Thought I'd share an article I was just sent.
See here!
Happy sleeping :)
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!
Monday, March 31, 2008
So grateful.
Two of my friends came to my house today...to clean! They organized toys, swept, mopped, did dishes, moved furniture, gave me storage bins for my fabric and sewing notions, and fed me to top it off! I am so grateful for friends with their own families and busy lives who take the time to come help me do my housework. It is indeed a blessing to have found such a wonderful circle of women. It also makes the task so much more do-able when done with friends.
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Congratulations...
... to my friend H on the happy home water birth of her 3rd baby...
a 10lb 13oz, 22.5 inch boy.
She's my new birthing inspiration...
...and welcome earthside, Baby BDC!
a 10lb 13oz, 22.5 inch boy.
She's my new birthing inspiration...
...and welcome earthside, Baby BDC!
Friday, March 21, 2008
The Story of Stuff
If you haven't yet watched the Story of Stuff, please do. Then take the message to heart ;)
Reduce, Reuse, Recycle...
Reduce, Reuse, Recycle...
Thursday, March 20, 2008
What's your accent?
Found this on another blog. My result was right...
| What American accent do you have? Your Result: The West Your accent is the lowest common denominator of American speech. Unless you're a SoCal surfer, no one thinks you have an accent. And really, you may not even be from the West at all, you could easily be from Florida or one of those big Southern cities like Dallas or Atlanta. | |
| The Midland | |
| Boston | |
| North Central | |
| The Inland North | |
| Philadelphia | |
| The South | |
| The Northeast | |
| What American accent do you have? Quiz Created on GoToQuiz | |
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Appliance Excitement
Before:
After:
Our old fridge was unevenly cooling things - the back of the cheese drawer was freezing. The door clunked every time it was opened, and we were just waiting for it to fall off. So...the paper had an ad for the Sears Appliance Outlet and voila! You see our shiny new, energy-efficient, top-fridge, bottom-freezer-drawer, stainless steel refrigerator.
Friday, March 14, 2008
Muddy boy and not much else
Baby L simply loves going out on our back patio...and beyond, to the mud pit. Wednesday, a friend and her kiddos came up to our part of town for some Dino fun followed by play at our house. The kids were all playing in the mud/water, so of course Mr. L was too! Big sis C took these pics:
In other news, today is a half-day for C, and the beginning of Spring Break. We have no major plans for the week. I will be attending two Blessingways this weekend and garage sale-ing. The girls and Daddy will be going to an Easter egg hunt at the Ranch.
Enjoy your weekend!
In other news, today is a half-day for C, and the beginning of Spring Break. We have no major plans for the week. I will be attending two Blessingways this weekend and garage sale-ing. The girls and Daddy will be going to an Easter egg hunt at the Ranch.
Enjoy your weekend!
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Mystery Meal
I tried to assemble a yummy meal ahead of time by using our slow cooker. I did what the recipe told me...but eeewww:
Needless to say, it was not eaten! Now the real question is, who can tell what that was supposed to be?
I'll give a hint...
...think breakfast...
And the answer is: OATMEAL! With raisins...
So who knows a fail-proof oatmeal in a slow-cooker recipe? I mean, how hard can it be??
Needless to say, it was not eaten! Now the real question is, who can tell what that was supposed to be?
I'll give a hint...
...think breakfast...
And the answer is: OATMEAL! With raisins...
So who knows a fail-proof oatmeal in a slow-cooker recipe? I mean, how hard can it be??
Monday, March 10, 2008
Arboretum Adventures
For our family hike this weekend, we chose a trip to the Boyce Thompson Arboretum. It was another perfect day, and a lovely spot for some low-key adventures. We got a pretty late start, so our "hiking" was minimal...but we'll go back soon to explore the trails a little more.
Time keeps ticking...
...and for us, it does so without "springing ahead." So if you were thinking of calling us, be sure to note we are currently on Pacific Time! That's right, Arizona and Hawaii (and until April 2006, parts of Indiana!) do not participate in that bi-yearly clock-turning ritual. And, just to make it more confusing - actually, the Navajo Nation in NE Arizona, DOES participate in DST!
OK, to be precise, we're not really on Pacific Time. We're on Mountain Standard Time (MST), not to be confused with Mountain Daylight Time (MDT).
Clear as mud, huh?
Here are some more fun DST tidbits for you...like the story of the twins born at the clock change, so though Twin B came 34 minutes after her brother, Twin A, her official time of birth is 20 minutes EARLIER.
OK, to be precise, we're not really on Pacific Time. We're on Mountain Standard Time (MST), not to be confused with Mountain Daylight Time (MDT).
Clear as mud, huh?
Here are some more fun DST tidbits for you...like the story of the twins born at the clock change, so though Twin B came 34 minutes after her brother, Twin A, her official time of birth is 20 minutes EARLIER.
Sunday, March 9, 2008
Sweet sisters
Every night now, C reads books to E. Usually she is in her upper "bunk" while E is in her lower berth...but we just bought this new reading light for E at IKEA. Since it was a cool new gadget, C was reading right in bed with E. Once it got quiet, this was the scene we found:
Monday, March 3, 2008
Hiking
Saturday, Piestewa Peak (Phoenix visible in the distance)
Sunday, Papago Park
(the "dino cave")
(pit stop)
(Bass boys - city below)
(Whew - hard work, all that hiking)
(While I'm showing off cute sleeping baby...who doesn't ever actually sleep when WE want to)
We decided with all the rains we've had, we'd explore the gorgeous green desert. We're just a little early for wildflowers - hopefully in the next few weeks I'll have some impressive pics to share of the desert in bloom.
We went to REI after hiking on Saturday and bought the girls their very own water hydration packs (C picked blue, E picked pink)...which they proudly wore all day Sunday! C went through her entire 1L bag...ah, novelty! But the real bonus is, *I* no longer have to carry *their* water, and *they* can drink whenever they want! Win-win...
Sunday, Papago Park
(the "dino cave")
(pit stop)
(Bass boys - city below)
(Whew - hard work, all that hiking)
(While I'm showing off cute sleeping baby...who doesn't ever actually sleep when WE want to)
We decided with all the rains we've had, we'd explore the gorgeous green desert. We're just a little early for wildflowers - hopefully in the next few weeks I'll have some impressive pics to share of the desert in bloom.
We went to REI after hiking on Saturday and bought the girls their very own water hydration packs (C picked blue, E picked pink)...which they proudly wore all day Sunday! C went through her entire 1L bag...ah, novelty! But the real bonus is, *I* no longer have to carry *their* water, and *they* can drink whenever they want! Win-win...
Sunday, March 2, 2008
Our poor kids.
From the USA Weekend thing in our Sunday paper:
According to researchers at UW, 40% of three-month-old babies are regular TV watchers...and 90% of two-year-olds are!!
Our kids will just never fit in with their peers. They'll be years and years behind when it comes to pop culture.
Thank goodness!
Poor things almost NEVER see TV. They might average an hour of any screen time per month. Maybe. More like an hour per two months. And more often than not, that's an episode of Little Bear on DVD.
Of course, since we only get fuzzy broadcast TV, it's not hard to not watch the tube in our house :)
According to researchers at UW, 40% of three-month-old babies are regular TV watchers...and 90% of two-year-olds are!!
Our kids will just never fit in with their peers. They'll be years and years behind when it comes to pop culture.
Thank goodness!
Poor things almost NEVER see TV. They might average an hour of any screen time per month. Maybe. More like an hour per two months. And more often than not, that's an episode of Little Bear on DVD.
Of course, since we only get fuzzy broadcast TV, it's not hard to not watch the tube in our house :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)