Musings About Life... After Birth

YouareviewingentriesfromIntheNews

AresponsetoRonClark’s“Whatteachersreallywanttotellparents”

Posted by Janna on September 20, 2011

On September 6, 2011, an article by Ron Clark titled “What teachers really want to tell parents” was featured on CNN.com. I’m guessing most of you saw it because it seemed to harvest a lot of attention on Facebook and Twitter. If you missed it, I encourage you to take a look. Clark offers some important suggestions that, if put into practice, would serve our children well. 

In this article, Clark addresses what he believes are the key issues that are encouraging some really phenomenal teachers to leave the field of education. These issues are, in Clark’s opinion, due to problems with parent-teacher relationships and I gotta tell ya, he knows what he’s talking about. The challenges he mentions are real and they do make teaching more of a headache than it should have to be.

I’ve been in the field of education for six years, but right now I am taking a break as I re-evaluate my career path. There are a lot of things that I miss about being in the classroom…I miss middle schoolers. I miss the humor that can only take place inside of a school full of pre-pubescent kids. I miss opportunities to help struggling students master a new math skill. I miss exploring Greek Mythology and Shakespeare with my students. I miss working with the parents who went out of their way to help me help their children succeed.

Clark’s article, though, reminded me of what I do not miss about teaching.

For example, it is a pretty crappy thing when a parent refuses to hear something that you need them to know. Obviously, it is a problem if a student is uncooperative. Teachers need to try to help students choose to cooperate, but sometimes, even if a teacher is doing more than his or her part to keep students engaged in the lesson, some students will still choose not to cooperate. I know that I’ve done a million different things to foster student interest in my lessons. I’ve even been known to wear tap shoes to class and shuffe-shuffle-flap around the room to keep things interesting, but that didn’t stop some students from making poor choices, and when that happened I had to let their parents know. However, a lot of parents can’t handle it when you make that phone call to explain that their child is making that choice. As a result, there were many times when parents spouted off a laundry list of ridiculousness as to why it was my fault that their child was not being cooperative in the classroom instead of working with me to try to find a way to reach that kid.

And excuses were not only made for children who chose not to cooperate. I often heard them made in response to me calling to discuss behavior issues. Conversations such as this were not uncommon:

“Hi, Mrs. Jones. Do you have a minute to chat? I’m calling because I have a concern about Joey’s behavior today.” 

“Oh, he already told me about that. He says that he can’t behave because he is sitting next to Billy and that distracts him. He also told me that all the other boys in the class were misbehaving, but you didn’t discipline them. And he said that he was bored because he already knows how to multiply fractions and the way you were teaching it just confused him. And I forgot to remind him to take his medicine this morning. And we were running late, so I think that just threw him off today.”

Unfortunately, in the minds of some parents, those are all valid reasons to excuse poor behavior. Now, teachers should do what they can to prevent poor behavior in their classrooms, but even the very best classroom managers will have students who refuse to behave. And when students make poor choices, excuses being made for those choices are the last thing they need from the adults entrusted with their care.
I have also encountered parents who make excuses for their children earning poor grades instead of holding them accountable for being unprepared for assessments. If a student chooses not to study and earns a low score when they are definitely capable of a better grade, what does it teach them when mom or dad excuses that choice? I heard stuff like this on numerous occasions:

“Madeline couldn’t study because she left her book at school. And she has test anxiety (which does exist, but in my opinion is used as an excuse in too many cases). And she had an argument with her best friend yesterday, so she couldn’t concentrate. And she doesn’t like the desk you assigned her. And she couldn’t attend the tutorial you offered last week because she had basketball practice.”

Believe it or not, I even had one mother tell me her son flunked a test I gave because he didn’t have a bowel movement that morning before school. She requested that I give him a chance to re-take the test. I wanted to ask, “Are you shitting me, lady?”

As if those issues weren’t insane enough, I have also had parents attack and/or belittle me in front of their children. One occasion in particular comes to mind. We were doing a pretty cool geometry project that required the kids to each sketch a tessellation that would be used to create a fabric square for a class quilt. I cannot tell you how many times I reminded the kids to put their names on the back of these sketches. Despite my reminders, one sketch was turned in without a name and when I checked off the names of the kids who had turned them in, it became apparent that two students were missing their sketches.

I spoke to those two kids the next day to try to figure out what happened. They both swore adamantly that they had turned in sketches. I showed them the sketch that was missing a name and they both swore it was theirs. Clearly, one of them was not telling the truth and because I am not a mind reader, the only fair course of action I could figure to take was to require that they both redo the assignment. Neither boy was very happy about that, of course, but there was no other choice.

Later that day as I was getting ready to go home, a man in a black suit and tie stormed into my classroom. He blocked my doorway and yelled at me for over twenty minutes about how unfair I was and how his son hated school because of me making him redo the project and how I was obviously out to get his kid and how he couldn’t believe that I was certified to teach school because I was such a horrible and mean person. I was appalled when I noticed that hovering behind him was his son, who was looking rather smug while listening as his father berated me. After the father finished his rant, I explained the details of what really happened. In the shocker of the century, it turned out that his son actually left out some of the details and added some others that simply weren’t true. Once this father had the whole story, he apologized and said he would make sure that his son handed in a new sketch the next day. I suppose that it was nice that he apologized, but the damage was already done. Once a kid sees a teacher treated with such a lack of respect, how can he or she be expected to be respectful? Not surprisingly, this student was a behavior issue for the remainder of the school year. When students see their parents treat teachers with blatant disrespect, everyone’s educational experience suffers and teachers can’t do their jobs. It isn’t fair, especially to the children.

I have a child of my own. I understand those *mama bear* feelings that burst in a parent’s heart when they feel that their child has been unfairly treated. I understand that parents love their children with a beautiful fierceness. I understand that parents want their children to have the best of everything and that parents want to protect their children from feelings of hurt or disappointment. I understand all that, because I feel all of those things for my son. I also know from teaching these last few years, that I need to not let those feelings get in the way of forming positive and supportive relationships with the teachers who educate him, because kids don’t benefit from “parents vs. teachers” environments. However, they can flourish when parents and teachers support one another. And yes, there are some terrible teachers out there…but don’t forget that there are some truly amazing ones as well, and like Ron Clark, I believe that there would be a greater number of the amazing variety if more parents were supportive of their efforts.

MondayAgain?

Posted by Colleen on September 12, 2011

It's a rocky start over here, as I'm apparently out of coffee. Ouch. I thought about reverting to hot tea, but in one of my last bursts of organization inspiration I moved the bags I keep on hand to God knows where. (Stupid organization). So I'm basically hitting the ground running sans caffeine. Le sigh.

Here's wishing you all a full-loaded, productive, awesome week of wonderfulness. We have some great stories lined up, as well as some amazing giveaways. (And I mean really amazing. Like anyone-who-is-a-mom-would-elbow-her-bestie-in-the-face-for-a-chance-to-win amazing.)

PS. Want some other mom-related reading while I go scrape coffee grounds to munch on? Pop on over to YourTango, where I discuss Beyonce, Rachel Zoe, and foreplay. All in one post. What can I say, I gots skills.

Tags This entry has not been tagged yet.

VotewithYourMoney:Don’tMakeCaseyAnthonyaCelebrity

Posted by Colleen on July 27, 2011

Two of my hugest celeb crushes are on Tina Fey and Jen Lancaster. (Is that weird?) Seriously, if I ever get approved by the Make a Wish foundation based on my recurring case of writer's block, my wish is totally going to be a cocktail hour with these two hilarious ladies. 

If you don't read Jen Lancaster's blog, Jennsylvania, you're missing out. Go read it, and you're welcome. (Just remember to come back...I can spend hours on it.)

Jen's hilarious, but she sometimes puts up serious posts that are spot on, like this one.

I wrote a response to the Casey Anthony verdict for YourTango's LoveMom blog in which I tried to shed some light on Casey's situation as a young single mom. I have faith in our justice system but no law degree, so I can't freak out or comment intelligently on what happened. But I will say that I think it's terrible that Caylee isn't with us anymore, and I know that one way or another it's Casey's fault. Casey's not going to prison since the jury found her not guilty, but as the public's pretty much condemned her to a life lived under a cloud of hatred, and hopefully that will amount to justice in itself.

Unless, as many are predicting, our reality tv-obsessed, unlikely celebrity-creating, whacked out society decides to throw money her way. Which is where you come in.

Jen's post sends out a call asking Americans to join together in a boycott of anything giving Anthony financial gain for the death of her daughter, and I'm signing up. In the capitalistic society in which we live, sometimes the most powerful way to vote is with your money, and I would like to ask all our readers to make it a point to avoid putting blood money in Anthony's pocket.

Don't buy the book.

Don't see the movie.

Don't even turn Liftetime on the week her made for TV movie airs. (Anyone else predicting Jennifer Love Hewitt?)

Whether or not Anthony killed her daughter, she definitely didn't save her. Don't let her get rich for failing her daughter. I'll end my post with Jen's words.

"But if there's no audience, there's no money.

Think about it, won't you?"

Tags This entry has not been tagged yet.

ALettertoKateMiddleton:Please,please,no…

Posted by Colleen on July 26, 2011

Dear Duchess,

Congratulations on the wedding. You looked lovely. I didn't get up to watch it -- hello, three kids -- but, as I don't live under the rock, I feel like I got caught up pretty quickly. Leading up to the wedding, as you ran errands, you looked beautiful. As a bride you were stunning, and I've been really impressed with what you've worn since then. I think your style is flawless, and I love that -- odd headpieces aside -- you don't feel like you have to push the envelope of normal fashion in order to be fasionable. It works. And I'm impressed. And grateful, because I know you have a solid influence on fashion, and I'm really grateful that your influence balances out that of, say, Lady Gaga. Yin and Yang and all of that.

But girlfriend, I just read an article that said you are bringing back nude hose. If you're wearing them, then this is the truth. And I've seen pictures. Kate, I have to tell you, I feel personally betrayed. The fact that you are donning them in public is the butterfly flapping its wings that will cause a hurricane of stockings to descend on women the world over. I'm sure this time next year I'll own a few pairs, despite how wholeheartedly I rejoiced when they went out of vogue. Who am I to argue with fashion? And let's face it, Kate, you're fashion. 

I just thought it may be worth asking you to abort this mission, for the comfort of moms everywhere. Sure, I don't work in an office, so I may be able to dodge this trend for the majority of my week. I wear jeans most days, and I generally only get dressed up on Sundays. But by the time I've wrestled all three of my children safely across the hot parking lot and into the church building, I'm usually a hot mess. (I mean this both literally and figuratively.) The addition of hose, suffocating me with their clinging ickiness, will only put me into a worse mindset...a mindset not properly suited to worship. Do it for God, Kate. Take off the stockings.

Women who wear stockings are more likely to commit crimes, I'm convinced of it. Moms whose legs are free from these nylon tethers will be better parents. We'll be more happy and patient. Hose will bring women to violence, Kate, or at least a painful level of constant irritation. To cut this trend off at the pass would be a humanitarian effort, Lady. Think of all the discomfort you could singlehandedly alleviate by simply refusing to wear hose. It.could.be.beautiful.

In the name of compromise, I suggest that you begin using Jergen's Body Glow. Like nude hose it banishes the pastiness of an untanned leg, won't run, and doesn't feel like a parasite trying to consume its host. I'll be one of the first to support your cause. Or perhaps sclerotherapy for the masses? I'd be happy to be your poster child. 

Please? PLEASE?

Your palest friend, unable to don stockings without immediately running them,

Colleen

Tags This entry has not been tagged yet.

Toughtimes=fewerbabyboys

Posted by Chelsea on March 01, 2010

In some oddly interesting news, a recent study has revealed that news of impending large-scale unemployment results in fewer males being born. Here’s the deal:

The economic downturn has spawned a spate of scary statistics. How many jobs have been lost? How many people are unemployed, or underemployed? How large is the national debt?
As pundits pondered those data points, a group of University of California researchers were crunching a different set of disturbing numbers. Their unorthodox measure of how the threat of unemployment affects families is summed up by a disquieting question:

How many boys have not been not born?

To be precise, a research team from the University of California, Berkeley, School of Public Health calculated the number of frail male fetuses that were spontaneously aborted by mothers facing economic insecurity. Looking solely at the state of California between April 1995 and December 2007, they estimate the number is just over 3,000.

Their paper, “Selection in Utero: A Biological Response to Mass Layoffs,” has just been published in the American Journal of Human Biology. The researchers, led by Ralph Catalano and Claire Margerison Zilko, write that the previously reported health effects of economic insecurity may “represent only the tip of a more fundamental ‘adaptation iceberg.’”
Specifically, their research supports the argument that when women receive signals that times are tough, their bodies retain the tendency, shaped over thousands of years through natural selection, to reject offspring less likely to survive.

To our ancient ancestors, those signs would presumably be signals of impending drought or other natural disaster, which would indicate a coming food scarcity. Catalano and colleagues concluded the closest thing we have today is the announcement of mass layoffs at major employers, which impacts “the degree to which the larger population perceives a threat to its economic security.”

Such threats are bad news to small male fetuses because “a relatively large fraction” of them fall near “a critical rank below which gestations spontaneously end,” the researchers explain. If they are born, these small males are more likely to die than larger infants and females of equivalent size.

The researchers examined California’s ratio of male to female births from mid-1995 to the end of 2007 and compared it to the federal Labor Department’s monthly statistics on mass layoffs in the state. The government reports a mass layoff has taken place when 50 or more people file for unemployment insurance from a single company over five weeks.
After doing some complex calculations, they estimated that news of impending mass layoffs “predicted the loss of 3,090 males in utero” during the 61 months (out of the 141 they examined) in which unemployment claims exceeded the expected number.

The male-female birth ratio generally favors boys (who are born at a rate of about 1.05 for every female), but the ladies catch up later in life, since they tend to live longer than men. Catalano’s research touches on that issue as well. “Males from low sex-ratio birth cohorts appear to enjoy relatively longer life spans on average,” he and his colleagues write, “perhaps due to ‘culling’ of the frailest among them in utero.”

So, if these researchers are correct, periods of high unemployment and economic instability —like the era we are currently living through — produce fewer, but healthier, males. That has to be considered an unexpected economic indicator.

So, I guess if my husband and I decide to go for a third, and I really want a girl, the time to get movin’ is now, huh? Recession, schmession! Bring on the pink tutus!

Tags This entry has not been tagged yet.

Canyouspeak“nanny”?

Posted by Chelsea on February 03, 2010



In the Home & Garden section of today’s New York Times, there’s an article called “How to Speak Nanny”. The piece highlights the all-too-often communication breakdowns that can occur between mom and caregiver, and discusses why the mom/nanny relationship - especially ones in New York City - often involve a certain degree of strife.

As a mom who employs a part-time nanny, I of course found this major-league interesting. I also found it major-league annoying in that “ugh, the ridiculous crap that goes on in New York” kinda way. The stories of CEO Moms who passively aggressively communicate with their nannies, and the quotes from the “parenting consultants”....barf. It’s just too much. While I did find a decent amount of the article gross, I did find the central question of the article very, very interesting: When transferring some (or many) of their day-to-day mothering duties to another woman, how does it make moms feel? And, in turn, what do we do with those feelings? A “parenting consultant” (again, gag) in the article suggests that moms who give up a good portion of their child-rearing responsibilities to a nanny feel a certain degree of guilt about doing so, and therefore treating their nannies with a certain degree of contempt. And, it also seems, when they’re disappointed with their nanny’s performance - justifiably or otherwise - many moms fear speaking directly with their nannies (as they would any other employee) for fear that the nanny will take any anger she may feel towards the mother out on the kids instead.

Thoughts, ladies?

Photo courtesy of the New York Times

Tags This entry has not been tagged yet.

BigBro’sfuture?

Posted by Chelsea on January 07, 2009

There’s an article in today’s Washington Post about a 6-year-old boy who after missing the bus, elected to drive himself to school this morning. Sadly, some crap parenting seems to have likely been the precursor. The article says that the boy’s father was under a court order not to leave the 6-year-old and his 4-year-old brother alone with their mother at their home in the town of Wicomico Church, VA. But Dad left for work at 6:30 a.m., and Mom was still asleep when the 6-year-old missed the bus and then drove off at 7:40 a.m. for school. A court order not to leave the boys alone with their mom? Yikes. Fortunately, the authorities are on it: the parents were arrested and charged with felony child endangerment.

Thankfully, the poor kid, who was desperate to get to school so he wouldn’t miss breakfast (this makes me especially sad) and P.E., avoided injury, as did the other drivers he was sharing the road with. He crashed the car into a utility pole and, understandably, was majorly freaked out, but ultimately, fine.

Because the story ends relatively well (moron parents nonwithstanding), I can admit I find it rather hysterical. Especially the boy’s justification for getting behind the wheel:

“The sheriff said the boy told him that he had trained on video games such as Grand Theft Auto and Monster Truck Jam.”

Big Bro, though too young for Grand Theft Auto, is obsessed with monster trucks - especially the kids cartoon “Bigfoot Presents: Meteor and the Mighty Monster Trucks”. Monster Truck Jam video game, monster truck cartoon, what’s the difference? Will he, too, one day hop behind the wheel of my car and send it into motion, certain that he can handle it because of his “training”? He’s enough of a wild man that I’m sorta concerned that the answer is yes.

New Policy in the Kaplan home: television viewing is limited to “Handy Manny” only. 3-year-olds receiving premature training on fixing things: good, 3-year-olds receiving premature training on driving, bad.

Tags This entry has not been tagged yet.

18isenough.Reallyfolks,it’senough.

Posted by Chelsea on December 19, 2008

The top story on People.com today (yeah, I read it regularly): the birth of Jim and Michelle Duggar’s 18th child - and their desire to keep on havin’ more.

The Duggars, who reside in Tontitown, Ark., have 10 sons and eight daughters, ranging in age from 17 months to 20 years, all with first names starting with the letter J, including the newborn addition, Jordyn-Grace Makiya Duggar. They are featured on the TLC network show “17 Kids & Counting” (which will no doubt have its name updated to reflect the birth of No. 18). I guess Jon and Kate Plus Eight wasn’t hard core enough for some people, so they had to go with another clan of folks who think a house full of kids is a recipe for bliss. I don’t watch either show, but I do know of Jon & Kate. I watched it once, and was so put off by how disgustingly Kate treats Jon, I had to turn it off. I guess if I had eight kids and was with them all day, I would treat my husband like crap too, but still, she’s just too harsh - even for me.

Naturally, I have all sorts of thoughts on the Duggars. Here they are, broken into categories:

Michelle

1) Sister Michelle has been pregnant for 162 months. That’s 13.5 years. Jesus. Can you imagine all that heartburn? With all the Tums she must have consumed in her lifetime, I bet her bones are like iron.

2) I wonder if she just perennially shops in the maternity department. I mean, she must, right?

3) Does she even try to get back to her pre-pregnancy weight? Does she know what it is?

4) Her hormones must be yo-yo-esque. I would hate to be her husband - or her kids.

5) I bet her nails are kick-ass. With all those pregnancies, they must be killer.

Jim

1) Initially, I thought he must be really lucky in the sex department - with all those pregnancies, it seems like he and Michelle must get it on all the time. However, after more careful analysis, I have come to the conclusion that this poor dude actually has the worst sex life in America. He wife is always pregnant AND they have a messload of kids. Think she’s in the mood often? You catch my drift.

2) I’m thinking the “J” names of the kids are all to honor him, some weirdo narcissistic George Foreman kinda thing. If so, dude, that’s lame. I mean, you’ve spread your seed 18 times, Jim. Your genetic material is all over the place. There’s really no need to brand all of them with your initial to seal the deal, is there?

Jim and Michelle

1) These people are, without a doubt, on freaking crack. 18 kids? And they want more? I’m sorry, but that’s just flat-out weird. Even if you absolutely adore kids, when you have that many, you can’t really develop these deep, meaningful relationships with each of them. It’s just impossible. I guess the kids will end up having them with each other (or at least the ones closest in age to them), and that is of value, but that’s with each other, not Jim and Michelle. So why, people? Really? Are they just gluttons for punishment? So socially awkward that they have no friends and therefore had to create a whole community of people who had to hang out with them? Members of a weirdo religious cult? I think the latter. Michelle has that horrendous cult hair (read: unnaturally long and worn in some bizarre Little House on the Prairie ‘do), as do her teenage daughters. Definitely cult.

2) What do they drive to cart around all of those kids? I know having three kids means getting a minivan, and you all know I cringe at the thought of that. But seriously,  do they own a schoolbus?

3) Do you think they find out the sex of the baby before it’s born? I doubt it. I mean, with 10 of one sex and eight of another, do they really care? If they like to be surprised, when the baby comes out and the doctor announces its sex, do you think they’re like, “Oh, okay, cool. Whatever.”?

Things that make you go hmmmmmm….

Tags This entry has not been tagged yet.

ThemostshockingrevelationEVER!

Posted by Chelsea on September 24, 2008


The next thing you know, People will tell us that the sky is blue.

Clay Aiken: I’m a Gay Dad

By David Caplan

Following the Aug. 8 birth of his son Parker, singer Clay Aiken is following through on a promise he made to himself as a new dad: to publicly acknowledge that he’s gay.

“It was the first decision I made as a father,” Aiken, 29, tells the upcoming issue of PEOPLE, on newsstands Friday. “I cannot raise a child to lie or to hide things. I wasn’t raised that way, and I’m not going to raise a child to do that.”

Aiken says he expects the news may overwhelm some of his fans. “Whether it be having a child out of wedlock, or whether it be simply being a homosexual, it’s going to be a lot,” said Aiken, who returned to Broadway last week as Sir Robin in Monty Python’s Spamalot.

He adds that he hopes his fans “know that I’ve never intended to lie to anybody at all. ... But if they leave, I don’t want them to leave hating me.”

How He Came Out to His Family
The born-again Christian singer also reveals how he told his mother Faye he’s gay four years ago. After dropping off his younger brother Brett, who was being deployed to Iraq, at Camp Lejeune, “I started crying in the car,” Aiken remembers. “It was dark. I was sitting there, thinking to myself. I don’t know why I started thinking about it ... I just started bawling. She made me pull over the car and it just came out.”

So what was his mom’s reaction? “She started crying. She was obviously somewhat stunned. But she was very supportive and very comforting.” Even now, Aiken admits, “She still struggles with things quite a bit, but she’s come a long way.”

As for his own child, Aiken tells PEOPLE that Parker – who was conceived via in vitro fertilization with his best friend, music producer Jaymes Foster – will be raised in an environment that is “accepting and allowing him to be happy.”

Says Aiken: “I have no idea if he’ll be gay or straight. It’s not something I’ll have anything to do with, or that he’ll have anything to do with. It’s already probably up inside the code there ... No matter what the situation you’re in, if you’re raised in a loving environment, that’s the most important thing.”

So here’s my question: how could ANYONE on God’s green Earth who has any knowledge of Clay Aiken - much less his OWN MOTHER - be surprised by this? I mean, come on. He says his mom was “obviously somewhat stunned”. Obviously? Um, no, Clay. If you had told her you were marrying a woman, then she would have had a right to be “obviously stunned”.

For some hilarious alternative covers, click here.

Tags reality t.v., clay aiken

PresidentBushandtheRepublicanscouldgiveacrapaboutyourkids’safety

Posted by Chelsea on July 29, 2008

I don’t care if you’re a Democrat or a Republican - if you’re a parent and are anything but disgusted by President Bush and the Republicans, you’re not paying attention. Here’s the deal:

In today’s Washington Post, there’s an article about how yesterday, Congressional negotiators agreed to a ban on a family of toxins found in children’s products. This ban will include three types of phthalates, which are found in plastics (they make plastic softer and more durable) commonly used in children’s toys, and to outlaw three other phthalates pending a study of their health effects in children and pregnant women. Why? Well, phthalates act as hormones and cause reproductive problems, especially in boys. Federally funded research found that male babies born to women with high levels of phthalates in their blood exhibited low sperm count, undescended testicles and other reproductive problems. Other studies have connected some phthalates to liver and kidney cancer. For purposes of global comparison, the European Union banned the six phthalates in question from children’s products in 1999 and more than a dozen other countries have done the same.

In a mind-blowing response, White House spokesman Tony Fratto said that President Bush opposes this ban. I’m going to repeat this and make it bold, because I want to make sure everyone gets this: President Bush opposes banning plastics that are harmful to children and pregnant women.

This makes me so angry that I am shaking. Shaking. Do I even need to explain why?

Joining President Bush on the deplorably disgusting list: (no shocker here) Exxon Mobil, which manufacturers the phthalate most frequently found in children’s toys. The company spent a chunk of its $22 million lobbying budget in the past 18 months to try to prevent this ban and try to get people to believe that banning phthalates may inadvertently expose children to greater risks, because manufacturers will be forced to use substitute chemicals that may be even more hazardous. Let me get this straight, Exxon Mobil: the U.S. should so allow toxic chemicals to be placed in kids’ toys because there’s a chance that whatever we decide to replace them with might end up being toxic too? Um, I’m gonna go out on a limb here and recommend we just go right on ahead and get rid of the stuff we know is highly toxic, mmmkay? I have faith that on he next go-‘round we’ll make sure that sperm and kidney-destroying chemicals aren’t allowed into rubber duckies. Seriously, how do these people sleep at night?

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who sponsored the ban, said yesterday that the action is a first step toward moving the United States closer to the European model, where industry must prove the safety of a chemical before it is allowed on the market. Now seriously, doesn’t that make sense? Perhaps some prelim research prior to a chemical additive’s approval (as opposed to waiting until children suffer health consequences and THEN taking action) is a wise plan, no? Sadly, only the Democrats agree with her. Senate and House Republicans all voted against the ban, and you know why. Of course, the jerks at Exxon Mobil, etc. poured all kinds of obscene money into the Republicans’ re-election campaigns (check their campaign finance records - it’s publicly available info) in exchange for promises that they’d vote to oppose this ban. Really, how can we not be disgusted by the fact that our governmental representatives can and are willing to be bought at the expense of our safety - ESPECIALLY that of our kids?

If you’re a regular reader of this blog, you know that do not hide the fact that I am a liberal. To me, however, this shouldn’t a partisan issue; liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican, parent or not, you should support a ban on using toxic ingredients when making kids’ toys. The record is clear, though: the lawmakers against this ban are Republicans, and the ones supporting the ban are Democrats.

We must keep this in mind when we vote this November.

 

Tags This entry has not been tagged yet.

Page 1 of 3 pages  1 2 3 >

    Follow Me on Twitter!
    Subscribe to The Momtourage’s regular features

    Click on the icon below to get The Momtourage™ content updates through your feed reader whenever we update our site.

    Learn more about RSS feeds.

    Blog Feed

    Check Chelsea out on XM Radio!
    My Current Obsessions
    • The Kiefer CottageThe Kiefer Cottage
      Meet the Kiefers: a quirky, lovable family of five on a quest to transform their 1940s Kansas City bungalow into the house of their dreams. The budget is small, the dreams are big, the creativity is inspiring. Check them out - you can thank us later. Happy reading, everybody!
    • Mrs. Meyer’s Clean Day® All Purpose CleanerMrs. Meyer’s Clean Day® All Purpose Cleaner
      I don't understand gals who claim to loooove cleaning. That said, I do get a certain joy from using Mrs. Meyer's Clean Day® All Purpose Cleaner to care for my home. You can't lose with this stuff...it is hard-working & earth-friendly, and will leave your abode smelling like a day spa instead of a chemical spill. Try Lemon Verbena in the kitchen and Basil in the bathroom. At only $7.99 a bottle, you can afford to pick up both!
    • True BloodTrue Blood
      Um, does this even need a caption? Doubtful, but let me just say that this is the hottest hour on television. Vampires are seriously sexy (especially Eric), and on this show you get to see a lot of them--if you get what I mean. Put the kids to bed and flip the channel to HBO on Sundays at 9 p.m. to taste the fun that is True Blood.
    • Valentino Bow Thong SandalsValentino Bow Thong Sandals
      So comfy and feminine, I know I'd wear them all summer. But dang, that much money for jellies? Possibly worth the splurge. $275, nordstrom.com
    • New Balance Kids’ Sneakers in wide sizesNew Balance Kids’ Sneakers in wide sizes
      My boys have wide feet, which means finding cute shoes for them is tough. These, however, rock. Prices vary, visit nbwebexpress.com to purchase.
    • Zoya “Laurie” Nail PolishZoya “Laurie” Nail Polish
      This sheer pink polish is, without question, the PERFECT nude pink. Plus, the polish is free of formaldehyde, toluene, camphor and dibutyl phthalate (read: yucky crap that isn't really safe for prego gals). $6, enailsupply.com.