You know what's awesome? Christmas. Family, food, and new stuff. It's fantastic. An underrated part of Christmas is the new socks Santa always leaves in our stockings - is there anything better than slapping on a fresh pair of clean white socks? I say no. In fact, Christmas is so awesome, there's only one thing that's more awesome:
Christmas when you have young kids.
Up to this point, I have to say Christmas is most awesome with a four year old. Jonah really got into it this year. He woke up every morning, jumped out of bed with the single minded focus of finding Christopher, our "Elf on the Shelf" that moves around our house every night. Once that task was completed, he moved onto placing another ornament on our magnetic advent calendar Christmas tree thing on the fridge. Only then would he bothered with his normal routine of announcing that he was going potty and that he expected me to have his chocolate milk made and Ben 10 on the TV by the time he got back. We must've gone to see Santa at some store or another four or five times. On Christmas Eve, Jonah saw a plane in the air and was convinced it was Santa and exhorted me to "use the gas pedal dad, he can't beat us to the house!" Jonah asked me one night why our neighbors didn't have lights on their house. Being the idiot parent I am, I saw this as a good teaching moment to explain to him that some people didn't celebrate Christmas. You'd think I just put a milkshake in front of him and ripped it away...he looked shocked. "Why wouldn't they celebrate Christmas? Santa won't come to their house! They won't get any presents!" I could tell that maybe this conversation wasn't going to have my intended impact. I tried explaining that some people celebrated a holiday called Hanukkah (yes I googled the spelling) that lasted for eight days and they got presents every day. Jonah scoffed at this and said "So? Santa brings like a HUNDRED!" and then promptly walked away. We'll revisit religion at a later date I guess.
Jonah really got into the present thing. At least the receiving part. Jocie was happy just to tear up wrapping paper for four straight hours. As we're opening presents, Jonah kept asking where his next present was. He was getting a little greedy and impatient, so I called him aside to try to calm him down. I said "look buddy, you need to pump the brakes a little bit. You're not the only person getting presents here. You need to sit patiently and wait your turn. If you can't do that......."
It was at this point I realized I was screwed. I hadn't thought out a punishment yet to attach to this threat. I certainly wasn't going to give Jonah a timeout on Christmas for being excited. I also realized that everyone there (my mom, stepdad, brothers and their significant others) were watching me intently, ready to grade my parenting skills. So, of course, I say the dumbest thing possible.
".....I don't know what's going to happen."
I'm not sure if Jonah interpreted it as an open ended threat, in that literally any punishment imaginable was awaiting him if he kept up his "gimme gimme gimme" routine, or if he picked up that his dad was an idiot and he had me behind the eight ball, but it didn't much matter as the whole room exploded in laughter and Rachel shook her head and gave me one word, deadpan answer..."nice." Any parenting leverage I had at that moment was gone forever, and Jonah was free to continue on his merry way.
As an aside, I can't guarantee that I remember this correctly, but I'm pretty sure Jonah did in fact tone down his "me first" Christmas after that. Maybe I did get through to him in some small way. That in itself would be a Christmas miracle. If Rachel parents with the precision of a surgeon with a scalpel, I'm a butcher with a hatchet....but apparently our kids are turning out alright thus far, so I guess it works alright.
It's hard for me to think that a Christmas is going to be better than the one we just had, but, like I said that fateful morning, I don't know what's going to happen.
Thursday, December 29, 2011
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Distracted Driving - Where does it end?
CNN.com just posted this article, which basically says that the NTSB has recommended a full ban on cell phones while driving. This is an example of something that is in theory a good idea, but really just completely misguided.
I get that texting while driving is dangerous. I'll admit, I do it every now and then, and even while I'm doing it I realize that this probably isn't a good idea. If I got ticketed while texting, I would completely understand. For that reason, I understand not surfing the web on your phone or emailing either. But this idea that talking on your phone causes more crashes is just nutty. First it was banning hand held phones. I assumed the idea behind this was to get people to keep both hands on the wheel. If this is case, why isn't eating while driving banned? Why are there still radio's in cars that require you to move your hand off the wheel to change the station? Why are there in dash GPS devices that are supposed to help you drive?
This article says the NTSB wants to ban all hands free devices too, unless they're installed by the manufacturer. Why? How is a hands free device installed by GM more safe than the one I have clipped to the visor in my car? In fact, Rachel has one that was installed by the manufacturer, and it's terrible. This weekend she was trying to program names into the things memory, and the list of options was a little vague so she said "help." The thing immediately starts dialing 911. Later, when trying to program "Cardiac Rehab" the machine said it was too close to "Andy." I'm not making this stuff up. My $50 third party device eliminates this by automatically downloading my phonebook every time I get in my car. It's awesome.
So now we've eliminated hands free devices, which now gets to where the NTSB is going so off course. So talking to someone not in the car is now banned, but having a conversation with wife in the passenger seat is OK? How is this different? What's next, are we banning passengers in the car? Forget about singing along with your favorite song on the radio....you're DISTRACTED. My favorite part of the article is the suggestion by the NTSB that cell phone companies design phones that will not work if you're sitting in the drivers seat of a car, but will work in other seats. What kind of crazy technology and collaboration between automotive and communications companies will that take? Be prepared to pay more for your car and your phone because of that little gem. It's insane. We're heading towards the day when driver's seats are in a special compartment that is sound proof to the rest of the car....essentially sensory deprivation. You know what will happen then? PEOPLE WILL FALL ASLEEP FROM BOREDOM!!! Hello more crashes!
While any one person dying is tragic, it's not a reason to re-evaluate everything. A football player dies from heat exhaustion and dehydration during a college football practice in the middle of the summer in the deep south now means that my four year old son needs to have a water break during his one hour session of "Little Kickers" which is indoors. In December. They spend literally half of that hour listening to the coach tell some psycho kid to stop running into the goal at full speed or sitting on blue dots talking about what their favorite food is. One kid drinks a whole bottle Southern Comfort and dives head first into a pool that's 2 feet deep and now college kids aren't allowed to drink in their fraternities or sororities. A bunch of stupid people take stupid loans to buy houses they know they can't afford, and now I can't refinance my home. Is my loan stupid? No. Is my house unaffordable? No. Have I ever missed a payment? No. But the government put ridiculous rules in place that make it impossible for me to either refinance in a way that makes financial sense. Sure I could just sell my house, but then when I go to buy a new house, I have no money for a down payment because I had to cover my loan, and nobody will finance at 100% anymore. Who is actually being helped by these policies? It's knee jerk overreaction at best, and I hate it.
I'll leave you with this quote from an interesting research study (Read this awesome article from the Seattle Times for more info. by OSU on how the eradication of wolves in the Olympic Peninsula led to large numbers of elk which ate foliage, leaving fewer large trees, driving down bird and small mammal populations and causing erosion along riverbeds.
Driven by fear, Americans had dewilded the West without realizing the full consequences. “We thought that we would prosper if we made the continent a safe place to be. We did all of this with the best of intentions, not understanding what we were doing."
I get that texting while driving is dangerous. I'll admit, I do it every now and then, and even while I'm doing it I realize that this probably isn't a good idea. If I got ticketed while texting, I would completely understand. For that reason, I understand not surfing the web on your phone or emailing either. But this idea that talking on your phone causes more crashes is just nutty. First it was banning hand held phones. I assumed the idea behind this was to get people to keep both hands on the wheel. If this is case, why isn't eating while driving banned? Why are there still radio's in cars that require you to move your hand off the wheel to change the station? Why are there in dash GPS devices that are supposed to help you drive?
This article says the NTSB wants to ban all hands free devices too, unless they're installed by the manufacturer. Why? How is a hands free device installed by GM more safe than the one I have clipped to the visor in my car? In fact, Rachel has one that was installed by the manufacturer, and it's terrible. This weekend she was trying to program names into the things memory, and the list of options was a little vague so she said "help." The thing immediately starts dialing 911. Later, when trying to program "Cardiac Rehab" the machine said it was too close to "Andy." I'm not making this stuff up. My $50 third party device eliminates this by automatically downloading my phonebook every time I get in my car. It's awesome.
So now we've eliminated hands free devices, which now gets to where the NTSB is going so off course. So talking to someone not in the car is now banned, but having a conversation with wife in the passenger seat is OK? How is this different? What's next, are we banning passengers in the car? Forget about singing along with your favorite song on the radio....you're DISTRACTED. My favorite part of the article is the suggestion by the NTSB that cell phone companies design phones that will not work if you're sitting in the drivers seat of a car, but will work in other seats. What kind of crazy technology and collaboration between automotive and communications companies will that take? Be prepared to pay more for your car and your phone because of that little gem. It's insane. We're heading towards the day when driver's seats are in a special compartment that is sound proof to the rest of the car....essentially sensory deprivation. You know what will happen then? PEOPLE WILL FALL ASLEEP FROM BOREDOM!!! Hello more crashes!
While any one person dying is tragic, it's not a reason to re-evaluate everything. A football player dies from heat exhaustion and dehydration during a college football practice in the middle of the summer in the deep south now means that my four year old son needs to have a water break during his one hour session of "Little Kickers" which is indoors. In December. They spend literally half of that hour listening to the coach tell some psycho kid to stop running into the goal at full speed or sitting on blue dots talking about what their favorite food is. One kid drinks a whole bottle Southern Comfort and dives head first into a pool that's 2 feet deep and now college kids aren't allowed to drink in their fraternities or sororities. A bunch of stupid people take stupid loans to buy houses they know they can't afford, and now I can't refinance my home. Is my loan stupid? No. Is my house unaffordable? No. Have I ever missed a payment? No. But the government put ridiculous rules in place that make it impossible for me to either refinance in a way that makes financial sense. Sure I could just sell my house, but then when I go to buy a new house, I have no money for a down payment because I had to cover my loan, and nobody will finance at 100% anymore. Who is actually being helped by these policies? It's knee jerk overreaction at best, and I hate it.
I'll leave you with this quote from an interesting research study (Read this awesome article from the Seattle Times for more info. by OSU on how the eradication of wolves in the Olympic Peninsula led to large numbers of elk which ate foliage, leaving fewer large trees, driving down bird and small mammal populations and causing erosion along riverbeds.
Driven by fear, Americans had dewilded the West without realizing the full consequences. “We thought that we would prosper if we made the continent a safe place to be. We did all of this with the best of intentions, not understanding what we were doing."
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Playoffs?
Normally I shy away from sports related posts....mainly because I get the distinct impression that most of the people who read my blog are women. This is why I write a bazillion words on every episode of The Bachelor. Rule number one of communication: Know your audience. This, perhaps, portrays me to the general public as a namby-pamby guy who'd rather go to see Riverdance than a Rose Bowl. This is simply not the case. Fact of the matter is that that I can appreciate both forms of entertainment.
Speaking of the Rose Bowl however, I heard a viewpoint on the radio that I hadn't quite heard before. Oregon State hasn't been to a Rose Bowl since my parents were in high school. Growing up as a fourth generation Beaver, it's been something I've wanted to experience since I was about six. It's the Granddaddy of Them All! So great is this dream of mine to see Oregon State run out onto the field on New Year's Day in Pasadena that I've vowed not to visit the stadium for any reason until that day comes. I don't want anything to take away from that moment, whenever that comes (and it will!).
Or will it? Mike Parker, as only Mike Parker can, spent a good thirty minutes on the radio building up his argument against a playoff in college football, referencing Glengarry Glen Ross numerous times in the process. Half an hour! Finally he got to the point: If there's a playoff, the Rose Bowl ceases to exist as we know it, and that's not good.
He's right on both counts. Already the Rose Bowl has been devalued with the creation of the National Championship game and this absurd thing where we have bowl games after New Year's Day. I have no problem with pitting #1 vs. #2. It makes sense....it's the game everyone wants to see. That being said, I'd actually be disappointed if OSU won the Pac-12 and finished #2 and was sent to Miami for the Orange Bowl game. I'd rather they finished #3 and went to the Rose Bowl.....at least the first time they win the Pac-12. After that they can go to the National Championship all they want. The Rose Bowl has always been the holy grail for the Pac teams, and it bugs me to think that it's suddenly not anymore. Ask Oregon fans....Is the Rose Bowl a little less special to them now that they've played in a National Championship The Natty? (Sidenote: Now the Cliff Harris has essentially been wiped from our collective memories, can we pretend "The Natty" never entered our lexicon? I don't know that it's possible to cheapen a National Championship experience, but calling it "The Natty" probably comes close.)
Let's look at some arguments of playoff supporters, and I'm going to tell you why these people are wrong.
Argument: Bowls would still matter! 1 v. 4 in the Rose Bowl, 2 v. 3 in the Sugar, National Championship at the Orange!
You're right...they would still matter, but if you go beyond 1v2 though, all of sudden there's no "Rose Bowl." There's a national semifinal game AT the Rose Bowl, and nobody gets as excited for a penultimate game. In addition, while it's great for national television audiences, it's brutal for fans of the respective schools. If you're talking about people having to travel to a semifinal game, then hop on another plane to fly to another destination the next week for the championship you're going to price out all but the largest donors. Many families plan vacations around their respective team's bowl games....now they'll have to decide between going to a semifinal or holding out hope that their team wins and gets to the big game.
Argument: We need to decide the national champion on the field!
So you want an national champion who "earned" it. I get that the championship is "decided on the field" but how often does the best team actually win in a playoff format? Anyone really think that the Giants were the best team on the field in Super Bowl XLII? No...the Patriots were the victim of one of the most unlikely catches ever. Teams that weren't even good enough to win their division have won the world series five times in fifteen years. Heck, the Packers had to win in the last week of the season last year to even make the playoffs! The best team doesn't win a championship...the hottest team does. If anything the 1 vs. 2 format pits the two teams most DESERVING of playing for a national championship against each other.
But what about Oklahoma State? Aren't they deserving? You're right. They probably deserved a shot. But if you expand to 4 teams, what about #5? If you put this model towards the 2011 season, that would mean Stanford gets into the playoff and Oregon gets short shrift. How is that fair? Oregon HAMMERED Stanford on their home field!! Oregon won the Pac-12!!! Again, you can't please everyone.
Argument: Ok fine Mr. Smarty Pants, what if we go to four SuperConferences and have the champs of each conference duke it out in a playoff?
Well Mr. Playoff, that'd solve the Oregon/Stanford problem, but let's use this season again for this analysis. In no "SuperConference" world would it be possible for Alabama and LSU to not be in the same conference. It simply wouldn't happen. So, even if you went with four SuperConferences, you'd probably still have a Final Four that looked something like LSU v. Oregon (REMATCH!) in one semifinal and Oklahoma State v. Wisconsin in the other.....and nobody, not even Badgerland, thinks Wisconsin is one of the top four teams in the country.
Argument: FINE! Then we expand the playoff to 8 teams, and allow for four "at large" berths!
Nice try....but #9 is still pissed and a legislator from whatever state #9 happens to play in is heading to congress with some plan to blow up the current system. Another problem would be that teams that play in a conference championship game now could potentially be playing as many as 17 games in a season (13 regular season - assuming they play at Hawaii, conference championship, quarterfinal, semifinal, championship). Good luck getting university presidents who still have to pretend that academics matter for these teams to agree to that. Oh, you want to shorten the regular season? Good luck getting cash strapped universities with no chance of playing in a national championship (think Arkansas State or Utah State) across the nation to willingly sacrifice home games so that Alabama can make a run at a national championship. It's not going to happen unless you basically blow up the current FBS and cut it down to the 32 most successful and wealthy programs and leave the other 87 teams out in the cold. Say goodbye to Boise State. Sorry Houston, we know you had a great year, but we just don't need you anymore. Robert Griffin III? I think I know who he is.....didn't he play in that crappy second division?
Look, the reason the NCAA tourney is so successful in basketball is because of the first two rounds....when some no name school from the Patriot League knocks off a Duke or a Kansas....it's something you can't replicate in football, or baseball, or really any other sport. So why are we trying? They say that sports is a reflection of society, and in this case it's true.....the rich are getting richer at the expense of the poor.
If we go to a playoff format, it'll be only the 1% that get to play in the sandbox, and I'll never get the chance to see the Beavers play in a Rose Bowl, and that makes me sad.
Monday, December 5, 2011
So you Want to be a Parent
First off, I love my kids. They (along with my wife) are the best thing about my life. I have never second guessed my decision to have kids.
That being said, I totally get why people would not want to have kids. There's no shame in not wanting kids. In fact, the world would probably be better if more people actively avoided having children, and I applaud people who make this decision consciously. This may sound insensitive, but there are very few things in the world more annoying than an under supervised child. I've often said that the worst part about having children is other people's children.This is not the child's fault though. No, the blame lies solely with the parent. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that the worst part of parenting is other parents.
First, an example of the disinterested parent. If you want to see disinterested parents, go to anything that involves children being supervised by a non parent. I'll use Lil' Kickers. We signed Jonah up for Lil' Kickers as a way for him to interact with other kids his age in a fun environment, and to also prep him for school by learning to follow instructions from people who aren't his parents. Other people seem to view it as "paying $100 so that other people can manage their kids for a hour a week so I don't have to." Jonah's soccer group has one such parent. This dude brings his son in and makes some clearly disinterested statement like "OK, son, go have fun, run around, make friends......" You know, basically a statement that implies that you ignorantly think your son is too young to understand that the tone of your voice is 50% of the message. News flash....kids aren't dumb. Literally, as soon as this kid gets onto the field, Dad pulls out his iPhone and STARTS WATCHING VIDEOS ON FACEBOOK OF SOMEONE ELSE'S KIDS. I wish I were making this up. Here his own son is playing soccer LIVE in front of his face, and he's got his nose buried in a 4.3" grainy display of someone else's kids decorating a Christmas tree. He then proceeds to spend the next 50 minutes composing a song on his iPhone keyboard, rather loudly I might add. My favorite is when he through a little jazz style "skibbity be bop" vocal in over the top and then spent ten minutes changing the speed of his vocals to match the music. He kept looking at Rachel as if to say "pretty cool, eh?" If he only knew he might've found the person who would be LEAST impressed with his technology and musical talents.
Honorable mention goes to the lady who thinks it's hilarious that her two kids don't listen to the coach at all and are constantly running off before the instructions for the drill/game are given, thereby slowing down the entire session so coach can corral the kids and start everyone on time.
Our fun with other families continued with picture day at JC Penney in Salem. If you want angry families, this is the place for you. There's disgruntled teenagers in there for family portraits that are basically sweating hatred through their pores. I couldn't figure out if they were angrier that they had to wear collared shirts or spend time with their parents on a weekend - we'll call it a tie. There's single mothers who apparently are only getting photos because Grandma wants them....and thus are bitter that Grandma tagged along to provide her input on what shots should be used and how many photos to order because, after all, she's paying for the pictures. And then there was this one kid, who I swear to you I never figured out who he belonged to. He very well could've been left at the picture studio by parents who were nose deep in their iPhones posting flowery messages about how awesome picture day was in an attempt to (falsely) prove to people that they're good parents. This kid decided that the game of Battleship that Jonah and I were playing on my iPod was worth seeing, because he literally got in between Jonah and I while we were passing the thing back and forth. (Side note: I realize the irony of me using an iPod in this story, but at least Jonah was playing with me.) Jonah's reaction to this was awesome: He didn't say a word, just stared at the kid (who I'd guess was about seven) with a "do you mind?" look on his face.
More about JC Penney Pictures - What a nightmare. It's basically a robbery minus the guns and ski masks. You get a window of about 10 minutes to get pictures taken in which they snap maybe 20-25 pictures total. In our case, we wanted some of the kids together and individually, so that means you get a total of about 7-8 shots of each to pick from. In any batch of photos, you can usually throw out about 10-20% for closed eyes and/or not looking at the camera. This doubles when you're talking about kids under the age of five. Then, in our case, you get a photographer that looks like she can't wait to get home, get all glammed up then hit the town to make a bad decision or seventeen. Of course she asks Jonah to take a few shots with his collar "popped" while looking at the aforementioned collar. She proclaimed this to be her favorite pose. Why on Earth would you want photos of the side of your kids face holding a popped collar? "Merry Christmas Grandma, your grandson is well on his way to being a self absorbed douchey frat boy in 14 years." So now you are down to approximately 4 usable shots of each kid....hope you like them!
unselect them from our order. This whole process takes at least three times as long as the actual picture taking did....and I think that's intentional. We've got a 4 year old who just wants to get home to play super heroes and 4 month old that's constantly counting down to the next hunger induced meltdown. Chances are you're going to agree to something you're not fully on board with in the hopes of fending off a temper tantrum that will provoke "the look" from other parents. You know the look - it implies you aren't a qualified parent because your kid got upset in public. It's usually given by people that are annoyed they had to turn away from their iPhone to see who the shameful parent in question is. In our case, the prolonged picture selecting process ultimately resulted in a win for JC Penney, as Rachel dropped her argument that nowhere on the coupon did it mention you couldn't use it on more than one package at a time, costing us around $20 extra dollars, all for about two usable shots of each child.
So take note, future parents. If you want the payoff of watching them take their first steps and becoming a person you're proud to say you're related to, you'd better be prepared to pay the price both emotionally and monetarily. If not, use that money you were going to spend on diapers or college savings on a new flat screen and trip to Europe. You'll get no disapproving looks from me.
That being said, I totally get why people would not want to have kids. There's no shame in not wanting kids. In fact, the world would probably be better if more people actively avoided having children, and I applaud people who make this decision consciously. This may sound insensitive, but there are very few things in the world more annoying than an under supervised child. I've often said that the worst part about having children is other people's children.This is not the child's fault though. No, the blame lies solely with the parent. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that the worst part of parenting is other parents.
First, an example of the disinterested parent. If you want to see disinterested parents, go to anything that involves children being supervised by a non parent. I'll use Lil' Kickers. We signed Jonah up for Lil' Kickers as a way for him to interact with other kids his age in a fun environment, and to also prep him for school by learning to follow instructions from people who aren't his parents. Other people seem to view it as "paying $100 so that other people can manage their kids for a hour a week so I don't have to." Jonah's soccer group has one such parent. This dude brings his son in and makes some clearly disinterested statement like "OK, son, go have fun, run around, make friends......" You know, basically a statement that implies that you ignorantly think your son is too young to understand that the tone of your voice is 50% of the message. News flash....kids aren't dumb. Literally, as soon as this kid gets onto the field, Dad pulls out his iPhone and STARTS WATCHING VIDEOS ON FACEBOOK OF SOMEONE ELSE'S KIDS. I wish I were making this up. Here his own son is playing soccer LIVE in front of his face, and he's got his nose buried in a 4.3" grainy display of someone else's kids decorating a Christmas tree. He then proceeds to spend the next 50 minutes composing a song on his iPhone keyboard, rather loudly I might add. My favorite is when he through a little jazz style "skibbity be bop" vocal in over the top and then spent ten minutes changing the speed of his vocals to match the music. He kept looking at Rachel as if to say "pretty cool, eh?" If he only knew he might've found the person who would be LEAST impressed with his technology and musical talents.
Honorable mention goes to the lady who thinks it's hilarious that her two kids don't listen to the coach at all and are constantly running off before the instructions for the drill/game are given, thereby slowing down the entire session so coach can corral the kids and start everyone on time.
Our fun with other families continued with picture day at JC Penney in Salem. If you want angry families, this is the place for you. There's disgruntled teenagers in there for family portraits that are basically sweating hatred through their pores. I couldn't figure out if they were angrier that they had to wear collared shirts or spend time with their parents on a weekend - we'll call it a tie. There's single mothers who apparently are only getting photos because Grandma wants them....and thus are bitter that Grandma tagged along to provide her input on what shots should be used and how many photos to order because, after all, she's paying for the pictures. And then there was this one kid, who I swear to you I never figured out who he belonged to. He very well could've been left at the picture studio by parents who were nose deep in their iPhones posting flowery messages about how awesome picture day was in an attempt to (falsely) prove to people that they're good parents. This kid decided that the game of Battleship that Jonah and I were playing on my iPod was worth seeing, because he literally got in between Jonah and I while we were passing the thing back and forth. (Side note: I realize the irony of me using an iPod in this story, but at least Jonah was playing with me.) Jonah's reaction to this was awesome: He didn't say a word, just stared at the kid (who I'd guess was about seven) with a "do you mind?" look on his face.
More about JC Penney Pictures - What a nightmare. It's basically a robbery minus the guns and ski masks. You get a window of about 10 minutes to get pictures taken in which they snap maybe 20-25 pictures total. In our case, we wanted some of the kids together and individually, so that means you get a total of about 7-8 shots of each to pick from. In any batch of photos, you can usually throw out about 10-20% for closed eyes and/or not looking at the camera. This doubles when you're talking about kids under the age of five. Then, in our case, you get a photographer that looks like she can't wait to get home, get all glammed up then hit the town to make a bad decision or seventeen. Of course she asks Jonah to take a few shots with his collar "popped" while looking at the aforementioned collar. She proclaimed this to be her favorite pose. Why on Earth would you want photos of the side of your kids face holding a popped collar? "Merry Christmas Grandma, your grandson is well on his way to being a self absorbed douchey frat boy in 14 years." So now you are down to approximately 4 usable shots of each kid....hope you like them!
unselect them from our order. This whole process takes at least three times as long as the actual picture taking did....and I think that's intentional. We've got a 4 year old who just wants to get home to play super heroes and 4 month old that's constantly counting down to the next hunger induced meltdown. Chances are you're going to agree to something you're not fully on board with in the hopes of fending off a temper tantrum that will provoke "the look" from other parents. You know the look - it implies you aren't a qualified parent because your kid got upset in public. It's usually given by people that are annoyed they had to turn away from their iPhone to see who the shameful parent in question is. In our case, the prolonged picture selecting process ultimately resulted in a win for JC Penney, as Rachel dropped her argument that nowhere on the coupon did it mention you couldn't use it on more than one package at a time, costing us around $20 extra dollars, all for about two usable shots of each child.
So take note, future parents. If you want the payoff of watching them take their first steps and becoming a person you're proud to say you're related to, you'd better be prepared to pay the price both emotionally and monetarily. If not, use that money you were going to spend on diapers or college savings on a new flat screen and trip to Europe. You'll get no disapproving looks from me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)