE PRETTY THINGS. Peaceful in the knowledge that she could not get out, I calmly said I knew that, too, and actually, that was sort of why she had to stay in there. The sales clerk thought this exchange was positively hysterical. She laughed quite cheerily. Then she asked me how long we were going to be in Victoria, and where we were from. I explained we were from Washington and that we'd left the house at 6:45 a.m. (did I mention that?) and were going back the same day. She looked rather astonished, and then said that all things considered, my little girl was holding up pretty well. I looked balefully at her and said that while that was true, all things considered, so was I. She thought that was very funny, too.

The museum shop closed, so we all ran back in the rain, two blocks, to the van. You have noticed how quickly the Cherub runs, yes? You have perhaps missed how quickly I run while carrying a child in a sling and pushing a stroller. Don’t expect to see a repeat performance, as I never intend to repeat it on purpose again.

We got lost leaving town. The baby cried for the only time that day, but he cried for forty-five minutes, and there was truly no where to stop. I was in the front seat and he in the middle because as we all know, some of us much to our discomfort, I get car sick, but after twenty minutes of this, and with no stopping place on the highway in sight, I unbuckled my seatbelt and started climbing over the back of my seat. Tootles, who was doing an admirable job of remaining calm and trying to soothe my son, raised an eyebrow and asked if I wanted to change seats with her. Since I was by then tossing her out of her seat, I thought the question rather superfluous. I nuzzled my face up against his little wet cheek and he eventually went to sleep. We drove the rest of the way to the ferry in comparative peace.

The bathroom in the coffee shop by the boarding area for the ferry coming home was memorable. We arrived thirty minutes before our ferry was due. It was cold, dark, and pouring down rain. My toddler announced that she needed to go potty, "weally bad." I peered out the windows, and couldn’t see a bathroom anywhere, I couldn't spy even a building where one would be located. I asked if anybody else had seen one. Nobody had. The toddler got louder. I peered into the rainy darkness some more, asked again. Toddler begins screaming in anguish that she has to go weally weally bad. I put a diaper on her and tell her I'm very sorry, but if she can't wait until the ferry arrives, I don't know what else to do, and that there is nothing wrong with her using a diaper in this immediate hour of need. This seriously offends her, and she insists that she will not use that baby diaper, she wants a real toilet. We were also first in the line of cars for the ferry and now more cars are pulling up all around us. This unfamiliar place, in the dark and the rain, is a terribly unsafe place to be wandering around in search of a toilet. I cannot tell where cars may and may not be, we are not dressed for night walking, I can’t even tell which direction to look in the dark, and I am afraid if we leave the car to wander the immense lot of cars, I will lose the van.

She screams some more. I am miserable on her behalf, and not so happy on my own either. I try to reason with her. Screaming, nonstop, continues. Finally, in one of those sterling moments of perfect motherhood that we will all cherish forever, I reasonably and maturely bellow back to my two year old child, "I CAN'T MAKE A BATHROOM! DO YOU SEE A BATHROOM ANYWHERE AT ALL? WHAT DO YOU WANT ME TO DO?" There is sudden silence in the van, on the part of everyone except my continuously screaming 2 y.o. Then an 11 y.o.(12 this month), who isn't mine and a very good thing that is for both of us,, casually remarks that we passed the bathroom as we drove in, and she points out where it is.

I didn't say anything at all for a moment, but I think my silence at that moment was more eloquent than anything I could have said. Come to think of it, my silence was also much more polite than anything I could have said. Perhaps the disbelieving glare I tossed in her direction helped me make my point as well. After I recovered from my astonishment that a young person nearly 12 years old could listen to a toddler scream for a bathroom for half an hour without ever once thinking to mention that she, and only she, actually knew where one was, I grabbed the poor little one and raced across the tarmac in the rain, heading for the general direction pointed out for us. We made it. But while we were there the announcement came over the loudspeaker that the ferry was in and it was time to board. You will remember that our van was first in line, so nobody was boarding until we did. So, I hasten my child through the usual steps and make her skip washing her hands (this upsets her), snatch her up hastily again and we frantically race back to the van. I have a bad back and I'm not supposed to carry her, let alone run 100 yard dashes with her in my arms. She thinks this is fun. I suppose if only one of us is going to have fun, I’d rather if it was her. At least, I suppose that if I were as mature and grown up as I’m supposed to be that’s what I would think….

Did I mention that we left our house in the morning at 6:45 a.m? Just wondering. We arrived back home at midnight. We could not sleep in because we were already scheduled to visit the nursing home the next morning- it’s a regular appointment, and the nursing home people have made it quite clear that they do not wish us to alter this schedule. It upsets their routine and it distresses the elderly to have their schedule disrupted, so we must be there no matter what. The next day while we were getting ready to go on our monthly nursing home visit, my poor toddler began kicking and screaming, "No, no, not back in the car!!!" I felt the same way.

Nevertheless, I had made a commitment and while we all must suffer for it, suffer we must, because a commitment is a commitment. The older children understood this, and it was a good example for the younger, and so with grim duty we duly arrived at the nursing home for our regularly scheduled monthly visit where we learned that the nursing home was on lock down because of a power outage the night before, and nobody was allowed in. No, nobody called. So we all drove back the 20 or 30 minutes back home again, the toddler still complaining bitterly about the car seat.

Before penning this novella I asked the children if they thought it had been worth it. My eldest (15), and my 8 y.o. both were in rapt agreement that the museum was wonderful and every minute was worth it. My 14 and 9 y.o. both thought the museum was boring, but the ferry ride was fun. We live a mere 15 minutes from a ferry with much cheaper rates and better accommodations, so if all they wanted was a ferry ride, we could have done that in an afternoon. My toddler says she didn't like any of it. The Cherub didn't say, but then she doesn't speak. And The FYB slept most of the time.

Saturday, my eldest and I went to a used bookstore just a few blocks from my house. I found a huge (at least 14X16, 4inches thick) hardback book about Leonardo Da Vinci- with what appear to be reproductions of all the things I didn't see at the exhibit. The cover had a bad watermark, so I got it for 15.00, which is what the owner paid for it. I haven’t gotten to look at it, as my 8 y.o. has monopolized it, but one day this week I intend to sit down, put my feet up, sip a cup of that Tension Tamer tea (or French Vanilla), and leisurely enjoy looking at page after page, an armchair field trip I shall enjoy with great relish. As for our Da Vinci trip, I'm glad we went, but I'm even more glad that it's over.

That was many years ago, as you can tell. That infant was about five months old then, and he is now 11 years old, and the toddler is 13. The 14 and 15 year olds are now married. The 8 and 9 year olds have reversed their positions- the 9 year old doesn't remember much from the museum, but her younger sister who preferred the ferry remembers a couple of things pretty clearly.

Memory is a tricky thing. The funny thing is that all the things that I wrote about in this letter, funny as they are, have receded further and further into the distance of my own memory. I am glad I wrote the letter, because I should have forgotten nearly all of those dreadful but very funny in retrospect things if I hadn't. As the details recounted above have grown smaller and smaller in perspective, something I didn't think to mention at all has grown and grown in my mind's eye until it stands out in glorious detail as the most significant detail of the entire trip. When I hear Da Vinci's name I no longer think of my wet left foot, my aching back, the stitch in my side from running all over the place. Instead, I see one picture in particular. I have a print of it to remind me, but the print is nothing like the original for beauty and exquisite detail.

In my mind's eye I still stand in a circle of quiet in front of the painting titled The Kissing Infants, and I see the detail of the stone window, the small insects on the wall, the crease in a small foot- and I am refreshed and renewed in spirit by the beauty and wonder of a man living in the late 15th century reaching out across the centuries, oceans, and continents that divide us, and touching one tired, wet, cold, and sore housewife in the middle of a day that seemingly had no space for such peaceful moments. I couldn't have stood there for more than a minute or two, neither the Cherub nor the FYG were capable of permitting me. And yet, that minute has grown swollen and pregnant with meaning and depth, and it now fills the entire day.

Had I known what that field trip would be like, I would have sent two children and kept the rest and stayed at home in peace and quiet, as well as immediate proximity to a bathroom. Had I known what I would remember and take with me from that field trip, I would have gone with gladness and rejoicing. I would not have missed The Kissing Infants for all the bathrooms in two countries.

I just would have put The Cherub in a pull-up.

(my favorite painting from that exhibit)

Jerry Lee Lewis Sings the Crawdad Song

2009-11-18T21:10:00.003-06:00

Rockabilly.... is that different from honky-tonk, and if so, how?

You get a line, I'll get a pole, baby- that seems to be an early version of 'I've got a brand-new pair of roller skates, you gotta brand new key.'

November 17th and 18th, Q and R

2009-11-18T18:00:00.000-06:00

Q is for Sir Arthur Quiller-Couch, of course.

He edited the Oxford Anthology of English verse, used by Charlotte Mason in her schools, and used by the DHM in hers.=) He is also the "Q" referred to in '84 Charing Cross Road' and its sequel. I have my grandmother's copy of Quiller-Couch's Oxford English verse, as well as her edition of a collection of his lectures, including On Writing.

Perspicuity.—I shall waste no words on the need of this: since the first aim of speech is to be understood. The more clearly you write the more easily and surely you will be understood. I propose to demonstrate to you further, in a minute or so, that the more clearly you write the more clearly you will understand yourself. But a sufficient reason has been given in ten words why you should desire perspicuity.

You must know Q.

R is for roses, rambling, sweet smelling, running rampant in the garden, and to be honest, in my bedroom where I went a bit wild when, a few years ago, my husband told me he truly, honestly, did not care how I decorated our room, it didn't matter to him a bit.

There are rose prints on the walls, there is a small bedside carpet with roses, there are roses on the curtains, on the knick knacks and do-dads, and there are even silk roses twining around the curtain rods.

Real ones are best, but my bower of roses is a sweet second.

I am so tired of....

2009-11-18T17:45:00.000-06:00

People who apologize with any variation of "I'm sorry, but...." or "I'm sorry that you..." Especially irritating is the "I'm sorry you were offended" sort which puts all the onus upon the other person and conveniently and merrily absolves yourself of any responsibility.

That's not an apology. "I'm sorry if..." is also a poor excuse of an apology. It's lame. It's not acknowledging that there is actually something you need to apologize for, is a weasally apology slithering out from admitting that you did something wrong at all, and subtly placing some of the responsibility on those you've injured.
"I'm sorry you're offended" is perhaps one of the rudest non-apology apologies I know of.

I'm sorry you're offended and I was only kidding is even worse. It's one of those nasty non-apologies of the "I'm sorry you're so stupid you thought I actually meant what I said but I was only speaking figuratively" sorts.

Other popular non apologies include any statement where 'if' or 'but' follows "I'm sorry." Weasel words like "maybe" I "might" have been 'mistaken' are also not apologies, they are excuses and an attempt to deflect attention for the wrong-doer's refusal to actually admit wrong doing.

"I'm sorry, but I only..." is right. out.

There should be no conditional words placed around an apology.

I am so sorry if this post seems too crabby to you, but you shouldn't take it too seriously.

Where Has All The Money Gone?

2009-11-18T16:42:00.002-06:00

Over the last couple of weeks, the media and the blogosphere has dissected the numbers coming from Recovery.gov and found them laughably phony. The pièce de resistance came when Watchdog.org noticed that the government-run accountability website appeared not to know that the US has only 435 Congressional districts, instead of the 875 listed on the website — but listed almost $6.4 billion in spending in the phantom districts. However, as we have seen here, phony “saved or created” numbers are the norm, not the exception, and most of the jobs data are insupportable.

And even Earl Devaney, the man in charge at Recovery.org, can’t deny it. In a response to Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), Devaney says that he cannot certify any of the jobs data published by the government:

Read the rest.

We need a new folk song:

Where has all the money gone?
Gone to nowhere, every one.
Oh, when will we ever learn?
When will we...
Every learn.

The President in China

2009-11-18T15:15:00.002-06:00

Seth Liebsohn:

Yesterday, I detailed how little respect the Chinese authorities gave the Obama administration in its requests for media, "less respect than was given presidents Bush or Clinton" was how the New York Times put it yesterday. "A retreat," the NYT said. This morning the LAT has more, about less: "In China, Obama's Hosts Show No Signs of Budging" is the headline. The subheading: "President Obama is Leaving China Without Any Definable Concessions on Tougher Sanctions on Iran or Currency Exchanges."

More at the link. It's pretty bad.

Drew from Ace:

While Obama certainly inherited some significant challenges, just as all Presidents have, he seems to see this set of challenges as an opportunity to remake America (his words, not mine). Instead of dealing with these problems as temporary and fixable, Obama has decided they are an opportunity, not to reinvigorate the country but to bring it to what he sees as its rightful place in the world...just another country among equals. Nothing special, except perhaps for the mistakes its made and the damage its done.

It's simply not possible to look at his attitudes and actions toward countries like Iran, Burma (I know, don't care what the thugs want to be called) and Honduras or thugs like Cavez and Putin and conclude anything other than a willful effort to be more accommodating to them.

Look at his willingness to throw the Dalai Lama, a fellow Nobel Laureate, under the bus on this trip.
The leaders of China, Russia and Iran are nothing if not pros. They have all survived tough and often deadly systems to get where they are. They are not going to be impressed or moved by Obama's 'humbleness' or 'humility'. They are going to see it for what it is, a kick me sign. And trust me, they are going to kick him and by extension us, right in the butt for the next 3+ years. Unfortunately, Obama seems to see that as a feature, not a bug of his policies.

Put all this next to the seemingly insignificant point that for two hundred years it has been the policy of the American Office of Protocol that the President of this country does NOT bow to heads of state:

This was a protocol taking seriously as recently as the Clinton presidency, when the New York Times came down all over Clinton for giving a small bow.

First we had the President practically scraping the floor with the Saudis, and then insisting that he hadn't, even though we could all see the evidence for ourselves. (more here)

But now he claims this is a deliberate policy in order to 'further the diplomacy of deference,' and this naivety is truly frightening to me. Others see it a little differently, Ace explains:

My actual beef is that the crap Obama is doing is irrelevant. No one gives a flying [expletive deleted by the Church-Lady of the Common Room] if you bow to them, or you say nice things about "working together to reach our collective goals," or this ridiculous conceit that just because of Obama's "personal presence" -- a historic presidency, drenched in drama, topped with butter-baked crumbs of hope -- is going to make a lick of difference. Nations pursue their own policy goals -- period. You change the goals a nation might pursue by offering carrots and sticks, by buying them off or making it so costly to pursue a particular goal they refrain from doing so.

"Diplomacy" is merely a polite manner of announcing these carrots and sticks.

So my point, then, is that what Obama is doing is perfectly trivial, and to get all outraged about it actually invests his empty and feckless symbolism with a power it doesn't have. Obama's bowing to a Saudi king does nothing to improve our relations with the Islamic world. And neither, frankly, does Cheney shaking his hand as an equal. Neither matters -- and the problem here is that Obama is convinced these things not only matter, but are well-nigh determinative.

This malignant narcissist thinks that nations will change their fundamental national goals based simply on the (purported) fact that Obama is charming, nice, and awesome.

It's not so much that he's doing the wrong things -- he is; but these things are utterly trivial. It's that he's investing far too much time thinking about trivialities, convincing himself that the trivial trumps the substantial, that he invests no time or effort at all in substantive manners. Look at Iran. Rather than facing the grim reality he needs to confront Iran and make it too costly for Iran to continue building nukes, he convinces himself that if only he can be charming and nonthreatening enough he will neatly avoid having to face that reality.

He is indulging in fantasy at the expense of reality, and therefore at the expense of US national interests.

So he tosses the Dalai Lama, insults the British Prime Minister by giving him a cheap and tacky gift of American movies that only plays in an American format, gives the Queen an iPod with his own speeches on it, refuses to meet with friendlies, but engages in what he imagines is a 'diplomacy of deference' with people who understand what he is doing for what it is- weakness:

"Obama's handshake/forward lurch was so jarring and inappropriate it recalls Bush's back-rub of Merkel.

"Kyodo News is running his appropriate and reciprocated nod and shake with the Empress, certainly to show the president as dignified, and not in the form of a first year English teacher trying to impress with Karate Kid-level knowledge of Japanese customs.

"The bow as he performed did not just display weakness in Red State terms, but evoked weakness in Japanese terms....The last thing the Japanese want or need is a weak looking American president and, again, in all ways, he unintentionally played that part.

That he has apparently hired high school students to run the office of protocol in the White House is the least of our problems, but it is a symptom of the others.