Happy Birthday, Abie Baby...

Since it's 1:52am, it's technically Presidents' Day.  Abraham Lincoln's birthday was seven days ago and George Washington's was eight, but whatever.

This, along with the current election shit that's already hitting the fan, makes me wonder what our founding fathers would think of the government these days.  Yes, I know Lincoln was not a founding father.

There have always been "sides", cliques, parties, whatever, since the dawn of time.  Sometimes a girl like me, however, just doesn't know where she belongs!  The liberals piss me off because, as the sayings go, they don't want to get jobs/use facts/allow babies to be born/etc.  The extreme right, on the other hand, pisses me off because they insist on putting God into everything, perpetuating an ancient caste system that should have never occurred in America, and having a tendency to skew things into what they want it to be.  

What I really want to be is a Socialist.  I truly believe that if everyone actually had to work for the irrefragable greater good, they might fucking do it.  There is too much distance between the rich and the poor, and us middle class people are the ones suffering.  How can the middle class be determined by $15k-$250k per year?!  If Poke made $250k per year, I'd be wearing diamonds in my pussy and 4L would have gold-plated diapers.  We live off of $27k, and barely make it.  Thanks to WIC, we don't have to buy food for 4L, but that is only 1/3 of our monthly grocery bill.  What are we supposed to do when he starts eating real food, and more of it?  Currently we get 32 jars of baby food in a month, and he eats 2/day - that's clearly not enough.  I have to supplement with actual food, which is fine because I want him to eat what I cook and get used to it, but there are some things that aren't nutritionally sound for a 7 month old!  We don't qualify for any other kind of aid, and even though I have no job and no income at all, I don't qualify for any kind of Medicare/Medicaid.  It's BULL.  Meanwhile there are people out there buying alcohol, cigarettes, and all kinds of fried fucking chicken with their goddamn EBT cards.  

Not.Fair.

But I digress.

I have a friend who is a conspiracy theorist (a real one, not the speculative kind like Poke used to be), and a friend who is a die-hard liberal.  I don't have too many straight-up conservative friends, although one comes pretty close.  I respect all of their opinions, I don't always agree, but sometimes I just can't understand.  It seems like the folks who are set squarely into one of these groups (whatever group they choose) always has to run screaming into the conversation, blasting those who disagree or are different, and stating reasons why their group is the only/best group.  It's fucking ridiculous!

To me, some things just aren't important enough to be a true political affair - women changing their last name, light bulbs, living on the moon.  Then, there are the things that are important - abortion, taxes, health care... that's where I get all stretched out.  I can sum up my feelings in three neat bullets:

• Abortion = Murder
• Taxes should be lower for me (and those who make less than me), and higher for those who make more than me.
• Health care should be publicly funded (See: France)

I guess that's it for today.  Here's a video for you, in honor of Presidents' Day!

*Does not connotate affiliation with the modern Tea Party

Fat vs Thin vs Bottle vs Breast vs ...?...

There's a lot of speculation out there about feeding a baby too soon, with a spoon, and feeding it rice/oatmeal/etc.  They say it causes obesity and diabetes, but where are they getting this information?  IF they are getting it from looking at our generation, and even our parents' generation, it doesn't correlate.  We're obese/diabetic because of our current lifestyles, not because of what we ate 30+ years ago! Genetics does play a role; as I've said before, my brother and I were fed exactly the same way as babies and yet he turned out slim & fit whereas I'm morbidly obese.  His parents were small and thin, my parents were average and stocky. 

I even read an article just now about a "study" they did on 92 spoon-fed babies vs 63 breast-fed babies.  10 of the spoon babies were overweight, and 9 of the breast babies were overweight.  First of all, they clearly stated that all the children were within a "normal healthy" weight range - so these "overweight" children were probably just the top 10 and top 9 of their groups.  Second, 10 out of 92 (10.87%) is significantly less than 9 out of 63 (14.24%), which to ME would indicate that the breast-fed children were actually the ones who had a "problem"!  In fact, I have a friend whose son was born 10 days after 4L, and is considerably larger than him.  

Due to the complications from my C-section, I only nursed 4L for about 10 days, while her son has been nursed the entire time.  Using that as anecdotal evidence, in combination with the aforementioned "study", I'd say breast-fed babies do tend to be larger - and it makes sense!  They get all the nutrients, calories, antibodies, etc etc etc EVERYTHING from the mother, and who knows what she's eating (I don't mean my friend here, cuz she is healthy, but I mean other mothers that I don't know!).  Spoon-fed babies are fed specific amounts at a time, leaving no question as to how many calories they are actually getting and from where those calories are coming.

Obviously, I'm not a doctor or scientist, and I only took one nutrition course in college.  That being said, I do read a lot, on both sides of the argument (whatever the argument may be!), and I have my own experiences to draw from.  Personally, and I know others who agree, I think that nobody really, truly knows wtf is going on with babies, and it's all just speculation.  Thirty years ago my parents were told to put me on my stomach to sleep, along with millions of other babies, and we all lived.  4L HATED sleeping on his back, and now that he's old enough to roll around on his own, he sleeps 99% of the night on his stomach.  Babies who sleep on their backs still die from SIDS, because nobody knows what causes SIDS. I would be willing to make a bet that in less than ten years, we'll be back to formula is the best and sleeping on the stomach is correct.  I can picture it now, doctors telling insanely obese/diabetic mothers that their milk is just too diseased/fatty/diabetic/etc to feed to a newborn, and that formula would be safer. Right now there's a big push for ADHD medications/diagnoses, and I think that in less than ten years the medical field will agree that it's lazy parenting because they'll have moved onto the next thing that Big Pharm wants to hawk.

...And that's my blogpost for the morning.  Now we're off to baby laptime at the library, cuz one thing is for sure- books will never be bad! (Unless you're CS Lewis in Fahrenheit 451... ok, gotta stop there!)

Can't sleep.  Thinking about money.  Thanks to bullshit insurance at Poke's job, we went from paying about $115/mo for him & 4L to paying over $300.  On top of that, there's no such thing as a copay - we have to pay 100% of *everything* until we reach $2500 deductible for EACH of them, which will happen, but not til 5 of each refill on Poke's necessary diabetes medications (which run over $250 for each). Meanwhile, he didn't get the raise he was supposed to get, didn't get a holiday bonus, and now we have a car payment that we didn't have before.  I feel guilty, but even if I had gone back to work, literally 99% of my income would be going to 4L's day care.  When we planned this sahm thing, everything was in place.  We could easily afford it, and even allotted for the cost of 4L.  Now, even with WIC, we aren't making it.  We only go out once a month, we don't drink or smoke, we don't even eat out but maybe once or twice a month.  

I use so many coupons and sales on top of getting WIC, and I don't know what to do to save more money.  We got a statement from AEP this week stating that, at 800 watts or whatever, our household is in the "good" range for use of electricity.  The average is 1800.  I'd say we're fucking excellent, thank you.  Our electric bill is, on average, less than the average bill of the average household from 2008, when prices were 30% lower than they are now.  I rule at conserving.  The thermostat is set at 63-65 degrees, the lights are almost all on timers, and we live in the dark.  Our gas bill is low too - same as the electric, rarely above $60.  Our mortgage is less than $750, cheaper than many two bedroom apartments in central Ohio, and that figure includes taxes and insurance.  The only thing we have that we could get rid of is the cable, and I'm trying to keep the entertainment alive by switching to DirectTv.  Unfortunately, when they came out to install it, they said we have too many trees to get a signal.  They're sending out a supervisor for a second opinion, but I'm sure he will say the same thing.  So, instead of lowering our bill by $40, it will stay the same.  I could just cancel the cable, go to basic and keep the internet, but then I would probably lose my mind being at home all day because 5.5 month old babies aren't really the most enthralling thing to watch 16 hours a day.  Maybe getting rid of the cable would help me get rid of my fat because I'd be forced to go do stuff.  That being said, losing this fat would increase our electric/gas bills because I'd lose all my insulation.  Catch 22.

This health insurance thing has really fucked us over.  The monthly expenses are increased by $900, however, the income has gone down by $250.  Isn't that fucking amazing?!  No wonder I can't sleep. FML.

The stupid Tupperware thing didn't work out, so I feel dumb about that because I didn't even make back the $120 I spent on the kit.  Granted, I got $500 worth of product for $120, but I could have done without that stuff.  I don't know how that lady makes her money- and she makes it look so easy to do!  I am just NOT a salesperson.  I literally could not sell a heater to an eskimo.  

If I could make money singing, or typing, or eating, or sitting on a couch, or staying awake when I should be sleeping - then we would be in business.  I could even make a living drinking beer!  Alas, no such careers present themselves to me.  I told Poke the other day that we need to have a bunch more kids because the more kids you have, the more you get back at tax time.  Fuck my credit, let all the bills go to collections. No big deal.

I work at the Culinary Institute four days a month, which is all they will allow.  The majority of my paycheck is supposed to go to my student loans, which is why they employ me.  I will have about $100 extra per month, which will go to my life/critical illness insurance, the Dispatch subscription, the Lane Bryant credit card, and church envelopes.  My friend's aunt suggested in-home daycare, but I would have to pay for all the licenses and stuff, somehow get business, and let strangers and their strange, gross kids into my house.  Not going to happen.

All in all, I am completely lost.

VOTE YES ON ISSUE 2/SB 5!

Everything you're about to read came directly from The Columbus Dispatch, pages G4 and A15, Sunday November 6th, 2011.  I couldn't have said any of it better myself, so I just copied and pasted it here for you.


LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Safety Workers are Compensated Well

In an effort to gain knowledge on how to vote on State Issue 2/Senate Bill 5, I listened to friends who reminded me that police officers and firefighters put their lives on the line and deserve every consideration. And since segments of my life have been somewhat at risk as a farmer, a fighter pilot and a helicopter pilot, each of which have had moments of high concern, I wondered how dangerous occupations rated and whether the salaries and benefits are commensurate.Internet findings gave me some insight.
Of the 2009 most-dangerous occupations, fishermen are No. 1, with 200 fatalities per 100,000 employed, and have an average salary of $22,160. Airline pilots have 57 fatalities per 100,000 and an average salary of $53,990. Roofers have 34 fatalities per 100,000 and an average salary of $41,200. Crop farmers have 30 fatalities per 100,000 and an average salary of $24,900. Livestock farmers have 14.9 fatalities per 100,000 and an average salary of $24,900. Police officers have 13.1 fatalities per 100,000 and an average salary of $55,400. Firefighters have 4.4 fatalities per 100,000 and an average salary of $47,760.
We always will consider police officers and firefighters to be our heroes, but when compared with others at high risk, some with even-higher skill requirements, I think their unions have placed an undue burden on society.
After due consideration, I will vote for State Issue 2.
JOHN A. STEVENSON
Circleville

State Issue 2 will hold line on spending

It's time to stop spending money. I have voted yes on every levy to raise my property taxes for schools, law enforcement and fire protection.
I believe in supporting these institutions, but now it's time to stop and assess the situation, because outside forces are corrupting these valuable institutions and those outside forces must be dealt with.
I believe the legislature and Gov. John Kasich took a bold step to deal with these corrupting outside forces and I support their efforts. Ohioans must vote yes on State Issue 2.
LINDA WOLLETT
Lewis Center

Issue 2
Collective-Bargaining Arguments


"As opponents push to get Ohio's new collective-bargaining law overturned on Election Day, there is no shortage of issues to fight about. A look at many of the bill's major provisions and how supporters and opponents have argues their points:

What the bill does	Arguments in Favor	Arguments Against	What the bill does	Arguments in Favor	Arguments Against
Bans strikes by public employees and imposes financial penalties for any public worker who does strike	Public workers have good pay and benefits, so they should not strike; unions sometimes use the threat of a strike to bully employers to cave; children should not have to cross picket lines to attend school	Strikes by public unions are rare, but the threat give unions leverage in negotiations, avoiding an erosion of pay and benefits; five everyone an incentive to come to the middle	Eliminates seniority as the sole factor when determining layoffs due to budgetary shortfalls or enrollment reduction	Allows managers to keep their best people, who are not always their most experienced-people; cutting only newer hires means more workers must be laid off because they re the least expensive.	Makes experience public workers very vulnerable to cost-cutting moves, potentially leaving them with major retirement issues because they do not pay into Social Security; increases the chance of cronyism.
Eliminates binding arbitration for law enforcement and firefighters, the process in which an independent third party resolves a negotiation impasse.	Unelected parties should not be allowed to dictate contract terms that taxpayers have to pay for; threat of arbitration can cause officials to give in to contract terms they do not agree with.	Process is rarely used, and when it is, statistics show decisions split between unions and employers; process ended public-safety union strikes, of which Ohio was a national leader in the 1970s; it brings definitive closure to negotiations.	Eliminates guaranteed 15 sick days for teachers from state law; caps sick days for most other workers at two weeks per year; caps accrued sick leave paid out upon retirement at 50 percent of 1,000 hours	Private-sector workers generally do not get such generous amounts of sick time; sick days are designed for unforeseen illness, not severance; payouts of unused sick time can be very expensive for local governments.	Allowing accumulated sick days is an incentive for people not to take off sick, which helps with attendance.
If a deadlocked negotiation cannot be resolved, allows the governing body to implement its own last offer, after holding a public hearing.	Voters elect leaders to make tough decision and spend tax dollars wisely; people should trust that local leaders will be fair to workers; the balance of power in negotiations has shifter too far to the unions over the past 27 years.	This would be a “fundamentally rigged process” that is unfair to workers because it turns collective bargaining into “collective begging” – no matter what the union offers, the employer can reject it and pick its own offer;; lets employers just wait out the process.	Eliminates “fair share” – the provision in many contracts that requires  those who do not want to join the union to still pay some dues because they are covered by the terms of the contract	Workers who do not want to be part of a union should have the freedom to not pay dues.	Allows for “freeloading” where workers can avoid paying dues but still get benefits from the contract negotiated by the union, is aimed at cutting union membership.
Requires public employees to pay at least 15 percent of health-insurance costs and no longer allows union to bargain for health insurance.	Proponents say the average private-sector worker pays 23 percent, but at the local-government level, public workers generally pay 10 percent or less; it’s no necessary for unions to bargain for health insurance.	Health insurance is an important part of negations, particularly for lower-paid employees; the increased share for many local workers means less take-home pay; state workers have save millions for Ohio through health-insurance bargaining.	Requires more transparency of negotiations and terms of a union contract.	Gives the public a more-complete picture of total public-worker compensation beyond the increase to the base salary; each side might negotiated differently if it know its final offers will be made public.	No major issues raised.
No longer allows local-government employers to pick up a portion of an employee’s share of pension contributions. Workers are to pay 10percent of their wages to their pensions.	Pension pickups are used to hide raises give to public workers; puts workers on an even playing field.	Pension pickups can be cheaper than a straight pay raise because the employer doesn’t make Medicare, workers’ compensation, or unemployment payments on that pickup; without a corresponding pay increase, would be an instant pay cut for many workers; “hidden raises” concern handled by other transparency provisions in SB5	No longer automatically rolls over previous contractual agreement into the next contract.	Eliminates the potentially costly “pancaking effect” when a provision inserted into a contract for a specific reason is almost never removed in later year, even if circumstances change; has eroded management rights over time.	Can lead to draconian scrapping of contact provisions that have value to both labor and management; starting from zero can make for long, messy negotiations.
No longer requires that unions be allowed to bargain for items deemed “management rights” including staffing levels, building assignments, and promotions.	Gives managers more flexibility to run their operations; rights should have never been given up in the first place.	Could leas to larger class sizes in schools, fewer corrections officers in some prisons or fewer safety forces on police and fire runs; could cause safety issues for the public and workers.	Allows voters to go to the ballot to reject a contract if the governing body picks the more costly of the final offers and it is determined the contract cannot be paid for with current revenue.	Gives voters a chance to reject a contract that is “out of whack” and could lead to local tax increases.	Hard to fathom a situation where the criteria would be met to trigger a referendum; could lead to an ugly, divisive community fight over the worth of certain public employees; yet another way employees could lose out in negotiations.
Replaces automatic pay increases for steps and longevity pay with a new system of merit pay.	Quality of work, not years of experience, should be the deciding factor in how workers are compensated; will produce more-effective workers; allows mangers to reward exceptional work; limited step increases still can be included in contracts.	Raises concerns of cronyism, especially at the state level, where political appointees are the bosses; merit can be very difficult to define; will push teachers to be even more test-focused in their lessons, instead of teaching critical thinking.	No longer allows employers to do automatic paycheck deductions if money is earmarked for political-action committees, unless the worker gives written authorization.	Makes it easier for workers to decide whether to give politically; brings situation more in line with how corporation collect PAC money.	Makes it harder for public workers to participate in the political process at the same time the courts have made it easier for corporations; could reduce the political power of public unions, benefitting Republicans.
			Reduces the petition requirement for a public union decertification vote from 50 percent to 30 percent of members	Brings Ohio law in line with National Labor Relations Act; still requires a majority vote to decertify.	Another unnecessary effort to weaken union power by making it easier to decertify the organization; lets the employer interfere in union business.

Read the full article here: Issue 2: For or against? | A Case for the Law