Saturday, June 13, 2015

Breastfeeding and Modesty

Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. - Ecclesiastes 12:13

A recent status shared by my husband on his Facebook wall has made me realize how much confusion there is amongst Christian ladies and mothers regarding breastfeeding and the question of modesty.

As the verse at the top of this post says, it is important that we look at God's commandment(s) regarding this issue, so we know what to follow rather than being led by our sex-crazed society that puts women on birth control wholesale, and sees them mostly as objects to gratify men's lusts rather than as nurturers and mothers.

First off, let's see how God defines nakedness

Exodus 28:42  And thou shalt make them linen breeches to cover their nakedness; from the loins even unto the thighs they shall reach:

nakedness = loins unto the thighs, or what we would call waist to the top of the knee

Isaiah 20:4  So shall the king of Assyria lead away the Egyptians prisoners, and the Ethiopians captives, young and old, naked and barefoot, even with their buttocks uncovered, to the shame of Egypt

God in Leviticus 18 talks about all sorts of scenarios between both men and women of who should not uncover who's nakedness, but there is no alternative definition of nakedness given for women that expands it to include the upper body. 

Quite to the contrary, by relating "uncovering a woman's nakedness" with "uncovering the fountain of her blood," the Bible reiterates that nakedness is referring to the part of the body from waist to knee (loins and thighs in Bible words). 

Leviticus 18:19  Also thou shalt not approach unto a woman to uncover her nakedness, as long as she is put apart for her uncleanness. 

Leviticus 20:18  And if a man shall lie with a woman having her sickness, and shall uncover her nakedness; he hath discovered her fountain, and she hath uncovered the fountain of her blood: and both of them shall be cut off from among their people.

THAT is the only correct definition of nakedness - loins to thighs. My husband has been preaching this all along, even as far back as 2006.

Not radical Islam that says a woman must be covered literally from head to toe, including gloves and a screen over her eyes, because virtually any part of a woman's body can be sensual in nature to men. Examples are: dainty feet, luscious lips, tender eyes, a perfectly curved calf, hair in soft curls, feminine hands, etc.

Not the nudist idea that says if you have a hat on you are not naked.

Sometimes, vague verses are used to try and teach for commandments the doctrines of men, such as 

1 Corinthinans 11:14  Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? 
The argument being that even though the Bible does not define breasts as nakedness, we all know that they are. Well, we DON'T all know that, and one cannot just add to God's Word to suit their opinions or "common sense." In the passage in Corinthians, God does not leave us to guess what correct hair length is, along the lines of, "Well, I don't need to talk about hair length, because you all know about that in your heart anyway." On the contrary, God devotes a huge section to telling us about the length of men's hair and women's hair, and He just follows it up with a comment that even just nature itself also confirms this law of God. Get it? Nature confirms the law as fully expressed in the Bible, it does not substitute for the law, or generate it. The verse does not give someone who feels in their heart that something is right or wrong a cart blanche to impose that opinion on others.

Nakedness is a very shameful sin, except between husband and wife. As such, God gave us clear, consistent commandments in the Bible as to what defines nakedness. It is not left up to personal opinions that disregard the Bible. The upper body is never once defined as nakedness, and I defy anyone to post a verse to the contrary. 

Breasts, breast, breasts

If the word "breast" makes you cringe, consider this: the Bible uses "breast" 18 times, "breasts" 27 times, "paps" 4 times, and "teats" 3 times. 

Indeed, if the word "breast" makes you cringe on the inside, you have been influenced (and not for the better) by our weird, twisted society that views women only as objects for the sexual gratification of men since reproduction has all but gone by the wayside, an afterthought of sorts. Breasts have been blown out of proportion as sexual objects because we have lost touch with the fact that women are mothers and nurturers first and foremost. Under normal circumstances, a woman's breasts will be used ten times as often to feed a baby, than to satisfy their husband's righteous desires.

To further illustrate my point of breasts being overly sexualized, consider this: it is entirely acceptable to use the word "nipple," but only in the context of "bottle nipple." We even try to make them look and feel and function as close to the real deal as possible, yet nobody bats an eye if you pull your fancy breast-replica bottle nipple out, or even drop it off with baby in the nursery.

Personally, I have always found these rubber replicas to be far more explicit than a woman breastfeeding without a cover, since the real nipple is actually in the baby's mouth and out of view. If someone made a replica of the part of men's or women's private parts that the Bible defines as nakedness, I certainly wouldn't want to show and pass that around any more than the real thing, because even a replica would still be obscene. 

If breasts are nakedness, or even just terribly immodest, why are we publicly displaying these life-like replicas without so much as a blush?

Before you pass out, read on, because then there is 

The question of modesty

1Timothy 2:9  In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; 

Proverbs 31:25  Strength and honour are her clothing; and she shall rejoice in time to come.

Are breasts sexually appealing? Of course they can be! Is that their primary or even predominant function? No. 

Many guys find ladies' feet and/or calves appealing, too. In fact, for decades, many churches taught that ladies ought always to wear closed shoes and hosiery in order to not lead men into lusting after them. On the other hand, there is an entire style of shoes - high heels - that accentuates this part of ladies' bodies. But the primary function of our feet is still to get us from point A to point B, not to strut around and get attention. You will never see me wearing such "hooker shoes". Not because they expose my nakedness (because they don't), but because they are immodest, drawing attention to my body merely for the sake of drawing attention, rather than for any practical purpose. It is the presentation that makes such displays immodest, not the very fact that I have feet, that I use them, and that I don't cover them in tights and closed shoes. 

By the same token, if women go topless, have plunging necklines over push-up bras, have implants, show cleavage, etc. they are doing all this for the sensual and vain reason of putting their body on display. Immodesty = seeking attention

A woman breastfeeding, on the other hand, is doing so 100% for the express and practical purpose of feeding her child. She is not seeking the attention of gawkers, and is therefore not immodest. 

By this correct definition of immodesty, a woman who struts around in high heels, with a fancy hairdo, covered in jewelry and make-up is still immodest, even if she covers up when she breastfeeds, because she is seeking to draw vain attention to her physical features. 

Lamentations 4:3  Even the sea monsters draw out the breast, they give suck to their young ones: the daughter of my people is become cruel, like the ostriches in the wilderness.
Here is a quick science lesson: whales (or sea monsters, as the Bible calls them) do not actually have breasts in the sense of that being some appendage like an udder; they have mammary slits. Nor do they have anywhere to pull these breasts out of, nor do they have hands to pull them out with. God is using this metaphor to say that even whales do more for their young than these wicked women, who should be the ones drawing out the breast and giving suck to their young. 

Drawing the breast out of where? The clothes, of course, since there is nothing else to pull them out of. Drawing out the breast, to then cover it with a blanket? Hardly!

Why not just cover up?

Well, why don't YOU eat your meals under a blanket? There are many reasons, such as 

- heat and stuffiness for mom and baby
- baby wants to see mom
- mom wants to see baby
- baby wants to study and learn about the world around them
- baby wants to hear what's going on
- new moms have a difficult time getting a good latch blindly
- blankets and those hideous nursing bibs draw more attention, not less
- covers further push the idea of over-sexualized breasts

However, all these pale in comparison with the biggest reason not to cover up while breastfeeding: Because it hampers healthy breastfeeding. 

A baby wants to eat under a blanket as much as you want to eat by yourself in a sterile white room without being allowed to read, talk, look out the window, play on your phone, etc. You would hurry up and finish the meal, so you can get back to the funner parts of life. So yes, get a baby hungry enough, and he might sit still under a blanket long enough to fill his tummy, which in a baby over 3 months takes about 3 to 5 minutes. But they will not want to linger at the breast, suckling on lazily while taking in the world around them. THAT kind of nursing is prerequisite for most moms to make lactational amenorrhea (LA) work for them. If you only ever, or mostly, cover up while nursing, your baby will spend a small fraction of the time on the breast that it would if they were uncovered. Not to mention all the bonding and close contact you and baby miss out on when separated by a "veil". 

God could have made milk come out of our pinkies if He had so chosen. He could have made it so babies eat table foods from birth. But no, in His wisdom He designed our bodies to nurture our babies in our bosoms, where they can smell us, see our faces at the ideal distance that their little eyes are attuned to at birth, and hear our heart beat that is so familiar to them from the womb. We moms, while gazing down at our baby's sweet face that God designed to be most appealing to us in its features, are so much more likely to sit and linger, put our feet up for a much-deserved rest, and admire God's perfect handiwork, rather than just getting the job of feeding baby done in a matter of minutes, and propping him up in some bouncy gadget while we tackle the never-ending housework.

Breastfeeding is God's design to allow a lady's body to recover from one pregnancy before embarking on the next. Breastfeeding hormones, like all hormones, are fickle and easy to disrupt. Just as the baby needs to be skin to skin with mom, suckling all night by her side, to make LA work, so extended breastfeeding throughout everyday activities is crucial. It's simply not possible under a blanket - no baby wants to do that.

Other suggestions, such as nursing without a cover, but off in another room, or staying home from all outside activities while baby is breastfed, are too ridiculous for me to address in detail. Obviously, no mom of many can leave the main part of the house and retreat to her bedroom, leaving the other kids unsupervised, for hours each day. And no husband wants to take on the outside responsibilities of his wife for two to three decades of their married life.

Women who pontificate about breastfeeding under a cover likely only have their token child or two, or they use birth control. If they don't, they will have children spaced very closely. Sure, there are a few women who will never have a cycle even if they just nurse their baby once every 24 hours, but that is the exception. Most moms, unless they breastfeed extensively each day, will have their cycles return too soon to be healthy or sustainable. 

There are many reasons why we should allow God's design to space our children. One important reason is that it allows us moms to "reset" our bodies between pregnancies, lose the baby weight instead of packing on more and more over time. Also, when our hormones are not out of whack, we women tend to be better wives and mothers, which in turn sets the atmosphere for the home. Cover up at what expense? So you can be a short, snippy, angry wife and mother, run ragged by having a baby every year? There is nothing like sitting down with baby for a half an hour, nursing and cooing, to lift mom's mood through endorphins and calm her frayed nerves. She might even sneak in a short nap! Under a cover? No baby will go for that for more than mere minutes.

But what about men's lusts?

A scantily clad  woman will be viewed as a sex object, and lusted after by unrighteous men. A lady breastfeeding is viewed as a mother, and as such, occasions little to nothing in the way of temptation. 

Only a hypocrite would expect women to only breastfeed while covered, even as they watch TV every day where women are flashy, immodest, and show their breasts for purely sexual appeal all day long. Cover up in front of your teenage son, who is sitting next to you on the sofa watching some harlot on TV? Yeah, that's really important - not!

Just because a lady does not use a blanket to cover up while breastfeeding, does not mean she has to be completely exposed. A shirt can easily be pulled down if need be, and baby's body is covering most of mom's midsection.

If a man is making a point to gawk and catch a glimpse of skin, if he is drawn into temptation and lust from seeing a non-descript sliver of skin that may as well be part of the upper arm as part of the breast, then there are far greater problems at work. A man who is satisfied with his own wife, having his appetites met by her in righteous marital intimacy, will not struggle with lust from seeing a breastfeeding woman, or catching a glimpse of her breast. Ladies, keep your husbands fed, and they won't go through life so starved that breastfeeding mothers suddenly start looking appealing.

Proverbs 27:7  The full soul loatheth an honeycomb; but to the hungry soul every bitter thing is sweet.

Furthermore, as stated above, we cannot expect ladies to cover up to accommodate all of men's personal whims, unless we want to mandate burqas. The Bible has enough commandments in it, we don't also need to add our own to it. 

In conclusion

If you want to cover up, more power to you. But don't impose your opinions on others, as there is no command in the Bible that tells ladies to cover up to feed their babies.

Per law, mothers can breastfeed in any public or private space that the mother is legally allowed to be in, in every state in the U.S. Don't let anyone tell you differently! 

 1871 in church









For more beautiful breastfeeding pictures, please click here. It's worth a click, trust me!
Think these photos are anecdotal, the exception? Please share with me all the old pictures of women breastfeeding while covered, from back in the day when birth control was not used and we had normal views of breastfeeding mothers. Because they don't exist.

Sunday, June 7, 2015

Apple Picking

This has been the coolest, most rainy spring/summer on record in Arizona in close to a century. We have had a few hot days, so just when I think the balmy weather is gone for good, we get more rain and cool, breezy days. 

Such was the case these last few days. I woke up early Thursday morning to the sound of thunder and pouring rain. It never rains in Phoenix in June. Like, literally never in the last 80 years. With the rain came cooler temps, in the 70s and 80s. Rain in the desert is the best thing ever, because the air becomes so wonderfully fragrant with all the plants soaking up this rare treat. Going for a walk in this fresh air right after a rain shower is just heavenly.

My husband and the oldest four went camping overnight on Friday and Saturday. On Friday, I took the little kids to a park, where we just ran around the lush wet grass until it got dark. Becky is a very fast runner, which should come as no surprise since she clocks a 7-minute mile running with my husband. So yeah, I could not keep up with her when we were playing tag. It was fun, and we all got a great workout in.

On Saturday, after breakfast, we went to a local apple orchard. Picking apples was fun in and of itself, but walking barefoot in ankle-deep thick clover was a rare treat. 

Stephen absolutely hated the feel of wet grass on his feet, and only wanted to stand on a little dirt patch he found.

Boaz on the other hand loved walking on this soft, padded surface that was forgiving of his frequent tumbles.  

I taught the girls how to make wreaths out of the clover blossoms, which brought back fun childhood memories.


Climate change for the win!

Thursday, June 4, 2015

Premade swimsuits now available!

Alright everyone, drum roll please...

The finished swimsuits are up on my Cute & Covered website. The following sizes are currently available:

Child sizes 3T, 4
Youth sizes 6, 8, 12
Ladies size M.

We only have a very limited quantity of these models, so please order early for best availability.

The production cost for these swimsuits has been higher than we were originally quoted, which resulted in slightly higher prices for the child and youth sizes than we had anticipated.

However, we are so happy with the production quality, that we feel it is worth the additional cost to be able to offer commercial-grade, Made in the USA, local small-business merchandise at still very competitive prices.

If you like what you see, please consider telling your friends who might be interested in modest, stylish swimwear.

Wednesday, June 3, 2015

Just a couple of quick glimpses

Summer has finally arrived in Phoenix, with temps about 40 degrees higher than they were just a month ago. With that comes daily playtime in the pool for the kids for an hour or two. And lots of ice cream, smoothies, and the like. No summer break from school in sight for at least June, as we are a bit behind thanks to an extensive Christmas break, and the kids spending much time at the office with Dad lately helping him ship DVDs around the country for his "states projects."

My husband was featured in the June edition of Phoenix magazine. I will leave you to guess if it was the "Summer Getaways," "Beer Guide," "Photo Contest" or "Church of Hate" article advertised on the front cover.

Phoenix Magazine typically rotates each month between reporting on the best doctors, hikes, eats, or other local offerings. This month, evidently, they decided to feature the best church in the Valley!

For the record, the photographer specifically instructed him to look serious, and not to smile. My husband smiled anyway, but none of those pics made it in. That picture, of course, is just priceless.

Speaking of priceless, then there is Bo. At almost 13 months old, he is starting to walk. Or rather, run - evidently excited about this new step. Which often lands him splattered on the tile (ouch!). He has three teeth now, and a whole lot of personality, which includes being a very picky eater. Like, seriously picky. He does like these grain-free black bean brownies, especially smothered in fresh cream.

No babies were injured during this photo shoot on the kitchen counter. I did get stabbed with that fork a few times, and I think it was intentional. Also, you can see three sad, neglected figures left in the front yard for the 60 seconds it took me to snap a few pics. You know, because I couldn't well leave the baby on the counter to open the screen door. 

 "Should I eat some more?"

 "Sure, why not!"

Then there is this little Anna, my baby girl. Such a sweet age! I just want her to stay like this forever. She loves her dolly, and is a great mommy to her. And she allows me to take pictures of her, which is always appreciated. 

Based on the photographic evidence, I must conclude that Anna took this picture of Becky on my big girl camera, a major no-no. Still funny though. This Becky is just a sweet little nutcase, and oh so precocious!

The kittens will be four weeks old tomorrow. They are super cute! The kids have fittingly nicknamed them "Salt" and "Pepper" and I am asked daily if we can keep them both. Becky keeps telling me she is a "cat lady" - okay then! She certainly is crazy enough to play that part. 


The mommy cat has become even sweeter and more cuddly since having the babies. She is also a very good mommy. The kids all enjoy watching her teach the kittens how to explore the house, play fight with her, etc. I'm afraid I am starting to sound like a cat lady myself. Actually, my grandparents in Hungary often had kittens on their little farm, and I just LOVED playing with them. Another time, I was supposed to have been at kindergarten, but had pitched a screaming fit at the bus stop until my mom gave in and took me to work with her instead. When I got bored at the office, she sent me to the house of a nearby friend, who had little kittens. When it was time to go back to the office, I took the lady up on the offer of keeping a kitten, and played with it at the office the whole rest of the day. To my dismay, my mom did not let me keep the kitten, as it was gone the next day. As an adult I more than understand why kids cannot take in every pet that comes their way, but I am also thankful for the ability to allow our kids a lot of pets, since it's an opportunity to practice responsibility, and we are home and able to care for them daily.

Nothing spectacular or particularly exciting going on, just our normal crazy life. Hope you are enjoying your summer, and your summer break if you are having one.

Tuesday, May 26, 2015

Not everyone is a closet pedophile

In the aftermath of the Duggar meltdown, all the good-thinking Christians who have less common sense than even non-believers (or my chickens for that matter) are falling over themselves pointing out, in various ways, that any and all of us are capable of being a pedophile or other sexual deviant.

Speak for yourselves, fools, because that is just not true. 

Before I go any further, let me repeat and quote myself here, because I am speaking in general terms relating to hard-and-fast reprobates and deviants, not necessarily Josh Duggar: "[...] I am not convinced beyond any doubt that Josh Duggar himself had reached that point of being a reprobate pedophile when he did what he did." 

Take, for instance, the much circulated blog post "Grace Greater Than Our Sin" by Michael Seewald, the father-in-law of Jessa Duggar Seewald.

In the paragraph headed "Filthy Rags", we read this:

Many times it is simply lack of opportunity or fear of consequences that keep us from falling into grievous sin even though our fallen hearts would love to indulge the flesh. 

By itself, the statement would ring true for many sins and many people. But we are talking pedophilia, molestation, and incest here. No, that is not a desire that even the flesh of an unsaved person wants to indulge in, or what the Bible calls "natural man" (as opposed to spiritual). These sexual deviancies are, as the Bible says, "against nature". 

Let me illustrate: every normal man with a pulse has a natural inclination to get satisfaction from looking at women. Eye candy. A godly man will remind himself that to look on a woman to lust after her, even in his heart, is committing adultery in his heart, and will make a point to avert his eyes.

But not one, none, not a single, not even one man that is not a complete reprobate, dirty, incorrigible beast beyond the point of no return would ever have to put forth any effort not to feel lust when looking at a child, a next-of-kin, an animal, or someone of the same gender. Guys lust after women, not children, not Fido, and not their male buddy. Unless they are a sexual pervert, which is NOT a part of everyone's sin nature. That kind of debauchery is a symptom of someone who hates God, does not want to retain God in his/her knowledge, and has been given over to do these acts that go against nature itself. 

Even the world knows this. We don't have co-ed prisons so as to not add that level of desire to fornicate. But we don't just put everyone in solitary. Because only complete perverts are tempted by these things.

For Michael Seewald to publicly declare that we are kept from committing these acts through "lack of opportunity or fear of consequences" is as sickening as it is troublesome. Speak for yourself, Mr. Seewald. Most of us were never tempted by so reprobate a sin.

Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like:

No mention of being a homo or pedophile. All sins are NOT equal, and some sins only appeal to those with seared consciences. 

There were other stupid things in the blog post, but it would take too much of my time to go through them one by one. You lost me at admitting to being tempted by these sins yourself. 

Then there is a document originally published by the clowns at ATI / IBLP, which has resurfaced amidst this brouhaha, "Lessons from Moral Failures in a Family"

This document is enough to make any sane reader throw up in his mouth, become enraged, or both. Don't let the fact that the founder and leader of IBLP has been implicated in sex scandals with 34 women barely old enough to consent trouble you. He is ready to bring us gems such as this document, penned by a mother and her (now supposedly penitent) son who molested his younger siblings. 

The molester and his mom go on to dispense such wisdom as that modesty within the home, amongst siblings, is paramount so as to avoid lusting after one another. What the heck??? If that is not disgusting, I don't know what is! I grew up with two older brothers. We took baths together when I was old enough to remember, and none of this ever made me want to touch them, or them me. Because children are children. Sexual thoughts do not cross their minds any more than world politics, unless they have first been polluted by a pervert/TV.
The article goes on to give examples of opportunities that might induce lust, such as changing a diaper (so we are talking a baby), helping a younger sibling with their bath, or the typical streaking that all preschoolers are known for as they have no concept of sexuality, and don't need to have one at that age. Hugs, rough-housing, wrestling, babysitting a younger sibling, even sitting on an older sibling's lap for story time are warned against, becuase they can all lead to: whoops - I just molested my baby sister!

That is great advice when you are living with a pedophile under your roof, true. But normal children are not pedophiles, and should not be treated as such. The way to prevent a child from becoming a predator is by protecting him from being molested by outsiders.

All this mother and son know is that whatever they did that led to him molesting his siblings was a failure. There are a million and one ways to fail. Just because they have figured out one of those ways, does not mean that their advice now is sound. It just might be yet another way to fail in a different manner. Why not get advice from someone who DIDN'T raise a pedophile, and an organization NOT spearheaded by a board of sex offenders??

To hear why these ministires are always full of freaks, weirdos, phoneys, and sex predators, please watch this sermon.

Another argument that is being made by Diary of an Autodidact in his post "How Fundamentalism's Teachings on Sexuality Create Predatory Behavior" is that it is the restrictive teachings on sex that make kids act this way, that if they were allowed access to girls outside their family, they would not be doing this. The argument being that they are not violating kids because they are after kids, but that it is just the only thing available to them. Again, there is an implication of "we are all capable of this when that is our only opportunity," and it's just not true.
Anyone knows that feeding into a lust only makes that appetite stronger. Giving in to fornication does not satisfy the desire for more than 5 minutes, at which point it will come roaring back stronger than ever. By the author's logic, kids in school should be instructed to smoke pot, so as to keep them from getting into heroin and cocaine. Lunacy!

All that is not to say that these organizations don't give kids weird and twisted ideas about sex being bad or dirty or shameful, because they do. But setting a Biblical standard cannot be implicated in kids turning out perverts.

Then there is an army of defensive bloggers focusing on how the victims have been victimized again, such as this one or this one, and that for this reason alone, the skeleton (more like a rotting corpse in this case) should have remained in the closet. And to some extent, that is, sadly, very true. It is awful that the Duggar girls had to have their names and faces publicly attached to this.

Except what about the girls that are yet to be victimized, something that may be prevented by exposing the perpetrator? Maybe if we executed rapists and child molesters when it first comes out, we would not have to make victims relive the horrors of their abuse when we have to air it yet again in an attempt to warn others. Maybe if the parents had resisted the temptation, motivated by pride or greed, to become international celebrities, this would have gone away much more quietly? But again, there is this idea that this could befall anyone, and having a child molester for a son is not unusual enough to abstain from playing the part of a moral, upstanding, Christian family on national TV.

Maybe, just maybe, God was right all along. If we would execute these molesters and pedophiles, they would not have infiltrated society. And maybe if Christians read their Bibles and believed it cover to cover, they would not be playing into the agenda of NAMBLA and others by spouting off the same disgusting nonsense that there is a pedophile lurking in all of us.

My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children. - Hosea 4:6

Monday, May 25, 2015

Have we really been told the truth about the Holocaust?

You can always know for sure you are being told the truth when you go to prison for questioning the facts surrounding that "truth." - NOT!

Real truth need not resort to such thug tactics, as facts are always more firmly established the more they are investigated and questioned.

Before you start foaming at the mouth and and hating on us, at least take the time to listen to the facts presented in this video.

To my readers in Europe and other enlightened countries, please watch this before it will be blocked by the government, which is sure to happen almost immediately.

Edited to add (for those who comment without even getting the info from the above clip):
Nobody is denying that the Nazis were guilty of war crimes and atrocities against Jews and others. War is hell, as they say, and all parties involved were guilty of crimes against humankind. The particular issue addressed in this clip is the question whether it was the goal of the Nazis to exterminate all Jews, a "holocaust", and how many of them perished.

Even if just one person had died unjustly at the hands of a wicked government, it would still be wrong. Even if the Nazis were "only" guilty of rounding up Jews and others to have them work in forced labor camps to keep the war machinery going, it would still be horrific and wrong. It would be a lot like the US putting Japanese people in concentration camps during WWII. The US camps for Japanese had crematoriums - because people die, especially in squalid conditions with little food, while being worked into the ground.

However, this is not the same as perpetuating the story that traincars full of Jews were shipped to these camps, their fate decided at the fabled "ramps", and that they were mass-murdered by gassing and then being cremated. The official story simply does not add up, which is why it is illegal to even look into the facts in at least 14 countries. There is a difference between killing 6 million people for the sake of exterminating a race, or a fraction of that dying as an indirect result of being abused and mistreated in the course of WWII.

Saturday, May 23, 2015

My Thoughts on the Duggars

When the news of Josh Duggar first hit my Facebook newsfeed on Thursday morning, when only InTouch (not exactly reputable) was covering it and there was talk of one victim and few details, I told my husband three things: 

- This is not the end of it, and the rest will all hit the fan before the day is up.
- The show will be discontinued.
- People will be asking us for our take on this. 

Sadly, all three of my predictions have come true. This blog post is intended to address that third point.

Cute and Covered SALE

Shipping is just $5 flat in the US, and free on orders over $120.

Coming very soon: pre-made swimsuits, maternity/nursing swimsuits, and a different design for plus sizes.

To shop this weekend's sale, click here.

Monday, May 18, 2015

Template of my weekly to-do list

For those who might benefit from it, I wanted to share my system for staying on top of things from week to week (or at least trying my hardest to). This current system has been in use for several years now, though it has evolved during that time as my needs changed.

The basic framework for my to-do list is the same each week. Rather than writing down everything by hand, I made up a blank template, to fill in each week as necessary. Since I typically finish up loose ends and plan the week ahead on Sundays, my schedule runs Monday - Sunday.

Today, I am sharing that basic template. You should be able to download the file to your own computer, and edit it in Microsoft Word to suit your own needs, if you wish. You can find the template here.

This system works very well for me, because errands or meals that didn't get done one week, get transferred to next, and I am reminded of them as I do so. The list is small enough to keep on my counter during the day, and in my purse while out and about. 

I know you are curious to take a peek at this list in action, right? Here is this week's list. And yes, the paper was fresh and crisp just yesterday, but has seen much use already in the last 24 hours, and it shows. Which, by the way, is the reason why I use new sheets each week, rather than a notebook or planner - they would never stand up to extended use. Not to mention they are too bulky to double as shopping lists etc.

How's that for a candid peek at my life?? Some comments:

- The meal plan is not yet fully filled in, because I add to it throughout the week as I see what needs to be  used or what I feel like making. 

- The to-do and shopping lists are looking a little overwhelming already this week, but I often combine a lot of errands into one day, or stop at just one of those stores while already out and about. Or ask my husband to take a store off my hands, like tomorrow when I will ask him to stop at TJ's after he takes the kids to P.E.

- For my shopping list, if an item is sold at multiple stores, I add it to each of those lists, and buy it at whichever one I go to first. Quick shout-out to Costco: our store just started carrying organic beef kielbasa. Oh joy!!! And while we are on the subject, Whole Foods just started selling organic ground pork for $7/lb. Finding organic pork is exciting in and of itself, but that is a very good price to boot. 

- On the "things going on this week," I do not list stuff we do weekly, like the kids' P.E. and piano lessons - just extracurricular stuff that I need to be reminded of. I use this in conjunction with Google calendar, where I keep track of every single event for my husband, myself, and the kids.

Some of you may find your name on my list - you know who you are! :)

Running a family and helping our husbands is a huge job. Keeping all the plates spinning can become overwhelming, but this helps me, and I hope it helps you, too. 

Okay, off to work down that list now!