Posted in March 2008

DWTS Line Up — Season Six

Dancing with the Stars is starting back up this upcoming Monday, March 17 on ABC (I should get paid for this plug). Just in time to fill the void from Project Runway ending! Both shows are a guilty pleasure of mine and I’m hoping you’ll join me in watching this season of DWTS! The list of stars this season is very impressive and surprising (last season there weren’t that many big names). I think those who normally don’t watch the show might just tune in because of the stars they’ve chosen this season.

Here’s the list of stars and their corresponding dance instructors:

  • ADAM CAROLLA & JULIANNE HOUGH
  • CRISTIÁN DE LA FUENTE & CHERYL BURKE
  • SHANNON ELIZABETH & DEREK HOUGH
  • STEVE GUTTENBERG & ANNA TREBUNSKAYA
  • PENN JILLETTE & KYM JOHNSON
  • MARIO & KARINA SMIRNOFF
  • MARLEE MATLIN & FABIAN SANCHEZ
  • PRISCILLA PRESLEY & LOUIS VAN AMSTEL
  • MONICA SELES & JONATHAN ROBERTS
  • JASON TAYLOR & EDYTA SLIWINSKA
  • MARISSA JARET WINOKUR & TONY DOVOLANI
  • KRISTI YAMAGUCHI & MARK BALLAS

I don’t know about you, but I’m highly interested in seeing quite a few of these individuals dance! I’m especially curious about Penn Jillette’s dancing capabilites and those of Adam Carolla. Question is, which one will turn out to be the obligatory season clown? Perhaps it will be Steve Guttenberg?

I’m starting a poll to see who YOU think will come in first place on week one! Poll voting will end at midnight following Monday night’s show (the first part when only the judges vote). Then we’ll see if we’re right the next night when the public votes as well! If you’re feeling crazy, go ahead and vote now!

Also, if you care to comment, which stars do you think have an unfair advantage due to their current or past professions? There’s always a few questionables like Drew Lachey, Joey Fatone, or Laila Ali. I think that Kristi Yamaguchi might have an advantage due to the figure skating. What do you think?

Bad Mommy? TV and new bedtime routine

Lil’ Monkey’s fussy period is between 4:30 pm and 6:00 pm just about everyday. Sometimes it starts later, sometimes earlier. There were days though prior to finding our P/T daycare solution that I would dread this time period (some days I still do). Since I would be running on 3-5 hours of sleep, it was really hard to sit and play with him and often that wouldn’t be satisfactory anyway. He wanted to be held or bounced around or just some form of physical contact.

So one day, exhausted, I sat in front of my computer with him in my lap and answered an email for work. He got super fussy and wiggly because I wasn’t paying attention to him. So, I turned to my MacBook (I keep it next to the monitor for the PC) and decided to put on For the Birds, a Pixar short I had downloaded from iTunes.

He LOVED it. I mean, he was smiling at the birds chirping and the big goofy bird talking the whole time. So this became an afternoon ritual fast. Currently, except for the days when he goes to daycare, we end up sitting in front of the Mac, watching one of these shorts (maybe up to five — I downloaded more because I was getting bored with the birds). Now he knows that when the credits come up the movie is over and starts to fuss for another one! Bright kid, but for how long? Am I killing his brain and attention span?

The AAP recommends NO television for children under two and no more than two hours for children over 2 years of age. This seems a little extreme since most people watch television to some extent these days. So I did some more research and it seems most people just quote the AAP stance on it which is proper I guess. I did, however, run across a doctor who questioned the “blanket” statement regarding television. His point was that the reason for concern about television watching was the concept of the “electronic babysitter”. That just sitting children, no matter what age, in front of a television so the parent can do something was the major concern for two main reasons: 1) no supervision of what the child is really doing, 2) no interaction with real human beings.

The highlight of the AAP’s concerns seems to be that early brain development requires interaction with other human beings, especially parents, to maximize growth. They’re also concerned that WHAT they see on tv influences how they respond emotionally to people or objects and cause aggression later in life.

The doctor questioning the AAP’s statement seems to think that 30-90 minutes of tv watching for an infant that is developing normally and is active and curious is okay. According to a study done at Tufts University, children under the age of one do not associate the emotions of those on tv with repsonses to things in real life. However, those age one and older do.

Okay, now given those arguments, am I still doing anything wrong? Monkey’s on my lap, so there’s SOME interaction. And the most we watch is about a half hour of shorts. Well … until recently.

Within the past two weeks, Monkey has had 3 teeth break through and there’s still another threatening it’s way through his gums. So he hasn’t been the happiest baby, to say the least. Bedtime has been especially horrible. Since sucking bothers him, he doesn’t want to take much from his bottle or the breast. So our normal routine of getting milk drunk before bedtime is completely out. (Don’t get me wrong, there’s a bath thrown in there every other night and the off-bath nights, we’d just play quietly on the floor.) I let him play on the floor but he just gets more fussy and more worked up. Out of desparation one week night, I put Ratatouille into our bedroom DVD player while trying to feed him. I had something for work due the next day and wasn’t yet caught up so I was hoping for a quick bedtime routine.

Monkey would drink a little, then watch a little. Wiggle around on the bed a little. Then when the bottle was done, he’d suck from the breast a little. Wiggle a little, act like he was going to sleep then start playing again or watching the movie. We did this for about 45 minutes until he finally fell asleep in my arms. (It was kinda cute actually. His head was nestled between my shoulder and head.)

Not every night, but I’d say a total of 6 nights in the past two weeks, we’ve done this ritual (oddly enough, I’m not sick of Ratatouille yet) and it gets longer each time. I’m starting to get very worried. I’m going to need to put my proverbial foot down and end this tv madness soon before it snowballs anymore. But my little id talks to me each night saying, “Just get him to bed this time. We’ll figure out something next time. You NEED to do X, Y and Z.” Tonight, this new ritual took 1 1/2 hours (only 45 minutes of that was using Ratatouille, thankfully). Our milk drunk routine took 30 minutes tops and I miss it (that’s after the bath, BTW)!

Tomorrow night I’m trying the books again. He’s done with the Counting Kisses book. Well, not DONE with it, but it winds him up now, whereas before he comforted him to sleep. I have some other books which I tried last night but they were just lame. I never realized how LAME the Mother Goose Nursery Rhymes are. Some of them don’t even RHYME! He probably doesn’t care but as I was reading them I couldn’t really do them justice, if you know what I mean. I have a set of Curious George books I thought we’d use when he got older, so I may try them next. I also just purchased the Where is Baby’s Belly Button book which he seems to like.

If we can just eliminate the tv prior to bed, I think I’ll feel less guilty and less like a bad mommy. I’m not sure the Pixar shorts in the afternoon are going away anytime soon and plus, that’s really dwindled now since he started daycare. (Although, on a side note, I can’t sit down at the computer in front of him anymore because he thinks we’re supposed to watch movies when I do!)

In conclusion, how much television do you let your child watch and at what age? What do you do as a parent to get your child to bed? If books are involved, which books do you choose? How many books does it take? How long does your bedtime ritual take?

SIDENOTE: Monkey isn’t really fond of Baby Einstein (the thing most mention in articles related to tv and infants). He prefers Pixar stuff. Not sure what that says about the TYPE of brain damage I’m inflicting upon him …

What to do, what to do?

While pregnant, I read the obligatory baby’s first year books and decided that I should breastfeed lil’ Monkey until his first birthday because it’s the American Association of Pediatrics recommendation. However, once he came and I tried to breastfeed him the hospital, it turned out to be much harder than I expected. I found it humiliating that I couldn’t do it and felt pressured to get SOMETHING in him since his jaundice levels were so high. We opted for bottles by day two with the expectation that once his jaundice levels went down, I’d try breastfeeding again.

When his jaundice levels were acceptable, the hospital let us take him home (day four) and I tried again. It still proved very hard but DH pushed me to continue. I resented him at the time for it. He bargained with me to give it 6 weeks. If it still wasn’t working and I still hated it, then we’d go to bottles. I thought, “6 weeks! That’s a long time!”

By the end of the 6 weeks, lil’ Monkey and I were doing better in the breastfeeding department. I wouldn’t say outstanding but enough that I decided perhaps going a year wouldn’t be so bad. We’re still breastfeeding today, a day before he turns 9 months old! So I’m really proud of both of us for hanging in there and working on this.

However, a year, my original commitment and goal, is just around the corner. I’m debating on whether or not I should stop. There are benefits to both sides of the argument.

On the one hand, I think, “Boy! It would be really nice to have my breasts back! To wear a real bra! To have somewhat uniform breasts again!” (One is extremely larger than the other because Monkey doesn’t like drinking from the other one. So I’ve pretty much let it go dormant after many struggles and a mastitis infection because using the pump didn’t drain it like he could — if he would!)

On the other hand, I know that not having to make bottles while at home with him has been a real time saver. Not to mention my hands would probably be even more dry and cracked if I had to wash bottles all of the time. We’re also not so great at it in public. (Lying down is best — but he will feed with me sitting up if the place is quiet enough. Good luck with that in the mall! Even the bathrooms have loud music pumped into them!) So the “He has food anywhere you are” argument doesn’t really work. But the time saving, less coarse hands and health benefits for him might outweigh the need to regain breast freedom.

Then there’s the bonding. I really didn’t truly understand this one until around Christmastime last year. We were visiting my MIL in NC and Monkey was having a hard time sleeping. DH leans more to the Ferber side of things and I’m somewhere right of Sears, so we were arguing about what to do. I had JUST read in a book I was reading that breastfeeding is more than nutrition. It’s a way of soothing a baby, bringing him/her to a familiar place where they are comforted. A mother recounted a time when her son had fallen and bumped his head. He was so upset that holding him didn’t work, kissing didn’t work, his favorite toy didn’t work but BREASTFEEDING helped him calm down. I pointed this out to DH and ever since reading that mother’s account, I’ve kept this notion in the back of my mind. Recently, I did just what she did when Monkey decided that he was going to try to climb the dryer while I was putting clothes in it. He bumped his head and was really upset. The breastfeeding calmed him down and he even made a little sigh afterwards like “oh that’s the stuff!”.

Still, whenever I see my regular bras in my dresser drawer, I long for breast freedom. I’m just not sure. I guess I’ll do what I always do and just go with it until something clearly steers me away from it.

Politics Wed: Superdelegates

As promised, I am going to try to continue the Politics Wed posts once a month. So here we go!

I thought I’d take some time out to cover the “Superdelegate” concept that has been so hot in the news lately.

Both parties have these so-called Superdelegates. So I’m going to cover how each works. First the Dems (because D comes before R).

The Democrats

These select group of people are chosen due to their status as “current or former elected officeholders and party officials“. There are 784 Superdelegates and they “make up approximately one-fifth of the total number of delegates“. (Both quotes are from, you guessed it, Wikipedia.) Democrats require proportional representation. Supers are not obligated, however, to vote for the candidate supported by its constituency.

For an EXCELLENT, seriously EXCELLENT, write up and discourse on the Democratic Superdelegates, visit demconwatch.blogspot.com here. It has the rules for being one, the ACTUAL Supers, and their current position. Kudos to whomever put that together. It must have taken quite some time. Time I don’t have. ;)

The Republicans

These guys are little more organized in their selection of Supers, I must say. Two members of the Republican Party from each state and the state’s party chairperson are automatically a Superdelegate (from Wikipedia). HOWEVER, each state can earn BONUS delegates by “having U.S. Senators and governors from the Republican Party, sending a majority-Republican delegation to the U.S. House, maintaining partial or total Republican control of the state legislature …” (From Wikipedia). Republicans do not require proportional representation.

Why this is important

Now, the Republicans Supers aren’t quite that important this election. But the Democrats Supers are CRUCIAL since the race between Clinton and Obama is so close.

This article does a good job of breaking down the different scenarios for how the Democratic Nomination may play out.

So if you are a Democrat, or if you just want to weigh in on the issue, how do YOU feel about the Superdelegate concept (below is how I feel BTW)?

Warning: SOAPBOX AREA

First, I don’t like that a bunch of rich, mostly white men get to vote any which way they choose and pretty much override the public’s choice. That’s undemocratic, if you ask me.

Clinton’s camp has openly declared that she is relying on the Supers to boost her numbers over the lead Obama has in the popular vote. This pisses me off and makes me regret voting for her. Unfortunately, for me and my vote, this story “broke” the day after my regional primary.

Now I understand the need for “tie-breakers” should that scenario ever occur. But the one thing that makes Washington so corrupt is the lobbying of the politicians. And here we are, with our FUTURE presidents, LOBBYING other politicians for the job. Just more ways to be corrupt, if you ask me. In the REAL WORLD, at least for those of us not born with a silver spoon in our mouth, you INTERVIEW for the job and are chosen based on your merits and viability (i.e. salary requirements) — maybe we should put that into the Presidential race? Who will cost us less and produce more!

What are YOUR salary requirements, Clinton, McCain and Obama?!! Maybe that $400,000/yr should be negotiable based on what you bring to the table! Maybe Obama is the “recent college grad” in this scenario since the media and the other candidate’s keep focusing on his inexperience! Or maybe Clinton and McCain are the overpaid deadwood and need to be “let go” (or the one I like hearing around the office, “asked to leave”)!

Okay, I think my train just left the tracks. But you get my point through my weird metaphor, I hope. When will they stop talking about how the American people matter and truly listen to what we’re saying? Starting with the popular vote!

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.