So Mr. L took two steps today...naked, by the pool, chucking every single toy he could find into the water. Good thing the girls were actually in the water and happy to retrieve them all!
Speaking of Mr. L - his skin has become so red and irritated and itchy that I can no longer ignore the fact that he is reacting to something. Since we already went through this with E, I am assuming it is wheat...however, he has been eating lots of yogurt lately, so we're eliminating all wheat and dairy from his (and therefore from MY) diet. Hopefully in a week or so we'll see improvement.
As for the green smoothie part of my title...I've been playing with our Vita-Mix in full force lately. My last few "smoothies" have been simply awesome! I take a big handful or two of spinach (or any other green on hand - one day it was Romaine), blend with this pomegranate-blueberry juice from Fresh and Easy until it looks like plain juice. Then I add whatever fruit we have or need to use up. Today's combo was:
Spinach
Pomegranate-blueberry juice
a handful of green grapes
approx 1/2 an apple, including skin
some watermelon chunks
a banana
some ice cubes
I have made similar combos with spinach, pom-blue juice, mango, frozen berries...they have all been great! You could also add yogurt, flax, etc. to really up the punch.
Tonight for dinner I Vita-Mixed (is that a verb LOL) spinach, black beans, tofu, salsa, avocado, taco seasoning and cumin to make "refried beans" on tostada shells...again - yum!
I love that I can sneak these extra nutrients into my kids (for example, E won't touch avocado, though big sis and little bro both love it), and it tastes amazing...
Watch out Jessica Seinfeld...here I come!
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Monday, April 28, 2008
My bathing beauties
After a little evening swim last night, the kiddos needed to warm up!
In other news...had a mellow weekend, went to a birthday party (bowling!) and fell in love with the hosts' house...enjoyed our mid-90s temperatures with a lovely breeze, and bought C some new-to-her jeans...in a size 8 *gasp*
I can't believe how big she is already...sigh.
Hope everyone had a lovely weekend. Happy Monday!
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Uber-excellent water usage
We got our water bill in the mail today. It's nothing new - just the same as every month for us. However, this time we paid attention to the gallons and to the "comparison" chart included. I was flabbergasted with the results.
Here's the scoop:
We are a family of five, with a pool and a hot tub...and we use cloth diapers and cloth pull-ups.
Our monthly usage is 4000 gallons.
Divided by people in household (5) and number of days in the billing month (29), that makes 27.6 gallons per person, per day.
The typical water usage in Mesa ranges from 80 to 180 gallons per person per day!
The chart from the city rates "excellent" at 30-80 gallons per person per day...so we are beyond excellent! We're supreme! We must be uber-excellent!
So how do we do it?
* If it's yellow, let it mellow! Do not flush the toilet after you pee...unless there are already a few pees in the pot!
A low-flow toilet uses ~3 gallons per flush! So if you pee say 7 times a day (?), but only flush twice, you've just saved 15 gallons! Now if you have four potty-users in your house, that's already 60 gallons saved. Something to think about.
* High efficiency washing machine. More expensive to start, but huge environmental impact.
* Dishwasher
* No grass in the desert landscape - in fact, we hardly ever water anything in our yard...now granted, our yard is ugly!
* Conscious use of water every time - sink, shower, hose, etc.
That's it! A bit of a bragging post, but hopefully something to get you thinking about where YOU can cut down on water use. Let me know any other tricks and tips you already use!
---------------------------------------
4/23/08 additional thoughts
Lest we seem like we're doing it all here...I was thinking this morning of some obvious fixes we can do to conserve more:
* Install low-flow shower heads and faucets. The new versions of these aerate the water, so you don't lose out on pressure, you just use less water. Both our showers are in need of new sprayers, so here's a good one for us to do.
* Replace old gazillion-gallon flushing toilet. One of ours is a new, low-flow, but the other one...yikes. You can also put a brick (or similar) in the tank to reduce water. We just haven't yet...
* Cut down on my shower time. I am guilty of hanging out in the hot water way too long. Does it get balanced out though since the kids don't bathe very often? LOL
* Get rid of hot tub we don't use.
Here's the scoop:
We are a family of five, with a pool and a hot tub...and we use cloth diapers and cloth pull-ups.
Our monthly usage is 4000 gallons.
Divided by people in household (5) and number of days in the billing month (29), that makes 27.6 gallons per person, per day.
The typical water usage in Mesa ranges from 80 to 180 gallons per person per day!
The chart from the city rates "excellent" at 30-80 gallons per person per day...so we are beyond excellent! We're supreme! We must be uber-excellent!
So how do we do it?
* If it's yellow, let it mellow! Do not flush the toilet after you pee...unless there are already a few pees in the pot!
A low-flow toilet uses ~3 gallons per flush! So if you pee say 7 times a day (?), but only flush twice, you've just saved 15 gallons! Now if you have four potty-users in your house, that's already 60 gallons saved. Something to think about.
* High efficiency washing machine. More expensive to start, but huge environmental impact.
* Dishwasher
* No grass in the desert landscape - in fact, we hardly ever water anything in our yard...now granted, our yard is ugly!
* Conscious use of water every time - sink, shower, hose, etc.
That's it! A bit of a bragging post, but hopefully something to get you thinking about where YOU can cut down on water use. Let me know any other tricks and tips you already use!
---------------------------------------
4/23/08 additional thoughts
Lest we seem like we're doing it all here...I was thinking this morning of some obvious fixes we can do to conserve more:
* Install low-flow shower heads and faucets. The new versions of these aerate the water, so you don't lose out on pressure, you just use less water. Both our showers are in need of new sprayers, so here's a good one for us to do.
* Replace old gazillion-gallon flushing toilet. One of ours is a new, low-flow, but the other one...yikes. You can also put a brick (or similar) in the tank to reduce water. We just haven't yet...
* Cut down on my shower time. I am guilty of hanging out in the hot water way too long. Does it get balanced out though since the kids don't bathe very often? LOL
* Get rid of hot tub we don't use.
Pacifica
Once upon a time, there was a small girl with bright white hair. When this little girl was small, she called her pacifier a "suck-suck," which sounded like "guck-guck" when she said it. Over time, the family renamed pacifiers "gukkies."
Well, this girl loved her pacifier so very much that when she was four years old, she still used it to sleep.
Her mom and dad were fed up with the over-use of this little plastic toy (and having nightmares of the dental bills to ensue), and encouraged her to stop the habit...so finally, on April 16, 2008, the little girl accepted her mama's challenge to sleep at night without her "gukky." She was rewarded the next day with a new dinosaur!
The next few nights, the little girl continued sleeping without the gukky, even when spending the night at her aunt's house!
With four nights of guk-free sleep, the family knew it was time to call in the Gukky Fairy. On Monday night, April 21, 2008, the little blond girl and her sister strung up all the gukkies in the house and hung them on the bedroom door:
In the morning, the little girl found this note:
...and this special PlasmaCar!
Woo-hoo! Celebration of a guk-free life at the Bass house!
Well, this girl loved her pacifier so very much that when she was four years old, she still used it to sleep.
Her mom and dad were fed up with the over-use of this little plastic toy (and having nightmares of the dental bills to ensue), and encouraged her to stop the habit...so finally, on April 16, 2008, the little girl accepted her mama's challenge to sleep at night without her "gukky." She was rewarded the next day with a new dinosaur!
The next few nights, the little girl continued sleeping without the gukky, even when spending the night at her aunt's house!
With four nights of guk-free sleep, the family knew it was time to call in the Gukky Fairy. On Monday night, April 21, 2008, the little blond girl and her sister strung up all the gukkies in the house and hung them on the bedroom door:
In the morning, the little girl found this note:
...and this special PlasmaCar!
Woo-hoo! Celebration of a guk-free life at the Bass house!
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Friday, April 18, 2008
BabyHawk!
I can't believe he's already 11 months old. I'm not ready for my baby to be such a big boy :(
He has been signing lots lately - the ones he knows and uses are "milk (nurse)," "more," "eat," "water," and "all done."
He also uses these same signs for other things I haven't figured out yet LOL. I do find it fascinating though to watch how he obviously makes the connection between these signs and communication...
Baby L is also "free standing" now (not holding on), though not ready to take any steps yet. His poor lower legs and feet-tops are calloused from crawling on the tile and desert landscape. Walking should be a nice relief.
Saturday, April 12, 2008
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
Guess who's SIX!?
Six years ago tonight - at 10:29 Alaska time to be exact - little miss C came earthside.
Her stats back then? 7 lb, 19.5 in
Her stats now? 50 lb, 47 in
She's an amazing young girl - a voracious reader of all things "chapter books," bright, energetic, a fantastic swimmer, a loving and kind big sister and daughter. We are so very lucky to have her in our lives!
Monday, April 7, 2008
Another reason to avoid "commercial" carriers
I know I posted some info on this same thing not too long ago, but I just came across this article, and thought I'd share it...just some more (or at least better explained) reasons to avoid the omnipresent Bjorn/Snuggli-style baby carriers...which I saw a TON of a Disneyland. For the record, I did spot 2 Ergos, 2 pouches, a Moby and one mei tai. Other than that, it was stroller- and Bjorn-central.
Please note, I still maintain that carrying that baby is the most important thing...but maybe this gives some food for thought about the way to do so. Enjoy :)
(I edited it a hair to cut-and-paste onto the blog, and the emphases are mine)
From Mothering Magazine July August 2005
Physiological Positioning:
Dr. Evelin Kirkilionis, Forschungsgruppe Verhaltensbiologie des Menschen Freiburg, Germany, responds: When parents carry their babies in a sling or car tying bag, they give them a sense of security. Babies can be aware of their parents with practically all their senses. They can hear their heartbeats, feel their warmth, observe their facial expressions, take in their smells--just the sensation of being moved pacifies especially well. And if children are carried sitting upright with their legs spread and strongly drawn up, the parents are also "practicing "--quite coincidentally--prevention of so-called innate hip dysplasia.
This requires, however, that the baby's thighs be drawn up at least to a right angle; it's better if it's even more. Then tithe baby is sitting on the parent's hip or is carried face to face, the baby has a leg position that is ideal for the healthy maturation of the hip joint. If the legs are bent more than 90 degrees (about 100 to 110 degrees) and spread approximately 90 degrees, the femur head fits ideally in the hip socket. This favors its healthy development. Moreover, the body posture of the baby is not stationary. Through the movements of the parent as well as those of the baby, a constant stimulus is transferred to the child's hip joint, which promotes circulation to the still-cartilaginous structures and supports their maturation. All in all, this way of carrying is an appropriate way to prevent hip dysplasia.
When baby is facing away from the mother's body, these anatomically positive aspects of carrying are lost. The child has an unfavorable leg posture because the legs dangle down. Often, because of the construction of the carrying bag, a stretching in the hip joint is even forced. This must be regarded extremely critically in terms of the development of the hip joint, especially in the first four months. Such a stretched position means that the femur head is not centrally guided into the hip socket, and this leads to malformation.
Moreover, with this mode of carrying, the overall posture of the torso of the child is not age appropriate. If the baby sits facing away in the carrier, the straps pull from the front over the child's shoulders; this often causes a very upright posture, since the shoulders are pressed back. In the worst case, this posture, in combination with a stretched position in the hip joint, forces a hollow back (See lordosis).
In addition, a child will not sit on her or his diaper-padded bottom. Rather, the weight will be distributed onto the cartilage of the symphysis. This means that the baby is sitting on the crotch, and for boys, on the testicles.
When the flood of information becomes too much:
Babies carried facing away from their parents are confronted with stimuli from the environment without being able to turn away when it becomes excessive. These children also cannot read the facial expressions of their parents to see how this information is to be interpreted. In the case of disturbing stimuli, babies cannot look at their parents' faces to be assured that everything is still OK. Admittedly, babies carried in this way are very excited, exceptionally awake and active. They seem to like having so much to see. But our little ones still have to learn to distinguish between important and unimportant information, and also need to learn how to "blind or shut out" unneeded stimuli. The exposure to this flood of information is often not ended at the right time, as the babies cannot withdraw from it by themselves. For one thing, even if babies in this position want to turn away, they cannot. For another, strong stimuli can hold babies' attention even if it is too much for them.
With face-to-face carrying, it is possible for babies to turn away from strong stimulation when they get tired. Also, the change in body posture allows their bodies to relax. All this is not possible when babies face away from their parents.
There are several possibilities for carrying your baby: What to do when the little one wants to see more of the world than is possible with the usual frontal carrying mode? One possibility is to carry the baby in the sideways cross-carry, sitting on the parent's hip. However, this may be too strenuous for the carrying person's back. Alternatively, one should shift to the back-carrying mode. Here the child should be carried in such a way that it can observe its surroundings over the shoulders of the carrying person. This is rarely possible with conventional carriers; it is easier to achieve with a sling or a similar carrying device. In both cases, healthy development of the hip joint is supported because the leg position is equivalent to the frontal carrying mode. Moreover, the orientation of the baby to the parent's body more strongly favors attachment with the parents.
But my baby likes facing forward...?
We also asked for a response from M'Liss Stelzer, who teaches a babywearing class at St. Vincent Regional Medical Center in Santa Fe, New Mexico:
"I fitted models for Mothering's fashion show, part of its 30th-anniversary celebration over Mother's Day weekend, in May. One of the babies there, a seven-month-old, hated being in a carrier facing toward his mama. He fussed in several carriers until I put him in a gauze wrap facing outward. Then he immediately smiled and began kicking his legs," he was one happy baby. Another baby hated facing inward in the ring sling but loved facing out with his legs folded, Buddha style. He was very content, happily sucking on his toes.
This made me think: Is positioning more important than a happy, contented baby? I think not. The point is to wear your baby. A parent committed to attachment parenting or babywearing (whichever term fits best) shouldn't feel as if he or she has no other option than to put a child in a stroller or car seat because the child hates facing inward in a carrier. However, there are some options to keep the child from dangling by the crotch while facing out, and/or to help the child from becoming overstimulated. I believe that less structured carriers--ring slings, wraps, etc.--do a better job of addressing these issues than front-pack-style carriers. The advantage of a less structured carrier, such as a wrap, is that it is possible to position a child in the carrier to be supported by the child's bum and legs, and to keep the child's weight shifted toward the wearer's body.
Regarding protecting a child from overstimulation, I find a less-structured carrier easier for an infant to burrow into, if needed. Babies in wraps can turn their faces inward, toward the wide fabric straps near their faces. A baby in an Asian-style carrier can duck down; an infant in a pouch can hide under the fabric over mom's shoulder; and a baby in a ring sling can actually be bounced down into the sling and the front fabric panel pulled in front of the baby's face. The other obvious answer, when noticing signs of overstimulation or fatigue, is to move the baby to an in-facing position. For more information concerning this topic, I suggest going to www.thebabywearer.com or www.mothering.com. "
Please note, I still maintain that carrying that baby is the most important thing...but maybe this gives some food for thought about the way to do so. Enjoy :)
(I edited it a hair to cut-and-paste onto the blog, and the emphases are mine)
From Mothering Magazine July August 2005
Physiological Positioning:
Dr. Evelin Kirkilionis, Forschungsgruppe Verhaltensbiologie des Menschen Freiburg, Germany, responds: When parents carry their babies in a sling or car tying bag, they give them a sense of security. Babies can be aware of their parents with practically all their senses. They can hear their heartbeats, feel their warmth, observe their facial expressions, take in their smells--just the sensation of being moved pacifies especially well. And if children are carried sitting upright with their legs spread and strongly drawn up, the parents are also "practicing "--quite coincidentally--prevention of so-called innate hip dysplasia.
This requires, however, that the baby's thighs be drawn up at least to a right angle; it's better if it's even more. Then tithe baby is sitting on the parent's hip or is carried face to face, the baby has a leg position that is ideal for the healthy maturation of the hip joint. If the legs are bent more than 90 degrees (about 100 to 110 degrees) and spread approximately 90 degrees, the femur head fits ideally in the hip socket. This favors its healthy development. Moreover, the body posture of the baby is not stationary. Through the movements of the parent as well as those of the baby, a constant stimulus is transferred to the child's hip joint, which promotes circulation to the still-cartilaginous structures and supports their maturation. All in all, this way of carrying is an appropriate way to prevent hip dysplasia.
When baby is facing away from the mother's body, these anatomically positive aspects of carrying are lost. The child has an unfavorable leg posture because the legs dangle down. Often, because of the construction of the carrying bag, a stretching in the hip joint is even forced. This must be regarded extremely critically in terms of the development of the hip joint, especially in the first four months. Such a stretched position means that the femur head is not centrally guided into the hip socket, and this leads to malformation.
Moreover, with this mode of carrying, the overall posture of the torso of the child is not age appropriate. If the baby sits facing away in the carrier, the straps pull from the front over the child's shoulders; this often causes a very upright posture, since the shoulders are pressed back. In the worst case, this posture, in combination with a stretched position in the hip joint, forces a hollow back (See lordosis).
In addition, a child will not sit on her or his diaper-padded bottom. Rather, the weight will be distributed onto the cartilage of the symphysis. This means that the baby is sitting on the crotch, and for boys, on the testicles.
When the flood of information becomes too much:
Babies carried facing away from their parents are confronted with stimuli from the environment without being able to turn away when it becomes excessive. These children also cannot read the facial expressions of their parents to see how this information is to be interpreted. In the case of disturbing stimuli, babies cannot look at their parents' faces to be assured that everything is still OK. Admittedly, babies carried in this way are very excited, exceptionally awake and active. They seem to like having so much to see. But our little ones still have to learn to distinguish between important and unimportant information, and also need to learn how to "blind or shut out" unneeded stimuli. The exposure to this flood of information is often not ended at the right time, as the babies cannot withdraw from it by themselves. For one thing, even if babies in this position want to turn away, they cannot. For another, strong stimuli can hold babies' attention even if it is too much for them.
With face-to-face carrying, it is possible for babies to turn away from strong stimulation when they get tired. Also, the change in body posture allows their bodies to relax. All this is not possible when babies face away from their parents.
There are several possibilities for carrying your baby: What to do when the little one wants to see more of the world than is possible with the usual frontal carrying mode? One possibility is to carry the baby in the sideways cross-carry, sitting on the parent's hip. However, this may be too strenuous for the carrying person's back. Alternatively, one should shift to the back-carrying mode. Here the child should be carried in such a way that it can observe its surroundings over the shoulders of the carrying person. This is rarely possible with conventional carriers; it is easier to achieve with a sling or a similar carrying device. In both cases, healthy development of the hip joint is supported because the leg position is equivalent to the frontal carrying mode. Moreover, the orientation of the baby to the parent's body more strongly favors attachment with the parents.
But my baby likes facing forward...?
We also asked for a response from M'Liss Stelzer, who teaches a babywearing class at St. Vincent Regional Medical Center in Santa Fe, New Mexico:
"I fitted models for Mothering's fashion show, part of its 30th-anniversary celebration over Mother's Day weekend, in May. One of the babies there, a seven-month-old, hated being in a carrier facing toward his mama. He fussed in several carriers until I put him in a gauze wrap facing outward. Then he immediately smiled and began kicking his legs," he was one happy baby. Another baby hated facing inward in the ring sling but loved facing out with his legs folded, Buddha style. He was very content, happily sucking on his toes.
This made me think: Is positioning more important than a happy, contented baby? I think not. The point is to wear your baby. A parent committed to attachment parenting or babywearing (whichever term fits best) shouldn't feel as if he or she has no other option than to put a child in a stroller or car seat because the child hates facing inward in a carrier. However, there are some options to keep the child from dangling by the crotch while facing out, and/or to help the child from becoming overstimulated. I believe that less structured carriers--ring slings, wraps, etc.--do a better job of addressing these issues than front-pack-style carriers. The advantage of a less structured carrier, such as a wrap, is that it is possible to position a child in the carrier to be supported by the child's bum and legs, and to keep the child's weight shifted toward the wearer's body.
Regarding protecting a child from overstimulation, I find a less-structured carrier easier for an infant to burrow into, if needed. Babies in wraps can turn their faces inward, toward the wide fabric straps near their faces. A baby in an Asian-style carrier can duck down; an infant in a pouch can hide under the fabric over mom's shoulder; and a baby in a ring sling can actually be bounced down into the sling and the front fabric panel pulled in front of the baby's face. The other obvious answer, when noticing signs of overstimulation or fatigue, is to move the baby to an in-facing position. For more information concerning this topic, I suggest going to www.thebabywearer.com or www.mothering.com. "
Amazing.
Just got C home from school, and asked about her day...when her friends asked her where she'd been last week, I guess this is what she said:
We went to LA, and stayed in a hotel called the Magic, which was part of the Disneyland Hotel. We went to Disneyland too.
So much for understanding the big surprise, huh? Even after five days there, she still didn't really get that we were IN Disneyland. Sigh. I guess next time we'll tell them ahead of time. Oh, and the Disneyland Hotel consists of three towers - Magic, Dream, and Wonder.
We went to LA, and stayed in a hotel called the Magic, which was part of the Disneyland Hotel. We went to Disneyland too.
So much for understanding the big surprise, huh? Even after five days there, she still didn't really get that we were IN Disneyland. Sigh. I guess next time we'll tell them ahead of time. Oh, and the Disneyland Hotel consists of three towers - Magic, Dream, and Wonder.
Disney-rama
Whew. That was quite a trip. We arrived around 10 p.m. on Tuesday - pulled into the Disneyland Hotel and asked C to read the name for us. She said, "it's called the 'Disneyland Hotel,' that's a funny name for a hotel..." and E chimed in, "that's funny - there's a real place called Disneyland too!"
So yeah...they didn't quite "get it." We checked in, and went wandering around Downtown Disney. We saw the sign at the Monorail saying "to Disneyland" and C got excited...she said "can we go to Disneyland?" I think it was so beyond the poor girls they never really understood that we were AT Disneyland. Very interesting.
We pretty much overwhelmed them all around. C became an adrenaline junkie - craving rides on the Matterhorn, Space Mountain, Thunder Mountain, and the Hollywood Tower Hotel Tower of Terror! E on the other hand became very fearful and would barely try any rides...sigh.
We learned how not to "do" a big theme park again...but we also had a lot of fun. The girls really liked seeing the characters and watching the shows. I am so very thankful we stayed on-site and stayed for five days. We would go to the parks in the morning, return in the afternoon for food and naps, then return to the parks again for the late shift. One word of advice: avoid weekends unless you like crowds and lines. The mid-week was great; Saturday and Sunday sucked.
That's all for now...except of course the pictures! If you don't want to suffer through all 159 photos of the Bass gang in Disneyland, here are a few choice selections :)
So yeah...they didn't quite "get it." We checked in, and went wandering around Downtown Disney. We saw the sign at the Monorail saying "to Disneyland" and C got excited...she said "can we go to Disneyland?" I think it was so beyond the poor girls they never really understood that we were AT Disneyland. Very interesting.
We pretty much overwhelmed them all around. C became an adrenaline junkie - craving rides on the Matterhorn, Space Mountain, Thunder Mountain, and the Hollywood Tower Hotel Tower of Terror! E on the other hand became very fearful and would barely try any rides...sigh.
We learned how not to "do" a big theme park again...but we also had a lot of fun. The girls really liked seeing the characters and watching the shows. I am so very thankful we stayed on-site and stayed for five days. We would go to the parks in the morning, return in the afternoon for food and naps, then return to the parks again for the late shift. One word of advice: avoid weekends unless you like crowds and lines. The mid-week was great; Saturday and Sunday sucked.
That's all for now...except of course the pictures! If you don't want to suffer through all 159 photos of the Bass gang in Disneyland, here are a few choice selections :)
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Kid pic!
Took this this morning. For the record, C will be 6 next week, E is 4.25, and L is 10.5 months.
We're off on a little trip after school/work today. It's a surprise for the girls...and we're throwing in C's bday celebration (really April 9) while we're at it...shhhh!
I'll try to post from the hotel if possible, or will be back next week!
We're off on a little trip after school/work today. It's a surprise for the girls...and we're throwing in C's bday celebration (really April 9) while we're at it...shhhh!
I'll try to post from the hotel if possible, or will be back next week!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)