I saw the story of this family and their son on Oprah.com. It's a reminder to enjoy each minute of each day with your children.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qILw1iFzmIE
Friday, October 31, 2008
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
A Busy Day
Yesterday we went to DCS and met with Spencer's social worker to sign some paperwork and then to the county Superior Court to file it. We then got to set a date when we go back and do the finalization for his adoption. On November 10 everything will be done and he'll be officially ours!
All the paperwork and trip to the courthouse took less than three hours, so we took Spencer to Disneyland for his first time to celebrate. Here we are just inside the front gate.
Of course we had to take pictures by the Dumbo ride. Spencer seemed to like watching everyone fly their elephants.
We went on several of the Fantasyland rides, including Snow White, Pinocchio, Alice in Wonderland, the Storybook Land canal boats, and the Casey Jr. circus train. Spencer was looking around at everything but didn't seem particularly excited. I think the most fun part for him was while we sat on a bench and he got to play with the bush behind us. Here's a picture of Muffin and Spencer -- we rode in the monkey cage on the train.
Spencer tried on some Halloween-themed ears but went with the Sorcerer's Apprentice ears. There's plenty of room to grow into them so he can wear them for years to come. He fell asleep after a few hours and LynMarie and I were both tired too so we decided to come home.
All the paperwork and trip to the courthouse took less than three hours, so we took Spencer to Disneyland for his first time to celebrate. Here we are just inside the front gate.
Of course we had to take pictures by the Dumbo ride. Spencer seemed to like watching everyone fly their elephants.
We went on several of the Fantasyland rides, including Snow White, Pinocchio, Alice in Wonderland, the Storybook Land canal boats, and the Casey Jr. circus train. Spencer was looking around at everything but didn't seem particularly excited. I think the most fun part for him was while we sat on a bench and he got to play with the bush behind us. Here's a picture of Muffin and Spencer -- we rode in the monkey cage on the train.
Spencer tried on some Halloween-themed ears but went with the Sorcerer's Apprentice ears. There's plenty of room to grow into them so he can wear them for years to come. He fell asleep after a few hours and LynMarie and I were both tired too so we decided to come home.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Playing with Indy
For some reason this video disappeared when I tried to add it to the previous post, so hopefully you can all see this...
Weekend with Wuglet
Since my parents were up at BYU with Alysha for Parents' Weekend, LynMarie, Spencer and I went out to stay with Cassie this past weekend. We got to go to her soccer game on Saturday, where she scored the goal in a 1-0 victory! Sweet! Also, a shout out to her for already memorizing all 25 New Testament Scripture Mastery scriptures! I didn't think to take pictures at the game, and the other shot I took was too blurry, but I did surprise her with this shot.
Spencer seemed to enjoy himself this weekend. He had fun playing with the dogs, especially Indy. Here are some pictures:
Spencer also played Power Grid with us -- he was on Mama's team.
We played the Italy map. Below are a couple of pictures of the board at the end. Coal was in high demand, with none left in the market by the end of the game. In the last round, two good power plants got bid up, with Muffin and Cassie paying 135 each for them. I was last in and picked up a "5 wind" plant for just 44. That left me with enough money to build to 17 cities and end the game a round earlier than they were expecting. Final scores: Todd - 15, Cassie - 13, Muffin/Spencer - 12.
Spencer seemed to enjoy himself this weekend. He had fun playing with the dogs, especially Indy. Here are some pictures:
Spencer also played Power Grid with us -- he was on Mama's team.
We played the Italy map. Below are a couple of pictures of the board at the end. Coal was in high demand, with none left in the market by the end of the game. In the last round, two good power plants got bid up, with Muffin and Cassie paying 135 each for them. I was last in and picked up a "5 wind" plant for just 44. That left me with enough money to build to 17 cities and end the game a round earlier than they were expecting. Final scores: Todd - 15, Cassie - 13, Muffin/Spencer - 12.
Monday, October 20, 2008
...AND a bonus video clip!
OK, I've been trying to get this on video for a few days. Spencer has figured out how to go from lying on his tummy to a sitting position. I actually hadn't even seen it until today -- I'd always been out of the room when he did it -- but he did it several times this evening and I was able to get most of one "sit-up" on tape. Here it is:
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Bonus Pictures
OK, three posts in less than 24 hours is not going to be the norm, but LynMarie wanted to take a couple of pictures of Spencer in the outfit he wore to church today, so I thought I'd put 'em up. Enjoy.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Eight Months
Yes, our little boy is eight months old today! The only pictures I got today were from bath time. Spencer really enjoys splashing in his bath. I went to take a picture of him splashing and of course he stopped and looked at the camera, but I managed to get another picture after he went back to his bath time fun.
He seems to have slowed down his weight gain for now. We tried to weigh him using our regular bathroom scale and he's still about the same as last month. We'll get an official weigh-in next month at the doctor's office. LynMarie wanted to get a picture of him in this sailor outfit before he grows out of it, though.
He's now started eating fruits -- he's had applesauce, bananas, and prunes, but seems to like pears the best so far. Also, his first tooth just poked through the gums a couple of days ago. It's hard to see, so no picture of it yet, but we can feel it and hear the clicking when he's biting on things.
He hasn't officially crawled yet, although he took about half of a "step", or whatever the equivalent is for crawling. He can sure cover quite a bit of ground when he wants to, by rolling and scooting. The other day during family scripture study he managed to move about ten feet across the family room, got over to the basket that holds his toys, tipped it on its side, and pulled out the toy he wanted.
I'll post a couple of pictures of Spencer modeling a possible Halloween costume to finish off here, and then a video clip that LynMarie took so you can see him in action in his bouncer.
He seems to have slowed down his weight gain for now. We tried to weigh him using our regular bathroom scale and he's still about the same as last month. We'll get an official weigh-in next month at the doctor's office. LynMarie wanted to get a picture of him in this sailor outfit before he grows out of it, though.
He's now started eating fruits -- he's had applesauce, bananas, and prunes, but seems to like pears the best so far. Also, his first tooth just poked through the gums a couple of days ago. It's hard to see, so no picture of it yet, but we can feel it and hear the clicking when he's biting on things.
He hasn't officially crawled yet, although he took about half of a "step", or whatever the equivalent is for crawling. He can sure cover quite a bit of ground when he wants to, by rolling and scooting. The other day during family scripture study he managed to move about ten feet across the family room, got over to the basket that holds his toys, tipped it on its side, and pulled out the toy he wanted.
I'll post a couple of pictures of Spencer modeling a possible Halloween costume to finish off here, and then a video clip that LynMarie took so you can see him in action in his bouncer.
Thanks to Ryan and Amy
Well, we finally used the IKEA gift certificate that Ryan and Amy got for us last Christmas. We bought a dresser for Spencer's room and I had a fun couple of hours putting it together. Thanks, Ryan and Amy!
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Sometimes Politicians do the Right Thing!
I just called the govenor's office and he already vetoed the following bill. Good job Arnold!
Subject: "GAY" DAY IN CA SCHOOLS?
AB 2567 has passed the California Assembly and the Senate and is awaiting Governor Schwarzenegger's signature or veto. This bill will set aside May 22nd as a special day to celebrate the life of homosexual politician Harvey Milk in the public schools. Harvey Milk will be honored in the same manner as our Founding Fathers and Martin Luther King, although the only thing he is actually known for is being proud to be a homosexual! If you haven't heard about this bill it is because the liberal media is downplaying this bill so that it will pass.
Though this is set as a California issue, it will soon effect everyone.
You know the old saying, 'as goes California, so goes the nation'!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Legislature Passes Bill for 'Gay Day' Celebrations in California Public Schools
By Peter J. Smith
August 8, 2008, SACRAMENTO (Life SiteNews.com) - California public schools soon will be planning 'gay day' celebrations every May 22 unless Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoes the legislation. Thursday the California Assembly approved AB 2567, which designates May 22 as 'Harvey Milk Day.' The 43 to 26 vote occurred on party lines with Democrats for, Republicans against. Earlier this week, AB 2567 passed the California State Senate on another party line vote 22-13 - Democrats for, Republicans against. The bill will require all public schools to 'conduct suitable commemorative exercises' in commemoration of the anti-religious, homosexualist agenda of the late San Francisco Supervisor Harvey Milk. According to a Senate analysis of the bill, 'This bill requires the Governor to proclaim May 22 as Harvey Milk Day…The designation of a day of significance triggers statutory encouragement for public schools to observe and conduct commemorative exercises suitable to the day.' 'This bad bill will teach impressionable schoolchildren the anti-religious, homosexual-bisexual -transsexual agenda of Harvey Milk,' warned Randy Thomasson, President of Campaign for Children and Families.
'If signed into law, AB 2567 will mean an official day commemorating homosexuality, bisexuality, and transsexuality in California government schools…This will harm children as young as kindergarten. '
For the love of God, parents and their children, we implore Governor Schwarzenegger to veto AB 2567'Thomasson said.
Subject: "GAY" DAY IN CA SCHOOLS?
AB 2567 has passed the California Assembly and the Senate and is awaiting Governor Schwarzenegger's signature or veto. This bill will set aside May 22nd as a special day to celebrate the life of homosexual politician Harvey Milk in the public schools. Harvey Milk will be honored in the same manner as our Founding Fathers and Martin Luther King, although the only thing he is actually known for is being proud to be a homosexual! If you haven't heard about this bill it is because the liberal media is downplaying this bill so that it will pass.
Though this is set as a California issue, it will soon effect everyone.
You know the old saying, 'as goes California, so goes the nation'!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Legislature Passes Bill for 'Gay Day' Celebrations in California Public Schools
By Peter J. Smith
August 8, 2008, SACRAMENTO (Life SiteNews.com) - California public schools soon will be planning 'gay day' celebrations every May 22 unless Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoes the legislation. Thursday the California Assembly approved AB 2567, which designates May 22 as 'Harvey Milk Day.' The 43 to 26 vote occurred on party lines with Democrats for, Republicans against. Earlier this week, AB 2567 passed the California State Senate on another party line vote 22-13 - Democrats for, Republicans against. The bill will require all public schools to 'conduct suitable commemorative exercises' in commemoration of the anti-religious, homosexualist agenda of the late San Francisco Supervisor Harvey Milk. According to a Senate analysis of the bill, 'This bill requires the Governor to proclaim May 22 as Harvey Milk Day…The designation of a day of significance triggers statutory encouragement for public schools to observe and conduct commemorative exercises suitable to the day.' 'This bad bill will teach impressionable schoolchildren the anti-religious, homosexual-bisexual -transsexual agenda of Harvey Milk,' warned Randy Thomasson, President of Campaign for Children and Families.
'If signed into law, AB 2567 will mean an official day commemorating homosexuality, bisexuality, and transsexuality in California government schools…This will harm children as young as kindergarten. '
For the love of God, parents and their children, we implore Governor Schwarzenegger to veto AB 2567'Thomasson said.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Another Prop. 8 Video
This video shows some of what is already happening in public schools in Massachusetts, where same-sex marriage is legal.
Friday, October 10, 2008
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Poor Guy
Ed Macmahon sure isn't waiting for a government bailout. Look at the link to see what he does when times get tough.
http://www.popcrunch.com/ed-mcmahon-rap-videos-freecreditreportcom/
I haven't actually been able to find the video. If someone happens to find it, send me the link.
http://www.popcrunch.com/ed-mcmahon-rap-videos-freecreditreportcom/
I haven't actually been able to find the video. If someone happens to find it, send me the link.
Never Thought I'd Agree With a Liberal
September 22, 2008
Contact: Jennifer Kerns, 916-446-2956
SACRAMENTO, September 22 -- The Los Angeles Times has published an Opinion Editorial which shows arguments against same-sex marriage due to its detrimental effect on our children. What is noteworthy is the source: the author of the Op-Ed piece is a Liberal Democrat, which underscores the broad support for Proposition 8 in order to protect marriage for society, our institutions, and for children in California. Read the full text here:
Protecting Marriage to Protect Children
Marriage as a human institution is constantly evolving. But in all societies, marriage shapes the rights and obligations of parenthood.
Los Angeles Times
By David Blankenhorn
September 19, 2008
I'm a liberal Democrat. And I do not favor same-sex marriage. Do those positions sound contradictory? To me, they fit together.
Many seem to believe that marriage is simply a private love relationship between two people. They accept this view, in part, because Americans have increasingly emphasized and come to value the intimate, emotional side of marriage, and in part because almost all opinion leaders today, from journalists to judges, strongly embrace this position. That's certainly the idea that underpinned the California Supreme Court's legalization of same-sex marriage.
But I spent a year studying the history and anthropology of marriage, and I've come to a different conclusion.
Marriage as a human institution is constantly evolving, and many of its features vary across groups and cultures. But there is one constant. In all societies, marriage shapes the rights and obligations of parenthood. Among us humans, the scholars report, marriage is not primarily a license to have sex. Nor is it primarily a license to receive benefits or social recognition. It is primarily a license to have children.
In this sense, marriage is a gift that society bestows on its next generation. Marriage (and only marriage) unites the three core dimensions of parenthood -- biological, social and legal -- into one pro-child form: the married couple. Marriage says to a child: The man and the woman whose sexual union made you will also be there to love and raise you. Marriage says to society as a whole: For every child born, there is a recognized mother and a father, accountable to the child and to each other.
Marriage is society's most pro-child institution. In 2002 -- just moments before it became highly unfashionable to say so -- a team of researchers from Child Trends, a nonpartisan research center, reported that "family structure clearly matters for children, and the family structure that helps children the most is a family headed by two biological parents in a low- conflict marriage."
All our scholarly instruments seem to agree: For healthy development, what a child needs more than anything else is the mother and father who together made the child, who love the child and love each other.
For these reasons, children have the right, insofar as society can make it possible, to know and to be cared for by the two parents who brought them into this world. The foundational human rights document in the world today regarding children, the 1989 U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, specifically guarantees children this right. The last time I checked, liberals like me were supposed to be in favor of internationally recognized human rights, particularly concerning children, who are typically society's most voiceless and vulnerable group. Or have I now said something I shouldn't?
Every child being raised by gay or lesbian couples will be denied his birthright to both parents who made him. Every single one. Moreover, losing that right will not be a consequence of something that at least most of us view as tragic, such as a marriage that didn't last, or an unexpected pregnancy where the father-to- be has no intention of sticking around. On the contrary, in the case of same-sex marriage and the children of those unions, it will be explained to everyone, including the children that something wonderful has happened!
For me, what we are encouraged or permitted to say, or not say, to one another about what our society owes its children is crucially important in the debate over initiatives like California's Proposition 8, which would reinstate marriage's customary man-woman form. Do you think that every child deserves his mother and father, with adoption available for those children whose natural parents cannot care for them? Do you suspect that fathers and mothers are different from one another? Do you imagine that biological ties matter to children? How many parents per child are best? Do you think that "two" is a better answer than one, three, four or whatever? If you do, be careful. In making the case for same-sex marriage, more than a few grown-ups will be quite willing to question your integrity and goodwill. Children, of course, are rarely consulted.
The liberal philosopher Isaiah Berlin famously argued that, in many cases, the real conflict we face is not good versus bad but good versus good. Reducing homophobia is good. Protecting the birthright of the child is good. How should we reason together as a society when these two good things conflict?
Here is my reasoning. I reject homophobia and believe in the equal dignity of gay and lesbian love. Because I also believe with all my heart in the right of the child to the mother and father who made her, I believe that we as a society should seek to maintain and to strengthen the only human institution -- marriage -- that is specifically intended to safeguard that right and make it real for our children.
Legalized same-sex marriage almost certainly benefits those same-sex couples who choose to marry, as well as the children being raised in those homes. But changing the meaning of marriage to accommodate homosexual orientation further and perhaps definitively undermines for all of us the very thing -- the gift, the birthright -- that is marriage's most distinctive contribution to human society. That's a change that, in the final analysis, I cannot support.
David Blankenhorn is president of the New York- based Institute for American Values and the author of "The Future of Marriage."
Contact: Jennifer Kerns, 916-446-2956
SACRAMENTO, September 22 -- The Los Angeles Times has published an Opinion Editorial which shows arguments against same-sex marriage due to its detrimental effect on our children. What is noteworthy is the source: the author of the Op-Ed piece is a Liberal Democrat, which underscores the broad support for Proposition 8 in order to protect marriage for society, our institutions, and for children in California. Read the full text here:
Protecting Marriage to Protect Children
Marriage as a human institution is constantly evolving. But in all societies, marriage shapes the rights and obligations of parenthood.
Los Angeles Times
By David Blankenhorn
September 19, 2008
I'm a liberal Democrat. And I do not favor same-sex marriage. Do those positions sound contradictory? To me, they fit together.
Many seem to believe that marriage is simply a private love relationship between two people. They accept this view, in part, because Americans have increasingly emphasized and come to value the intimate, emotional side of marriage, and in part because almost all opinion leaders today, from journalists to judges, strongly embrace this position. That's certainly the idea that underpinned the California Supreme Court's legalization of same-sex marriage.
But I spent a year studying the history and anthropology of marriage, and I've come to a different conclusion.
Marriage as a human institution is constantly evolving, and many of its features vary across groups and cultures. But there is one constant. In all societies, marriage shapes the rights and obligations of parenthood. Among us humans, the scholars report, marriage is not primarily a license to have sex. Nor is it primarily a license to receive benefits or social recognition. It is primarily a license to have children.
In this sense, marriage is a gift that society bestows on its next generation. Marriage (and only marriage) unites the three core dimensions of parenthood -- biological, social and legal -- into one pro-child form: the married couple. Marriage says to a child: The man and the woman whose sexual union made you will also be there to love and raise you. Marriage says to society as a whole: For every child born, there is a recognized mother and a father, accountable to the child and to each other.
Marriage is society's most pro-child institution. In 2002 -- just moments before it became highly unfashionable to say so -- a team of researchers from Child Trends, a nonpartisan research center, reported that "family structure clearly matters for children, and the family structure that helps children the most is a family headed by two biological parents in a low- conflict marriage."
All our scholarly instruments seem to agree: For healthy development, what a child needs more than anything else is the mother and father who together made the child, who love the child and love each other.
For these reasons, children have the right, insofar as society can make it possible, to know and to be cared for by the two parents who brought them into this world. The foundational human rights document in the world today regarding children, the 1989 U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, specifically guarantees children this right. The last time I checked, liberals like me were supposed to be in favor of internationally recognized human rights, particularly concerning children, who are typically society's most voiceless and vulnerable group. Or have I now said something I shouldn't?
Every child being raised by gay or lesbian couples will be denied his birthright to both parents who made him. Every single one. Moreover, losing that right will not be a consequence of something that at least most of us view as tragic, such as a marriage that didn't last, or an unexpected pregnancy where the father-to- be has no intention of sticking around. On the contrary, in the case of same-sex marriage and the children of those unions, it will be explained to everyone, including the children that something wonderful has happened!
For me, what we are encouraged or permitted to say, or not say, to one another about what our society owes its children is crucially important in the debate over initiatives like California's Proposition 8, which would reinstate marriage's customary man-woman form. Do you think that every child deserves his mother and father, with adoption available for those children whose natural parents cannot care for them? Do you suspect that fathers and mothers are different from one another? Do you imagine that biological ties matter to children? How many parents per child are best? Do you think that "two" is a better answer than one, three, four or whatever? If you do, be careful. In making the case for same-sex marriage, more than a few grown-ups will be quite willing to question your integrity and goodwill. Children, of course, are rarely consulted.
The liberal philosopher Isaiah Berlin famously argued that, in many cases, the real conflict we face is not good versus bad but good versus good. Reducing homophobia is good. Protecting the birthright of the child is good. How should we reason together as a society when these two good things conflict?
Here is my reasoning. I reject homophobia and believe in the equal dignity of gay and lesbian love. Because I also believe with all my heart in the right of the child to the mother and father who made her, I believe that we as a society should seek to maintain and to strengthen the only human institution -- marriage -- that is specifically intended to safeguard that right and make it real for our children.
Legalized same-sex marriage almost certainly benefits those same-sex couples who choose to marry, as well as the children being raised in those homes. But changing the meaning of marriage to accommodate homosexual orientation further and perhaps definitively undermines for all of us the very thing -- the gift, the birthright -- that is marriage's most distinctive contribution to human society. That's a change that, in the final analysis, I cannot support.
David Blankenhorn is president of the New York- based Institute for American Values and the author of "The Future of Marriage."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
