Strollerderby : time

They Say: We Don't Know How the Hell to Treat Pregnant Women

Madeline Holler — Fri, 29 May 2009 20:28:00 GMT

You already know this but a surprising number of medical professionals don't: pregnant women aren't just fat versions of average women (who, themselves, aren't just mini versions of men). Which means you can't necessarily medicate a pregnant women like you would any other woman, who you can't just medicate like any ol' guy.

That's before you even consider the consequences of passively medicating a growing fetus.

This, it turns out, presents a problem that researchers are only now beginning to look into. Given shifts in the pregnant woman's metabolism, among many other changes, it's any doctor's guess as to what and how much medication to prescribe to pregnant women who are battling cancer, depression, or the flu -- not to mention WMD-type viruses.

Here's an example of the problem the pregnant body presents: the American College of Obstretrics and Gynecology recommends giving patients amoxicillin during an anthrax scare. But how much? Who the hell knows!

From Time:

But an obstetrics researcher in Seattle recently concluded there's no way to give a pregnant woman enough of the antibiotic to be effective. Kidney function is so revved up during pregnancy that even in high doses, amoxicillin is excreted before it can work its magic. Think of it as trying to fill a bathtub with the drain open, suggests Jason Umans, an internist and maternal-fetal pharmacologist at Georgetown University. "In emergencies, you always hear, 'Treat the pregnant women first!'" he says. "The joke should be 'Yeah, how?'"

The good news a few dozen doctors, ethicists and government officials have launched a movement of clinical research they're calling the Second Wave (the first was when officials realized women are mini-men in terms of medicine, or, anything else). They're hoping to gather more data so that doctors no longer have to wing it with their expecting patients.

But what about the baby!!!!! Settle down, these, pioneer researchers say.

"Everyone thinks, Oh, my God, research on pregnant women! All kinds of ethical flags go up," says Ruth Faden, director of the Berman Institute of Bioethics at Johns Hopkins University. "We don't have to start with high drama." There's enough "low-hanging fruit," she says, "that we could keep lots of medical researchers busy for a long time."

In fact, two-thirds of women take up to five drugs during pregnancy and through labor. But only a dozen are FDA approved for pregnancy and those are all stuff for the labor and birth like induction meds and the epidural. The ones for high blood pressure or diabetes are any doctor's educated guess.

What was your experience with meds during pregnancy? Did you and the doc just make it up as you went?

Sonogram Cufflinks for Father's Day ... or a Pro-Life March

They Say: Moms Don't Care if Boys Get Fat

3 Generations, 3 Boys, All Born May 11

Married vs. Single Moms: Who's Got it Easier?

Michael Pollan Doesn't Know if He was Breastfed!

Photo: Time.com

10 Things They Don’t Tell You about Parenting

Cole Gamble — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 16:30:00 GMT

There are a lot of things I expected with parenting. Poop, various smells, sleepless nights. There were also a lot of things that I heard happened that I thought couldn’t possibly happen to me: tight knot in the stomach every time you hear a sad news story about a child, talking about your kids with your non-breeding friends.

Craig Playstead came up with a master list of the things you probably didn’t see coming before the baby arrived.

1) The way you view the world changes

When you bring someone into this world, things like global warming, war and women in beer ads have a whole new meaning. You start actually looking at the impact these things have, and what the world will become after you're dead and gone. Leaving a better place for your kids and grandkids becomes more than just talk.

2) You'll feel like a failure

There will be times when no matter how hard you try, your kids are never happy. You feel you're telling them “no” too much, constantly harping on them to clean their room, or dashing their dreams of lowering their brother down the staircase on a rope. While they may complain they don't have a Wii or that “so and so's” mom let's them see PG-13 movies, you need to stick to what you believe in and what you feel is best for your kids.

3) You have no time

This seems obvious, but you can't believe just how little time you have. You start to measure things out in minutes and seconds. “If he watches Curious George for 20 more seconds, I can go to the bathroom,” or “If his nap lasts another 10 minutes, maybe I can get in a shower today.”

4) Not going to the bathroom by yourself

When your kids are babies, the bathroom is the only place you can get your head together. It's also one of the only places you can actually read. I read ESPN's Bill Simmons' entire book over the course of the week in the bathroom when my youngest was a baby. And then he turned two. If he's not forcing his way in to watch “how it's really done” he's banging on the door screaming “let me in!” or sliding all his books underneath. There is no peace with toddlers.

5) Parenthood will turn you soft

This one hits the guys especially hard. You'll find yourself tearing up at any dumb movie that has anything to do with parenthood, and if you have a daughter, don't be surprised to find yourself playing “My Little Pony” before heading off to work. The icing on the cake is hawking Girl Scout cookies in front of your local grocery store annually.

The rest of Craig's list lives here.

Salma Hayek Shines Spotlight on Breastfeeding Taboos

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 19:30:00 GMT

As most people know by now, Salma Hayek’s very public breastfeeding in Sierra Leone was not just a moment of compassion for a hungry child. It was that, but it was also a calculated—and noble—attempt to dispel the notion in some parts of Africa that breastfeeding women can’t have sex. Given this entrenched belief, you can probably guess how husbands feel about their wives breastfeeding.

It’s easy to see such an urban legend as shocking, but, as Ada Calhoun points out in TIME, the U.S. certainly has its fair share of breastfeeding taboos—most notably, against cross-nursing. Indeed, many media outlets and online commenters were disgruntled at best by the YouTube video of Hayek nursing another woman’s child. (EW.com awarded the video “biggest eyebrow-raiser” of the day.)

According to Calhoun, no American institution will support informal cross-nursing, citing concerns about “the possibility of transmitting infections, a decrease in supply for the donor's own baby, psychological confusion on the part of the infant, and the fact that the composition of breast milk changes as children get older.”

Hayek’s very public cross-nursing demonstrated that there are certainly instances in which none of these concerns are relevant. The Sierra Leonean baby she breastfed was born on the same day as her daughter and Hayek knew him to be healthy. She’s not in any danger of her milk running dry from one emergency feeding, and no one would argue that any “psychological confusion” the baby boy may have experienced outweighed the benefits of assuaging his hunger.

Photo: The Daily Mail

Girl with Bowel Disease Kept Alive on Donated Breastmilk

Salma Hayek Breastfeeds Hungry Baby in Africa

Morning News: Now the Dish From Obama's Camp

Madeline Holler — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 14:30:00 GMT

If you didn't like yesterday's revelations about tensions in the McCain-Palin campaign, the dish we have today from Barack Obama's camp won't make you feel much better.

Because it's all very warm and fuzzy.

Time magazine reporter Karen Tumulty collected war stories from insiders on the president-elect's campaign. Get this: no one greets advisers in a towel. (Bummer.)

The scoop:

When Obama learned the plane he was flying on would have to do an emergency landing, his response was "golly." When the plane landed safely, he pulled out his phone and called Michelle, who had been watching the whole thing unfold on TV.

After he swished a ball on the court of a U.S. base in Iraq, Obama told an aide, "I knew I was going to make it."

On losing in New Hampshire and pressing advisers to tell him why, his response: "This thing is going to go on for a while, isn't it?"

But it's not all hugs and gollies anymore. Obama's choice of Rahm Emanuel for chief-of-staff has some a little freaked out (but they're mainly Republicans).

The president-elect has also named a bunch of people to his economic transition team, arguably the most important group to get in place at the very beginning. Warren Buffet's on the list as is Robert Reich (whom we don't mind saying we have a bit of a brain crush on). There are a couple of women -- but only a couple. In fact, so far Obama's pretty heavy on the white and the male with his appointments or those rumored to being under consideration. Just an early alert to some possible controversy (especially since the economic team includes Lawrence Summers, former Harvard president who resigned after saying that totally crazy shit about men having better brains for math and science).

Oprah, in an effort to insinuate herself as much as possible into this election and our lives, will have that dude whose shoulder she was crying on at Obama's election night rally on her live show today. He was a campaign worker in California. She didn't know "Mr. Man," as she called him on Wednesday, but apparently she liked the way he spooned standing up. Our guess is he'll be repackaged in enough time to join her on this holiday's "Oprah's Favorite Things" episode.

The sadly re-elected Michelle Bachman (R-Minn), of "let's investigate anti-American activity" fame, said she's happy Obama was elected because it proves Americans aren't racist. Using that logic, her re-election proves that her constituents are not smart.

Also not smart? That idiot Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi who said of the new U.S. leader, "he's young, handsome, and even suntanned." Damn, Italy, so glad he's yours.

Oh, this is embarrassing. The North Carolina county that Sarah Palin called "real America"? Ummm, totally went for Obama. Like, in a landslide, 59 to 41 percent. We've always kind of liked "real America" too.

Look away, Palin apologists, look away! A few more specks of dirt about her campaign and its (once) hidden troubles: heavy spending on her clothes continued well past the convention and included a custom-made outfit around the time of her appearance on Saturday Night Live (eh. Just send Loren Michaels the receipt). And suuuuper embarrassing: a Republican Party lawyer is being sent to Alaska to inventory and retrieve campaign clothes still in her possession. (Hint: be sure to check Todd's closet, too!)

A little parenting news to slowly transition us away from the election:

Carnie Wilson (the Wilson sister who did gastric bypass ... that one) is pregnant, quite possibly with twins. She and her hub already have a three-year-old daughter.

Not a single racy scene from Little House on the Prairie comes to mind -- though we sort of suspect that ol' Uncle Jack was a real rascal in bed. Still, Finland has marked DVDs of the series as suitable for adult viewing only. Grrrrrrr.

McCain's Camp Starts Dishing On Palin

Yes, He Did!

Palin Bling-gate, Day 3

Palin's Makeup Stylist Gets Highest Pay in Campaign

Photo: MSNBC.com

Pregnant Women? Still Discriminated Against

Jen Chaney — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 13:28:00 GMT

It's 2008. In many ways, the American workplace has become a far more progressive place than it ever has been. Except, perhaps, when it comes to treatment of pregnant women.

This fascinating piece on Time.com reports that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has seen a 65 percent increase in complaints about discrimination against pregnant women in the workplace between 1992 and 2007. The number of claims hit a record of 5,597 last year, all from women who believe they are being treated differently because they have babies in their bellies. Those claims still only account for a fraction of the EEOC's total complaints, but that number is still much higher than I would have imagined.

The National Partnership for Women and Families studied some of the stats and found that the industries that generated the most concern were retail, services, finance, real estate and insurance. (Award for most egregious treatment of women-with-child? A maternity store that refused to hire pregnant employees. Nice. What's next? Book stores that won't consider literate applicants?)

The reasons behind the alleged discrimination vary, but the main one seems to be the belief that mothers won't be as interested in their work once that baby is born, an assumption that leads to them having less responsibility at the office. The Time article also notes some studies that suggest people are "grossed out" by pregnant women, a response that may make managers subconsciously averse to entrusting those employees with important tasks.

Working moms and pregnant ladies, talk to me. Have you gotten the sense since announcing your pregnancy or giving birth that your bosses don't see you the same way? Even though you are working full-time, do you feel your parenthood is holding you back in some way that -- whether actual or perceived -- carries the whiff of discrimination? Do you get the vibe that people are grossed out by you? (I get that vibe sometimes, but it's usually when I didn't have time to shower that morning. Which is technically a byproduct of motherhood, but probably doesn't count as discrimination against me because I have a kid.)

The one thing this article does not tell us is how many of those EEOC complaints were resolved. Were they found to be legitimate? And if so, how were the issues dealt with? As the story states, many women are afraid to report on such cases because they fear long-term damage to their career, which means discimination against pregnant women could be more widespread than even these statistics indicate. This is an incredibly important issue, so please share your thoughts and experiences in the comments section.

Oh, and P.S.: Don't shop at any maternity stores that refuse to hire pregnant women. Seriously. That's some stone-cold b.s. right there.

Image: Helen King/Corbia Via Time.com

Maxed Out Moms Leaning Towards McCain & Palin

SunnyChanel — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 18:51:00 GMT

Time Magazine, along with the rest of the media out there, really loves themselves a good old-fashioned poll. According to new studies, “Maxed-Out Moms” (and really, what mom isn’t maxed out) are leaning towards voting for McCain and Palin. Their new poll conducted September 11 to the 15th,, does show that Obama and McCain are neck in neck with the female voter. But it looks like McCain holds an 18 point lead “among older, less educated likely women voters”.

Some of the factors that are leading these “maxed out moms” to lean towards the McCain ticket are:

• “…many maxed-out moms are older than Obama, which makes them more skeptical that he has the experience he needs to do the job”
• “Many are more culturally conservative than he is…”
• “…they are more likely than their younger sisters to be what Democratic pollster Celinda Lake delicately describes as "racially sensitive."”

With the addition of Palin to the ticket, the “maxed out moms” found what they think is a kindred spirit. In the Time poll they found that “68% of older, non-college-educated women expressed a favorable opinion of her.” A McCain strategist says “"They see their lives reflected in hers,".

Wonder if they can afford the $2500 Valentino jacket or $400 eyeglasses Palin wears? A factory worker interviewed at a Wal Mart said “"Honestly, I don't know what to do. I really don't want to vote for McCain. You can tell he only cares about rich people. Sarah Palin wears glasses that cost $300. McCain's wife wears Gucci clothes. Which means they don't know anything about people like me." Into that stew of assumptions, she adds: "I hear that Obama's a Muslim. If he is a Muslim, that would be a problem, because the terrorists already attacked us."”

Obama’s team is now picking up the pace to try to seduce the female vote, especially after the pick of Palin as McCain’s VP running mate. Now if we can only get Joe Biden in a skirt...

For more of the story go here. And check out recent related posts Which Campaign Lady Is Best Dressed and Rich Kids of Working Moms Suffer More Than the Rest.

One, Two, Three, Four: Birth Order

Amy Kuras — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 20:07:00 GMT

As a firstborn married to a youngest child, I am a huge believer that we are shaped by our birth order. For example, not only am I an oldest but almost all of my female friends are as well, or are only children. All my guy friends are the youngest in their families with one exception, and he and I clash a lot because guess what! Two oldest-child control freaks sometimes butt heads!

I think firstborns are generally more driven and more articulate (and okay, bossy), because we spent our earliest years around mostly adults. Youngest children tend to be easygoing, social and have a certain degree of "star quality" since they get fussed over for being the baby and grow to like the spotlight.

According to this story, (although this one's more interesting) parents also have higher expectations of firstborns, compared with their later-born siblings. Oldest children are overrepresented among Nobel Prize winners and professional schools.

But second and subsequent kids get parents who have more realistic expectations of them and are more relaxed and confident in their parenting roles (so true, I find, both as the kid and as the parent). They tend to be well liked, picking up social skills through dealing with their older siblings.

And onlies? Not so spoiled! Researchers have found few differences between only children and other children – they have higher cognitive development scores and academic achievement, for two.

What's been your experience? Do you kids fit easily into birth order roles, or do they transcend them? How about your family of origin?

Two women found guilty of illegal midwifery

Brett Singer — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 21:00:00 GMT

This is a serious issue, but I have to say that the term "illegal midwifery" sounds like something out of a bad Shakespeare parody.

Now that I've gotten that out of the way, here's the story:

"Tonya McGlade was found guilty of Attempting Midwifery Without a License. Linda McGlade was found guilty of Principal to Practice Midwifery Without a License.

"Prosecutors say the women helped Linda McGlade's other daughter-in-law deliver her baby boy. She died of internal bleeding two days after giving birth back in 2004."

In other words, they attempted to deliver a baby without having a license to do so. Sadly, the mother died; the baby survived. This site has a lot more detail if you're interested (fair warning: it's very sad).

What I'm wondering is, just how prevalent is this practice? If someone decides to give birth at home without a trained person present (midwife, doctor, nurse, whatever) and nothing goes wrong, would they be prosecuted as well? Judging by what I've seen on Babble, home births are far more common than I realized. If I had to guess, I would say that a large percentage of these births are against the law. And something else: isn't the problem that the patient died and received poor treatment, rather than the midwife's lack of license? I mean, you can get a midwife license online. (CORRECTION: according to a commenter, that web site only offers the coursework; to get licensed you have to complete your training under supervision.)

Image/source: mysuncoast.com

Read more:

11 months old, 62 pounds

Girl being kept alive by Viagra

They Say: no link between autism and measles vaccine

Red eye? Nope, eye cancer

McCain, Palin oppose teen pregnancy aid and sex education

New Mom Sues After No-Meds C-Section

Only 43% of British Moms Offered Home Birth! Outrage!

They Say: More Toddlers Get Immunized Than Ever

Is Home Birth a Civil Right?

Airline removes life vests

Storm Tracking? It Can Be Used in Pregnancy, Too

Political Nanny: Obama Offended by Implied Link to Palin Family Rumors

Madeline Holler — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 12:34:00 GMT

Obama is offended that he and his campaign have been tied to the rumors that Alaska Governor/GOP vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin faked a pregnancy.

Reuters reported this weekend that an unnamed McCain advisor, while admonishing "liberal blogs" for writing about the alleged cover-up, said Barack Obama's name could be attached to some of the rumors.

Not at all, according to the Democratic nominee himself.

From Time, The Page:

I am offended by that statement, there is no evidence at all that any of this involved us. I hope I am as clear as I can be. So in case I am not, let me repeat, we don’t go after people’s families, we don’t get them involved in the politics, it is not appropriate and it is not relevant. Our people were not involved in any way in this and they will not be. And if I ever thought it was somebody in the campaign that was involved in something like that they would be fired. Ok. Alright guys. Thank you.

Pictured above is Sarah Palin this spring with baby Trig in the sling. She had just signed a bill into Alaska state law.

Photo: stevemalony.blogspot.com

Birth inspires lottery ticket purchase

Brett Singer — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 15:00:00 GMT

I'm a little superstitious. I prefer the number 7 to the number 13, for example. So if I had a child that was born on August 8, 2008 at 8:08am and weighed 8 pounds, 8 ounces, I would probably do what the staff at Lake Region Hospital in Minnesota did. Buy lottery tickets. Lots and lots of lottery tickets.

Maybe that's not the way to celebrate the birth of your child, but hey, how often does this sort of thing happen?

Actually, there were TWO babies born at that time, with the same weight: Hailey Jo Hauer (Minnesota) and Xander Jace Riniker (Iowa). The parents should get those two crazy kids together for a playdate.

Katharine Joyce Rowley of Arizona was also born on 8/08 at 8:08am, but weighed in at 5 pounds and 14 ounces, so that didn't make the same amount of news.

None of the children was named "Ocho," but maybe they would have been if they were Swedish.

In China, the number eight has a whole other set of meanings. According to Wikipedia, "the word for 'eight' in Mandarin sounds similar to the word which means 'prosper' or 'wealth'." And of course, that spectacular Olympic opening ceremony, which started at 8:08pm on 8/8/08. So if there were a kid born in China with those stats, he/she would probably be emperor by now. (Unless of course he/she wasn't cute enough, but that's a different story.)

Here's a photo of one of the two little ones with the numerology-friendly weight:

And video of the less-reported upon, but still cute, Arizona baby:

Source: MSNBC

Images: hotelchatter, MSNBC, AZCentral

Retarded movie boycott

Matthew McConaughey keeps placenta

It all started when Mary needed a laxative

Kid climbs into claw game to get prizes

Lourdes and Miley kidnapped?

Five things my son taught me about living green

Hulk want puny blogger to review Hulk movie

Is Home Birth a Civil Right?

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 19:00:00 GMT

Most people agree that where and how to give birth is a personal choice. But what if your choice is one that many doctors feel is dangerous for you and your baby?

A resurgence in the home birthing movement has doctors and midwives grappling with this question, and Babble’s own Ada Calhoun has researched the heck out of the issue for Time.

Women who opt for home births argue that this method allows them more control over their birthing experience, making it unlikely that they will undergo interventions, such as C-sections or episiotomies, that they don’t feel are necessary. Midwives only assist at home births for low risk patients, and are trained not only to deal with emergencies themselves—often in the exact same way an obstetric nurse would—but they also know when it’s necessary to bring a patient to the hospital as quickly as possible.

But many doctors argue that the best medical care can only be accessed in the hospital—period. The American Medical Association is urging lawmakers to restrict the home birthing movement, in part by making it more difficult for direct-entry midwives (who don’t have nursing degrees) to get licensed.

Currently, only 1 percent of U.S. births occur in the home. So midwife Joan Bryson seems justified in defending home birth’s safety in these terms: “We [the U.S.] rank 42nd in the world in live births, and we spend more money than anyone else. You can’t blame it on home birth.”

My personal experience makes me naturally inclined to side with Bryson. Both my sister and I were born at home with a midwife, and my parents describe the experience in near ecstatic terms (honestly, their extreme enthusiasm when recounting my mother's 12-hour labor can be a bit disconcerting). Also, my older sister never exhibited the jealousy and sense of displacement that many older children feel after the birth of a sibling. I believe this was in part because she was present in the house while my mother was in labor, and was able to see my mother and me almost as soon as I was born. There was no sense that her mother had disappeared, and then returned carrying the reason for her disappearance.

It goes without saying that giving birth at home is not for everyone—but neither is giving birth at a hospital. Competent midwives should not be subject to prosecution for allowing women to opt out of a traditional hospital birthing experience.

Photo: Time

What Can You Feed Your Family For $10?

Adrienne Martini — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 18:30:00 GMT

Like worms on the sidewalk after a summer rain, stories about feeding families for $X litter magazines during recessions. It's one of the few things we can count on in this world: death, taxes and stunt stories that in no way mirror how shoppers actually behave.

Still, this Time magazine piece by Joel Stein on "A Gourmet Family Meal for $10" is a keeper. No, it's not the recipe itself. No, it's not Stein's deathless prose. Read the story for Tom Colicchio's opinions about grocery shopping and budget cooking.

I loves me so Colicchio -- and his advice is dead-on when it comes to saving money on food. In a nutshell, stay away from anything processed and think about what you can do with the bits you'd normally throw away.

It's too bad I can't get Colicchio for $10. But that might start more problems than it solves.

Photo credit: Misha Gravenor for Time.

Now They Say No: Teens Deny 'Pregnancy Pact'

Amy Kuras — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 22:03:00 GMT

Apparently, you folks are interested in the "pregnancy pact" story based on the amout of discussion it’s generated here. It's based on a report in Time Magazine that 17 girls from a Gloucester, Mass. High school decided to get pregnant and raise their babies together.

My last post on the matter drew huge comments, and I've seen other headlines about the story everywhere (including at the grocery store today, on a supermarket tabloid "We wanted to be like Jamie Lynn"—Pregnancy Pact Girls. Sure.)

And now some of the girls who got pregnant this school year are coming forward and saying there was no pact, that it was just chance.

I think something is rotten here, although I'm not sure what. The school generally sees 3 or 4 pregnancies a year, not 17, so something was up. However, the teacher who spoke to Time about the story has since refused to comment publicly.

And the larger question, of course, is why so many girls got pregnant, pact or no. Lack of access to birth control and information about sex ed and pregnancy prevention is one reason. The town is also dependent on the fishing industry –life there is pretty hardscrabble, it seems, and these girls had little sense of hope for their future. And many of them came from teen parents themselves.

Equally as important as why these girls got pregnant is why they so much as glancing at, much less having sex with, winners like one girl's babydaddy, who was quoted in the Guardian with this trenchant observation as to how the spike in pregnancies happened:

"They were horny, it was a cold winter. It's boring around this town. Nothing to do."

Oy.

Political Nanny: Obama In Search of New Sunday School Class?

Madeline Holler — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 20:22:00 GMT

Barack Obama had some strong words today about his pastor's response to the (in Political Nanny's opinion) way overhyped Rev. Jeremiah Wright controversy.

Watch the video of Obama's response. Is it just Political Nanny, or does he sound tired, fed up and much, much less inspiring?

From Time.com:

If you missed it, Obama finally made the break with his former minister, repeatedly calling himself "saddened," "angry" and even "outraged" at Jeremiah Wright's performance at the National Press Club yesterday. "The person I saw yesterday was not the person I had come to know over 20 years," Obama said. Later he added: "Obviously, whatever relationship I had with Reverend Wright has changed as a result of this. ... There wasn't anything constructive out of yesterday. All it was was a bunchof rants that aren't grounded in truth, and I can't construct something positive out of that. ... There's been great damage. It may have been understandable on his part [to want to clear his own name], but I do not see that relationship being the same after this."

Obama said he felt particularly betrayed by Wright's suggestion that the Senator's previous efforts to distance himself from his former minister's most inflammatory comments had been mere political posturing.

This leaves Political Nanny and the others in the playgroup wondering: has the Rev. Wright/Barack Obama controversy finally come to a head? Can we (1) start talking about the inflammatory comments a high-profile preacher linked to John McCain has made about Israel and Islam and, Political Nanny is paraphrasing here, Katrina was New Orleans' chickens coming home to roost and/or (2) get back to feeling good about Democrats and healthcare and somebody -- anybody -- making some changes around here?

What do you think? Distraction or important issue on which your vote hinges? Think we'll be letting it go now?

Photo: NYTimes.com

Obama’s Mama: Working Mother Extraordinaire

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 17:36:00 GMT

Turns out there’s another reason why Barack Obama’s run for the presidency is unique: he is the first presidential candidate whose now deceased mother is interesting enough to warrant a Time cover story. Regardless of politics (though it's probably pretty clear where my loyalties lie), the article is a moving examination of the varied ways women in the last century have filled the roles of wife and mother, even as they strive to make meaningful contributions to the world at large.

S. Ann Soetero, née Stanley Ann Durham (her father wanted a boy) was a teen mother who divorced twice; a scholar with a Phd. in anthropology; a devoted, hands-on single mother of two; and a well-seasoned traveler who was a champion for Indonesia’s poor, both through her pioneering work on the microfinance program there and her almost excessive generosity to beggars. Although—or perhaps because—Ann made unorthodox decisions about religion, relationships, and career, she worked hard to instill the values of spirituality, marriage, and civic duty in her son. For instance, Obama writes that his mother had a “healthy skepticism of religion as an institution,” but she was one the “most spiritual souls” he ever knew.

In part as a reaction against his mother’s wanderlust, Obama has been committed to grounding his traditional family unit in one place. But Ann’s vast understanding of varied peoples and cultures also positively influenced Obama, as evidenced by his ability to rally the support of people from all walks of life. (He has had more individual donors to his campaign that any other presidential candidate in history.) And Obama stated that his mother was his imagined critic for his famed race speech. He knew that her stamp of approval would mean he had successfully channeled her gentle, non-reactionary way of fighting racism and sexism. Ann once joked that while she would fight to get paid as much as a man, she wasn’t going to stop shaving her legs.

Image: time.com

What Your Kid Really Does All Day

Karen Murphy — Sat, 07 Jul 2007 16:14:00 GMT

Benign neglect notwithstanding, don't you often wonder just how your kids spend an entire day? Wouldn't it be nice if someone tallied up the minutes of your kid's day and then reported back to you on it? Well, I can save you some trouble: the Australian Institute of Family Studies did just that recently in a study of more than 3000 4 and 5 year olds.

In addition to drawing some conclusions about kids of single parents and stay-at-home parents watching more TV, and "smart" kids of better-educated parents watching less, they also found that this is what kids did on a daily basis:

10 minutes of creating a mess (this has got to be higher)
16 minutes of being told off (and obviously this too)
13 minutes of crying (hand in hand with the above)
seven hours a day playing (of course)
11 hours sleeping (what a relief, eh?)
more than an hour a day sitting in a car (ugh. appalling.)
50 minutes being held and cuddled (did I mention it was the parents who filled out time diaries? are we talking some data manipulation here?)

In addition: children with single mothers spent nine minutes more creating mess or destroying things, while children with siblings spend 15 minutes less a day being cuddled by their parents. Both of which make total sense. But I think they got it wrong, because this is how my almost-four year old spends his day:

112 minutes making a mess
84 minutes taking things out of the pantry
178 minutes eating things, most of which are food
44 minutes yelling
16 minutes being told off
18 minutes fake-crying
21 minutes having a tantrum
33 minutes climbing on things
11 minutes changing the channel on the TV
7 minutes removing articles of clothing
17 minutes throwing things off the balcony or taking the sheets off my bed
34 minutes being held
13 hours sleeping (yay)

What do your kids do all day?