Monday, April 21, 2008
For Reals, Sister
There are so many awesome blogs written by stay-at-home moms these days. It's one of those phenomena that makes the Internet worth all the porn. I don't have time to link to all of my favorite mom blogs (Baby's going to wake up any second), but read this one to understand (whispered, reverantly) naptime.
Lunch
I ate chicken for lunch, baked in a sauce made of mustard, orange juice, and brown sugar.
Baby ate Spaghetti O's, by himself, with a spoon.
We are both immensely satisfied.
Baby ate Spaghetti O's, by himself, with a spoon.
We are both immensely satisfied.
No, no, NO
If I ever have a daughter, I will not let her be in a children's performing group that sings "Lady Marmelade." She can cry and scream and hate me all she wants, but I refuse to allow my nine-year-old to sing "Voulez-vous couchez avec moi?" to a human audience of any kind. I'll buy her a pony instead. I'll feed her through a tube if she goes on a hunger strike.
Yes, I know, there I go again, promising myself parenting choices before I am able to see them in context, like that one time I told myself I wouldn't allow my son to watch cartoons first things in the morning (hah!). But this time is different. Cartoons are cartoons. Onstage sexual invitations are different.
I get annoyed when people write anonymous editorials saying "I'm shocked and appalled that . . ." I think that people (especially Provonians) are far to easily offended and judgmental about stuff that isn't any of their business. So when I found myself shocked and appalled by a production that our family recently saw at Thanksgiving Point (scantily-clad nine-year-olds singing and dancing to "Lady Marmelade"), I had to carefully consider my feelings.
Here are my feelings: Adults can decide to sing and dance to "Lady Marmelade" if they choose. I'll think they are pathetic, but I won't comment on their freedom to so perform. If they do it in a movie as flamboyant and sweet-natured as Moulin Rouge, I'll even choose to attend and enjoy it.
Kids shouldn't.
Yes, I know, there I go again, promising myself parenting choices before I am able to see them in context, like that one time I told myself I wouldn't allow my son to watch cartoons first things in the morning (hah!). But this time is different. Cartoons are cartoons. Onstage sexual invitations are different.
I get annoyed when people write anonymous editorials saying "I'm shocked and appalled that . . ." I think that people (especially Provonians) are far to easily offended and judgmental about stuff that isn't any of their business. So when I found myself shocked and appalled by a production that our family recently saw at Thanksgiving Point (scantily-clad nine-year-olds singing and dancing to "Lady Marmelade"), I had to carefully consider my feelings.
Here are my feelings: Adults can decide to sing and dance to "Lady Marmelade" if they choose. I'll think they are pathetic, but I won't comment on their freedom to so perform. If they do it in a movie as flamboyant and sweet-natured as Moulin Rouge, I'll even choose to attend and enjoy it.
Kids shouldn't.
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
Healthy as a Pig and Stone-cold Sober
Last year, 90% of the students who studied for the bar using the PMBR prep course passed the multistate section of their respective bars. I just got an e-mail telling me so. This is good news, considering that I will be using the PMBR prep course to study for the multistate.
Of course, when I read that statistic, I immediately began trying to rationalize the pass rate even more in my favor, attempting to disassociate myself as much as possible from those unfortunate would-be lawyers who did not pass. Some of them had debilitating handicaps such as blindness or pregnancy which affected their exam performance. Some of them went on Norwegian cruises rather than attend the PMBR review courses. Some of them were phenomenally stupid. Some of them abused substances, other than Kozy Shack rice pudding, which negatively affected their mental processes.
Since none of these things apply to me, my chances of passing the multistate section are probably higher than 90%, don't you think? Even accounting for the facts that (1) I am sitting for the bar two years after having graduated from law school and (2) I have maternal responsibilities for someone who is at least as distracting as a comfortable addiction to marijuana (I assume). I find myself grasping at even more outlandish potential reasons for not passing the multistate that do not apply to me: surely at least one of these non-passing students developed a kidney condition during the exam which forced him to excuse himself for multiple time-consuming and concentration-wrecking bathroom breaks. This happens to other people all the time, but it won't happen to me.
I'm ashamed to say that I developed this chilling method of reasoning in law school. That's what happens when you take a bunch of hyper-competitive, achievement-driven, unfeeling freaks and grade them on a strict curve. During the weeks before exams, I would look around the classroom, sizing up the members of my class. I would hear the news from my classmates and translate it into the potential exam performance: Lulu got engaged this semester, so she probably hasn't read for this class; George's wife had triplets, but, on the other hand, I heard he has a photographic memory; At least I know I'll do better than Trixie, whose entire family contracted leprosy last month.
Of course, when I read that statistic, I immediately began trying to rationalize the pass rate even more in my favor, attempting to disassociate myself as much as possible from those unfortunate would-be lawyers who did not pass. Some of them had debilitating handicaps such as blindness or pregnancy which affected their exam performance. Some of them went on Norwegian cruises rather than attend the PMBR review courses. Some of them were phenomenally stupid. Some of them abused substances, other than Kozy Shack rice pudding, which negatively affected their mental processes.
Since none of these things apply to me, my chances of passing the multistate section are probably higher than 90%, don't you think? Even accounting for the facts that (1) I am sitting for the bar two years after having graduated from law school and (2) I have maternal responsibilities for someone who is at least as distracting as a comfortable addiction to marijuana (I assume). I find myself grasping at even more outlandish potential reasons for not passing the multistate that do not apply to me: surely at least one of these non-passing students developed a kidney condition during the exam which forced him to excuse himself for multiple time-consuming and concentration-wrecking bathroom breaks. This happens to other people all the time, but it won't happen to me.
I'm ashamed to say that I developed this chilling method of reasoning in law school. That's what happens when you take a bunch of hyper-competitive, achievement-driven, unfeeling freaks and grade them on a strict curve. During the weeks before exams, I would look around the classroom, sizing up the members of my class. I would hear the news from my classmates and translate it into the potential exam performance: Lulu got engaged this semester, so she probably hasn't read for this class; George's wife had triplets, but, on the other hand, I heard he has a photographic memory; At least I know I'll do better than Trixie, whose entire family contracted leprosy last month.
Sunday, April 06, 2008
The One and Only . . .
Yesterday, Baby and I watched Disney's, The One and Only Genuine Original Family Band. I hadn't seen it since I was a little kid. Here are my thoughts:
This was actually two movies rolled into one: The first was a romantic musical comedy about a girl and a boy who fall in love, get in a fight, and fall in love again. It was charming, but it felt kind of anachronistic. It's not that no one was making musicals in 1969/70, but they weren't making sentimental, patriotic, western musicals. I think singing and dancing with my family band in a barn is just about the coolest thing ever, but there were moments when even I felt a little embarrassed for the actors. Baby had no complaints though.
The other movie was a political/historical movie about living in Dakota at the time it was being considered for statehood. This plot was fascinating to me in 2008, and I wish they could have shaken off the musical romance stuff and gone into more detail with the story. Did I just say that? Hang on, I need to go watch "The Music Man" to straighten myself out.
Anyway, the whole story hinges on an the presidential race in 1888, when Cleveland received more actual votes than Harrison, but Harrison won the electoral college and the election. In 1888, the country was hugely divided between Republicans and Democrats, and this movie tried to illustrate that tension. I don't know personally, but I've read that the current political situation is the most violently partisan the country has seen since the Civil War. What was supposed to look ridiculous in the movie (interrupting a political rally?!!! defacing a portrait of a presidential candidate?!!!) looked like pretty typical politics to me. In fact, the most unbelievable part of the movie was the ending when everyone becomes friends in spite of their political differences.
My favorite line: "Well how do you like that? The Democrats win an election, fair and square, and the Republicans steal it out from under their noses." If they had put this in a movie today, it would have been an unfunny effort to make the movie Important and Timely. Instead, it was just plain awesome, like an unintended pun.
This was actually two movies rolled into one: The first was a romantic musical comedy about a girl and a boy who fall in love, get in a fight, and fall in love again. It was charming, but it felt kind of anachronistic. It's not that no one was making musicals in 1969/70, but they weren't making sentimental, patriotic, western musicals. I think singing and dancing with my family band in a barn is just about the coolest thing ever, but there were moments when even I felt a little embarrassed for the actors. Baby had no complaints though.
The other movie was a political/historical movie about living in Dakota at the time it was being considered for statehood. This plot was fascinating to me in 2008, and I wish they could have shaken off the musical romance stuff and gone into more detail with the story. Did I just say that? Hang on, I need to go watch "The Music Man" to straighten myself out.
Anyway, the whole story hinges on an the presidential race in 1888, when Cleveland received more actual votes than Harrison, but Harrison won the electoral college and the election. In 1888, the country was hugely divided between Republicans and Democrats, and this movie tried to illustrate that tension. I don't know personally, but I've read that the current political situation is the most violently partisan the country has seen since the Civil War. What was supposed to look ridiculous in the movie (interrupting a political rally?!!! defacing a portrait of a presidential candidate?!!!) looked like pretty typical politics to me. In fact, the most unbelievable part of the movie was the ending when everyone becomes friends in spite of their political differences.
My favorite line: "Well how do you like that? The Democrats win an election, fair and square, and the Republicans steal it out from under their noses." If they had put this in a movie today, it would have been an unfunny effort to make the movie Important and Timely. Instead, it was just plain awesome, like an unintended pun.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
