Does this look like the face of a child who eats cockroaches?
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Trying New Things
Thursday, November 20, 2008
More on Abby
At just over 9 months old, Abby is growing bigger and stronger (she now weighs 14 lbs.). She drinks her milk (almost exclusively--a frustrating story of its own) to build strong bones and muscles, and to get a little extra bulk she knocks out two dozen pull ups each morning.
With her now found strength she terrorizes the house. She is particularly fond of the closet, and does her best to unfold all the sweaters, disorganize the shoes, and pull down any hanging items that she can reach.
Fortunately, she is so cute that we dont mind. Her brown hair with a touch of copper is beautiful, and all the grown men in the ward fawn all over her. My biggest concern is the older toddler boy I've seen her flirting with at church--Tommy (See "Dave & Tiffany" on our blogging buddies). Dave, I've got my eye on him!
So, on to other things (for the one or two people who care)... Life is going well. Its very busy. Jen is wrapping up the semester with both schoolwork and her choirs. She's been a little ill lately but is starting to recover and in just a couple weeks she can rejoice in knowing there is very little schoolwork remaining (I think she needs one more class next semester). I just finished the defense of my prospectus, which means I advanced to candidacy and now have nothing more to do in school except write my dissertation (and teach classes). I've been doing interviews with folks and will continue to do that for the next few weeks, and then I've got to start producing. I am presenting at a prestigious conference in March and am a bit nervous that I've not yet finished the research. I am enjoying the work. In church things are going about as usual. Jen just finished up a large stake youth choir and incorporated all our musical friends into the production. We are excited for next month when we spend Christmas in Washington with all of Abby's cousins. We can't wait for her first Christmas. As usual, we'll do Thanksgiving with my family in Los Angeles, and my mom will love to show off Abby. I feel like the too many balls I've been juggling are slowly reducing in number--and that is a relief. For Jen, it appears, she's got to wait a few more weeks for that respite.
So, on to other things (for the one or two people who care)... Life is going well. Its very busy. Jen is wrapping up the semester with both schoolwork and her choirs. She's been a little ill lately but is starting to recover and in just a couple weeks she can rejoice in knowing there is very little schoolwork remaining (I think she needs one more class next semester). I just finished the defense of my prospectus, which means I advanced to candidacy and now have nothing more to do in school except write my dissertation (and teach classes). I've been doing interviews with folks and will continue to do that for the next few weeks, and then I've got to start producing. I am presenting at a prestigious conference in March and am a bit nervous that I've not yet finished the research. I am enjoying the work. In church things are going about as usual. Jen just finished up a large stake youth choir and incorporated all our musical friends into the production. We are excited for next month when we spend Christmas in Washington with all of Abby's cousins. We can't wait for her first Christmas. As usual, we'll do Thanksgiving with my family in Los Angeles, and my mom will love to show off Abby. I feel like the too many balls I've been juggling are slowly reducing in number--and that is a relief. For Jen, it appears, she's got to wait a few more weeks for that respite. Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Heather's Wedding
Last weekend we drove out to California for my sister's wedding. Heather married Brandon Urry, so now it appears that the perpetuation of our family surname is up to Jen and I. Anybody know any boys up for adoption? Below are some photos from the weekend, in no particular order, and a professional photo of Abby we took last week.

Brandon's family--he's the only boy.
My old best friend from junior high & high school, Harry, drove in from Sacramento with his wife, Lisa, and their three children.






Saturday, October 4, 2008
More on Politics
How about a quick review of historical patterns of economic growth and depression in the US?
1820s – 1830s economic growth stemmed from the market revolution (expanding production & proto-consumerism); John Quincy Adams’ pro-growth “American System” sparked economic growth by dumping state and federal dollars into internal improvements, heavily taxing imports, and highly regulating economic policy. GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT = ECONOMIC GROWTH.
1837 – 1842 economic depression stemmed from Jacksonian era deregulation and speculative banking practices. LACK OF GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT = ECONOMIC DEPRESSION.
1840s-1880s economic growth and polarization of social classes stemmed from (1) government subsidized industrialization (ex. US gov paid for transcendental railroad with land grant and massive loans to big business) and (2) government's alliance with moneyed interests to put down labor organizations. GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT = ECONOMIC GROWTH.
1865-1890s economic stagnation in the South occurred as millions of dollars in property (slaves) disappeared and the region resisted the market revolution that transformed the north forty years previous. In this case, government involvement technically led to economic depression but only because it was government who freed the slaves.
1929-40 – depression followed ramped unregulated growth; Hoover’s hands off policy, even after the crash of 1929, demonstrated that LACK OF GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT = ECONOMIC DEPRESSION.
1945-70s – cold war growth as the US government dumped tons of cash into the military industrial complex. GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT = ECONOMIC GROWTH.
2008 – Crash following thirty years of deregulation in energy, transportation, communications, and banking. LACK OF GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT = ECONOMIC DEPRESSION.
So, what is the pattern?
I’m so sick of empty rhetoric arguing that the economy does best when government stays out; it simply isn’t true. American history shows clearly that the economy does best when Congress and the President work to regulate and guide the economy, often dumping federal tax dollars into various sectors.
Conversely, “trickle-down economics” (the idea that lessening taxes on big business with strengthen the economy and trickle down to the middle and poor classes) doesn’t work.
The only time the non-rich get any help is when government uses social programs to give back to the working classes what big business has unfairly appropriated through unrestrained capitalism. No, I don’t advocate communism, but no matter how good you are at a job you don’t deserve to make tens of millions of dollars a year more than others. You’re not that good—nobody is. The wealthy don’t deserve to jump to the top of transplant lists, they don’t deserve to live longer than everyone else because they have better health insurance (paid for by money they appropriated from the working classes), and they don’t deserve to more money than they know how to spend. When we look at all the high paid CEOs and how they get paid ridiculous salaries (many as they drive companies into the ground) I can help but think (1) "do they really deserve those inflated salaries," and (2) “is this the best use of money?" The answer is no.
Monetary value isn’t created by speculators on Wall Street; at its most basic root it stems from labor and resources—labor put in by working class Americans. High prices and low salaries allow big business to appropriate the value of the working classes' labor; however, through systems like social security and a national health care plan that hard earned wealth can be returned to the people who created it and truly deserve it. That sounds not only fair, but economically wise when we consider how beneficial government involvement in the economy has proven.
Think about it.
1820s – 1830s economic growth stemmed from the market revolution (expanding production & proto-consumerism); John Quincy Adams’ pro-growth “American System” sparked economic growth by dumping state and federal dollars into internal improvements, heavily taxing imports, and highly regulating economic policy. GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT = ECONOMIC GROWTH.
1837 – 1842 economic depression stemmed from Jacksonian era deregulation and speculative banking practices. LACK OF GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT = ECONOMIC DEPRESSION.
1840s-1880s economic growth and polarization of social classes stemmed from (1) government subsidized industrialization (ex. US gov paid for transcendental railroad with land grant and massive loans to big business) and (2) government's alliance with moneyed interests to put down labor organizations. GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT = ECONOMIC GROWTH.
1865-1890s economic stagnation in the South occurred as millions of dollars in property (slaves) disappeared and the region resisted the market revolution that transformed the north forty years previous. In this case, government involvement technically led to economic depression but only because it was government who freed the slaves.
1929-40 – depression followed ramped unregulated growth; Hoover’s hands off policy, even after the crash of 1929, demonstrated that LACK OF GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT = ECONOMIC DEPRESSION.
1945-70s – cold war growth as the US government dumped tons of cash into the military industrial complex. GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT = ECONOMIC GROWTH.
2008 – Crash following thirty years of deregulation in energy, transportation, communications, and banking. LACK OF GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT = ECONOMIC DEPRESSION.
So, what is the pattern?
I’m so sick of empty rhetoric arguing that the economy does best when government stays out; it simply isn’t true. American history shows clearly that the economy does best when Congress and the President work to regulate and guide the economy, often dumping federal tax dollars into various sectors.
Conversely, “trickle-down economics” (the idea that lessening taxes on big business with strengthen the economy and trickle down to the middle and poor classes) doesn’t work.
The only time the non-rich get any help is when government uses social programs to give back to the working classes what big business has unfairly appropriated through unrestrained capitalism. No, I don’t advocate communism, but no matter how good you are at a job you don’t deserve to make tens of millions of dollars a year more than others. You’re not that good—nobody is. The wealthy don’t deserve to jump to the top of transplant lists, they don’t deserve to live longer than everyone else because they have better health insurance (paid for by money they appropriated from the working classes), and they don’t deserve to more money than they know how to spend. When we look at all the high paid CEOs and how they get paid ridiculous salaries (many as they drive companies into the ground) I can help but think (1) "do they really deserve those inflated salaries," and (2) “is this the best use of money?" The answer is no.
Monetary value isn’t created by speculators on Wall Street; at its most basic root it stems from labor and resources—labor put in by working class Americans. High prices and low salaries allow big business to appropriate the value of the working classes' labor; however, through systems like social security and a national health care plan that hard earned wealth can be returned to the people who created it and truly deserve it. That sounds not only fair, but economically wise when we consider how beneficial government involvement in the economy has proven.
Think about it.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Today at the Phoenix Zoo
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
The First Tooth
So the other day Abby stuck my finger in her mouth and I felt something hard just beneath the bottom gums. Today it broke through. At just over seven months old, Abby has her first tooth, three days after she began crawling. These things move up and down quite a bit, and it might disappear before she lets me take a picture, but for today, it was there.
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)


