Random election thoughts

With the election around the corner and a bleak outcome expected, an assemblage of random items:

--A positive either way the election turns out: no more whining about Bush.

--Whichever way you look at it, this is an historic election in the history of our country. So much is at stake . . . I'm actually quite fearful.

--It's a shame that the race issue is so prominent in this election. The fact that Barama is (half) black shouldn't make a difference either way: the bigots won't vote for him just because he's black and many on the other side are voting for him just because he's black. I saw a link last week in which an interviewer stopped a number of people on the street in Harlem and talked politics with them. Here was the twist: he attributed McCain's policies (and even choice of VP) to Barama. No one even caught it . . . they agreed with all his policies . . . even though they were McCain's policies. This happens on both sides, no doubt.

So what I wonder: where would BO be right now if he was white and was named "Joe Smith"? He probably wouldn't have made it out of the primary . . . reasons: "too liberal", "not enough experience", etc.

--Along those same lines: seriously, have we ever had a president with so few credentials as BO? I really wish McCain would have continued the "rhetoric vs. record" card he played during the second debate. Heck, I could stand up and talk about hope/change and promise to lower taxes, end world hunger, put people on Mars, etc., but if I had no history of actually doing any of that, shouldn't you cast some doubt on my qualifications? Not in this election it seems . . .

--A previous commenter in my "Electoral College" post said that he's in favor of as little direct democracy as possible. I'm starting to agree when you look at the ignorance of most voters. How about a little quiz before you get to enter a booth? "Name the three branches of government." "Who are your 2 senators?" "Who did we fight in the American Revolution?" Etc. You don't get a certain percentage right, you don't vote.

--A glimmer of hope with a BO presidency: one of my uncles and I had a discussion and I mentioned that I was a bit scared of what a man like that would do in the White House. And then I thought, "Well, he hasn't really done anything in a decade in office, maybe we'll luck out and he won't do anything of note in the White House." We can hope, I guess.

--A prediction: if Barama wins, I'll immediately start seeing fewer "End the War: Bring our Troops Home" signs in people's yards. The vociferous anti-war crowd will get a lot quieter with a democrat in the Oval Office.

--You know how you always see those commercials with a politician talking with a farmer in the middle of a cornfield, sleeves rolled up, in the crouch position? Or him in a hard hat in a factory, supposedly talking about union issues? They may really do this stuff, I don't know . . . is it safe to say that no politician has visited a Planned Parenthood and watched a late-term abortion? Have they ever watched them pull the infant out of the birth canal by the leg and jam the scissors into the back of their skull? Doubtful.

--I'm praying for a miracle.

Bragging Rights

Happy 100th post! Fitting that it would be about one of my children . . .

Cavan has always LOVED books and recently has shown a great interest in small words he can identify. Heath has taken the reins on this one and Cavan now knows over 40 words by sight! Very exciting for us to watch, especially now that we have borrowed some "easy readers" from the library that he can actually read and work through on his own. I will admit, there are a few little books he just knows by rote but many times a day, he will stop me while I am reading a magazine or book, or a truck with a logo passing by and say "Hey Mama, that says (insert word he knows)!" It is so neat watching his face light up as he begins to unlock this wonderful world of reading.

I won't exhaust you with the entire list but here are some words he knows:

I, you, Daddy, Mommy, God, Jesus, me, big, go, up, and, car, Cavan, zoo, good, boy, like, is, book, fun, run, cat, pizza, see, ball, small, little, sun, dog, night, walk

We are very blessed with our children and are continually amazed at how bright they are. No, I assure you, we are NOT biased. ;)

See, homeschooling isn't so hard! I guess you should check back with me during later years to see if I still hold that same sentiment. ;) Thank you for letting me "brag".

Pretty in Pink

Well, it's that time of year and since I have been complaining to Heath about it for 2-3 years in a row, I figured I should just blog on it to release frustration and give him a break. ;) Every time September rolls around, people start gearing up for "Breast Cancer Awareness" month. Pink ribbons pop up everywhere and fundraisers galore begin. Before you jump to the conclusion that I am anti-cure-for-cancer, let me explain.

I am 100%, wholeheartedly behind discovering a cure, not only for breast cancers but for the many others that also plague our society. If it is a spiritual cure you are seeking, well . . . you are not going to find it in a lab. ;) However, it irks me that throughout the entire month of October and in the midst of all the Breast Cancer Awareness activities, NO ONE is mentioning things you can do to lower your risk of developing breast cancer. *This* is one of the huge problems of our society. We focus on what to do AFTER something bad has happened instead of also focusing some efforts on prevention. What's that saying about "an ounce of prevention . . ."?

I realize there are various factors that go into who develops cancer and how severe it is. I am not saying by following the below steps you will never develop breast cancer. However, your risk will be much lower. Here are some things to do:

1. Breastfeed your baby/babies. The total duration of breastfeeding over a mama's lifetime directly correlates to a reduction in risk of developing breast cancer. So, if I have three children that I breastfed for 3 months, my total amount of protection is 9 months worth of breastfeeding. However, if I up the breastfeeding time to an entire year for each child (which is what the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends), my total amount of reduced risk is 3 years! For more information and/or support on breastfeeding, please contact your local La Leche League (LLL) or call me. I love to talk about the benefits of nursing! ;)
   
2. Have a baby before the age of 25. I recall seeing this actual number somewhere, but can't find my source. However, it is known that women who wait until after 30 to have children (I realize this is not always in our control!), have a higher risk of developing breast cancer.
   
3. Avoid an abortion. This can be a touchy one to advertise given our society/culture's current stance on making sure no one feels guilty for choices they have made. I certainly am not here to say women should feel guilty for having an abortion. However, I do believe that for TRULY INFORMED CONSENT to happen in an abortion procedure, women NEED to be informed that they are increasing their risk for breast cancer down the road (as well as other negative physical, emotional and mental side effects). They need to know it is not a "quick fix" without potential consequences. For more information on the connection, visit Abortion-Breast Cancer Link. If you or someone you know are suffering the effects of an abortion, there is support out there. Please visit the Silent No More Campaign (to bring awareness to the devastating effects of an abortion on moms), Rachel's Vineyard (for healing support/retreats), and Women Deserve Better (sponsored by Feminists for Life). Women DO deserve better and they deserve to have full disclosure of the total impact of their choices on future health.
   
4. Avoid use of hormonal contraceptives/birth control, including pill form, vaginal rings, IUDs and injectable forms. Taken from this source:
   

   It is now well established that birth control medications (contraceptive steroids) increase breast cancer risk, especially if they are taken before the first full-term pregnancy, when breast cells are still immature. Birth control pills are very commonly used by young women. In one study, women who took birth control pills before the age of 20 had a more than ten-fold increased risk of breast cancer. The longer the pill is used, the higher the risk. Contraceptive steroids increase risk whether they are given orally (i.e., ‘the pill’), by injection (e.g., Depo-Provera), implantation, through the skin with a patch, intravaginally with a ring (e.g., Nuva Ring) or with an intrauterine device (IUD). Even ‘low dose’ estrogen pills have been associated with higher breast cancer risk.

   This is usually a risk written in very fine print on the 16+ page insert women receive with their contraceptives. In an ideal world, every woman would read through that before consenting to ingest these. But let's be realistic, most of the women I knew in college on contraceptives dropped it in the recycling bin. Again, doctors should be informing their patients of both the risks and benefits, not just writing a script to mask symptoms or please a patient.
   
5. Avoid Hormonal Replacement Therapy (HRT). This also goes along with increasing breast cancer risk when a woman's body is exposed to excess estrogen. Although I am not nearing menopause yet, there are natural aids to help the process.
   
6. Eat a well balanced diet full of broccoli, brussel sprouts and Omega-3 fatty acids! Again, taken from previous source:

   Indole-3-carbinol is found in cruciferous vegetables such as cauliflower and broccoli. This chemical is converted by the stomach to DIM, which causes estrogen to be metabolized into an inactive estrogen that does not stimulate breast tissue to proliferate and thereby reduces breast cancer risk. DIM is also widely available in pill form, as a nutritional supplement.

   Your mom wasn't kidding when she said broccoli was good for you!!! As for the Omega-3s, I am more convinced of their benefits with each passing month as I read and hear more about them:

   These essential fatty acids are found in fish and many vegetable oils. Postmenopausal women who eat olive oil daily reduce their risk of breast cancer by 25%. Vegetable oils rich in omega-3 fatty acids include canola, flax seed, walnut and olive oils.

   If you are not fish eaters (like me!), supplements are readily available.
   
7. Limit alcohol consumption. Not saying you cannot drink. I personally enjoy a high-quality beer now and then. Well, not now so much any more . . . but perhaps sometime after March. ;) According to the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute (BCPI),

   "By inhibiting liver function, alcohol decreases the body's ability to change estrogen into the inactive form and therefore, increases risk. "

8. Don't smoke! Again, the BCPI:

   Recent studies suggest that cigarette smoking before having children-especially among teenagers-also increases premenopausal breast cancer risk substantially. Benzopyrenes in cigarette smoke act as direct carcinogens to cells lining the milk ducts.

9. Exercise!

   Exercise is also important in reducing breast cancer risk. Overall, moderate exercise can reduce breast cancer risk by 30%. Exercise also can prevent obesity, which increases breast cancer risk. Exercise can delay the onset of a woman's first menstrual cycle, menarche, which also decreases breast cancer risk. Exercise may result in anovulatory, and therefore, low-estrogen menstrual cycles, thus decreasing risk.

All above quotes are taken from a pamphlet available from the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute. I found the Risk/Prevention section the most enlightening.

Now, there are factors in life that we can never control and one of those involves genetics. There are two types of genes that cause breast cancer, one is less agressive (BRCA-1) than the other (BRCA-2). Breastfeeding will still help lower a woman's risk if she has BRCA-1, possibly up to 45% which is encouraging. An article on WebMD reports:

The researchers reported that among women with BRCA1 mutations, those who developed breast cancer breastfed for an average of six months, compared to almost nine months for women who did not develop breast cancer.

Now ladies, trust me, I KNOW nursing can be stressful and overwhelming at times. But really, another mere three months of breastfeeding separated the breast cancer victims and healthy women. Isn't our own health worth it? I do realize there are many moms who have difficulties nursing and I believe much of that is due to our lack of familial/societal support and how differently are families are spaced these days. A few generations ago, your mom, aunt, sister and cousin were all available nearby for breastfeeding support. Unfortunately, that is now a rarity. The BRCA-2 gene, which is more aggressive, did not seem to show a significant decline even in mothers who breastfed. Given the American way of breastfeeding, I would be interested in seeing results on women who breastfeed extendedly (1+ years). The upside is that the BCPI estimates 5-10% of breast cancer cases are caused by genetics, which means that we have the power to influence the other 90-95% of the cases!

It seems not everyone is interested in prevention though . . . true to America's MO, we would much rather spend the time and energy FIXING a problem after it has happened rather than PREVENT the problem before it occurs in the first place. (Hmmm . . . that sounds strangely familiar to our current financial problems . . .) The Susan G. Komen Foundation, a huge breast cancer cure fundraiser, sponsors many events all over the U.S. After finding out they contribute financially to Planned Parenthood (over $700,000 in the last year according to STOP Planned Parenthood) some years ago, I felt I could not donate to any Komen runs in the future. At the same time, I couldn't help but see the irony in an organization fighting for a cure (Komen) of a condition (breast cancer) that gives money to another organization (Planned Parenthood) that is partially responsible for causing the condition itself (breast cancer) by their own actions against women (namely, abortion). Can someone please explain the circular logic of giving money to a cause that is going to place those same women in one of your future fight-for-the-cure runs?

Recently, at a Colorado Race for the Cure event, the Colorado Right to Life displayed a provocative banner. Does that make any sense to you? Why are the cure and prevention mutually exclusive?

One last thought to this massive post (thanks for sticking with me!), this organization struck me with their expose on the many products marketed for "Breast Cancer Awareness", some that are actually harmful to human bodies, the environment, etc. and just further contribute to the pockets of massive business owners playing off of peoples' emotions surrounding diseases/cures. I especially enjoyed their jab at Yoplait and their use of rGBH (growth hormones) in their dairy products. Why do I have to choose between affordable yogurt and my family's health?

Our health is our responsibility. No one is going to take care of us FOR us. So, let's at least arm women with accurate information so they can directly make choices to impact their own personal health, for better or worse.

Federal Budget in Family terms

Great post by a friend here.

Baby Talk

Just realized the other day that we haven't officially announced our happy news here on the family blog . . .

For those of you who have not heard, we are expecting baby #3 in March! Everyone is very excited and looking forward to little hands to hold, coos to hear and a sweet newborn smell to breathe in. Cavan has already decided it's a boy and Kellyn has decided it is a girl. Cavan is open to a girl, however, Kellyn in NO way is having a boy. She became very crabby at the mere suggestion that the new baby might be a boy. ;) We'll cross that bridge when and if we get to it I guess.

Please pray for us as we will soon be "outnumbered"!

Taxes for Dummies (Me included)

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the
bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill
the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite
happy with the arrangement until one day the owner threw
them a curved ball (or is that a curved beer!).
'Because you are all such good customers,' he
said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily
beer by $20.'

Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay
our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They
would still drink for free. But what about the other six men
- the paying customers? How could they divide the $20
windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if
they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the
fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to
drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to
reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and
he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And
so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first
four continued to drink for free. But once outside the
restaurant the men began to compare their savings.

'I only got a dollar out of the $20,' declared
the sixth man.. He pointed to the tenth man, 'but he
got $10!'

'Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth
man. 'I only saved a dollar too. It's unfair that
he got ten times more than me!'

'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man.
'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two?
The wealthy get all the breaks!'

'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in
unison. 'We didn't get anything at all. The
system exploits the poor!'

The nine men surrounded the tenth man and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks,
so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when
it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something
important. They didn't have enough money between
all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college
professors, is how our Tax System works. The people who
pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax
reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy
and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might
start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat
friendlier.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is
possible.

Financial impact of abortion

Another angle on the issue:

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- A researcher who has spent over a decade examining the economic impact of abortion finds that the approximately 50,5 million abortions in the U.S. since 1970 have cost the American economy $35 trillion. That comes in the form of lost productivity by having fewer workers contributing to society.

Those contributions also come in the form of taxpayers contributing to state, federal and local governments that would have had more funds to pay teachers, offer health care benefits or put more police on the streets.

The cost to the economy also includes the lost support for the social security system, which experts say still presents a host of challenges for the future and questions about whether younger Americans will receive anything from it.

Full article is here.

You know you have an addiction when . . .

. . . . your 2.5 year old daughter asks for milk in the morning and then says after taking a sip, "Mmmm, it's yummy coffee mama!"

This usually happens in the morning, but really, ANYTIME she gets milk in a cup, she says "it's coffee". It's very cute, but does make me realize how much I LOVE my own coffee. ;)

Well, I guess there are worse things to be addicted to . . . maybe this Lent will have to see a decrease in caffeine. Gasp! Did I even say that out loud?! Never mind, forget what you have seen here. ;)

Electoral College

Why hasn't the electoral college gone the way of the passenger pigeon? Doesn't this method of electing the president seem a little outdated?

Unless I'm mistaken (which is always a possibility), our founding fathers implemented this system because they just didn't really trust a true democratic process . . . let's face it, there's just some folks you don't want to see in the voting booth casting their bid for the most powerful man in the world (how about nearly everyone under the age of 25 . . . I shudder every time I read the Daily Illini). And so they used this system of allowing individuals to represent their state, in proportion to population, and to allow them to make the decision of whom to vote for.

Unfortunately, nearly all of our states (save two, I believe) have all their electoral votes go to the candidate with the majority vote in their voting booths. So even if a candidate just narrowly wins a state (let's say 51 percent to 49), he still gets every electoral vote! That seems nuts! Why not divvy them up percentage-wise? (Again, I think there are 2 states that actually do)

So what happens during this time is that candidates completely ignore states like ours since it's not really up for grabs. If McCain put a dime into trying to sway Illinois voters, he'd be nuts . . . same with Barama (sic) in the deep south. They're just not taking certain states and they know it.

And so what is the effect on voters? Well, it's no secret that voter turnout is pathetic; around 50 percent, if I recall. But is it really any surprise? Why take the time to vote in a state where the decision is basically predetermined? For example, let's say I'm a republican in Massachusetts, which historically falls to the democrats. Why even bother punching a vote for McCain? It's basically a wasted vote.

And so what happens every four years is each candidate battles overs the "swing states"; those that could go either way. Each voter in those states is casting a vote that is so much more important than my vote here in Illinois. All the campaign money goes into those states, hoping that winning the majority vote in Ohio or Florida will lead to the required number of votes from the college.

So in essence, votes in certain states are more important than votes in others. This seems absurd in a national election. The process needs reform.

I say do one of the following:

1) Get rid of it the electoral college. Majority vote wins.

2) Weight the states. If you win 60 percent of the votes, you win 60 percent of the electoral college votes. The math could get tricky though . . .

3) Flip a coin. Barama and McCain sit in a room and one of them calls heads or tails. Winner is president. Think of the drama!

It seems with 1) and 2), voter turnout, in theory, would grow immensely. Now everyone's vote counts equally and is therefore important. Many would probably take more of an interest in politics, as candidates may now actually campaign in other states, not just the swing states.

Why don't I ever hear of someone proposing to reform this system? You'd think after that farcical situation in the 2000 election that someone would have said "enough is enough."

Excessive American Materialism

Well, I haven't had to deal with insomnia in my last two pregnancies, but I have heard from many other moms who have. A couple of weeks ago, I probably had 3-4 nights when I was up anywhere from bedtime until 4-6:30 in the morning. I can't imagine having that AND having to go to a "real job" the next day!

Anyway, on one of these nights, I flipped to HGTV (yes, Heath will make fun of me). It was a show about one couple moving from the Chicago suburb of Naperville to a suburb of Indianapolis where "housing is cheaper". They were an engaged couple with one dog and two cats. I missed the very beginning when they may have shared their careers, but I am guessing they were pretty well-paying as you will see from their housing budget. This was not their starter house, but keep in mind that they didn't have any children yet. So, what were they looking for?

They saw three properties, in the price range of $820,000 to $900,000. That's right, almost a million dollar homes. The one at the highest end had 5 bedrooms, 5.5 bathrooms (what do you do with 5.5 bathrooms and no children??) and was approximately 6,600 square feet. For those of you who have visited our home, that is about 5 times the size of our house. I would get lost in there!!! It was admittedly a gorgeous home, complete with a mini-wine cellar and a "hearth room" (which is apparently the latest "rage" in homes though I know nothing about them) next to the kitchen. The prospective buyers were concerned b/c it had a gigantic yard, but would need to be fenced for the animals and landscaping would need to be done, both adding to the overall purchase price for the home. However, in the end, that is the house they chose.

If someone else were awake with me at 1 a.m., they would have seen me with my jaw open the entire episode! I simply can't fathom what you do with a house that large, that expensive for two people and 3 relatively small animals, unless you are opening a shelter or orphanage of some sort. Now, maybe they plan on having 15 children and getting full use of their space. However, given their older-seeming age and the current mentality of our American culture towards large families, I would say that is unlikely. Who knows . . . maybe they will strive to be like the Duggars, or perhaps they will fill their house with the American average of 2.1 children (they
already have the pets). You can check out www.duggarfamily.com if you are unfamiliar with the reference.

Overall, this episode got me thinking about the larger issue in general, which is the extreme and excessive amounts of material goods that Americans possess (even if we can't afford them). It is almost as if you are not American if you are not striving for MORE house, MORE cars, MORE stuff, MORE, MORE, MORE! We fill our homes with "stuff" and cut out time with people. We buy items to keep up appearances or lift our moods or create further "needs" for more stuff (e.g. when you have lots of clutter, you then need to purchase items to organize the clutter . . . I am amazed at the advancement of some of our current organizational systems. The Container Store, anyone?). Our materialistic drives cost us in terms of sanity, simplicity, relationship and as we are now seeing in our country, economic security.

Now, I am not saying every single homebuyer who defaulted on their loan should not have bought a home, but why is our economy in this mess? I think it is partly due to our overspending with money we simply do not have. We put it on plastic and think/hope we can pay it back. We spend what we have before it is in our pockets. Most of us are not living on any kind of pre-planned budget, which contributes to our lack of knowledge over how much money we really do have as a family and how much we can comfortably spend. We also, like any good American ideal, take it to the extreme.

I also say shame on the mortgage lenders who approved families for home loans with the full knowledge that it would be too much of a burden on them to pay it back. I know when Heath and I bought our condo in Country Club Hills (which had neither a country club nor many hills), we were approved for far more than we could actually afford. I am glad we had the commonsense to see that and stick within a lower price range instead of assuming we could afford something $20,000 higher.

A couple of closing thoughts to this somewhat disjointed post . . . why are we buying so much stuff? What voids are we trying to fill? Why are we buying homes that are 5 times the size we might actually need in defense of fulfilling the "American dream"? Why are most of those homes sitting empty of people but full of pretty knick-knacks? When did it become more important to have a huge home than to contribute to society in worthwhile ways?

Don't get me wrong, I am not completely innocent either. I dream of the high-end minivan models, sleek and fast . . . well, okay, maybe just sleek. Heck, I'd settle for clean. I am sure I own far more stuff than I actually NEED. And each and every room in my home is currently slated for a "de-cluttering". Yes, I am a culprit to this mentality too. But I am honestly striving to break away from it. I am trying to find contentment and gratitude in all the amazing things we have been blessed with instead of those we do not currently have. I am attempting to find peace in the regular swing in our checking account, when Heath's checks are deposited and then the mortgage/bills/student loans are paid. I am trying to pare down and let go, to detach from all these earthly goods that won't mean a thing when I have passed. After all, Jesus had nowhere to lay his head as an adult. We are in a nice, comfy King-size bed, sheltered from the elements of nature. And I usually have two little sets of hands/feet poking and pushing me at some point in the night. What could be better than that?! Move over Container Store, there's nothing you have that can contain us!