These are the questions that plague our household.
1: Do babies need to wear pants? Now that it's warm and all? 0r not just pants, any sort of leg covering. I mean, one obvious answer is a resounding "no," because pants are mostly decorative at this point. This is usually Brandon's answer. But my answer is more complicated because I have a nagging desire to protect his legs (they are so sweet and soft!) and also because I have the vague sense that it's somehow...gauche...to go pantless all the time.
I surprise myself by having this response, because normally social propriety is not really a concern for me, so I think I'm going to have to ponder this one some more. I guess then we also have question
1a: Why does Sarah have the nagging sense that babies need pants?
2: What would we do if we were democratic strategists? This is a question we think about in the mornings, while listening to NPR. Being a little out of the policy wonk loop these days, we have very few good answers (Kate would be better at this game, probably). But even in our out-of-the-loopishness, we think: JEEZE. TIME FOR A NEW STRATEGY, STRATEGISTS! Brandon this morning proposed a bill that would require troops to come home for good after finishing tours, no extentions. The "protect military families" bill, or something. I'm also interested in the John Edwards proposal to resend the no-funding bill. I think that might be sort of an effective gesture: dems offered the compromise 1/2 funding bill, Bush refused to compromise, so we're going back to our initial proposal. I dunno. If we figure it out, we'll get back to you. Maybe we need a "No Troops Left Behind" act? Hmm.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
We have opened a college savings account (529 plan) for Elliot! We are not fishing, but this is an easy Xmas gift: print this contribution coupon out and mail it in.
b's new album is out!
You don't have to buy it for actual money, of course -- just ask and I'll mail you a CD.
Blog Archive
-
▼
2007
(168)
-
▼
May
(23)
- more news
- Family Milestone
- Forward Motion
- So this is summer.
- Not such great heights
- Heights
- The Sea is Calm To-Night
- Babies Continue Booming!
- Thank you very much, idealized vision of springtim...
- New Game!
- It turns out that Mother's Day is a fantastic holi...
- when lilacs first
- Two Burning Questions
- Thinking Mama
- Happy Two-Thirds
- Did I tell you I had a sort of break-through revel...
- crap, that video's not working.
- Post-bath, pre-bed
- That's our (other) boy
- Elliot amongst his clutter
- Two things
- Real Quick
- I mash Elliot's banana each morning. It takes lon...
-
▼
May
(23)
Elliot's 529
We have opened a college savings account (529 plan) for Elliot! We are not fishing, but this is an easy Xmas gift: print this contribution coupon out and mail it in.
6 comments:
Don't have an answer for question #2, but for question #1, it's ok for the baby to wear only a diaper but only when he's playing on the couch in your front yard. That's our rule, anyway.
I also go for question #1 (but not question #1A, which is too complicated). Pants shade tender young limbs from the burning sun. Therefore: pants. Or, alternatively, sunscreen. Or alternatively, sunshade, which we pass on because of the "boy in a bubble" vibe.
Sarah, my little boy is (as far as I can tell) just about exactly the same age as Elliot. And I totally agree with your ideas about pants! Even to the point of (playfully) stating that so-and-so is dressed today (!!!) when I see that this one particular child whose mama usually only brings him to daycare in onesies actually has pants on. I don't know. I live in the south where even though it is scorching outside, air conditioning makes it quite cool inside. While my little bit might go sans pants inside, I wouldn’t dream of taking him to the store that way. But I think my reasoning might be a bit more based on “social propriety” than yours.
As to the war funding fiasco, I have no idea. Bush is stubborn as a mule and I am just hoping the Dems will show him they can be adamant as well. Send positive energy Washington’s way that they can out-stubborn him!
I don't like seeing babies in public wearing only diapers. It makes me think about poo and pee. Not cute! Clothes, however, *are* cute, especially baby clothes. SHORTS! Or onesies, anything but plain diapers.
In response to question number one, pants are definitely optional. So far, we haven't found a use for them. I'm wondering why they make all of those adorable outfits. Our collection is going to waste. What babies really need are more long sleeved, 3-button T-shirts with built in mittens.
But in better colors than white and yellow, and the mittens should really be transparent. I can go days without seeing my babies little hands.
What I want to know is why shirts aren't optional for Mothers. Mother's need frequent and QUICK access to their torsos. I can see the need for a supportive nursing bra, I'm not asking to go National Geographic here, but please, can't the shirt be optional?
ps. Elliot is really big! I didn't realize it from his headshots, but in a video with other objects for scale, he looks big or maybe just the right size for his age.
I am with Amy. The diaper should be covered. My reason for covering the diaper is totally different. I feel like an inadequate parent that might be confused for a trailer trash mom if my kids are not fully dressed and clean.
If you don't have any rompers yet, then you should get some. These are like onsies, but shorts. Also, you will soon be needing shoes. I am very fond of the Robeez brand, and See Kai Run, once they start walking.
Post a Comment