Skinny Jeans

School shopping this year has been quite a hassle because the styles this year have changed dramatically. It is like I am in the seventh grade all over again. Boys are having shaggy, layered hair, tight jeans (that sag in the bum of all ridiculous things), big ugly sneakers and huge band t-shirts. I remember being afraid of those boys back then and my sister being in love with them. When I see those same boys walking down the street, they still creep me out. Girls are wearing super tight jeans that you have to lie down to pull on, large shirts with belts over them. Dresses that look like something from Madonna or Cindy Lauper, and of course big ugly sneakers. I am wondering when leg warmers or socks pulled up over the pants legs are going to come back. Anyway, I personally do not like the style at all and neither does John. I am not even sort of tempted to try skin tight jeans and baggy shirts. I have fat legs and a thin top. So that sort of outfit would just emphasize all of my bad parts and de-emphasize all of my good parts. Reguardless, I do not wear skin tight clothing and John and I do not allow our children to wear skin tight clothing. I like nicely fitted clothing, but not skin tight. We want our children to look clean and conservative and to wear nice clothing. This has been really hard to do this year. I think mostly, my daughters have been fairly stylish until this year when pants are very tight and shirts are fairly extreme in the color and style. I think Ruth and Kate are a little upset by this. I do not think they want to wear skinny jeans, but they do not want to be so totally out of fashion either. John and I talked to the girls about how 15 years ago tapered legs were the style and only the very fashionable and people who chose to wear extreme styles wore the boot leg and straight cut jeans. They could hardly believe that this was true. We said, that it looks like tapered legs would be back in style shortly and that we would no longer be able to buy boot cut and straight leg pants. We told them that we would be just fine with them wearing tapered pants and jeans, but that we needed to be modest in how tight our clothing is. So we went to Macy's and tried on a few different styles of pants. I left feeling rather depressed. There aren't any tapered legged pants that are not skin tight as well as boot cut that are not skin tight in the thigh. We tried on skinny jeans a size too big. I think that just looked ridiculous. We didn't buy anything. I am thinking the time is coming that we are going to have to choose to be different than the world in clothing as well as in speech, and music and all media (Of course we have always been different in not wearing tank tops and low cut tops.). We will see. Maybe girls will get tired of having to lie down to put their pants on. But on this matter, we will not falter. John and I do not think that skin tight clothing is modest and fits with how our daughters should dress. I need to add one point here: our daughters have some good friends that dress in tight jeans and band t-shirts and they are good kids and good friends for our daughters. I just think the style is unfortunate and immodest. I am okay with other good people who do not think so and I do not think less of them. But, I do want to quote Elder M. Russel Ballard from his talk to mothers and daughters last April. He said, "For example, they need to understand that when they wear clothing that is too tight, too short, or too low cut, they not only can send the wrong message to young men with whom they associate, but they also perpetuate in their own minds the fallacy that a woman’s value is dependent solely upon her sensual appeal. This never has been nor will it ever be within the righteous definition of a faithful daughter of God. They need to hear this—clearly and repeatedly—from your lips, and they need to see it modeled correctly and consistently in your own personal standards of dress, grooming, and modest living."

Conversation With Rachel and Anya

As I was taking Rachel and and Anya out of their carseats:

Rachel: Mom can I have some candy.
Me: No, it is all gone.
Rachel (rolling her eyes and saying with a deep sigh): Okay, can I have some candy for my birthday?
Me: Yes.
Anya (gasping in surprise, looking from me to Rachel, and asking timidly): Can I have candy for my birthday?
Me (smiling): yes.
Anya (looking at Rachel quizzically and then back at me): Can I have gum for my birthday, too?
Me:Yes, Anya, you can.
Rachel: I want gum for my birthday too.

Happy Birthday Kate

11 years ago I held a beautiful, red chubby baby with thick black hair. I looked at my little precious bundle and she screamed and screamed. By 10 months Kate turned those screams into words, and by 18 months Kate never quit talking. Welcome Kate! She still has lots and lots and lots to say. When Kate gets home from anything, she tells me every little detail. I get to hear what questions her teachers ask and the answers she gives. I get to hear what all of the kids in school wear and how clean the neighbors houses are. I get to hear entire books as retold by Kate as well as entire movies. But, I love it--except for the neighbor gossip thing--we have to work on that one :).

Kate loves her little brothers and sisters and her big family. She knows how to play with each of the little kids. She is a best friend and great roommate to Ruth. She is a hard working and good student. She does her chores well and is a big help and a delight at home. Happy Birthday, Kate!!!! You are a fun kid.

Kate at 18 months

Kate is now a beautiful and still tiny 11 year old

Kate at 3, 4, and 5

Some Nice Things

I have felt very blessed lately because of few of my anxieties about my kids have worked themselves out on their own. First, Rachel is not wetting the bed very much anymore. It seems to only be a few times a month as opposed to everyday, and we are not taking her at night. I was wondering if this was going to be a long-term issue for her. Second, Joseph grabbed my very hot curling iron with his left hand a few weeks back. He burnt his thumb and forefinger very badly. As a result, I kept a sock taped over his hand all of the time. Joseph has sucked only his left thumb since he was four months old, so with the sock and the burn, he could not suck his thumb. His hand healed up nicely in about 6 days. He doesn't even have a scar, and he no longer sucks his thumb. I have noticed him put his thumb in his mouth a couple of times, but either one of the girls takes it right out or Joseph just bites on it a bit. I am very grateful for this because I really had no idea how to stop a thumb sucker (I was a terrible-stubborn thumb sucker that caused my mom a lot of grief.) Lastly, Adam sucks both of his forefingers and as he is starting kindergarten we have been talking about not doing that during the day or in front of people. Adam seemed fairly resistant until recently he started putting a piece of tape on each finger to remind himself not to suck his fingers. I am quite relieved that he has begun this all on his own.

That just leaves potty training Anya, and teaching Adam to read. I certainly very grateful to be rid of so many worries all at the same time!

First Day of School 2010

Ruth is now in the 7th grade all by herself in Jr. High. We took her pictures after school.

Johnny is now in third grade, Kate in 6th, and Adam in kindergarten.

 

 

 

The first day of the 2010-2011 school year went pretty well. Adam is VERY excited about kindergarten. He is tested this week and starts full time next week. Kate who has been very worried about making friends, came home a lot less worried. Johnny seemed fine with his class and teacher, but he did not report much. Ruth had a tough day her first day of junior high. She had a lot of locker trouble and missed the bus coming home because she had to go to the bathroom and couldn't find one. I think those kinks are worked out now, and she will get into the swing of things pretty quickly. Now, I just have to get into the swing of things again. However, it actually did feel good to get up early and stay on schedule. I think we will have a good school year this year.

Is sexual freedom more important than religious freedom?

Here are parts of an article written by Laura Bunker President of the Utah branch of United Families International. I think this is a very important issue and I suggest everyone read this.


Perry v. Schwarzenegger, or the Prop 8 trial as it is commonly known, is a huge, landmark trial.  It is the first marriage case in the history of our nation where the “thoughts, motivations, and personal beliefs” of the voters are on trial for “improper intent” (Prentice, Ferriss, Wickman).  Did the seven million voters who voted for Prop 8 have a right to let religious beliefs influence their vote?  Or were their religious motives “irrational,” discriminatory, and unconstitutional?  The stakes are high in this historic case with respect to both religious freedom and traditional marriage.  The Prop 8 trial could change religious freedom as we know it in America.  If California redefines marriage to include same-sex couples, such a ruling would threaten the free exercise of religion throughout the United States.

Brief History and Explanation
Perry v. Schwarzenegger is a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of  Proposition 8.  Two gay couples are the plaintiffs, represented by the “legal dream team” of Ted Olson and David Boies–the famous attorneys who opposed each other when they represented George W. Bush and Al Gore in the 2000 presidential election legal battle (Richardson).  The job of defending the California voters would normally have fallen to California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown, but “in this case he refused, citing his strong opposition to the initiative” (Richardson).  Therefore, the pro-marriage coalition had to find–and fund–their own legal counsel.  The Prop 8 legal defense team was led by Charles Cooper, former assistant attorney general under President Reagan, and included attorneys from his law firm and the Alliance Defense Fund, as well as Andy Pugno, General Counsel for the “Yes on 8″ campaign(Richardson, Prentice).  The evidence portion of the trial took place between January 11, 2010, and January 28, 2010, and was presided over by U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker. (Walker ruled to overturn proposition 8.)

A ruling to overturn Prop 8 could have huge repercussions. First, it could change the definition of marriage throughout America. “The Perry case’s implications for marriage are enormous. If. . . Judge Walker declares that Proposition 8 violates the U.S. Constitution, not only will same-sex marriage become law in California, but traditional marriage laws in every state will be vulnerable to federal legal challenges” (Richardson).  In other words, if California’s marriage amendment is overturned, the marriage amendments in other states could be challenged in federal court and overturned as well.   Secondly, if this case is successful, it could undermine every citizen’s fundamental right of “freedom of religion” throughout America.
Freedom of Religion:  What it is and What it is not
The First Amendment of the Constitution guarantees, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” (US Constitution).  Dallin Oaks, former Utah Supreme Court Justice, notes that the free exercise of religion is accepted by many legal experts as “a cornerstone of American democracy” (Oaks, section IV).  However, there is a troubling movement going on right now to change this paramount “freedom of religion” into “freedom of worship.”  Many world leaders, including President Obama are starting to use the new phrase “freedom of worship” instead of “freedom of religion” (Samelson).
What is the difference?  Freedom of religion includes “both the right to choose religious beliefs and affiliations and the right to exercise or practice those beliefs” (Oaks, section IV).  Freedom of religion is the right to live according to one’s religious dictates, including the right of Jews to keep kosher, Muslim women to wear headscarves, and LDS missionaries to proselytize (Samelson).  Freedom of religion also includes the right of individuals to exercise their personal religious beliefs in the workplace. For example, because of religious beliefs, a nurse may choose not to participate in an abortion, or the owners of a bed-and-breakfast may decline to have a same-sex couple stay overnight together in their home.  In addition, Francis Cardinal George, President of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, points out that freedom of religion also means that “religious groups as well as religious individuals have a right to exercise their influence in the public square” (George, p. 4).  Religious freedom “includ[es] the right to engage in the political life of a nation” (Farr) through individual or group effort.
On the other hand, “freedom of worship” infers some government control. For instance, “Lenin permitted freedom of worship. . . but not freedom of religion” (George, p. 4). Individuals are still able to privately practice their religious beliefs in their chapels and homes, or as Cardinal George puts it, “as long as you don’t make anybody else unhappy” (George, p. 4), but the government determines how church members exercise those beliefs in public. Specifically, if the government decided that same-sex marriage was a “good” thing worth protecting, then the religious bed-and-breakfast owners mentioned above would have little choice but to comply with the request if they wanted to avoid a lawsuit (Duncan). Religious people would feel social pressure to keep their private values to themselves as they go about their public business.
One example of government-controlled “freedom of worship” is already happening in Massachusetts, where same-sex marriage became law in 2004. In 2005 and 2006, several Christian parents in Lexington were disturbed when their children were taught about same-sex marriage in their kindergarten and second grade classrooms, without the parents’ knowledge.  When one of the fathers pressed the school principal for the option to remove his child from these lessons, he was arrested and spent a night in jail (McElroy). The parents later filed a lawsuit, but “both the district court and the Court of Appeals ruled against them, stating that parents had no right to be notified of this instruction or to remove their children from class while gay marriage was being taught” (Prentice).  The court declared that “the state’s interest in educating public school children about gay marriage outweighed the religious freedoms and parental rights of parents who object to same-sex marriage on moral grounds” (Prentice).  Essentially, the Massachusetts government determined that gay marriage was a “good thing” to be protected over the religious beliefs that the parents thought were a “good thing.” As a result, currently parents in that state cannot currently opt their children out of classroom instruction regarding gay marriage.
In addition to impacting one’s daily affairs, “freedom of worship” would also restrict religious participation in social and political issues.  Members of churches might not be able to fully participate in political dialogue about social or cultural rights (Wickman  p. 5).  Whether or not the church members use religious language in their arguments, just defending traditional marriage could make them “suspect” for being “irrational” or discriminatory (Duncan).  In a way, the Perry v. Shwarzenegger trial has already begun this scenario.  Even though my family and the vast majority of pro-marriage citizens used social science and legal reasons to encourage people to vote for Proposition 8, they are now being sued in federal court simply because many of them were members of churches.
The difference between freedom of religion and “freedom of worship” is who determines what we value–the people or the government? Andy Pugno, a defense attorney in the Prop 8 trial pointed out, “The controlling legal issue [here] is not whether homosexual marriage is good or bad, but rather whether the people have a right to decide what is best” 

How the Same-Sex Marriage Debate has Already Impacted Freedom of Religion
Even before the Prop 8 trial, the same-sex marriage debate has been gradually chipping away at religious freedoms.  Advocates for same-sex marriage claim that “homosexuality is an immutable characteristic” (Eastman), and that sexual orientation and gender identity should become the new civil right, along with race, color, sex, national origin, disability, age, and religion (Human Rights Campaign).  However, making homosexuality a civil right will ironically create two conflicting protected classes: sexual orientation and religion.  Can the law give “equal” protections to two opposing groups?  Can one class’s rights trump another?  Apparently so.  Even without having official “protected class” status, gay rights are challenging religious rights in courtrooms and classrooms across the nation, “and so far, the religious groups are losing” (Hagerty).
For example, when same-sex marriage became legal in Massachusetts, state law required Catholic Charities adoption services to place children with same-sex couples. Catholic Charities tried to exempt themselves from this requirement, but lost the legal battle.  As a result, rather than conform to a law that conflicted with their religious beliefs, in 2006 they decided to close their doors (Hagerty).   A California gynecologist was sued by his patient when he declined to perform an in vitro fertilization on a lesbian patient because of his religious beliefs.  In 2008 the California Supreme Court ruled against the doctor, suggesting that he “take up a different line of business” (Hagerty, Salmon).  A Christian photographer in New Mexico who refused to photograph a gay couple’s commitment ceremony, was sued and forced to pay $6,637 to cover the lesbian couple’s legal fees (Hagerty, Salmon).  When a New Jersey Methodist group declined to let a gay couple use its beachside pavilion for their civil union ceremony, the church lost its property tax exemption (Hagerty, Salmon).  And in Colorado, a youth minister actually sued her own church for teaching that homosexuality is a sin and incompatible with scripture (Severino).   Although this particular case was dismissed, one is left to wonder how long it will take before a lawsuit against a church’s teachings is upheld.

Summary and Conclusion
Perry v. Schwarzenegger is the culmination of a long-standing debate of gay-rights versus freedom of religion.  If this trial reaches the Supreme Court and is ruled favorably, homosexuality and same-sex marriage will become the new protected class or civil right in America.  However, the “equal rights” demanded by the gay-rights movement translate into “more equal” than the religious rights of other citizens. Religious citizens across the nation are already feeling the pain of losing their freedoms, their parental rights, their jobs, and their savings, and if same-sex marriage becomes law these legal battles will increase. This ruling would also stigmatize religious citizens as discriminatory, undermining their legitimate voice in public debate and potentially restricting public religious practices including proselytizing.
In essence our government would be forcing a new government-imposed value on all Americans–that sexual freedom is more important than religious freedom. This would limit citizens’ free exercise of religion in the public square, conflicting with the First Amendment and turning our freedom of religion into government-controlled “freedom of worship.”  In this sense, Perry vs. Schwarzenegger would quite literally be the beginning of the end of religious freedom as we know it in America.

Works Cited

American Foundation for Equal Rights. Hearing Transcripts. Perry Trial Day 7. US District  Court Northern District of California. 20 Jan. 2010. Web. 9 Jun. 2010.  American Foundation for Equal Rights. Recent News. “Text of Ted Olson’s Opening Statement in Prop 8 Trial – As Prepared.” 11 Jan. 2010. Web. 9 Jun. 2010.
Dolan, Maura. “Arguments begin in federal Prop. 8 trial.” Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times. 11 Jan. 2010. Web. 2 Jun. 2010.
Duncan, William C. Personal Interview. 10 Jun. 2010.
Eastman, John C. “Prop 8 trial set up aids gay marriage side.” CNN Opinion. CNN. 12 Jan. 2010. Web. 2 Jun. 2010.
Farr, Thomas. “Obama at the crossroads on religious liberty.” The Washington Post. The Washington Post. 6 May 2010. Web. 2 Jun. 2010.
Ferriss, Susan. “At heart of Prop. 8 trial, a clash over motives.” Sacramento Bee. Sacramento Bee. 19 Jan. 2010. Web. 2 Jun. 2010.
George, Francis. “Catholics and Latter-day Saints: Partners in the Defense of Religious Freedom.” Brigham Young University. Provo. 23 Feb. 2010. Lecture.
Hagerty, Barbara Bradley. “When Gay Rights and Religious Liberties Clash.” NPR.org. June 13, 2008. Web. 2 June 2010
Human Rights Campaign. About Us. n.d. Web. 2 Jun. 2010.
Jones, Ashby. “Prop. 8 Defenders Say Plaintiffs Attacked ‘Orthodox Religious Beliefs’.” Wall Street Journal Law Blog. Wall Street Journal. 10 Feb. 2010. Web. 2 Jun. 2010.
Lindenberger, Michael. “Gay Marriage Trial Rests, and a Key Ruling Awaits.” Time. Time Inc.,29 Jan. 2010. Web. 2 Jun. 2010.
Matier, Phillip and Andrew Ross. “Judge being a gay a nonissue during prop 8 trial.” San Francisco Gate. Hearst Corporation. 7 Feb. 2010. Web. 2 Jun. 2010.
McElroy, Wendy “Parental Rights vs. Public Schools” Fox News. 10 Aug. 2005 Web. 5 Jun. 2010
Oaks, Dallin H. “Religious Freedom.” Brigham Young University Idaho. Rexburg. 13 Oct. 2009. Lecture.
Prentice, Ron. “Testimony Concludes But the Battle is Just Beginning.” ProtectMarriage. ProtectMarriage. 6 Feb. 2010. Web. 2 Jun. 2010
Richardson, Valerie. “Same-Sex Marriage Now on Road to Supreme Court.” Human Events 18 Jan. 2010: 18. Print. 


I would have to say, that I do not know any religious person who has treated a homosexual person with contempt of any kind. I do not know anyone who thinks gay couples shouldn't have the right to share health insurance, or taxes, or anything of the sort. However, I  do not want my children being taught about gay marriage or homosexuality in school, and I think that schools should allow the parents access to the curriculum reguardless of the topic of study . I feel like doctors should be able to treat whom they will, and that religious professors can state  "the bible says that homosexuality is a sin." without being sued or losing their jobs. I feel like religious buildings and sites should be able to decide for who and what the places can be used for. Religion and religious views are literally on trial, and so far they are losing, and what they are losing to is sexual freedom.

A Little Worried

I am a little worried about Adam starting kindergarten, so I decided to ask him a few questions. This is how it went.

Mom: Adam I want to make sure you know some of the school rules.
Adam: Okay.
Mom: Is it okay to wrestle during story time?
Adam: No!
Mom: Is it okay to pick up sticks and hit other kids with them during recess?
Adam:No!
Mom: Is it okay to do kart wheels around the room when you are suppose to be listening to the teacher?
Adam: No!
Mom: Should you raise your hand if you want to answer the teachers question?
Adam: Yes!
Mom: Should you talk to your friends when the teacher is talking?
Adam: No!
Mom: Should you hit kids that make you mad?
Adam: No way.
Mom: Well, I think you know the rules. Are you going to follow them?
Adam: Yes!

At least I know he is accountable when he does do that somersault during story time. Hopefully, the stick and wrestling issues won't come up. I am keeping my fingers crossed.

Why I Do Not Homeschool

I find that a lot of people expect that I home school my kids. I think it is because we have a large family, we are politically conservative, we expect our children to dress modestly both in style and fit. We also basically only listen to classical music and hymns, and we do not have cable tv, and we watch very little tv at that anyway. So that makes us a lot like big families that home school. So why do I not home school? Well, like I have heard from people who are defending their choice to home school, I had a very similar experience.

When I was pregnant with my first baby, I visited a home schooled family. They had just 2 little girls. I wasn't unimpressed with what they were doing. The girls were both very smart. They were early readers and could talk with adults easily. The mother was very organized and a good teacher. But it didn't hit me as something that I needed to do for my children. In fact, I felt rather impressed in the opposite direction.

Over the next few years, I watched home schooled children versus public schooled children. Most of the public school kids seemed more comfortable around their peers but were more likely to get into trouble. In the end, I concluded that really how kids were going to be as early teenagers and young adults had more to do with the parents. Kids who come from homes with social parents are more social than kids who come from homes where parents do not do much with other people (I am afraid, John and I are not very social, although we try.) Kids who have parents who are good with money tend to be good with money. Kids who come from home with strong values have strong values, etc. It did not seem to have to do with where they went to school so much. There was some of that. I think parents who are going to send their kids to public schools should research different school districts before they chose a home. Schools with lots of gangs and high pregnancy rates, and drug use will affect any child in a negative way. John and I have always looked for schools that have the highest academic standards and the lowest drop out rates. As a result, we have had to pay a lot more for smaller homes. We think that is very worth it.

So after thinking about it for years, I prayed about what my family should do. I felt strongly that what my kids needed was to learn to work along side their peers. I felt like my children needed to go and learn how to work with people who were going to be mean to them and hurt their feelings. I also felt like it would be important for my children to learn at an early age that they were going to have to work and live around people that are making bad choices and acting like it is what everyone should do. So, Ruth went to junior kindergarten and kindergarten as did Kate.

We really regretted the junior kindergarten, and felt like even though it was only 2 1/2 hours a day, our 4 year old children did not need to be away from home and mom. So we do not do preschool.

It has come up a few times, where my kids have asked to be home schooled. Kate had a very difficult first grade year with an angry teacher who was going through a divorce. It was a bad situation. We finally agreed to home school Kate if the first week of second grade was not any better. Kate loved second grade and wanted to stay in school. Johnny is our smart kid and has always been well ahead of his peers. Every school year has been a problem for him. I have to go into the school and schools do not like to accomodate any special needs. Johnny has asked to be home schooled so he can do more interesting work. We prayed about it and the answer has been the same for our family. So I go in and try and work with the teacher and principle to get Johnny what he needs at school.

Honestly, I often think how nice it would be to home school. I love all vacations when I have my kids around me all of the time. I know that I could teach my kids better and give them an education more suited to their individual needs. Their are a ton of great home school resources out there now. It sounds hard, but fun to me. I hate the school schedule. If we home schooled we could always sleep in and it would not take as much time out of the day as school does. I would have more time to teach my kids to cook and garden and other fun things. But, we have felt like public school is where are kids need to be, so unless that changes that is what we will do.

I have read a lot of why other people home school, and mostly their reason for home schooling is the same as mine for sending my kids to school.  They feel like it is what God wants them to do for their family. I respect that a lot because I have had a similar experience although it has sent me the opposite way. I suspect some families are called to do different things. If there does come a time when we feel like our children need to be educated from home we will change right away. As with everything in our lives, when we listen to the promptings of the Holy Spirit things go miraculously well for us, and when we don't, things aren't so good and smooth and nice.

A Few Personal Politcal Thoughts

For people who don't like politics or any such thing-- skip this post. I am finding that as I get older the more important I find politics to be.

I want to just rant a little bit about the economy and what is being done about it. Every one knows that the economy is not doing very well. In fact, when economists were predicting that things would get better in both the job market and in the housing market things have actually gotten a little worse. I suppose, I am not too concerned about that. When I was a junior in high school and had a very brief overview class on American history, one of the things that I noticed was that about every 10 to 20 years the American economy fell into a recession. The worst, of course was the Great Depression that began in 1929. When, I was in high school in the early 90's, the American economy was in a recession. Where I lived it was really hard for a high school student to get a job because the 40 year old's in the area were looking for the same jobs. This recession began with a couple of things. There was a stock market crash in October of 1987 and the housing market seriously crashed in 1989. By the late 90's the nation had recovered. People were prospering. I got every job that I applied for, and there were help wanted signs every where. By 2000, the stock market was the highest in history. By 2001 housing prices were booming and housing were selling like crazy. People who paid too much for a house in 1988-89 made up for their losses by 2001. Yes, that is a long time. But if they did not have to move before then they were making $100,000 selling houses that they owed more money than they had paid for just 10 years previously. Because of free enterprise, America has always recovered from periods of recession.

This time around things are different. When houses started foreclosing and people were losing jobs the government stepped in to "help" with money borrowed from banks in countries in the Middle East and in China (which the tax payers are suppose to pay off.) Banks were "saved", big car companies were "saved", money has been given to people to get better cars and there was an $8,000 tax credit for first time home buyers to "stimulate the economy". However, along with all of this spending has come a lot of laws. Big, free American banks and car companies, and mortgage companies are now owned and regulated by the federal government. Laws have been made that have changed the housing market and how it functions quite substantially. When we bought the house in 2004 and when we bought our current house this past April things were very different. So unlike the housing market crash in 1989 when people had to just suffer through their loss, the government has tried to make laws so that people do not have to suffer "ever again". But the housing market, the financial market and other big industries in America are no longer free. It will be a lot harder for the housing market to recover. Sure, people are being able to get out of foreclosures, and bankruptcy, but now we are all bound by laws that will change the way the economy works. In countries where the national government owns a lot of the businesses and regulates closely the financial market the people of the country suffer. They are not rich like in America. Everyone does not have a dish washer, cable TV and dessert every night-- even in other very wealthy countries. And that, in my opinion is what is going to happen to America. I suspect, if this continues, which it has been going this way for some time (not just with the Obama administration), our children and our grand children will not know the wealth that our generation has known.

I Just Don't Want To...

Today, I just don't want to do the laundry.
I just don't want to clean and vacuum the upstairs.
I just don't want to run to the store with a bunch of little kids to buy diapers.
I just don't want to make meals and clean up after them.
I just don't want to change diapers and read stories and wipe noises.
I just want to read my book.

But I will do the laundry, clean, and vacuum, run to the store for just diapers, make meals and clean up after them, change, diapers, read stories, and wipe noises. Then, if I am not too tired, I will sit down and read my book, but probably I will read Kate's book to her instead.

Fun News

I had my first Ob appointment yesterday. The doctor took out his ultra sound machine, looked at my chart and said, "If we can see, do you want to know what you have in there?" I said, "Yes! That would be great!" He looked around for a couple of minutes and said, "Oh, I know what we have here." I knew it was a boy then. Boys are easy to see.  We had already changed the boy name because of the 10 year old cub scout of John's named Noah. So we are very likely having a boy, and very likely naming him Joshua.

Since this one looks to be a boy, our pattern is holding true. We will have girl, girl, boy, boy, girl, girl, boy, boy. Also as long as I don't go into labor as usual and go 5 days late (induction will be scheduled for Feb 1), all of our children will be born in different months. That will leave May, June, and December with no birthdays for our family. John and I are both in October, Ruth in March, Kate in August, Johnny in September, Adam in November, Rachel in April, Anya in January, and Joseph in July. I think the pattern must come from marrying a mathematician.

This is the Place State Park

Johnny touching the fake food.

Rachel being Shaved

Ada said She wanted to be shaved without the razor.

We had a lot of fun, and we bought a family pass, so we will be back!

Ruth getting a shave in the barber shop. The boys wouldn't do this.

Probably the only time Adam will willing wash clothes.

The Pony Rides were a big hit.

When will Adam quit sucking that finger???

Ruth was really excited for the pony rides. It is her favorite 3 year old memory./

Anya and Rachel really loved the farm animals.

Sammy really loved the goats.

Grandma always helps me keep track of my kids. We love have grandma and the cousins come along.

Adam wouldn't let this poor goat go.

We Finally Did It

Oh the Things They Say

Anya pushed Joseph down. Then she came over to me and said, "Mom, Rachel hurt baby Doe."

Mom: Adam are you excited to start kindergarten.
Adam: No. I hate school.
Mom: How can you hate school when you have never tried it?
Adam: It has things that I hate.
Mom: What do you hate about school
Adam: Math and homework

Johnny: Mom did you see what the clock said when you said it was 10 o'clock.
Mom: Yes like (9:58 and that is close enough to 10 to say 10.
Johnny: Mom clock said 9:55. That is not that close to 10.

Mom: Go to bed Kate.
Kate: But it is only 10:30.

Joseph: Takes a stack of cups out of the cupboard throws them across the floor and declares, "Uh-Oh!"

What Parents Should Know: 2010 Best Books for Young Adults

These are the first 7 books out of 90 nominated best books for young adults 2010. These are for 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th graders. Take a look at what is being recommended as a "best book" to young adults.

Anderson, Laurie Halse. Wintergirls. Penguin/Viking Books. 2009. 9780670011100. $17.99
Lia is haunted by her best friend's death from bulimia, as she struggles with her own eating disorder.
Barnes, John. Tales of the Madman Underground. Penguin/Viking Books. 2009. 9780670060818. $18.99.
In an attempt to distance himself from the rest of the students in the school's therapy group known as the Madman Underground, Karl launches his senior year with "Operation Be F------- Normal."
Booraem, Ellen. The Unnameables. Houghton Mifflin. 2008. 978-0-15-206368-9. $16.00.
In a place where everything has a name and every name has a meaning, outsider Medford Runyuin struggles in vain to follow the rules of his adopted home.
Bradley, Alan. The Sweetness at the Bottom of the Pie. Dell Publishing/Delacorte Press. 2009. 978-0-385-34230-8. $23.00.
Flavia de Luce is delighted with the discovery of a dead snipe on her doorstep and considers it a bonus when a human body is found in her cucumber patch.
Bray, Libba. Going Bovine. Random House/Delacorte. 2009. 978-0-385-73397-7. $17.99.
Cameron knew there was something wrong when he started seeing pillars of fire and angels, but he never imagined he had mad cow disease.
Brennan, Sarah Rees. Demon's Lexicon. Simon & Schuster Children's Publishing/Margaret K. McElderry. 2009. 978-1-4169-6379-0. $17.99.
Sixteen-year-old Nick and his older brother Alan are always on the run. Now, Alan has been marked by a demon and to save him, the boys must become the hunters.
Brown, Jennifer. Hate List. Little, Brown Books for Young Readers, an imprint of Hachette Book Group. 2009. 978-0-316-04144-7. $16.99.
In the year following the devastating shootings at her high school orchestrated by her boyfriend Nick, Valerie must come to terms with grief and guilt in order to move on with her life.

Are these really the best books???? As a parent, this list gives me pause. I think we need to be diligent in knowing what is recommended reading for our children.

Sad News: Prop 8

"In a stunning display of judicial arrogance, U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker overturned California’s Prop 8—California’s Amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman.   This is the first case in U.S. history where “thoughts, motivations, and personal beliefs” of seven million voters were put on trial.
Daniel Blomerg, attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund, characterized it this way:  'It’s not just marriage that was put on trial, but the fundamental freedom of having your vote count and having the liberty to express and live by your beliefs.  It’s pretty shocking.'...It is important to realize that this decision makes this case no longer just a “California issue.”  This has ramifications that will impact every state.  Appeals will go to the 9^th Circuit and then potentially on to the U.S. Supreme Court where the entire nation’s definition of marriage hangs in the balance."

--United Families International Blog Author

It is very sad when in The United States of America, the voice of the majority is overturned by one judge. It will be even sadder as this trend spreads and the opinion of the majority is silenced by the very loud minority.

Hilarious Situation

Well, we found out who the dead rabbits belong to--our next door neighbor that doesn't speak much English. He knocked on our door and said that our cat is eating his rabbits because he saw the cat on the fence. What am I to do? Tell the cat no? Anyway, John went over to see the guy's rabbits, and the situation is just hilarious. The neighbor's put chicken wire under all of the fences surrounding his yard and he has at least 30 rabbits running around. There are no cages, and no where for the the rabbits to run and hide. The guy said that he is losing 3 to 4 rabbits in every litter. Of course, this is not just our cat. His back yard is like a fancy restaurant for all of the neighborhood cats. (I had been wondering why there have been so many stray cats in our yard?) The rabbits are also prey to hawks and other predators around. Anyway, these are the guy's pets. He has all of these rabbits because he likes them. It is sad, and funny at the same time. We will keep our cat in the garage at night. But, Boy is not the only rabbit predator around, and those poor bunnies have no protection or even a place to run and hide when the cats come. It would be fun to video tape the neighbor's backyard, and see what other animals are out there enjoying the rabbits.