Archive for October, 2008

28
Oct

Staying Abreast with the NBCI: A Resource for New Mothers

One of the most rewarding aspects of parenthood for me is breastfeeding. The sight of my daughter asleep at the breast fills me with an incredible sense of closeness to her – and with the knowledge that the milk I provide her is contributing to her physical and psychological health. But breastfeeding hasn’t been all smooth sailing for me. In the first few days of her life, I was hampered by the after-effects of an emergency caesarean section, difficulty positioning the baby comfortably at the breast due to an IV in her arm, and an unsupportive nurse at the hospital where I was staying (in fairness, the other staff members were very helpful). My milk also did not come in fully until four days postpartum. By the time of her ten-day check-up, however, my daughter was gaining weight on schedule, and I continued to nurse her exclusively for the next six months. She still takes the breast now, though she has been eating solid food as well for the last year or so.

Unfortunately, many women facing problems like mine end up abandoning breastfeeding long before they had planned. While nursing may be natural, for humans – and our closest relatives on the evolutionary scale, such as gorillas and chimpanzees – it does not come instinctively. It is a learned skill. Therefore it is important for women with breastfeeding difficulties to have sources to which they can turn for help. One such source is the Newman Breastfeeding Clinic & Institute in Toronto.

The Newman Breastfeeding Clinic & Institute – heretofore called the NBCI – is run by Edith Kernerman, an International Board Certified Lactation Consultant, and Dr. Jack Newman, an internationally renowned breastfeeding authority. He graduated in medicine from the University of Toronto and has worked at hospitals in Canada – including Toronto’s Hospital for Sick Children – Central America, New Zealand and South Africa. They each have several publications. Some they have authored jointly, including a DVD, Dr Jack Newman’s Visual Guide to Breastfeeding, with Edith Kernerman and Jack Newman. Edith Kernerman is author of the GamePlan for Protecting and Supporting Breastfeeding in the First 24 hours of Life and Beyond and co-author of the L-eat latch and transfer tool. Dr. Newman has several books and videos on breastfeeding to his credit which have been translated into a number of languages. Although I had looked at the NBCI’s website (www.drjacknewman.com), I felt I could not properly write an article about the place until I had seen it myself. So one Monday morning I hopped on the subway and paid a visit to the NBCI.

The NBCI is housed in the building of the Canadian College of Naturopathic Medicine on the corner of Leslie Street and Sheppard Avenue East just steps from the Leslie subway station. Located at the end of a long hallway, the clinic portion of the NBCI does not have a lobby or front desk but rather a series of rooms and offices. As I walked down the hall, I was greeted by the sound of squalling infants (I am exaggerating a bit here) being weighed and examined. The homey atmosphere was further reinforced by a kangaroo-and-joey puppet on Dr. Newman’s bookshelf. The kangaroo of course symbolizes kangaroo care, a method of caring for infants – often those born prematurely – which emphasizes close contact with their mothers and promotes breastfeeding.

Behind this cozy exterior, however, lies a vast wealth of expertise. The bookshelves in the clinic office contain copies of Dr. Newman’s Guide to Breastfeeding (www.drjacknewman.com); The Latch and Other Keys to Breastfeeding Success, which he co-wrote with parenting author Teresa Pitman; and the DVD Dr Jack Newman’s Visual Guide to Breastfeeding, with Edith Kernerman and Jack Newman. The NBCI also includes a Centre of Excellence that trains lactation consultants – health care workers who help women with breastfeeding – as well as physicians, nurses and other medical professionals who want to learn more about the process. The Centre’s training consists of a yearlong part-time in-class course plus hands-on clinical experience, after which the graduates receive the NBCI diploma.

The NBCI sees about 16 to 20 women a day who are having difficulty breastfeeding. Most of these mothers are referred by doctors or midwives; Ms. Kernerman sees this as a good opportunity to educate health professionals about the lactation process. The women, and their babies, receive assistance from one or more of the clinic’s eight lactation consultants and counsellors and from one of their directors, Jack Newman or Edith Kernerman (the NBCI also has three administrative staff members). The problems these women face include sore nipples, insufficient milk, poor latch on the baby’s part, and baby’s refusal of the breast. A key component of helping these mothers, Kernerman says, is ensuring that the baby is latched on properly at the breast and actually drinking milk rather than simply sucking on the nipple. Among the tools the clinic uses to help the mother accomplish this is breast compression, whereby the breast is pressed so that milk flows from it more readily. This allows the baby to drink more.

In over 90% of cases where babies are not taking the breast partially or at all, NBCI staff achieve their goal of getting babies to latch on to and drink from the breast; considering that its clients are sent there as a last resort, this figure is particularly impressive. Most of these women go on to breastfeed successfully. The problem of “not enough milk” is generally often resolved as well, especially as most complaints in this regard stem not from the mother’s inherent inability to produce milk but from mismanagement of the breastfeeding process.

A subject of personal interest to me was the NBCI’s work with adoptive mothers. A little known fact is that with the right guidance, women who adopt children can produce milk for them. Ms. Kernerman explains the clinic’s protocol for adoptive mothers. First, the woman is prescribed an oral contraceptive before the baby’s arrival in order to “fool” the body into thinking that a pregnancy is occurring. She then takes a milk-stimulating medication called Domperidone (originally developed as an anti-vomiting remedy). After approximately three months (depending on how much lead time there is before the baby is due to arrive), the birth control pill is stopped, and the future mother begins pumping her breasts. Once the baby comes in her care, the woman may have some or a lot of milk. The important thing is that she will be able to breastfeed, even if the amount of breast milk that will be there cannot be known until the baby is actually on the breast. It is important to note that although in many cases adoptive mothers cannot expect to meet all of a child’s nutritional needs, both can enjoy the emotional closeness breastfeeding offers and, from the baby’s vantage point, the physical benefits of any breast milk he or she does obtain (the same can be said too of the small percentage of biological mothers who are genuinely incapable of producing a full milk supply). If I ever choose to expand my family through adoption, I just might just use the NBCI’s services.

As I was getting on the subway after leaving the clinic, I ran into a young woman with an adorable little baby in a sling. They had just been to the NBCI too. Apparently the mother had had difficulty getting her baby to take the breast; until then she had pumped milk for him and given it to him in a bottle. When I asked her what she thought of the advice she was given at the clinic, she said it could not have been better.

Unfortunately, my upbeat story ends on a somewhat sombre note. Despite all the good work it does, the NBCI is facing a funding crisis. It is losing the private sponsorship it has enjoyed until now (it stopped receiving public funds in 2005). So consider making a donation to the Newman Breastfeeding Clinic & Institute. Remember, higher breastfeeding rates mean fewer sick children and hence lower public expenditure on childhood illnesses. You can direct your contribution to NEWMAN BREASTFEEDING CLINIC at www.canadianbreastfeedingfoundation.com or call 416-498-002. The donation is processed through the CanadaHelps.org foundation. Thank you for your support.

Sphere: Related Content

24
Oct

Final Thoughts on the 2008 US Election

After months of research, I know where this site’s bread is buttered in terms of traffic and it sure as hell isn’t political discussions. Alas, the US election is fascinating, if only because of the substantive message behind its lack of substance. Below is a collection of points originally posted at Jack’s Newswatch. My regards to all the admirable souls at Jack’s who endured and subsequently challenged/refined these opinions …

Hidden Agendas: Has Barrack Obama “Changed his Spots” for this Election?

I don’t think he has, but what were those spots to begin with? If you’re an aspiring black politician, you’ve got two basic ways to get into the game -

1) Faux civil rights crusader for the left wing
2) Token attack dog for the right wing against faux civil rights crusaders

Without delving into which which works better, the advantage to #1 is a captive black vote – especially if you are a great orator. The hard left basically usurped the Booker T Washington approach to attaining equality and replaced it with a self-pitying, government-dependent approach. Their underlying message of “it’s not your fault” of course resonates with a community in terrible economic shape and whose previous attempts at independence were intentionally thwarted. Their message? “Under Marxism, you will live just as well as THEM”.

One person this would not resonate with, at least empathetically, is Barrack Obama. He is half-white, well-educated, well-traveled and has generally enjoyed a better quality of life than nearly the entire world population. He does understand, however, how to attain power. He knows that in order to get the black vote you need to show the whip marks on your back, and in order to get the white liberal vote you need to say “those whip marks don’t matter – we can CHANGE the future”.

Obama was implicitly through with the likes of Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, and Acorn the moment he went mainstream and appeared to be giving Hillary Clinton a good run for Democratic nominee. When Rev. Wright wouldn’t shut up Obama dumped him explicitly. There are several such stories from his Chicago days and I’m surprised no one’s highlighted them.

Obama’s a politician, not a marxist or a race-radical … or a messianic agent of change. Frankly, I don’t know why he doesn’t chase real money by becoming a CEO or Televangelist, but that’s his choice. His record proves but one thing – he’ll imply what you want to hear to get your vote and provide enough loopholes to back out when he needs to impress the next set of people. Classic lawyer. Expect many exposes from jilted ex-associates in the coming years.

Underwhelming Choices: How did this Election Boil Down to McCain vs. Obama?

Obama - Black Swan (read the link – I’m not trying to be a smart ass!!). I believe the DNC planned for Hillary to take the crown and defeat the GOP with ease. They did not count on the ground swell of grassroots support for Obama, who tapped into liberal angst and their desire for a non-politician looking politician. Both Obama and Ron Paul (his right wing, wild-eyed equivalent) cashed in large via small internet donations and have an army of unflinching acolytes.

McCain - To win the GOP nomination McCain defeated a cross-dressing serial divorcee, a reclusive Mormon, a congressman turned TV actor who essentially plays himself, a Baptist preacher who is unafraid to talk about his trailer park roots and a conspiracy-minded maverick who inspired the makers of Zeitgeist. It’s fair to say that the GOP -love them or not- did not supply their A-list for this election. Odds are the A-listers, or at least those with hopes for a long and fruitful career, had no interest in presiding over the Bush legacy (record debt, infinite wars, international infamy, broken markets). A subsequent GOP president would be taking the fall for America’s woes – there’s no point in detractors attacking Bush since he won’t be running again. The point? The GOP, deep down, doesn’t even expect to win and if they do they do not want any of their real bright stars to live in infamy. Why not choose McCain, who’s at least 8 years past his prime? Same logic applies to a VP, so why not select an obscure governor willing to squander her integrity on WWE style jingoism? Maybe she can even out-star Obama. Meanwhile the real brains of the GOP have headed for the hills of bipartisanship, ready to return when the carnage of this failed election / failed presidency is over. McCain is a sacrificial lamb, whether or not he wins.

Is it Time to Return to Old-Fashioned Values in America?

The old way of life had serious problems as well. It would be to America’s detriment to return to days gone by. The real solution is the least appealing one – trying something new. Socialist systems have proven economically disastrous while Classical liberalism (which is now called conservatism) was never designed to accommodate corporations, globalization or complex financial instruments. The type of Christianity practiced by many Americans (which I do not believe represent the views of entire Christian world) would lead to a second civil war if enshrined at the government level. All of the aforementioned systems may have good elements, but none can be adopted wholesale – they were developed for simpler times.

What about Sarah?

Sarah Palin I do not trust. She may connect with many Americans but not the kind whose empowerment has taken America down a very good path. Of course she may be a total wind-up like Obama (can’t believe so many people think he’s actually going to turn America socialist) but to her followers … it’s real. There will be consequences for making gay rights and abortion front-row issues during an economic meltdown and massive shift of capital eastwards.

Many conservatives claim that Palin has been unfairly trivialized by the media. The only seriously petty attack I’ve seen in mainstream sources is the recent one about her campaign-financed wardrobe. The GOP can do whatever it wants with its own campaign money. If they really think they’re going to get some lift (no pun intended!) from spending $150k on clothes vs $20k that’s their business. This is far less important than Palin’s willingness to break with McCain’s stances on gay marriage.

Are Blacks Being Racist by Overwhelmingly Supporting Obama?

1) Blacks vote 90% Democrat, regardless of candidate.
Current estimate of support for Obama = 95%
95% – 90% = 5%
Obama has received a maximum of 5% from from the “brothas”.
In terms of swinging the election, the effect is 13% (black population) * 60% (vote rate for adult blacks in 2004) * 5% (Extra votes for Obama over Democrat Norm) = 0.39% of population. I don’t think John McCain is losing sleep over this issue.

2) Previous black candidacy runs …
a) Jesse Jackson (DEM): Failure at party level; Negligible black vote
b) Alan Keyes (REP): Failure at party level; No known black vote
c) Ezola Foster [VP] (Reform): Failure at national level; No known black vote
d) Al Sharpton (DEM): Failure at party level; Negligible black vote

3) African-Americans != Americans from Africa
These two groups don’t get along. Former stereotypes latter are savages. Latter stereotypes former are violent and lazy. Race does not imply ethnicity or culture.

4) Voting Obama over Palin = No Brainer when Palin (oops, must have meant to say McCain) is using a Southern Strategy.

Who is going to Win this Election?

The polls are completely unreliable. In the same day FOX reported Obama having a 9 point lead and later that the candidates were dead even. If I were betting I’d put $100 on McCain since so many people think Obama has it in the bag. The winnings would be phenomenal.

Sphere: Related Content

12
Oct

Movie Review: Zeitgeist Addendum


Title: Zeitgeist Addendum
Release: 2008
Genre: Documentary
Run Time: 123 Minutes
Author: Peter Joseph
Rating: 73%
URL: http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/ (watch online)

The word “Addendum” implies a small addition or expansion of a larger body of work. Clocking in at 2 hours and 3 minutes, Zeitgeist Addendum is a full-fledged sequel to Zeitgeist the Movie rather than a mere addendum. “Zeitgeist 2” picks up where its predecessor left off by launching a detailed explanation on the mechanics behind the monetary system and fractional reserve banking. Using the American economic system for its examples, the brooding narration explains how the central bank issues notes to the government for deposit in commercial banks, who in turn loan a large fraction of these deposits to consumers. The explanation of money purely as an instrument of debt seems philosophically valid, if not a little cynical. Filmmaker Peter Joseph’s view of the monetary system as both a pyramid scheme and a form of organized slavery serves as a basis for the remainder of the film.

Screenshot from Zeitgeist AddendumThe second phase of the movie features a long interview with John Perkins, author of “Confessions of an Economic Hitman”. Perkins outlines the role and evolution of the so-called economic hitman – a private or public sector agent who corrupts foreign leaders and economies to enable cheap access to national resources. Foreign leaders who do not comply with agents of the corrupting nation (typically from the West) are typically assassinated and replaced with a more “business-friendly” regime. Perkins cites the Iranian coup of 1953 and subsequent installation of the Shah as the first true economic hit while citing Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein and Panamanian president Omar Torrijos Herrera (who signed the bill transferring the Panama Canal from American control) as examples of leaders who refused to be corrupted and were subsequently killed.

Visions of Utopia

Part three and four of the movie deal with The Venus Project, a visionary design for a resource-based economy whose proponents believe all of humanity’s problems can be solved by technology. In such world, the representatives claim, all humans can be fed, housed and otherwise placated by the abundant resources available in a society that uses technology to cater to social needs rather than military or capitalistic objectives. This portion of Zeitgeist Addendum is the most challenging to watch – not just because it is too long, but also because it mixes equal portions of science fiction (e.g. magnetic levitation tube trains traveling 4000 miles/hour), societal absurdities (e.g. no need for laws since every human’s economic needs to be met with technology and there will be no need to commit crime) and genuinely good ideas (e.g. harnessing solar, wind, wave, tidal and geothermal power to minimize or eliminate dependency on fossil fuels).

Screenshot from Zeitgeist AddendumFocus returns to the monetary system, citing its inherent corruption as the primary reason why societies similar to that outlined by the Venus Project aren’t possible. After once again maligning the banking system as the root of all human woe, Zeitgeist Addendum offers a surprisingly practical list of what the average person can do to exploit the current financial chaos for social transformation. Among the suggested measures are divestment from America’s three largest banks, boycotting mainstream media sources in favour of independent news sources, avoiding military service (extra focus was placed on the effect of post-traumatic stress disorder on Gulf war veterans) and removing from the energy grid.

You’re Either With us or Against us

The movie closes with a stark choice for the viewer – remain a materialistic slave of the monetary system and its divisionary institutions or discover truth and oneness by joining the Zeitgeist movement. The accompanying dramatic sequence depicts a series of business, military and religious people throwing down the symbols and tools of their respective institutions before looking to the sky and embracing a re-colorized earth.

Timing can mean everything to a movie’s success and Joseph chose the perfect time to release Zeitgeist Addendum. The monetary system is in retreat worldwide while defaults skyrocket among consumers and once-unshakable mega-corporations. One narrative at the end of the movie should resonate with even the hardest critic of anti-establishment sentiment:

As of now, the world financial system is on the brink of collapse, due to its own shortcomings. The comptroller of currency stated in 2003 that the interest on the U.S. national debt will not be affordable in less than 10 years. This theoretically means total bankruptcy for the U.S. economy and its implications for the world are immense. In turn, the fractional reserve-based monetary system is reaching its theoretical limits of expansion and the banking failures you are seeing is just the beginning. This is why inflation is skyrocketing, all debt is at record levels, and the government and fed are hemorrhaging new money to bail out the corrupt system – for the only way to keep the banks going is by making more money. The only way to make more money is to create more debt and inflation. It is simply a matter of time before the tables turn and there is no one willing to take new loans while defaults grow, as people are unable to afford their current loans. Then the expansion of money will stop and contraction will begin on a scale never before seen.
-Narration, Zeitgeist Addendum

Sadly, Zeitgeist Addendum devalues such timely and thought-provoking observations with the same dishonest recitation and logical leaps that earned its predecessor the “conspiracy theory” label from skeptics.

  • Yes-Yes persuasion. This subtle but effective technique starts with reciting two or more verifiable/probable statements and forcing a conclusion on the plausibility of the previous statements. While a decent argument can be made that debt and interest will inevitably force some foreclosures in any society, one cannot therefore assume that the banks INTEND to bankrupt people and hold them to any kind of modern bondage. In truth, bankruptcy is bad news for the modern bank because most of the assets purchased with consumer debt have limited resale value … and of course the bank is out of the money it loaned. People in many U.S. states can legally walk away from their homes without legal penalty. Furthermore, the existence of a relationship between government and business does not imply premeditation, and in the case of the current sub-prime meltdown even most bankers were not aware of the exposure presented by mortgage-backed securities. If there exists a conspiracy to enslave humanity and consolidate power, it’s proving a colossal failure.
  • Willful omission. Attacking banks as omnipotent forces of profit may be fair game, but who owns the banks? The majority of banks are publicly held, traded on the open market. Huge contributors include pension funds, mutual funds and exchange-traded funds. The ultimate owners of these funds are the same “wage-slaves” said to be indirectly working for the bank, regardless of their actually occupation. With few exceptions, the slave does not own the farm. The recent collapse of Lehman Brothers did not result in mass freedom but did wipe out thousands of average people’s retirement savings.
  • Drive-by accusations. Alarming accusations and insinuations are placed amid factual statements without elaboration or future reference. While defining terrorism, the narrator claims that the organization Al Qaeda never existed, with the name referring to a database created by American operatives. Another passage insinuates that 9/11 was executed by American forces as a pretext to invade Afghanistan and revive the opium trade.

Shaman or Charlatan?

Screenshot from Zeitgeist AddendumZeigeist Addendum’s core message is somewhat contradictory. Firstly, the narrator suggests divesting from the three largest banks as a form of protest, but wouldn’t reinvesting those funds in alternative firms perpetuate the same fractional reserve system? All banks in a nation hold deposits with the same central bank – that’s why it’s a CENTRAL bank.

Secondly, the film suggests joining The Zeitgeist Movement to attain critical mass and inform the world that resources should be free for all of mankind to use. This, the narrator claims is “the only true sustainable solution”. Previously, the film dismissed the world’s major religions (Islam, Christianity and Hinduism) as closed-world views. Why, then, wouldn’t this criticism hold true for a movement promoting the inalienable truth of environmentally-conscious collectivism?

Thirdly, the film states several times that politicians cannot solve humanity’s problems since they are controlled by the same few corporations. These statements are accompanied by flashing images of Democrat/Republican symbols and pictures of the 2008 presidential candidates. However, the film also flashes a picture of failed Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul when speaking of honest politicians who are sidelined by the system. Paul also appears in a C-SPAN clip, sternly questioning FRB Chairman Ben Bernanke. How do we know Ron Paul isn’t also controlled by the same corporations, provided as a distraction to create the illusion of dissidence?

With such gaping inconsistencies in mind, who should watch this film? In some respects, everyone should view this film because it at least challenges our understanding of and allegiance to the social institutions we rarely question. The high points of this film are the initial explanation of fractional reserve banking and entire economic hitman segment – both can be easily verified and/or criticized. The rest is somewhat pie in the sky to this cold pragmatist but can stoke the imagination of more eccentric types. Like Zeitgeist the Movie, Zeitgeist Addendum is primarily a conversation starter, but now the presentation is a bit slicker and the content more relevant to current events.



Sphere: Related Content

03
Oct

Having an Only Child

The other day my mother and I were sorting through my daughter’s old baby clothes. We put them in two piles, one for things she could wear in the upcoming months and another for those she had already outgrown. We debated what to do with the second pile of clothing: should we give it to my brother and sister-in-law, who are considering having a third child; send it out West to my newly married cousin and his wife; or donate it to the Salvation Army or some other charity? For now we’re keeping it on hold. One option that didn’t come up, though, was saving it for me in case I have another baby. It suddenly struck me: my daughter Gabriella Michelle will probably be my only child.

I didn’t deliberately set out to have only one child. Over the years my ideas on family size have changed. When I was young, I wanted four children, just like my mother’s family of origin with her, my aunt and their two brothers. Then I entered a “the-world’s-too-awful-to-bring-children-into” phase (it’s called adolescence). After I got engaged in college, my then-fiancé and I pictured a family of two children, a girl and a boy. But eventually I came to like the notion of an only child. This preference was driven home to me by various babysitting experiences and, more recently, by an outing to the park with my daughter, my brother and his two kids. I remember desperately trying to keep Gabriella and my nephew, both fourteen months, in my field of vision as they scampered off in different directions while my brother tended to my niece. To make the story short: I wished I were a bird (most birds have a 360-degree field of vision). I realize I can’t handle more than one small child at once.

An alternative to having an only child is waiting six years or so for when my daughter is no longer so dependent on me. Given that I’m forty years old now, however, by that time there’s a good chance I’ll either be infertile or, in the event of a pregnancy, at higher risk of problems like miscarriage or Down syndrome. There are other options besides the so-called “natural way,” namely reproductive technologies and adoption. I’ve never seriously considered the first: while I’m by no means against reproductive technologies, what might be appropriate for, say, a childless couple in their thirties would not feel right for me, a woman over forty with a biological child.

On the other hand, I have looked into adoption more closely. But my chances of expanding my family this way also seem slim. Foreign adoption is expensive, not only in terms of fees for the process itself but in wages lost from time taken off work to travel to the country in question. In addition, my age, marital status (I’m in a so-called “visiting relationship” but not legally married), and the fact I already have a biological child would probably place me at the bottom of a prospective adoptive parents list. I’ve explored domestic adoption as well. Unfortunately, most of the kids available here in Canada have emotional and/or developmental problems due to neglect, prenatal exposure to alcohol, etcetera, and I don’t personally feel capable of raising a child with these kinds of issues. (Of note, I once ended a relationship with a man with manic depression partly for fear any children we would have might inherit his condition.) On one website I examined there was a single child I would have considered adopting – a beautiful East Indian girl with a purely physical handicap – but lo and behold, the next time I checked the site she was gone, placed with a family. And I’m sure that if I had applied to take her I would have been competing with other families viewed as more suitable than me, for the reasons mentioned above.

So now I basically have accepted that I’ll probably have only one child in this lifetime. Most of the time, I think of the positives in this. They include being able to spend more time with my daughter, in volunteer activities, and at solitary endeavours such as writing this article. The extra time with my daughter has created a special closeness between us (not that parents with two or more children can’t be close to each one of them). For me, it’s not so much the “quality moments” that I cherish but rather the simple things like singing with her as I do the dishes, carrying her around the neighbourhood in my “pouch” (Baby Bjorn), and reading her the stories she loves. I also appreciate the fact I don’t have to deal with trying to divide myself between two small children who both need my attention, worrying about money, or breaking up sibling squabbles. Don’t get me wrong: I admire people like my brother and sister-in-law who can handle two or more small children at one time. I just don’t know if I could do the same.

With any decision, whether it’s living without children, having only one child, or reproducing a la Michelle Duggar, there are pros and cons. On the rare occasion I’ll get the urge for a second baby, small and sweet like my little girl. My biggest questions, however, have to do with my daughter herself. Am I harming her by depriving her of a brother or sister? My mom once told me the good thing about siblings is that they are still there when your parents are gone. One book called siblinghood the longest-lasting bond. On the practical side, if I become incapacitated in my old age will my daughter resent not having someone else to share the burden of caring for me with? Overall, though, I’m confident she’ll be fine. I’ve researched the academic literature on the effect of being an only child versus having siblings, and it’s been fairly reassuring: some studies show only children do better than their peers; others suggest they suffer disadvantages; and still more find no difference between the two groups.

Of course my lifestyle is not for everybody. Though I don’t like societal attitudes that label parents of onlies as “selfish” or only children as “spoiled brats,” I don’t have any problem with the two-child family being the norm. And my situation could change. I might find myself in a new relationship and choose to have a child to cement it. Maybe my daughter will demand a brother or sister. Or I could develop a sudden craving for another baby for no reason at all. (Of note, I haven’t had a tubal ligation, so the possibility of having a biological child is probably still open to me for another three or four years). But in all likelihood I will remain a mother of one, and I am content with this.

Sphere: Related Content

02
Oct

Initial Thoughts on the Two Great Debates

Why choose between watching the American Vice Presidential debates and the Canadian party debates when you can try to watch both at the same time? Luckily they were both so low-octane (strangely the Canadian one was the more exciting of the two) that watching both was possible. Some initial thoughts:

Canadian Debate: Stephen Harper vs. Stephane Dion vs. Jack Layton vs. Elizabeth May vs. Gilles Duceppe

In terms of noteworthy points and straightforward delivery, Duceppe won this debate … for the second English election in a row. He’s truly playing for the wrong team.

Dion has shown his real problem … he’s too nice. He waited his turn, asked not to be interrupted and verged on breaking down when attacked (most of his time was spent on the defensive). Harper truly had his way with Dion and was clearly trying to keep that soft, grandfatherly voice to match the woolly sweaters he’s taken a liking to as late. Elizabeth May was arguing like a lawyer, speaking over people and going for the quick knockout punch. Layton was a shark, going relentlessly after Harper and providing a few sideswipes towards Dion.

Best Swipe: Stephen Harper, when accosted about possible support of private care, points out he was the only candidate who has never used a private health care facility. The opposition simultaneously scrambled.

Second Best Swipe: Gilles Duceppe, who showed a photographic memory throughout the debate, responded coolly to Layton’s Afghanistan war rant that Canada would be out of the nation in four months if the NDP had bothered to vote against the extension when the Bloc and Liberals did so.

Harper’s Weakest Moment: Speaking about the arts. This is understandable given his party is deep in controversy concerning his cuts to certain arts programs. Where Duceppe acted like a starving artist in his emotional response (his family owns a theatre) and Dion outlined the makings of a plan, Harper meandered on about how some members of his families paint and how he plays the piano. Ultimately, he was trailing off.

Strategic Winner of the Debate: Elizabeth May. She went for the jugular and brought up a lot of points that no one else raised, like how The CPC’s environmental policies are based on intensity targets. May had the most to gain and did so admirably. May correctly stated to the post-debate press conference that she established the Green Party as more than a single-issue party.

Most Ignored Topic: Education. Sure, it’s a provincial issue, but Layton was the only candidate to make even passing mention of the debt burden related to post-secondary education. His comment was limited to medical students as part of his pledge to keep the health care system public.

American Debate: Joe Biden vs. Sarah Palin

Download: BitTorrent Link (to download you will need a client, like uTorrent)

Draw.

Both exceeded expectations and made no SERIOUS gaffes. Even on FOX the commentators are declaring it likely won’t affect the output of the debate. Palin killed Biden on Iraq but tripped up on local economic issues and often sounded like she was reading from a script. Biden surprisingly didn’t commit hara kiri, suggesting he was also reading from a script. The debate was milquetoast.

Best Aspect of this Debate: Both candidates scored victories in the others’ “home turf”.  Sarah Palin had Biden on the defensive about his foreign policy differences with Obama and when he call Obama unfit to be Commander in Chief.  Similarly, when Palin played the mother card, Biden shot back that being a father does not necessarily mean you do not know what it’s like to be a single parent (choking back tears, he was obviously making reference to the car crash that killed his wife).  Palin proved she could be a shark and Biden proved he could be a human.

Come-Back-to-Haunt-Me Statement: Sarah Palin suggesting she might try to take more power than Dick Cheney: “I’m thankful the Constitution would allow a bit more authority given to the vice president if that vice president so chose to exert it in working with the Senate and making sure that we are supportive of the president’s policies and making sure too that our president understands what our strengths are.”

Strategic Winner: Neither.  Palin proved she wasn’t a dunce (which wasn’t clear after last week’s disastrous interview with Katie Couric) but hopes were low for Biden and he didn’t fail either.  Still by not losing, Sarah Palin has saved the Republicans from certain defeat in the upcoming election.

Will update this thread as more thoughts occur. Please add your own!

Sphere: Related Content




Further Research


RSSQuick Shots




Categories


Archives