The play's the thing

On Saturday morning we dropped Jane off with friends and spent the whole day rehearsing. We didn't see her again until almost 7:00 that evening. Then yesterday we dropped her off with another friend before church, and didn't see her until nearly 8:00 at night. I was so active and busy during rehearsals that I didn't have much time to think, but when we were driving to pick her up and when we saw how overjoyed she was to see us I simply couldn't imagine how people manage to leave their babies at daycare all day long. Today I am just drinking in as much as I can from my time with her before I drop her off at 5:00 to go pick Michael up and run a full dress rehearsal. We haven't yet run the thing straight through with no stops so we are not quite sure how long it will be with intermission, but it will probably top three hours. With 7:30 kick-off (of course we have to be there at least two hours in advance), picking Jane up afterwards, and the drive home, that means we'll be getting to bed around midnight every night this week. Michael will hardly even see her at all.

BUT! Yesterday we ran through it in costume for the first time and it makes it all seem so real! Suddenly everything falls into place, and though we still made a few mistakes, the director seemed to think that we are coming along nicely. Apparently, for some shows they haven't even come up with a final number until the Monday dress rehearsal before opening night.

Jane is being such a trooper. She seems perfectly happy this morning, playing with her toys as usual and chattering away merrily and primarily unintelligibly. She has become fluent in several foreign languages recently, including German (bitte), French (oui), Spanish (hola), and Swedish (ja).

The pace quickens

As if it ever slackened.

Today I earned a $25 dinner certificate for test-driving a minivan at a local Toyota dealer. We received a mailing advertising the promotion, and after calling to verify the validity of the offer and the lack of strings attached, Jane and I were off to inspect the goods. It was such fun to get to try out a new car and enjoy all the bells and whistles, and because I was clear on my intentions up front, there was no pressure at all (which usually would scare me away from taking advantage of these kinds of promotions). I told them when I arrived that I was there for the free gift certificate, that we weren't in the market for a new car today but might be interested in purchasing a minivan in a year or two, and that I'd be happy to scope out the options so we could be aware of what was out there. The new vehicles these days are really amazing. I wonder, if everyone in America immediately bought a brand-new car AND always fastened his/her seatbelt, what the auto fatality rate would drop to. As the salesman explained all the features and all the hidden airbags/curtains/protective pockets, I wondered how anyone could possibly die in that car.

This week we have a slight breather from play practise. Last Saturday was our last free day (and only in many weeks) before the final grueling lap. On Saturday we have a complete run-through with costume changes; Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday are full dress rehearsals; Wednesday is opening night; Thursday, Friday, and twice on Saturday are performances. And amazingly enough, with the exception of this Saturday (panicking a little bit on that score), we have childcare completely lined up for Jane for both weeks. It helps that family is coming down the second week to take turns watching Jane and watching us. It will be fun! But I will be glad when it is over.

Bigger isn't always bad

I stumbled across this post and, while charmed by the general call to de-clutter and not lay up excessive treasure on earth, felt that the adulation heaped upon the French for their simplicity and small-mindedness was a bit over the top.

It's all well and good to heed the call to the simple life, to make do with less and be unwasteful. Certainly in America we could do with a little dressing down, and I agree that most people today have way too much junk on hand. But it's going a bit too far to assume that since having too much (stuff, space, etc.) is excessive and oppressive, it must therefore be better to err on the side of asceticism. What we want is a happy medium - not too much, not too little: just right.

There is no virtue in making do with less for the pure sake of self-denial. In other words, smaller living spaces/appliances per se are not inherently better than larger ones. It's a question of what you need and what you can prudently manage. Glorifying simplicity for simplicity's sake, as if that were an end in itself and necessarily more virtuous than complexity, harks back to Henry David Thoreau and his ilk.

The western European notion of smallness fits a very definite mindset, and it's not necessarily geared toward functionality, convenience, or practicality. Much of it is simply rooted in tradition and bounded by the limitations of the past: way back then, that was all they had room for, and they've never bothered expanding their horizons since then. Having a half size refrigerator certainly will limit the amount of groceries you can stockpile, which works out just fine for the shrinking family size of western European nations but isn't so handy for the healthy American homeschooling family that may jolly well need - and put to good use - that extra chest freezer.

There is something undeniably charming and quaint about making do with small and even cramped spaces, but why would you willingly force yourself to make do if you don't have to? I've been to Dutch bathrooms, and there is very little charm in trying to squeeze both hands at once under the tiny (cold water only) faucet in the typical powder rooms. Why build like this if you don't have to?

I'm all for using good taste to drive the selection of your clothing, and relying on quality, not quantity. But I'd rather have my decisions driven by taste and preference rather than necessity, and stock my few well-chosen articles in a closet roomy enough to be comfortable. Choosing to live with small closets in order to force you to make the right decisions about your wardrobe seems a bit like stapling your stomach in order to ensure that you don't eat too much.

Having less stuff than you need to operate at full efficiency can be just as disastrous as having so much extra stuff that your actions are hampered by your possessions. If a full-size dishwasher saves you time and effort, then buy one! If you'd rather wash your own dishes and a big dishwasher would just get in your way, then don't buy one! But priding one's self on one's small dishwasher or washing machine is just plain silly.

Mother Teresa gave away all that she had and lived a life of strict poverty, and yet she was no more virtuous in her generosity than was the Good Samaritan. Sometimes it helps to have big houses and ample possessions, if you can use those things to serve others and advance the kingdom of God.

Back...sort of

We've had a seemingly unending stream of houseguests over the last few weeks, and while it's been enjoyable to host people, it does take a toll on the spare time. Since our primary guest room also houses the computer, snatches of computer time have been rare and short. Therefore emails have not been answered promptly and blogs have been neglected.

Things might reach equilibrium again but for the fact that Dolly rehearsals hit crunch time this weekend. Opening night is in three weeks, so the pace quickens.

In other news, Jane's top words are Uh-oh and Mama, in that order. The garden, for lack of watering, is pretty much dead.

The license plate game

This is a fun game that my family has played for years. You can also play it as a board game using scrabble pieces, but it's best for enlivening any driving trip. You simply form a word out of the three letters on the license plates of passing cars. The rules are simple:

1) The word must be at least four letters long.
2) No proper names or contractions allowed.
3) If two words contain the same number of letters, the shortest word is determined by alphabetical priority. (So for AGE, Ages beats Sage, even though it has two syllables.)
4) The letters have to appear in the word in the order that they are on the plate. But they can be anywhere in the word.
5) The shortest and the longest words both win. (This is great for playing with your spouse in the car [a non-speaking baby in the backseat doesn't count] because you both win, all of the time.)

It's fun to take this one step farther and make words out of initials. Since most of us (with the exception of certain Italian spaghetti-lovers) have three names, this works out perfectly. The point is to invent the cleverest and pithiest word, not necessarily the shortest. A few quick examples:

MLF = Mellifluous
SLJ = Um...well...her maiden name was a cool Silver...
SEM = Semantics
RLR = Ruler
JRP = Jurisprudence

The days are getting shorter...

And a much-needed rain has rescued us from what threatened to be a drought, which was a dire state of things, to be sure, because it never drowses in Georgia. I hadn't been as faithful in watering my garden of late, and things were looking rather blighted. The one advantage was that the grass had stopped growing, and thus needed no mowing.

Family came down last week and stayed until Sunday morning, and Jane certainly enjoyed all the attention. We went blueberry picking on Saturday, set out to pick a gallon, and got carried away and came home with two. Now I know it's not proper to talk about prices, but I simply must crow at the tremendous bargain. The blueberries were $6/gallon, and when we went to the store later, we saw them for sale at $2.99 for 1/2 pint. Now by my calculations that is $6 a pint, and considering that there are eight pints to a gallon, we really made out like bandits! Some we sent home with family, some we made into blueberry muffins, some we fed to Jane, but the majority we froze.

Then this morning I scooped up ten half gallons of milk about to expire, at such a terrific price that I couldn't resist even though I knew I had no room in the freezer. So when we got home I unloaded the freezer, rearranged everything, condensed, sorted, and curtailed, and ended up cramming most of it back in, giving up on a few non-essentials like bread crusts. Bread crusts are all very well and good, but would I hang on to bread crusts over milk? There was plenty of room in my freezer once I gave up the bulky junk! It seemed like a perfect object lesson to me about how we cling stubbornly to the dross and pass up the really good stuff in life.

Maybe in five years you'll catch me wearing a pair of gauchos...

A few of my fashion backtracks, to wit:

-When they first came out, I decried 3/4-length sleeves as looking unfinished and silly, causing the wearer to look like a gawky adolescent who had outgrown her clothes. But I finally tried some, and decided I like the look, and now I have several such sweaters of my own.

-When they came around again (because apparently they lived another life as pedal-pushers in the time of Jackie O.) I thought the same thing about capris. If you can't afford to buy pants that go all the way down to the floor, then just stick with a short skirt!! But I finally started wearing them, and found them nice, light, comfortable summer wear, and of immeasurable value to tall people who want to be vague about hemlines.

-When they first made an appearance, I poked fun at chunky square-toed shoes, because they looked so trendy and apt to disappear in a season or two. But they didn't, and I gave them a cautious try, and decided that they were very comfortable and far more sensible than the pointy-toed formal shoe look, which required only a jingle bell and a matching jester hat to complete the look.

So now I'm thinking that: 1) gauchos are just a throwback to culottes, which were hideous enough in denim and corduroy but are pretty bad in this modern knit, clingy and snug in the wrong way; 2) skirts should be skirts; shorts should be shorts; any unhappy compromise is bound to please neither; 3) but they look so silly!

Never say never is, however, my new motto, so I can't say I'll never wear them.

Things that annoy me

-Reading non-words in print, such as 'instinctual' or 'administrate.'

-Hearing Ann Coulter described as 'beautiful,' 'blonde,' or 'rail-thin.' In my opinion, she's not that gorgeous, she probably dyes her hair, and she's so thin because she smokes a lot. Now I really shouldn't carp about her looks, because I truly do agree with most of what she says, but I'm so annoyed by the simpering sneer she adopts whenever posing for a photograph.

-Invisible spiders (Indian name: Spiders-Who-Hide-Under-Leaves) on bean plants that jump out at me whenever I'm not wearing gloves.

I'm sure there are more, but that's all I could think of on short notice. Ugh. Back to proof-reading sappy moralistic children's books.

Not that it's any of my business...

The only thing about the Jolie-Pitt baby hoopla that interested me enough to irritate me was the statement by their apparently famous and accomplished doctor (so hand-picked that they flew him all the way to Africa to deliver their child), something along the lines of: 'The baby was delivered by a planned cesarean due to a breech presentation.'

Good grief! You'd think these people would be rich enough to afford a skilled enough medical team that could handle delivering a breech baby naturally! To be sure, many in the medical establishment believe that a breech presentation means an automatic cesarean, but many other skilled and experienced doctors and midwives are adept at working with the mother to turn the baby, and even - as long as there is no danger, such as risk of the cord being wrapped around the baby's neck, which should be evident from a quick sonogram - delivering a breech baby.

But then, we weren't really counting on celebrities to set good examples and be sterling role models for the rest of us, were we?

Hello summer!

Michael and I auditioned for our church's summer dinner theater, which will be Hello Dolly! this time, and were cast in singing and dancing roles. Very fun! The rehearsal schedule has started up in earnest, though, and it's shaping up to be a busy summer.

We watched the movie before auditioning, and were very disappointed at first - cute, but forgettable is what I thought of it. Clever songs and dialogue and all, but pretty lame plot, not to mention Barbra Streisand. But we heard from so many sources that the play is far removed from - and vastly superior to - the movie, that we decided to give it a go.

Performances are the first and second weekends in August, so we have just under eight weeks before the parade passes by.

Pictures...finally!

The happy couple(s)

Jane and Meredith.

The usual suspects.

Crunchy Cons

I'm reading this new book by Rod Dreher about the organic, natural, alfalfa conservatives and why some elements of what we'd consider flaky left-wing philosophy - environmentalism, small-town farming, expensive organic produce - are really conservative ideals in nature, and how the modern conservative movement when taken to the extreme seems strangely isolated from Christian ideals.

A very interesting read, and I find myself agreeing with a lot of what he says. For instance, it's considered fashionable in conservative circles to sneer at the excesses of the environmental movement and put down the validity of global warming claims, etc. But there's nothing Christian about adopting an arrogant contempt for the environment, in mere snide reaction to the dangerous philosophies that would over-glorify it. And I for one agree with his point: I have very little patience with those people who seem to delight in antagonising the opposing cause with such bumper stickers as I love spotted owls - fried, because the fact of the matter is, some degree of responsibility is called for. That's what taking dominion is all about.

But, as it's the negatives that jump out at me and demand my attention and disagreement the loudest, I'll point them out here.

On page 46, he recounts his shock upon learning that a family he knows had been featured in the local paper, facing hard times because their business has been suffering. Unbeknownst to him, in their financial straits they had been relying on the state's Children's Health Insurance Program, a government subsidy of low-income families. The Republican legislature had led to cutbacks in the program, forcing the family to choose, as the author put it, between 'filling their children's teeth or their bellies.' His wife called up the family and offered to help financially, but the family graciously refused, saying that they would manage by having the mom go to work to help support the family. The author denounced the Republicans who pushed through the cuts, pointing out that they were sacrificing family values and undermining the institution most necessary for society to conserve, on the altar of efficiency.

Now, I agree that capitalism can be brutal, and that as Christians we should not be intent first and foremost on efficiency and saving money. We are warned in Scripture about setting our heart upon riches, and cautioned not to love money. But I can't agree with the author's scathing rebuke of the policy that would deny government subsidies to (even well-deserving) poor families. He is confusing individual virtues (charity, self-denial, forgiveness) with institutional requirements (honesty, integrity, responsibility). This is a common enough mistake, but it can be very dangerous when Christians try to apply individual Christian virtues to the government. We as Christians are called to be forgiving, but we as officials are called to be just. It's not up to the courts to forgive offenders; it's their job to punish wrong-doers.

This is a hard situation, and this struggling family certainly has my sympathy, but look at the situation. Even their friends didn't know the financial struggles they were going through. Why hadn't they made their needs known to the church? As pointed out, the friends offered to help them out, but they turned them down, choosing instead to have the mom go to work (which is a tough decision) rather than to take 'charity.' But they were already taking charity from the government! Why was it okay for the government to pay for their kids but not the church family? The author rips into the Republican government for not acting like a compassionate church family should do, when the family denied their church family the opportunity to demonstrate generosity and love to them by turning to the government to meet their needs first.

Second, the author lauds the whole organic, natural, non-processed food movement, and explains how they bought their food at farmer's markets, first in New York and then in Dallas. He explains how horrible the commercial mass-produced food market is (granted, hot dogs are nasty things), and encourages everyone to make the sacrifice to shop organic and natural:

To be sure, this costs more money. I wince when I have to pay almost twice the price for a roasting hen from Texas Supernatural Meats as I do for the same chicken from the supermarket. But that price difference is about the cost of a single venti latte from Starbucks. If you do an inventory of where the family's food budget goes, it's not hard to find ways you can save by cutting out unnecessary and even unhealthful food (chips and soda, for example), and apply that money toward buying ethically and nutritionally superior food. And there are ways to save money in other areas of the household economy - the entertainment budget, for example - to free up funds to purchase healthier food. It's all a matter of priority.

'If anyone says that being crunchy is fine for those who can afford it, you have my guarantee that they have no idea what they are talking about....'

Well, excuse me, but I know exactly what I am talking about when I say that being crunchy is fine for those who can afford it. Now before I go off ranting and raving, let me remind myself that this author is addressing the majority of Americans who are living in mainstream culture, complete with 'McMansions,' SUVs, and an addiction to eating out, in hopes of persuading them of adopting a more sensible lifestyle. All well and good. But that being noted, I shall continue with my rant. Now then! I've already done careful inventory of our family food budget, and I know exactly where the money goes! The fact is that we don't have the wiggle room to pay twice as much for our chickens, because we're not already in the habit of splurging for venti lattes from Starbucks. We've already cut our expenses pretty much to the bone, and I guarantee you that there's not the price of an organic chicken coming out of our entertainment budget. Chips and soda? Ha! Of course it's a matter of priority, and my priority is to have the money to pay for groceries at all, on one income, considering that we're not bestselling authors and columnists.

Sorry, that was a little snide, but my point is that you can never tell someone what is best for him, because you can never assume that you know all the facts about his situation. It's all well and good to say what worked for you, and to enthuse on the benefits that came to you from cutting out your Starbucks habit and putting that money into organic chickens, but don't go around assuming that everyone else is as irresponsible as you were before your eyes were opened.

But other than those two irritations, it's a very good book so far. Back to reading it.

And a good time was had by all

This weekend we had an impossibly long to-do list. We had a significant amount of fencing (garden, not rapiers) to run, a garage-door opener to install, a lawn to mow and spread chemicals on, and various odds and ends which had crept up on us. So when Ron and Catherine called us up to see if we wanted to spend the day in Helen, we immediately said 'Yes!' Why not seize the day?

Alpine Helen is a little Bavarian town about an hour north of here, very quaint and full of cute shops and delicious fudge. We spent the afternoon wandering around, poking into the shops, admiring the scenery, eating free samples of fudge, and taking pictures of the babies who played together so nicely.

Splashing in the fountain.

No, Catherine and I did not plan this. =)

And what are those babies looking at?

Books and blinders

This last weekend we finally attacked the daunting project of moving books and shelves around. We'd been avoiding it for long enough, on the reasoning that before we did any major furniture moving we wanted to buy a carpet cleaner and clean the carpets thoroughly, since we need to do that anyway and it makes sense to do it before any moving so as not to move heavy stuff twice. We still intend to purchase a carpet cleaner when a good enough deal comes up. But we cannot let that be an excuse for avoiding necessary work any longer.

So we moved the two bookshelves in the office up to the bonus room, and moved two bookshelves from the nursery into our bedroom and another two into the office. Now the nursery actually has wall space, allowing us to move the crib out from in front of the window (my nightmares about shattering glass falling over sleeping Baby as clumsy burglars trip over her in the middle of the night are now over) and making the room safe for Jane to crawl around in without everything being a no-no.

The first half of the job took far longer than it had to because we kept stopping and flipping though books. Eventually we learned better and strictly charged ourselves to concentrate on getting the job done, deciding what to keep later. But I read quite a bit of interesting stuff, including an extract from a political science textbook from one of Michael's old classes. Because of the subject matter I was sure it would be controversial, but as I read it it actually made a good bit of sense.

Basically, it presumed a hypothetical race where a white runner and a black runner are competing, only the authorities make the black runner run with weights. Naturally, he falls behind. Eventually, the authorities decide that this is unfair, and take the weights away, but the black runner is still behind. What should they do? Would it be fair to let the black runner catch up? That might reduce the inequity of the overall race, but would that be fair to the white runner, who after all didn't make the rules in the first place? Maybe the white runner really was faster, anyway.

Of course, it was presenting some of the dilemmas of affirmative action, which I still don't believe is a good solution. History is full of inequality, and there is no way any 'authorities' can even things out by changing the rules around to let anyone 'catch up' to anyone else at any given time. The best thing to do is to make sure that the rules are as fair as possible, right now, and let things take their natural course. However, the little analogy did help me to understand some of the reasoning behind some people's philosophy, and to resolve more than ever not to be so wrapped in my 'right' way of thinking that I miss out on the opportunity to hear what the other person is saying. I likely won't change my mind, but I might learn something about the other side, and I certainly wouldn't get anywhere with smug self-confidence or antagonising patronage.

However, this in turn made me question how far to go in any sort of open-mindedness. Obviously I want to be teachable where there is room for error. But I don't want to be tossed about by every wind of doctrine, susceptible to the least convincing. At some point I must keep my blinders resolutely on and not even consider veering from the path of truth. How tightly these discernment blinders must be kept is a puzzling question.

Let me count the ways

Last week Michael called me from work to say that he loved me. It was very sweet, sincere, and much appreciated, and indeed was the sole purpose of the call. But it reminded me of another conversation I overheard once, when I worked next door to a person whom I'll call Mr. H, which conversation I overheard because Mr. H was fond of using speakerphone:

Mrs. H: Hello?
Mr. H: (pause) I just wanted to call you and tell you that I love you.
Mrs. H: Riiiiiiiight. You hit me by accident on speed dial, didn't you?
Mr. H: That too, but also I love you.