I often see questions in forums/groups by moms wondering if they should worry about their child's speech. And I get SO frustrated at the responses.
He's fine!
He'll talk when he's ready.
Boys talk later than girls.
If he smiles, he doesn't have autism.
Some kids are thinkers, some are talkers.
He might not have anything to say.
Kids develop at their own speed.
Don't worry!
He's fine!
Once upon a time, I was that mom too. And all those answers did nothing but delay treatment. If you're not a SLP (Speech & Language Pathologist), you shouldn't be telling a mom her child is fine. If you're not a pediatrician or psychologist, don't be telling her he doesn't have autism. STOP making diagnosis for kids you've never met. Stop brushing her concerns off. He might be fine. He might not be fine.
When my first, Hugh, was little, he wasn't saying much. Well, quite often he did talk a lot, but it seemed disjointed, incomplete, chunky. I heard all those same lines. His daddy didn't talk till he was 4. My brother didn't talk well. Boys talk later was a popular one (my neighbour said that about Hugh, then three years later said girls talk later than boys!). When Hugh was 2 1/2, I was starting to worry. But I was a first time mom. Then I had a visit from a lactation consultant to help with Lucy who was a newborn. I've written about this visit before (but of course, can't find it right now). She mentioned that although speech wasn't her area of expertise, she felt Hugh had some issues and that perhaps an evaluation would be good. It's done through our Public Health office. It took a few months to get in, and he finally started speech therapy at 3years, 3 months old. He progress pretty rapidly, and finished in a year or so.
Lucy came along to all the appointments, of course. She was a girl, so she should talk sooner, right? She DID love to talk, however it was half babble, half words...she'd talk, and if she didn't know a word, she'd just babble until the next word in her sentence. At 2 1/2, she could tell you all the letter names, but barely put together sentences. She started therapy at 2y10m, with the same SLP. She had the most unusual "f" formation the therapist had ever seen in almost 20 years of work. I had NO clue. It took a LONG time to get rid of that issue, and she continued therapy until she was about 5-6 (she aged out of the Public Health program and started receiving SLT at school).
So, surely, by kid #3 (Megan), we'd get it right! We started sign language. Some people were against this,thinking the kid will sign instead of talk. That's rarely the case. I learned about the progression of sounds that infants make. Ever wonder why ALL kids' first words are momma, dada or baba and not milk, dog, or brown? Megan wasn't making any of the sounds she should have by six months. At 8 months, she had her first assessment. Kids who learn signs from birth, will usually start signing around 8-10 months. She didnt' make her first sign till 13 months, and the context was odd. One of the signs we always did was "more", but it was usually used with food ("more yoghurt?") or activity ("more swing?"). She used it when she went in a room of 8 dogs. Pointed to the dogs (one was ours) and signed "more". I knew that was significant!
Megan started speech therapy at 1y10m (22months). Some people say you can't do SLT if the child won't repeat words/sounds back to you. Not true at all. Kids often work better with a stranger. Some say there's no point in therapy if they're only saying a few words. Not true. Therapists will figure out WHY they're not saying much, and work to build on this. Is it physical? Is it language? Megan had both language and physical speech issues (also with "F", but different than Hugh and Lucy). Language took her a LONG time to understand.
Shortly before Megan started Junior Kindergarten, at 3y9.5m, we moved, and we were set up with SLT here, without having to go through the whole process. Megan received Public Health SLT during JK and at the end of JK was referred to the school board's SLP. It took nearly a year for that assessment. A year without any therapy. When they did that assessment, they said because she was missing her two front top teeth, they couldn't get a real idea of if she needed more therapy, so was denied.
Her speech eventually caught up, but her language has not. My mother once said talking to Megan is like talking to an ESL student (English as a second language). She's better now, but she often has a hard time with language, sentence structure, and using the right word. This carries over to her reading and writing.
When ever I read that a mother is concerned about her kid's speech, I write something like this:
Look up what sounds he should be making. Babies learn them in a certain order, and if he's skipped some, or his sounds aren't up to his age, that's a concern, more so than how many words. I didn't learn that until my THIRD kid was in SLT.
With my first, we were told "boys talk later/his father and uncle didn't talk till 3/he'll talk when ready" etc. No one except a SLP should be telling you he's fine. I wouldn't worry yet, but by 20 months, if you still are concerned call for an assessment. The process takes a while, and too many parents wait to long, and then their kid gets to be too old for the OHIP covered stuff, so then they go on the school board's wait list which also has a long wait. My first wasn't in SLT till 3y3m, the second kid was 2y10m and the third, 1y10m. That kid started having assessments at 8 months cause we knew by six months she wasn't making the right sounds. I'm not telling you to worry. I' not telling you to not worry. LOL. Just that speech and language learning is complicated, and the best thing to do is do some research (not just # of words) and have a professional assessment by a SLP, not strangers on a silent forum
Phoning to arrange an assessment NEVER hurts. What hurts, is listening to (well meaning) moms who say the things I wrote at the top. It could take months for the assessment to happen. In that time, the child might have suddenly found their voice. Or not. After the assessment, it can take months--even a year or more--to start therapy. In that time, the child might have found their voice. Or not. Once the child turns 5, they are referred to the school board SLP. That assessment can take a year to get. In that time, the child might have found their voice. Or not. The wait, after the assessment, can take another year.
Imagine now, if you delay that very first call. Just delay it a month, and depending on your child's age, they might miss out on SLT through Public Health entirely.
It is totally possible that you make that call, and when your assessment time comes, you're happily able to say "Not needed now". But imagine if you wait because "he must be a thinker and will talk when ready". Only....he doesn't.
An assessment NEVER hurts. Waiting CAN hurt. If in doubt, just phone. You'll be glad, no matter the outcome. Wait, and you might be very upset later on.
Friday, May 1, 2015
Tuesday, April 28, 2015
Another Recall
Heinz has announced another recall of a jarred baby food, this time Sweet Potato and Beef Medley. Recommended for 8 months and up. Looking at the pictures, it looks like a puree but is probably lumpier.
My first thought is "Ewww. Who buys this for their baby?". Oh, wait...I probably did. Although I could cook a nice sweet potato, I never got smooth pureed meats.
My next thought is "Food before one is just for fun; breast milk is the primary source of nutrition." Well, we're supposed to say "Breast milk or formula" but statistics say more babies are formula fed at this age then breastfed. But if we're trying to make breastfeeding "normal", then people shouldn't be adding "or formula". It's already assumed, so let's leave it out.
However, formula is expensive and many parents want to get their kids on "solids" as quickly as possible. Current recommendations are no solids before six months, and then basically anything except raw honey, and if you have allergies in the family, avoid the allergens. This is not to replace breast milk though. It's in addition to.
A current "trend" is baby lead weaning. It's not weaning in the sense of taking two weeks to get your baby off the breast or bottle. It's more like baby lead "introduction" to solids. The idea is that you can offer bite sized pieces of real, human food that you would eat, and if your baby is ready, they will eat it. If they're not ready, they won't eat it.
Think back. Waaaaayy back. Back before the commercialization of parenting. What did mothers do? Take a piece of their food, squish it, flake it, chew it, etc and give it to their baby. They didn't have the option of pureed chicken or dried cereal in a box. Why have we fallen prey to the big companies that make us think we're wrong if we don't serve rice flakes or veal Parmesan that looks like something the cat barfed up?
I'm in some Frugal Parenting groups on Facebook. These are geared more to giving away unneeded items, but every day people ask questions about parenting, and not always with a frugal mindset. Like, "What age can I start cereal, baby is 3 months old now". As well as waiting till six months for the biological reasoning of stomach enzymes, I suggest that waiting till six months is also frugal because you can skip cereals and serve real foods. And you'll also save money on cleaning baby clothes LOL.
Yet so many parents are insistent their baby needs infant cereal! Pablum was created by the Hospital for Sick Children during the Great Depression for babies that were malnourished. It's less than 100 years old, a tiny speck in the millions of years of human evolution. Is your baby malnourished? Even if so, there are much better options. Rice, in particular is a crappy food, without much actual nutrition, and it has great negative socio-economic and environmental impacts on tender cultures around the world. These cereals are "fortified" so parents think that's a good thing. What that means is that the natural minerals and vitamins were stripped away during processing (this IS a processed food!) and (lab made versions) were added back in. The %RDA listed is not accurate because these minerals and vitamins are harder to absorb.
It's OKAY to skip baby cereal, and jarred foods, and those pouches. Don't be a media push over. If your great grandma didn't use it, you can survive without it too. Somethings might just make life easier, but it's not a "need". But is also okay to give cereal! I would stay away from rice and wheat though. Why start your baby out on a carb heavy diet when we know it's not healthy for adults? A little homemade oatmeal is nice though (once in a while).
Does this look like a happy baby? Not really. I waited till six months to give Megan cereal (compared to just before 4 months with child #1). Although I knew it wasn't necessary, I fell for it anyway. However, I was in a real learning phase around then, thanks to the boom of parenting forums and the Internet. If I could do it over, I would.
Compare this to two months later, and eating "real" food!
What baby wouldn't rather gnaw on a cob of corn then have spoonfuls of mush forcibly put into their mouths?
My first thought is "Ewww. Who buys this for their baby?". Oh, wait...I probably did. Although I could cook a nice sweet potato, I never got smooth pureed meats.
My next thought is "Food before one is just for fun; breast milk is the primary source of nutrition." Well, we're supposed to say "Breast milk or formula" but statistics say more babies are formula fed at this age then breastfed. But if we're trying to make breastfeeding "normal", then people shouldn't be adding "or formula". It's already assumed, so let's leave it out.
However, formula is expensive and many parents want to get their kids on "solids" as quickly as possible. Current recommendations are no solids before six months, and then basically anything except raw honey, and if you have allergies in the family, avoid the allergens. This is not to replace breast milk though. It's in addition to.
A current "trend" is baby lead weaning. It's not weaning in the sense of taking two weeks to get your baby off the breast or bottle. It's more like baby lead "introduction" to solids. The idea is that you can offer bite sized pieces of real, human food that you would eat, and if your baby is ready, they will eat it. If they're not ready, they won't eat it.
Think back. Waaaaayy back. Back before the commercialization of parenting. What did mothers do? Take a piece of their food, squish it, flake it, chew it, etc and give it to their baby. They didn't have the option of pureed chicken or dried cereal in a box. Why have we fallen prey to the big companies that make us think we're wrong if we don't serve rice flakes or veal Parmesan that looks like something the cat barfed up?
I'm in some Frugal Parenting groups on Facebook. These are geared more to giving away unneeded items, but every day people ask questions about parenting, and not always with a frugal mindset. Like, "What age can I start cereal, baby is 3 months old now". As well as waiting till six months for the biological reasoning of stomach enzymes, I suggest that waiting till six months is also frugal because you can skip cereals and serve real foods. And you'll also save money on cleaning baby clothes LOL.
Yet so many parents are insistent their baby needs infant cereal! Pablum was created by the Hospital for Sick Children during the Great Depression for babies that were malnourished. It's less than 100 years old, a tiny speck in the millions of years of human evolution. Is your baby malnourished? Even if so, there are much better options. Rice, in particular is a crappy food, without much actual nutrition, and it has great negative socio-economic and environmental impacts on tender cultures around the world. These cereals are "fortified" so parents think that's a good thing. What that means is that the natural minerals and vitamins were stripped away during processing (this IS a processed food!) and (lab made versions) were added back in. The %RDA listed is not accurate because these minerals and vitamins are harder to absorb.
It's OKAY to skip baby cereal, and jarred foods, and those pouches. Don't be a media push over. If your great grandma didn't use it, you can survive without it too. Somethings might just make life easier, but it's not a "need". But is also okay to give cereal! I would stay away from rice and wheat though. Why start your baby out on a carb heavy diet when we know it's not healthy for adults? A little homemade oatmeal is nice though (once in a while).
Monday, April 27, 2015
Tragic
The earthquake in Nepal is tragic. It's hard to prepare for something like that when you're barely surviving day to day. Earthquakes and tornadoes tend to create total destruction, so even if you have a 72hr kit, you might not be able to access it, and well, it's only going to last 72 hours.
On one hand, I subscribe to the socialist Canadian view. Help for everyone, for the good of the country. We're all people, we all need help at some point. What goes around, comes around.
On the other hand, I cringe when I hear that the Canadian government is contributing $5 Million dollars to the relief efforts.
"Our biggest concern for them right now is going to be access to clean water and sanitation, we know that water and food is running out."
(This quote was just grabbed from a news sidebar).
What about all the people in Canada who don't have easy access to quality food and water? Anyone remember the Attawapiskat First Nation crisis? What about the children here who rely on school breakfast programs for the best meal of their day? What about the people living in Toronto Public Housing? Where's the money from our own government to help them?
I know there is a lot of wastage in Canadian programs. Attawapiskat was ordered to repay a large amount of the money the government gave them. Many people claim there is wide spread abuse of the social assistance program. I know people in the system, and it's not easy to get, and to stay on. For a small number, perhaps it is easier than "getting a real job", but that's not a huge number. You hear complaints about someone on welfare having their nails done or using a newer cell phone. Sometimes you'll find out that the cell phone is their home phone, their computer, their TV, their only contact with modern technology. It's pretty hard to get by without access to the Internet these days, or not having a phone number. Sometimes someone else is paying for it. Whatever. I do think financial awareness classes should be mandatory. However.
I think it's awesome Canada can send some money to Nepal. It's "only" 17 cents per person of Canada. Just imagine, though, what that $5 million could do to help Canadian people. But we're all people. Is helping those that have barely anything to start with, more important than helping those that payed into that money and could help generate more revenue for the government? Imagine if hospitals didn't have to charge for parking just so they can buy new beds or a CT scanner. Imagine if you didn't even have a hospital to go to. Imagine if post secondary education was a little more affordable for all Canadians. Imagine if you were fortunate to get educated through grade 8.
I don't want this $5 Million to supply bottled water and nutritionless rice. I hope Nepal has some plans in place. Katmandu was a growing hub of business, I hope it can recover and improve. I really do hope that. I just can't help thinking of those, though, that are squashing cockroaches in a TPH apartment, with leaky windows and no hot water, at the same time.
On one hand, I subscribe to the socialist Canadian view. Help for everyone, for the good of the country. We're all people, we all need help at some point. What goes around, comes around.
On the other hand, I cringe when I hear that the Canadian government is contributing $5 Million dollars to the relief efforts.
"Our biggest concern for them right now is going to be access to clean water and sanitation, we know that water and food is running out."
(This quote was just grabbed from a news sidebar).
What about all the people in Canada who don't have easy access to quality food and water? Anyone remember the Attawapiskat First Nation crisis? What about the children here who rely on school breakfast programs for the best meal of their day? What about the people living in Toronto Public Housing? Where's the money from our own government to help them?
I know there is a lot of wastage in Canadian programs. Attawapiskat was ordered to repay a large amount of the money the government gave them. Many people claim there is wide spread abuse of the social assistance program. I know people in the system, and it's not easy to get, and to stay on. For a small number, perhaps it is easier than "getting a real job", but that's not a huge number. You hear complaints about someone on welfare having their nails done or using a newer cell phone. Sometimes you'll find out that the cell phone is their home phone, their computer, their TV, their only contact with modern technology. It's pretty hard to get by without access to the Internet these days, or not having a phone number. Sometimes someone else is paying for it. Whatever. I do think financial awareness classes should be mandatory. However.
I think it's awesome Canada can send some money to Nepal. It's "only" 17 cents per person of Canada. Just imagine, though, what that $5 million could do to help Canadian people. But we're all people. Is helping those that have barely anything to start with, more important than helping those that payed into that money and could help generate more revenue for the government? Imagine if hospitals didn't have to charge for parking just so they can buy new beds or a CT scanner. Imagine if you didn't even have a hospital to go to. Imagine if post secondary education was a little more affordable for all Canadians. Imagine if you were fortunate to get educated through grade 8.
I don't want this $5 Million to supply bottled water and nutritionless rice. I hope Nepal has some plans in place. Katmandu was a growing hub of business, I hope it can recover and improve. I really do hope that. I just can't help thinking of those, though, that are squashing cockroaches in a TPH apartment, with leaky windows and no hot water, at the same time.
Tuesday, April 14, 2015
Americanized Birth
Oh, America. You've given us lots of awesome stuff, and some not so awesome. Two of the saddest things have to be the infatuation with food, and the medicalization of birth.
I was watching "Outrageous Births: Tales from the Crib" on TLC. While a few of the stories are truly outrageous, so many are actually more like how birth should be happening. The problem though, is that people have become so far removed from "normal" birth, that what is normal is now considered "outrageous".
A woman was getting induced, two days past her due date because she was "overdue" and worried about the size since her last baby had been born a week early and was 7lb 14oz, and she didn't want to have a big baby! Due dates are estimates. The doctor uses a standardized due date "wheel" that is based on a 28 day cycle, with ovulation happening on day 14. Not that many women actually have this cycle! So the due date is actually considered an estimate. Doctors generally consider a 2 week period on either side of the due date to be "normal".
The average newborn weight is 7lb12oz-7lb14oz. At the end of pregnancy, a baby typically puts on 1/2lb per week. So, even if her first baby was early by a week, he would have been 8lb6oz by the due date. Not a "large" baby by any means.
The next few things really made me shake my head though. She gets checked, and it is determined she is 5cm. That means she's in active labour. Yet, the nurse says "Let's start the induction with pitocin to get this labour going." If the nurse doesn't understand the point of an induction, what hope does the patient have?
Okay, there was the small issue of a tornado heading towards the hospital. But the mom got an epidural and was unable to assist in her move to safety...they knew about the tornado when they gave the epidural. I don't know why they thought they needed to speed up the birth to "beat the tornado" since they don't have any control over either.
Anyway. Ladies. If your nurse says you're 5cm and they're going to induce you, ask for a new nurse.
I was watching "Outrageous Births: Tales from the Crib" on TLC. While a few of the stories are truly outrageous, so many are actually more like how birth should be happening. The problem though, is that people have become so far removed from "normal" birth, that what is normal is now considered "outrageous".
A woman was getting induced, two days past her due date because she was "overdue" and worried about the size since her last baby had been born a week early and was 7lb 14oz, and she didn't want to have a big baby! Due dates are estimates. The doctor uses a standardized due date "wheel" that is based on a 28 day cycle, with ovulation happening on day 14. Not that many women actually have this cycle! So the due date is actually considered an estimate. Doctors generally consider a 2 week period on either side of the due date to be "normal".
The average newborn weight is 7lb12oz-7lb14oz. At the end of pregnancy, a baby typically puts on 1/2lb per week. So, even if her first baby was early by a week, he would have been 8lb6oz by the due date. Not a "large" baby by any means.
The next few things really made me shake my head though. She gets checked, and it is determined she is 5cm. That means she's in active labour. Yet, the nurse says "Let's start the induction with pitocin to get this labour going." If the nurse doesn't understand the point of an induction, what hope does the patient have?
Okay, there was the small issue of a tornado heading towards the hospital. But the mom got an epidural and was unable to assist in her move to safety...they knew about the tornado when they gave the epidural. I don't know why they thought they needed to speed up the birth to "beat the tornado" since they don't have any control over either.
Anyway. Ladies. If your nurse says you're 5cm and they're going to induce you, ask for a new nurse.
Thursday, April 9, 2015
Say Wha?!
I was just channel surfing and paused on TLC, during an episode of "My 600lb Life". The patient was in to the visit the doctor for a pre-surgery approval appointment, and has had five months to lose some weight before being approved. She hadn't lost any weight and had to explain herself to the doctor. She claimed she was doing everything she was told, "I'm eating low carb, like you said. I even started making wheat bread myself so I could stick with it". You could almost hear the doctor giving himself an imaginary head slap. Her support person also looked dumbfounded and they both told her that wheat bread is still bread and is not low carb. She truly looked surprised.
Oh, people. Really?
Oh, people. Really?
Thursday, February 26, 2015
Rob Goes Carseat Shopping
I thought I had moved all the "not knitting" posts from my knitting blog, but I found this gem from Jan 18, 2007:
Anyway, if you ever have any carseat questions, or need some reassurance about keeping your 12month + rear facing, check out this website. There's all kinds of neat things, including videos.
And, if you've got a SUV and need more space, check out www.littleseats.com they make 3rd row seats sized for kids!
THURSDAY, JANUARY 18, 2007
Rear Facing Carseats
I'm cleaning out my emails, LOL.
Megan is still rear-facing. At first, it was because she was not even 19lbs on her birthday. But staying rear facing for as long as possible can be a life saver. When Huey was less than a year, he was a chubby Buddha baby. Seriously! You'd never know it now, but he was a porker, LOL. The carseat said it went to 20lbs. The general rules out there back then said "20lbs or 1 year" when you turn them around. So we turned him around--which did help with his screaming :) Even though I usually think for myself in most aspects of parenting, I didn't have many options then--a few carseats went to 22lbs rear facing, but that was it. Now, carseats can go up to 30 or 35lbs rear facing!
We needed a new carseat for Megan, one that could go rear facing now, and forward facing as long as possible---until Huey meets the criteria for a regular seatbelt. I had heard a lot of good things about Britax seats, but you can't just go into Wal-Mart and pick one up. So we trodged down to Brampton to the baby safety store for a gate, last September or October, and looked at the seats. They didn't have many--most are at the Mississauga store. The Britax Roundabout was $250, and good rear facing till 33lbs, and forward facing till about 40lbs. It seemed expensive, but we'd be using it for at least 3 years I figured, and it was not that much more than other seats. But we couldn't get it that day.
So a while later, I sent Rob back down. First we looked on the website, and I saw the Marathon that was $300, and goes to 48lbs (the website says 65 lbs, but the guy in the store says Canadian guidelines say 48lbs. I think it would be hard to fit one of our skinny giraffes in it when they reach 65lbs--Huey is just over 50lbs, and I don't think he'd fit in), but he didn't want to spend $300, just for another 8lbs. He called the store, said he wanted to know which of the Roundabouts they had in stock (they come with some great fabrics!). The guy said "All of them" Which was odd, cause they only had one when we were there. So he goes with Lucy.
He comes home, walks in the door, and says "They charged me $300 for it!". I'm like, did you get the Roundabout, or the Marathon--the one you didn't want? Didn't you question why it was so much more than the website said?" No, no questions, Lucy picked out one she liked. He takes it out of the box--it is the Marathon. It is huge. Lucy could be using it still (and if we actually had the other old toddler seat, I'd put Lucy in the Marathon and Megan, rear facing, in the old seat). I said "Did you try it in the truck? That was the whole point of you going by yourself". Nope. It barely fits. It's a battle to get the other seatbelts done up. But Megan loves it. Never complains. Huey wants to keep her rear facing forever--it's very handy having older siblings, LOL.
Megan is still rear-facing. At first, it was because she was not even 19lbs on her birthday. But staying rear facing for as long as possible can be a life saver. When Huey was less than a year, he was a chubby Buddha baby. Seriously! You'd never know it now, but he was a porker, LOL. The carseat said it went to 20lbs. The general rules out there back then said "20lbs or 1 year" when you turn them around. So we turned him around--which did help with his screaming :) Even though I usually think for myself in most aspects of parenting, I didn't have many options then--a few carseats went to 22lbs rear facing, but that was it. Now, carseats can go up to 30 or 35lbs rear facing!
We needed a new carseat for Megan, one that could go rear facing now, and forward facing as long as possible---until Huey meets the criteria for a regular seatbelt. I had heard a lot of good things about Britax seats, but you can't just go into Wal-Mart and pick one up. So we trodged down to Brampton to the baby safety store for a gate, last September or October, and looked at the seats. They didn't have many--most are at the Mississauga store. The Britax Roundabout was $250, and good rear facing till 33lbs, and forward facing till about 40lbs. It seemed expensive, but we'd be using it for at least 3 years I figured, and it was not that much more than other seats. But we couldn't get it that day.
So a while later, I sent Rob back down. First we looked on the website, and I saw the Marathon that was $300, and goes to 48lbs (the website says 65 lbs, but the guy in the store says Canadian guidelines say 48lbs. I think it would be hard to fit one of our skinny giraffes in it when they reach 65lbs--Huey is just over 50lbs, and I don't think he'd fit in), but he didn't want to spend $300, just for another 8lbs. He called the store, said he wanted to know which of the Roundabouts they had in stock (they come with some great fabrics!). The guy said "All of them" Which was odd, cause they only had one when we were there. So he goes with Lucy.
He comes home, walks in the door, and says "They charged me $300 for it!". I'm like, did you get the Roundabout, or the Marathon--the one you didn't want? Didn't you question why it was so much more than the website said?" No, no questions, Lucy picked out one she liked. He takes it out of the box--it is the Marathon. It is huge. Lucy could be using it still (and if we actually had the other old toddler seat, I'd put Lucy in the Marathon and Megan, rear facing, in the old seat). I said "Did you try it in the truck? That was the whole point of you going by yourself". Nope. It barely fits. It's a battle to get the other seatbelts done up. But Megan loves it. Never complains. Huey wants to keep her rear facing forever--it's very handy having older siblings, LOL.
Anyway, if you ever have any carseat questions, or need some reassurance about keeping your 12month + rear facing, check out this website. There's all kinds of neat things, including videos.
And, if you've got a SUV and need more space, check out www.littleseats.com they make 3rd row seats sized for kids!
Monday, January 12, 2015
This is copied from my knitting blog, I wrote it June 10 2008. It was a Meme from Catbookmom.
What's the last book you read that you thought was really super, inspiring, you'd recommend it to most anyone?
Well, I don't read much anymore....there's a Reader's Digest and a Queen's Alumni magazine in the bathroom, LOL. I was really enthused with "Could it Be B12"....so much so that I wrote a long post about it here last year. Another book I recently 'read' was "Richistan" by Robert Frank, about 'new money' in the States. Okay, the only chapter I really read was the one on how wealth is affecting parenting, LOL. At the same time, I was also reading "The Simple Life" edited by Larry Roth. The funny thing---during this time, Oprah did her show on "Free-gans". I'm very big on voluntary frugalism. I hate seeing people live not only beyond their means, but beyond their needs. Sure, perhaps I don't need that whole yarn stash in the basement, LOL, but I've only bought a little yarn this year and some of that I've already used up! Another recent book was "The Children's Blizzard" (don't have the author info anymore). About a massive blizzard on Fri Jan 13, 1888 (or was it 1889?). The book went back in time and gave histories of the Nebraska/Dakota immigrants; their lives before emmigrating, their trips over, the years before the storm, and after. Also a lot of history on the US weather service.
What food totally grosses you out, you'd never be able to touch it? Ew. Gag. *hurl*
I don't do well with squishy. Or unusual. My family was always enthusiastic to try things like frogs, eels, small game.....I like fish pretty well, but don't like any seafood. Especially oyesters, clams, mussels, octopus.....that fleshy texture.....ick.
Is there a song that makes you dance every time you hear it? Would you tap you feet and sing along to it in public?
I'm definately a closet singer. And dance? Ha. However, Barbara listed Footloose. What's hilarious is that I was recently at Winner's (I think the US version is TJ Maxx), and Footloose came on the speakers. I saw two ladies, both older than me, dancing, and one of them was unabashedly singing! But then, in the purse section, were two younger ladies, and I overheard one say "I LOVE this song! It totally reminds me of "Romy and Michelle's High School Reunion"! LOL.
Tattoos: yes or no? Do you have any? Tell us! Do you think they're gross? TELL US.
I do not have any tattoos. I cannot think of anything that I want permanently penned on me, to follow me through the rest of my life. If I could come up with something representing music, or knitting, or Canada, I would do something small. But I don't know where. I don't think I'd want it visible to the public. It's almost becoming too trendy to have tats, and I'm feeling a little rebellious NOT having any!
Go through a stack or box of your old music. Stuff that you may not have heard in years. Pick one and tell us about it. Is it as good (or as bad) as you remember?
I do tend to listen to most of my music fairly frequently. I've REALLY slacked off in buying CDs though. I have quite a few that I keep only for a song or two, and I have a really ecclectic collection. One of my long-time favourites is Nanci Griffith "Little Love Affairs" but I'm also a big Mary Chapin Carpenter and Jann Arden fan. So much so, that I tried to get Rob on board with naming Megan "Arden". LOL. I love almost all my CDs, and even if I'm not a big fan of most of the album, I just can't part with any. They almost all have some sort of emotional attachment; the ones that don't do get parted with.
There, I did more than 3 questions. I don't know who to tag, because I'm slow on this one, and we all read the same blogs, LOL. So, if you haven't answered some personal questions in awhile, go to it!
What's the last book you read that you thought was really super, inspiring, you'd recommend it to most anyone?
Well, I don't read much anymore....there's a Reader's Digest and a Queen's Alumni magazine in the bathroom, LOL. I was really enthused with "Could it Be B12"....so much so that I wrote a long post about it here last year. Another book I recently 'read' was "Richistan" by Robert Frank, about 'new money' in the States. Okay, the only chapter I really read was the one on how wealth is affecting parenting, LOL. At the same time, I was also reading "The Simple Life" edited by Larry Roth. The funny thing---during this time, Oprah did her show on "Free-gans". I'm very big on voluntary frugalism. I hate seeing people live not only beyond their means, but beyond their needs. Sure, perhaps I don't need that whole yarn stash in the basement, LOL, but I've only bought a little yarn this year and some of that I've already used up! Another recent book was "The Children's Blizzard" (don't have the author info anymore). About a massive blizzard on Fri Jan 13, 1888 (or was it 1889?). The book went back in time and gave histories of the Nebraska/Dakota immigrants; their lives before emmigrating, their trips over, the years before the storm, and after. Also a lot of history on the US weather service.
What food totally grosses you out, you'd never be able to touch it? Ew. Gag. *hurl*
I don't do well with squishy. Or unusual. My family was always enthusiastic to try things like frogs, eels, small game.....I like fish pretty well, but don't like any seafood. Especially oyesters, clams, mussels, octopus.....that fleshy texture.....ick.
Is there a song that makes you dance every time you hear it? Would you tap you feet and sing along to it in public?
I'm definately a closet singer. And dance? Ha. However, Barbara listed Footloose. What's hilarious is that I was recently at Winner's (I think the US version is TJ Maxx), and Footloose came on the speakers. I saw two ladies, both older than me, dancing, and one of them was unabashedly singing! But then, in the purse section, were two younger ladies, and I overheard one say "I LOVE this song! It totally reminds me of "Romy and Michelle's High School Reunion"! LOL.
Tattoos: yes or no? Do you have any? Tell us! Do you think they're gross? TELL US.
I do not have any tattoos. I cannot think of anything that I want permanently penned on me, to follow me through the rest of my life. If I could come up with something representing music, or knitting, or Canada, I would do something small. But I don't know where. I don't think I'd want it visible to the public. It's almost becoming too trendy to have tats, and I'm feeling a little rebellious NOT having any!
Go through a stack or box of your old music. Stuff that you may not have heard in years. Pick one and tell us about it. Is it as good (or as bad) as you remember?
I do tend to listen to most of my music fairly frequently. I've REALLY slacked off in buying CDs though. I have quite a few that I keep only for a song or two, and I have a really ecclectic collection. One of my long-time favourites is Nanci Griffith "Little Love Affairs" but I'm also a big Mary Chapin Carpenter and Jann Arden fan. So much so, that I tried to get Rob on board with naming Megan "Arden". LOL. I love almost all my CDs, and even if I'm not a big fan of most of the album, I just can't part with any. They almost all have some sort of emotional attachment; the ones that don't do get parted with.
There, I did more than 3 questions. I don't know who to tag, because I'm slow on this one, and we all read the same blogs, LOL. So, if you haven't answered some personal questions in awhile, go to it!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
