jump to navigation

Green + big box store = not April 19, 2008

Posted by philangelus in family, kiddos, sarcasm.
11 comments

We received a gift card to Babies R Us for Kiddo#4. Some of our small diaper covers are shot by now, so I figured I’d pick up a few more to tide us over until K4 fits into the larger sizes.

Yes, I’m one of those cloth diaper fanatics. I switched over so I could see what our washing machine could really do, and I’ve never looked back. I think cloth diapering is awesome.

All the employees at Babies R Us looked bored out of their minds and stared right through me whenever I had occasion to talk to them. I wasn’t entirely sure they were alive at all. But the upshot was, when I asked where they kept their cloth diaper covers, one was able to show me where the cloth diapers (prefolds) were located, but no covers.

(Incidentally, when I talk about diaper covers, I mean something like the Bummis Super Brite Diaper Cover and when I say “prefolds” these were what they had: Gerber Diaper Service Cloth Diapers (6-pk.).)

They had nothing like a cloth diaper cover, and no pins. Only those lame rubber pants like your great-grandmother used to curse whenever the baby leaked all over her lap.

In other words, Babies R Us sells cloth diapers that you have no effective means of putting on your baby.

The employee tried to convince me that rubber pants were the same thing as diaper covers. She also seemed to think that training pants were the same thing as diaper covers. They aren’t.

I’m a hit-and-run shopper: I don’t browse a store, particularly not with a baby in a sling and a four year old who wants to stop in front of every item in a big box store and say, “And what is that?” When we’d determined Babies R Us no longer sells cloth diaper covers, I decided to leave.

On the way out of the store, I passed an ad saying they were having a “green mothering” day in May, where they’ll showcase their most environmentally friendly products.

I wonder if they’ll hold that in the disposable diaper aisle, surrounded by boxes of diapers stacked higher than the Great Wall of China, while they demonstrate to mothers of infants their selection of precisely two kinds of cloth prefolds that they can’t then change a baby into?

“This is my body” April 18, 2008

Posted by philangelus in family, pensive, religion.
27 comments

I wrote this a while ago and couldn’t decide if I should run it. Sometimes I leave things as drafts for a few weeks figuring out whether they’re “personal” or “public.” I think this one is going public. Be gentle on me.

We brought Kiddo#4 to church for the first time on Sunday, April 6th, and I don’t have a “disaster post” for you. That’s bad from a “funny weblog” perspective (I know you were looking forward to a tale of me being spit up-on or dealing with four screaming Kiddos) but good from a “Philangelus keeps her sanity” perspective.

The worst that happened was a well-timed poop by Kiddo#4, so I went downstairs during the offering of the gifts to do a quick-change. (Don’t “tsk” me: my Patient Husband had the envelopes.) I got back at the consecration just in time for Kiddo#4 to decide pooping had made room for more milk, and therefore it must be my responsibility to put more there.

I’m a discreet nurser-in-public so I just slipped K4 around in the Mayawrap, and at the moment I latched him on, I heard the priest say, “This is my body, which will be given up for you.”

You know those “epiphany” moments? I had one right then, and it lasted right until the end of Mass.

There are only two times in the average human being’s life when we can expect to say “this is my body” to another human being. One of them would be a mother with her baby: first, a mother giving her body over to her baby for the purpose of gestation and later on for nursing. The mother is giving from her physical self solely for the benefit of someone else. Her uterus exists only for the nurturance of a different human being. And really, the same can be said of her breasts. That whole system is there only to benefit someone who is not her. In fact, she might be healthier if those systems were removed, and many women can and do live a full life without ever using those systems.

The second situation would be lovers in an act of physical intimacy: a man effectively says “this is my body” to his bride, or a woman to her husband. Again it’s other-oriented for the most part: Take me; this is my body. I am yours.

And for the rest of the Mass, right through Communion, I was struck by the way Jesus had said that to us, the tender vulnerability of a man approaching his spouse or the concern of a mother feeding her baby. The chance of rejection. The openness to the needs of the other. The awkwardness of someone who loves someone else.

In “The Everyday,” Father Martin at Mount Savior Monastery says that every lover is awkward, and no lover is as awkward as God. 

For a moment there, I could feel that awkwardness, the “nakedness” of God before us, how God wants our souls naked before Him and divested of all the baffles we create to hide ourselves. How we, as lovers, feel ugly and unlovable and want to keep the lights off, but God wants to look at us with surprise and tenderness, and give everything and receive everything in return. This is my body — and this is yours.

It was all the more powerful when I realized that after Jesus said those words, the next day He said “this is my body” in one more way, and literally gave his body over and was killed. 

This is my body, given for you.

Growing a baby. Meeting as a lover. An exchange of persons (which is, in effect, a covenant).

Jesus said in John 6 that if we didn’t take and eat, there was no life in us, and was fully prepared to let all His disciples walk away from Him if they couldn’t do it. Clearly it was important for Him that we let that nakedness happen, that giving, that ultimate feeding. This is my body: my milk, my love, my blood, my life. All of them and at the same time none of them. God as our parent and our lover and our beloved and our rescuer.

After Communion, I found myself crying. I couldn’t have said why because there was too much. It was a little thing, no word in the sentence more than four letters long, and yet it was everything, every important relationship we ever wanted but contained fully in none of them.

Blog tour: Queen of the World April 17, 2008

Posted by philangelus in politics, sarcasm.
1 comment so far

Here’s the new blog tour question for this week:

“If I were Queen of the World, President of the United States, or Silda Spitzer, I would…..”  

I’m going to choose Queen of the World, because that makes me slightly more powerful than the other two choices. 

If I were Queen of the World, I’d land myself a really good book contract. I mean, you can’t beat that for “platform.”

But seriously, I think I’d take on economics. I would try to do something about American corporations sending their work overseas so they don’t have to pay the workers as much, maybe mandate that a corporation doing business in a certain country has to pay its workers according to the pay scale of the country where they’re based, not the country where they’re paying the workers. (ie, if you manufacture in Sierra Leon and ship the goods to the United States, you have to pay a US minimum wage.)

Exploiting other countries so we can have cheap t-shirts or cheap widgets is a bad thing, and over the next 400 years it will all even out as the outsource countries up their standard of living, but I’d like to accelerate that timetable. I haven’t a coherent strategy right now as to how to do that, but if I were Queen of the World, I’d come up with one.

But I do have a coherent strategy for a more fair way to manage taxes. Right now, sales tax in the States is flat for the most part: if you live in one state, it’s the same sales tax no matter what you’re buying. (This is true for the states I’ve lived in; I can’t speak for all fifty.)

I would stagger the taxes so that if you’re buying on the low end of the scale, it’s a zero sales tax rate. In the middle, it would be a low level tax (say 3%) and at the high end, it would be 8 to 10%. In other words, a car is a necessity in American society, but a Lexus is not. If you’re buying a used Civic, there wouldn’t be any sales tax on that vehicle. If you buy a gently-used Accord, though, it’s a 3% sales tax, and if you’re buying a BMW, it’s 10%.

Same thing with TVs: you’d pay sales tax on the 52 inch flat screen TV, but not on a low-end model. And so on with food, office supplies, clothing… That way, individuals aren’t being taxed on necessities but only on luxuries. And who’s buying luxuries? The people with money who can afford to pay the taxes on it.

You’re going to ask who’s going to determine what’s a luxury item and what isn’t, and frankly, if I’m Queen of the World, I can find a reliable staff of people and give them catalogues to come up with those guidelines for me.

Speaking of hiring a reliable staff, there would be one more important group of staff members. I would hire a team and pay them two million dollars a year apiece to make them bribe-proof. And then, when I had my bribe-proof team assembled, I’d have them ferret out awesome charitable organizations like Heifer International. Organizations that are effective, global, provide necessary services, and give individuals a means out of poverty rather than just a stopgap measure.

And then, as Queen of the World, I would channel money into those organizations so they could be equally as effective on a larger scale. I’d have my own PR people go to work promoting these organizations that were hand-selected by my bribe-proof team.

I know there are real-world logistical problems involved here that I can’t begin to solve in a weblog entry. But financial injustice and poverty–and the hunger and lack of dignity and respect that go along with those–are big deals to me, and I’d want those tackled first to make it a better world. If the world wasn’t better off after my reign than before it, I would have a lot to answer to before God, but even before that, I would have a lot to answer to in my own heart.



Other participants in the blog tour are: AllyKat’s Alcove, The Absent Minded Housewife, And then there were three, Chrisnada’s Journal, the Drunken Housewife, Fat Angie, Housewife 2000, How can I live life in the fast lane if all I’ve got is a bicycle?, la_eme, life in the land of maeve, Ramblings, Ramblings of a Grad Student, Space Age Housewife, Such is Life, Tales of an Ordinary Life, VeryContrary, What’s my life? Wry Exchange

Lace, part two April 16, 2008

Posted by philangelus in family, knitting, pensive.
1 comment so far

Well, I’ve just gotten off the phone with my mother, and I’ve got some information that changes the first Lace post.

Tragically, there is no more of “the real stuff.” It’s just…gone. My mother doesn’t have any. She says my uncle won’t have any either, but I’m still kind of hoping.

Ivy, you were right that “the real stuff” would be done in circles or cornered like a granny square, and they were mostly doilies and scarves. They were done without a pattern, as I said. All her afghans and crocheted garments also were done without patterns and often reverse-engineered from pieces she had seen others make. But that handkerchief was not one of them.

Everyone who identified the photographed lace as machined was correct. My mother said this wasn’t even the “nice” kind of handkerchief.

These were the ones made at The Shop, which I now know is the Liberty Handkerchief Co., on Union Street in Brooklyn. (It’s no longer there.) They did their work as contractors for White House and Stein Dobbin Lace Companies, and apparently the labels don’t even say Liberty. (You can google up a Liberty Handkerchief that exists in England; it’s not the same.)

My mom says that what you had to do to make these were to run up the seam right to the corner, then turn the handkerchief around and run back down the same seam. The trick was to do this without creating a tag in the back (ie, no extra fabric) and without leaving any holes. Then after that, you had to turn over the handkerchief and cut off the “wing” that would be left there. They called this a mitered corner. (?)

Then the handkerchiefs would be bundled up in packs of twelve, tied with a ribbon, and sold for eighty cents.

My grandmother’s shop also made scarves, baby dresses, mantillas, chaplets, satin sachets, and “doggies” during the slow season. (I wasn’t aware there was a slow season for handkerchiefs, by the way.) The “doggies” would be dogs and other animals made of terry cloth, then brought to another location where they’d be filled with foam rubber, and they’d be sold as kids’ sponges. My grandmother was good at finding work for the shop and that was one of the fun ones, my mom tells me.

Next time I’m at her house, I’ll photograph “the good handkerchiefs” and post those.

I’m utterly bummed that the Real Handmade Lace isn’t around any longer. That stinks. I mean, it’s nice to have these, but I wanted one of the ones she’d made for herself, right out of her own head. But my mom said those were from when grandma was younger, before she’d be staying up until three in the morning a few days a week trying to keep the shop afloat, and back when her hands didn’t hurt to be working with fine thread like that.

My mom said she didn’t know it was important to me, but I guess you don’t realize what’s important to you when you’re a kid and all this stuff just surrounds you. It’s just part of the past that vanishes away and then you wonder later on where it all went.

publication: I can haz furgiveness? April 16, 2008

Posted by philangelus in sarcasm.
4 comments

The Wittenburg Door has published my article about the LOLcat Bible.

There were already twelve comments on it when I checked it out this morning. I especially like the comment about the kng jim version. :)

The Kiddos have been going around saying, “You will has kitten and naem him Jesus” since breakfast when I found it. Go over and check it out and then have nightmares of angels singing “W00t to teh Ceiling Cat!”

Lace April 16, 2008

Posted by philangelus in family, knitting, pensive.
9 comments

[There's an update to this post because now we have more information. Link at the bottom.]

My grandmother came home from school at age ten to crochet hats for her family to sell. They needed the money.

It was New York in the late teens/early 1920s. A few years later, my grandmother quit school to work. She helped the family by crocheting and sewing. In later years, she married my grandfather and together they opened “the shop.”

I’m sure the shop had a name, but I never heard it called anything other than “the shop.” (Help me out here, Mom.) Their workers were “the girls.” The Shop dominated their lives (as all privately-owned businesses do) but it’s all nebulous to me. I know my grandmother had a patent on a kind of lacy pillow with a pocket on the front, and I know they made dresses and other garments. I know my grandmother was the one with all the business sense and my grandfather was so cheap he could make a penny cry. But the thing I know most is that grandma could make lace.

The lace handkerchiefs were the things I always heard about, and I actually have two preserved here in Angeltown. My mother and uncle have most of the rest of the extant handkerchiefs.

Check this out: 

And check out the detail:

I can’t imagine anyone blowing his nose into this. I mean, it would be sacrilege. And yet, she made them to be used. Hundreds of them. Thousands.

I recently saw my mother’s treasure chest, a hard-sided box the size of a pencil case with rusted hinges that makes a “kop” sound when it springs shut, and inside, dozens of Grandma’s crochet hooks, some so small you could perform cardiac surgery with them.

It wasn’t until this weekend that I learned the most amazing thing: my grandmother didn’t need a pattern to do these. In fact, she couldn’t read patterns at all.

If you don’t knit or crochet yourself, that doesn’t sound like much, but even with my rudimentary knowledge of what it takes to make lace, I’m flabbergasted. From my minimal understanding, lace requires using increases and decreases in order to create a pattern. More than that, it means managing the increases and the decreases so they come out even at the end of the line, so they “lean” correctly one way or the other, and yes, so they look pretty.

My grandmother? Did all that in her head.

Can you imagine just picking up some thread and a hook and making this?

My mother says the same is true of my stepfather’s grandmother, that she too never read a pattern, that she just pictured what she wanted a lace border to look like and then set to work, creating the openings and the closing spaces in order to make it happen, like ascii art (remember that?) as it emerged line by line.

Mom says, “It was a different time.” But surely not so different that people always thought in mathematical terms? That everyone could just see in their heads what happens when you increase here or decrease there, and when to lean an opening one way or the other, or decrease without leaving an opening at all? And that two “average” women, neither of whom exceeded a seventh grade education, could reverse-engineer any garment they came across in order to re-create it themselves, by hand, at home in the evenings with nothing other than some steel hooks and a few skeins of yarn?

My grandmother would be stunned by what I can do with MS Word, and today, I’m stunned by the magic she could work with a crochet hook.

We have an update to this post, by the way, based on Ivy’s comments and a phone call from my mom.

Jesus as shepherd April 15, 2008

Posted by philangelus in angels, religion.
17 comments

Ivy has pointed out to me that Jesus talks about shepherding from the vantage point of someone surrounded by shepherding but not actually experienced in it.

Personally, I’ve always wondered why he didn’t tell parables that involved any carpentry metaphors, and why he didn’t seem to value wood. There’s the fig tree that doesn’t bear fruit, and Jesus says it will be cut down and thrown into the fire; why not “it will be cut down and turned into a table”?

At any rate, Good Shepherd Sunday brought back to my mind a story Rich Mullins told during an interview. In VietNam, a pastor wanted to preach about Jesus as the good shepherd, only he’d never seen a sheep and knew nothing about shepherding.

(I have to relate a funny story here. I’m a city girl. Sometimes I take my Kiddos out of Angeltown to a farm to pick apples or blueberries, and while we’re there, we see the farm animals. A while ago, when we went, it was one of the household guardians’ first times there, and I felt this startled question in my head, as if to say, This is what you do for fun? You pretend to farm? And it all unfolded in my head in an instant, that this was how people lived for thousands of years, and here it is now, a day-trip. For a moment, I could see the absurdity from an outsider’s point of view. That’s how divorced we are from an agrarian culture.)

The pastor in Rich Mullins’ story didn’t go blueberry picking; instead he walked fifteen miles to the closest library, read up on shepherding, and walked home again to preach to his congregation on what he’d found.

The pastor told them, “A shepherd tends and protects his sheep, then takes their wool, and eventually he kills them to take their meat.”

I think that was supposed to horrify the American listeners, but this is exactly where I stood for a long time in relation to God. I had an attitude of complete submission because I identified with this idea of the shepherd: Jesus protected me, but at whatever time as he wanted to go ahead and “use” me for whatever I could give him (my wool, my meat) then it was his right to go ahead and take it. At some point or another, it would happen.

After all, shepherds aren’t raising sheep as pets. They’re raising them for a reason. Sheep make yarn. They make little sheep. And eventually, they go to the butcher.

Last year, my spiritual life got wrenched around in ways I never expected, and at one point, this belief came under scrutiny. It was so low-level and so long-term (think three decades) that I’d never been aware of it, but I had no trust that God wanted what was best for me, only for the Kingdom of God, the big picture, the system. I was a pawn in an ontological game of chess, and God might sacrifice the pawn for a better position. You don’t care about your chess pieces. It made sense that in the larger system of things, God didn’t care about me either. I owed God my fealty, and I would be loyal, but I fully expected at some point to be sacrificed off the board. 

How this translated into my behavior was this: clearly your best bet is not to attract God’s attention. Don’t stick your head up, and God won’t get out the hammer to bang you down again.

And I know this shocked (horrified?) my guardian angel, because at one point I actually heard in my head, during prayer, “It’s okay to trust in God. He knows what He’s doing.” But it wasn’t God’s competency I had called into question. It was His concern.

Ivy worked with me on this, but we couldn’t get me past the “grand master chessman” toward anything resembling “fatherhood.” There was too much fear involved.

I can’t go into what happened that turned me around. It’s too personal and you wouldn’t believe it anyhow. But it’s a year later now, and I’m convinced that God cares about me personally, the same way He cares about you and about your best friend and the next person who reads this after you, and that God’s big enough to juggle all these things to make it happen. It’s quite a change, but the largest difference is I’m no longer afraid to stick my head up and get God’s attention. The fear is gone.

If Jesus is a good shepherd, though, then he’s got an eye toward economy and the usefulness of the sheep. I still don’t know how to reconcile that.

And what does it mean that Jesus is both the Shepherd and the Lamb? 

Good review for Annihilation! April 14, 2008

Posted by philangelus in Seven Archangels: Annihilation, writing.
add a comment

There’s a review of Seven Archangels: Annihilation in my church bulletin. (It’s not linkable, so I’ve got it saved here as a pdf file.)

I had no idea they were going to do that. Very cool. (Thank you, Peter, if you’re reading this!)

Annihilation: chapter 15 April 14, 2008

Posted by philangelus in Seven Archangels: Annihilation, writing.
add a comment

Chapter fifteen of Seven Archangels: Annihilation is up over at MindFlights Magazine.

When I open the book and want to read something cool, this is the chapter I open to. You’ve got two characters awakening in this chapter, and both of them are coping with something being terribly wrong inside, and neither of them solve the problem in this chapter. Yet they cope the same way: by leaning on their community for the strength they don’t have themselves.

The situation is still serious, but there’s love and unconditional support, which is IMHO what the good guys do best. Underlying the anger, the frustration, the fear and the self-recrimination on the part of several characters, there’s trust and concern. We saw in chapter 14 how Mephistopheles handles the same situation, and it’s rather different.

And throughout, there’s little moments where despite the tension, the characters can come up for air and smile, like when Mary wants to know how the angels made a room warmer and asks if God will do it for her.

The Holy Spirit said, Up on the front of the throne of glory, does it say “Thermostat”?

Mary bit her lip to contain her smile. The room was already warming as she cleared empty containers off the bed. I’m not aware of anything it says on the front of the throne because I’ve only got eyes for You when I’m there.

The Holy Spirit said, Come back sometime and check.

So I can be dazzled and forget again? Okay. But then I’ll have to return again. And again.

The Holy Spirit hugged her.

Really, what does it say on the throne of glory?

“Not a step.”

Mary laughed as she put away the hamper.

Think about it.

Yes, God has a sense of humor too. He has to have one: He made us, didn’t He?

By the way: both stores Mary mentions actually exist. If you’re in New York, you now know where to go to get the best mozzarella cheese.

Action/reaction in fiction April 14, 2008

Posted by philangelus in writing.
3 comments

In physics, every action has an equal and opposite reaction. In fiction, Randy Ingermanson talks about events and sequels. And today, I’m going to advise you to stand that on its head.

I critiqued a short story for someone, and as usually happens when I critique, I learn something about my own style. (And you guys thought I only did it to be nice!) Without plagiarizing the piece I’m critiquing, here’s my version of one of his passages:

“But you can’t harm me,” John said, holding up a glowing stone.

“The Stone of Invulnerability!” said Snimmet.

Fairly standard for fantasy, right? My first thought was, let’s clean this up a bit. Have John hold up the stone FIRST, knock out “he said” (both of them, actually — speeds things up.) Give the villain some kind of reaction.

That’s when I realized, I do things backward in fiction. Because when I wanted to put in the reaction, I wanted to put the reaction before the action. Check out what I did