Sarah Palin [Bryan]

She really is a piece of work, ain't she? Her resignation speech was one of the least coherent ramblings I have ever heard from a politician, and that is saying something. Between her and Mark Sanford, it appears all the right-wing governors of the country are going insane.

Summer Pictures [Bryan]

A busy summer so far, camping trip with friends, playing outside in the unusually nice weather, going to Cincinnati for a friend's wedding (congrats again Sarah!), celebrating holidays, taking care of the yard, and so forth.

One of the best parts of the Summer has been having Ellie's brother Sam and his wife Emily around. Sam is working up in Akron over the Summer. They have really made us feel connected to family again in a new way.

Here we are celebrating the Fourth. We went to the Hilliard parade, grilled hamburgers and brats out back, lit sparklers, and went to the Hilliard fireworks display (well, Ellie and the kids went anyway). Ellie said it was fun to watch the kids watch the fireworks, their eyes glued to the sky, mouths frozen in an awestruck smile, gasping and cheering. After each burst, Andrew would say, "That was my favorite." Then the next one would come and he'd say, "THAT was my favorite."

Ellie celebrated her 32nd birthday. Here she is opening presents. I gave her some "body butter" from Crabtree & Evelyn. Flavor: Avocado, Olive Oil, and Basil.

Sam also celebrated his birthday while he was here a few weeks ago. He turned 56.

Bryan and Ellie playing Guitar Hero.

Baby Stephen picture. Notice the strategically placed wash cloth.

On a sad note, somebody bashed out my car window in an attempt to steal...I'm not quite sure what. They didn't take anything, not even the Tic Tacs in my glove compartment. Hey guys, what part of "It doesn't even have a tape deck" do you not understand? To add insult to injury, the next day, while we were in Cincinnati, parked in the Newport Aquarium parking lot, somebody bashed into the bumper of our Highlander, then drove off without even leaving a note. Nice.

Blogging and Gender [Bryan]

I am usually fairly late in adopting new technologies. The Internet, though, has been an exception. I was on Prodigy before hardly anyone else knew what the Internet was. I began reading blogs around 2002 during the debate about the Iraq war. At that time, blogging was a rough and tumble world of flame wars and impolite ranting. It was totally a man's world.

Now, however, most of the bloggers I know personally are women. They tell me that I am the "only guy they know who blogs." It has been a strange evolution.

I think my perception of change has to do with the growth in LDS culture of mommy blogs and family blogs, which consist mostly in pictures and updates on family happenings. This type of blog is particularly popular among student families, who use blogs as a way of keeping in contact with family "back home" in Utah.

This, of course, is a completely legitimate way of thinking about blogging. I like to check in on family blogs, too. But I'm sure many people find our blog to be odd, with, for example, a series on posts on economics and health care. The reason for this difference is this: I was "raised" on the Internet during my formative years to see blogs as places to debate ideas and I can't quite shake that upbringing.

Taking history into your hands [Bryan]

I've been following closely the hopeful/historic/troubling events in Iran. I don't know if the election was stolen, although I suspect that it was. I don't know much about this Mousavi guy, although he doesn't seem like much of an improvement. It has been hard, though, not to be deeply moved by what is happening -- to watch people with the courage and determination to take history into their hands and try to shape it into something better.

I watched a YouTube video today of a young Iranian girl bleeding to death in the streets of Tehran. It was horrific thing to watch -- a series of images that will stay with me for a long time. She was probably in her twenties or late teens, dressed as a more conservative Muslim. She was shot in the chest. One can see the blood spread. One can see the life drain from her eyes. One can hear the panicked screams as people realize how badly hurt she is. All for what? It could be for nothing. Or for everything.

Times like this make me feel small and trivial. Today, for example, I went to Walmart, went to the lake, and played Guitar Hero. It was a fun time, well spent with family. But I have never taken history into my hands. I have never left in the morning knowing that, during to day, I might be beaten or even killed for taking a stand. I have never really stood up to someone (or for someone) like that, fought for justice with everything on the line. What would I do? Would I find an excuse?

I pity people who face such situations. But, sometimes, I also envy them. They know something about themselves that I do not know about myself.

Why Was Our Healthcare So Expensive? Part II [Bryan]

I should clarify, I think, Dr. Gawande's position. His project is to explain why health care costs vary so much from city to city. He cites some studies about differential treatment between cities:

Health-care costs ultimately arise from the accumulation of individual decisions doctors make about which services and treatments to write an order for. The most expensive piece of medical equipment, as the saying goes, is a doctor’s pen. And, as a rule, hospital executives don’t own the pen caps. Doctors do.

If doctors wield the pen, why do they do it so differently from one place to another? Brenda Sirovich, another Dartmouth researcher, published a study last year that provided an important clue. She and her team surveyed some eight hundred primary-care physicians from high-cost cities (such as Las Vegas and New York), low-cost cities (such as Sacramento and Boise), and others in between. The researchers asked the physicians specifically how they would handle a variety of patient cases. It turned out that differences in decision-making emerged in only some kinds of cases. In situations in which the right thing to do was well established—for example, whether to recommend a mammogram for a fifty-year-old woman (the answer is yes)—physicians in high- and low-cost cities made the same decisions. But, in cases in which the science was unclear, some physicians pursued the maximum possible amount of testing and procedures; some pursued the minimum. And which kind of doctor they were depended on where they came from.

Sirovich asked doctors how they would treat a seventy-five-year-old woman with typical heartburn symptoms and “adequate health insurance to cover tests and medications.” Physicians in high- and low-cost cities were equally likely to prescribe antacid therapy and to check for H. pylori, an ulcer-causing bacterium—steps strongly recommended by national guidelines. But when it came to measures of less certain value—and higher cost—the differences were considerable. More than seventy per cent of physicians in high-cost cities referred the patient to a gastroenterologist, ordered an upper endoscopy, or both, while half as many in low-cost cities did. Physicians from high-cost cities typically recommended that patients with well-controlled hypertension see them in the office every one to three months, while those from low-cost cities recommended visits twice yearly. In case after uncertain case, more was not necessarily better. But physicians from the most expensive cities did the most expensive things.

So, in cases where the science is unclear, doctors in high-cost cities tended to adopt a "more treatment is better" approach. He points out that this can't all be explained by differences in the doctors' training. In any given city, doctors come from many different medical schools. He argues instead that, sometimes, a culture of over-treatment arises in some cities. And, sometimes, that culture arises because some doctors develop an entrepreneurial spirit about the practice of medicine. Health care costs are explained, then, by some mixture of hazy science combined and the particular culture of medicine in some cities. It's the culture, then, not simply individually greedy doctors.

What this suggests is that better science can help us reduce costs. For this reason, I think the Democrats are wise to push "comparative effectiveness research" and the Republicans wrong to oppose it (the Republican strategy appears to be to stringently oppose reforms that would save money in medical practice, and then bitterly complain that health care reform is too expensive).

Why Was Our Healthcare So Expensive? [Bryan]

We recently added up the total hospital bills for the birth of baby Stephen. Remember, we had an emergency C-Section, plus a brief visit to the NICU. Ellie's bill totaled $20,000, while Stephen's totaled about $10,000. That is a lot of money. Luckily, we didn't have to pay these bills with our insurance, but it got me wondering: Why does health care cost so much?

In addition, I've been wondering why American health care performs so poorly against other health care systems worldwide. In other countries, they spend a fraction of what we spend on health care, but their health outcomes are usually much better than ours. Why does our health system do so poorly with all the money we put in?

I think I've finally found an answer, and it has almost nothing to do with malpractice lawsuits, greedy insurance companies, or "socialized medicine" or lack thereof. The problem is, unfortunately, doctors that have become businessmen (and women). Doctors make money on tests, surgeries, procedures, referrals, and so forth. It is in their interests to maximize the use of health care, which drives up total costs and, since all medical procedures have risks, this actually makes for poorer health outcomes. Or so this article (byAtul Gawande) claims. Go read it. Most interesting thing I've ever read about the health care cost problem.

A snippet from the conclusion:

When you look across the spectrum from Grand Junction to McAllen—and the almost threefold difference in the costs of care—you come to realize that we are witnessing a battle for the soul of American medicine. Somewhere in the United States at this moment, a patient with chest pain, or a tumor, or a cough is seeing a doctor. And the damning question we have to ask is whether the doctor is set up to meet the needs of the patient, first and foremost, or to maximize revenue.

There is no insurance system that will make the two aims match perfectly. But having a system that does so much to misalign them has proved disastrous. As economists have often pointed out, we pay doctors for quantity, not quality. As they point out less often, we also pay them as individuals, rather than as members of a team working together for their patients. Both practices have made for serious problems.

Providing health care is like building a house. The task requires experts, expensive equipment and materials, and a huge amount of coordination. Imagine that, instead of paying a contractor to pull a team together and keep them on track, you paid an electrician for every outlet he recommends, a plumber for every faucet, and a carpenter for every cabinet. Would you be surprised if you got a house with a thousand outlets, faucets, and cabinets, at three times the cost you expected, and the whole thing fell apart a couple of years later? Getting the country’s best electrician on the job (he trained at Harvard, somebody tells you) isn’t going to solve this problem. Nor will changing the person who writes him the check.

A Little Better? [Ellie]

A few months ago, I read an article in the Atlantic Monthly by Hanna Rosin called "The Case Against Breastfeeding." I'm sure they chose that title just to be provocative, since its author was, in fact, a breastfeeding mother (eerily, nursing her third and last newborn, a boy--just like mine). Rather than actually arguing against breastfeeding, Rosin was more rebelling against the powerful medical and social coercion associated with it.

I can see why she wants to rebel. Breastfeeding is such a fraught issue. I have friends who can't nurse but dearly want to. I have friends who can but wish they had a reason not to. I have friends who've nursed for years and friends who've nursed for months. I have friends who've gone to extreme measures hoping that nursing would eventually work out and then been devastated when it never did. No matter the variation on this theme, no mother I know has escaped completely unscathed. We are judged if we do (she nursed her kids for how long?) and judged if we don't (she's so selfish).

In her article, Rosin contends that, while recent studies have found only modest benefits, if any, tied to breastfeeding, women are continually bombarded with the message that you are only a good mom if you breastfeed. She is irritated by what she sees as the constant yet unwarranted cheerleading of breastfeeding advocates. Rosin would modify the "breast is best" chant of La Leche-leaguers to "breast is only a little better."

A little better? Well. I'm not here to contest her point. I haven't read the research. She might be right. But I need to believe that the sacrifices I'm making to breastfeed are not just "a little better." For instance, I recently had to turn down the invitation of some friends to go camping because I didn't know how I would manage the breastfeeding issues (To vanish or not to vanish? If not, then I'll have to wrestle with a nursing cover. . .). I've had to interrupt the writing of this blog post on breastfeeding to breastfeed (no lie). I can't really take my kids to the zoo by myself this summer because I don't know what I'd do with my other two in such a vast public place while I breastfeed. Plus the whole nastiness of having to breastfeed in public, period.

Anyway, what I'm arguing for is this: I want to retain my mistaken belief that it is a LOT better to breastfeed. I want Stephen to be healthier, smarter, richer, better looking, and better behaved. I want his guaranteed admission to an Ivy League institution. And for me I want. . .a medal.

But I'll settle for the fact that despite its myriad inconveniences, I kinda like breastfeeding. I love the physical and emotional connection it builds between me and my son. While it might not be as beneficial as I'd like to believe, it still feels like The Right Thing to Do. And I'm a sucker for that kind of stuff.

What kind of world will Stephen have? [Bryan]

Last night I watched a show that really, really bothered me. It was called 2100, an ABC News special broadcast. The premise of the show was following a fictional girl, named Lucy, through life as it might play out if some of the projections currently being made about climate change and other environmental problems turn out to be accurate. The segment claimed that these were "worst case" projections, but they seemed relatively moderate to me (at least until the end, which seemed a bit far-fetched). The effects of climate change, judged by melting sea ice and glaciers, seem to be outpacing even the most pessimistic assumptions. They did the segment with some good graphic-novel type of animation, which had a surprising impact on me.

The segment stuck with me because this could be the life of my kids. Stephen, like the character Lucy, was born in 2009. I really wonder what sort of world we are leaving behind for Nora, Andrew, and Stephen. Not a good one, I think. We've really trashed the place -- and it wasn't our place.

The projections are relatively familiar: Gas shortages and riots as oil demand vastly exceeds supply. Outer suburbs become vast slums as people abandon them to live closer to the cities (can't afford to drive). Water shortage in the American Southwest (bye, bye, Las Vegas) and in cities that depend on glacier run-offs. Water shortage and soaring cost of oil lead to food shortages and mass starvation in other countries. Thirsty and starving people destabilize national borders, populations move as islands and low-lying cities flood, leading to war and civil unrest. It is all very grim.

Now, this isn't the only scenario, and certainly the human race has avoided disaster before. There was never a nuclear war, for example, which was a prospect that used to terrify me as a kid. But, in that case, it was obvious that our short-term interest was in not getting blown up. That created restraint and, to some degree, wisdom. With these sorts of problems, our short-term "economic" interest lies in doing more of the same. Humanity has never shown much interest in thinking about long-term problems. I like to think we can avoid this, but governments (and I am looking at you US Senate) seem resistant to even the most modest measures of restraint. I hope somebody proves me wrong.

Here is the opening segment.

Earth 2100: Civilization at Crossroads

Shared via AddThis

Nora Happenings [Bryan]

Nora's Kindergarten didn't do a graduation (thank goodness!). But they did have a little open house with punch and cookies on the second-to-last day of school. Here is Nora on the school playground with some friends.

Nora and her teacher, Mrs. P., on the last day of school.

Nora's school. Not much to look at, but we like it. The school district is very short on funds (the community refuses to pass a levy), but they do great things with their very modest resources.

Nora recently wrote a series of books we've taken to calling the "Haley series" -- Haley at the Park, Haley Goes to Wal-mart, etc. Haley, from what I understand, is the name of a friend of hers at school. Here she is showing off her work.

Nora's latest piano recital.

Huntsman, Romney, and the Mormon Vote [Bryan]

Interesting commentary on the new Huntsman gig with the Obama administration:

The nomination, yesterday, of Utah Governor Jon Huntsman to be US Ambassador to the People's Republic of China - like Romney, a handsome and articulate boy-wonder billionaire of that faith - has those eyebrows wagging again. It speaks volumes of the outside-the-box tendencies of the President and his team that the thought would even occur to them to appoint such an unexpected envoy, that they would know that Huntsman - a former LDS missionary in Taiwan - speaks Mandarin, and that they'd be able to convince the Governor to switch jobs for a post that is not necessarily a promotion. They must have also had good enough intelligence to sense that Huntsman was bored at his current gig. That they made the sale is a head turner, indeed.

That they announced this shortly after Republican National Committee chair Michael Steele gaffed his way into another controversy, this time regarding the evident anti-Mormon bigotry in Evangelical Christian circles, is nothing less than political poetry. Steele said, on Bill Bennett's radio show, "Remember, it was the base that rejected Mitt because of his switch on pro-life, from pro-choice to pro-life. It was the base that rejected Mitt because it had issues with Mormonism..."

What is a gaffe? Generally it's something that's true but that society doesn't want to admit.

Mitt Romney is technically the frontrunner for the GOP presidential nomination in 2012. He's got the money, a national organization, and the on-camera talent and political experience to handle the national spotlight. Ideologically, his positions line up pretty perfectly with the conservative GOP platform. If any Republican "deserves" it for having paid his dues loyally to the party, it's Mitt. And yet it's extremely unlikely that the said GOP base - we're talking mainly white Southern Baptists here - is going to get over its Mormonphobia in just three years enough to make that possible.

The appointment of Huntsman is thus, politically, a slam dunk. When GOP primary voters inevitably reject Romney once again in the 2012 primaries and caucuses outside of the Mountain West, the resentment - already boiling after last year's adventures in presidential politics - among rank-and-file Mormons that the party to whom they've given so much still doesn't really want them in the Master's house rather than the servant's quarters, will sting. Meanwhile, another of their prominent citizens will likely still be Obama's man in Beijing, proof that somebody in American politics isn't dissing the LDS and its members. And in key swing states like Nevada and Colorado, LDS members are legion.

Some said Obama was crazy, back in 2007 and 2008, to reach out to what conventional wisdom thought was an impenetrable GOP base... Crazy, like a fox.

It may be that Huntsman is setting himself up as a picture-perfect, bipartisan-friendly Republican presidential candidate in 2016. Whatever the case, it reinforces the message I've been peddling for a long time now: the base of the Republican party despises Mormons. Why we Mormons want to associate ourselves so closely with that mean-spirited group perplexes me.

Mother's Day Rant [Ellie]

I'm pretty sure that I've failed to keep every one of the "my child will never. . ." resolutions I made before I became a parent, and my oldest is only six.

My child will never be the one to hit. (How many two-year-old boys don't? Mine did.)

My child will never be the one with the permanent runny nose. (Pass the Kleenex--from October to April, Baby.)

My child will never run around the house naked. (Oh, I've beat that. I've had--within a period of months--two kids naked in public because I forgot to bring changes of clothing.)

My child will never wear dirty clothes out of the house. (How many times can you change one child's clothing in a day?)

I have no more illusions that I am now or ever will be a perfect mom. I've waved a tearful goodbye to each illusion as it flew out the window and I turned to face the reality of life with my children.

But, this isn't the rant you might expect. I'm not going to tell you how much I hate Mother's Day because I'm not good enough and I feel guilty and why do people idealize mothers, anyway etc., etc., etc. I know many women feel that way. But I, personally, love Mother's Day. My rant is directed to mothers who don't. Here are my "Top Five" reasons they should love Mother's Day, too.

1. You went through 9 months of pregnancy and then hours of excruciating pain during labor just to get the kids here. I think that alone deserves one day of thanks per year.

2. No matter how inadequate you feel, think for a moment about the sacrifices you have made for your children. No mother sacrifices nothing, and most sacrifice many things--sleep; careers; money; free time; being surrounded by clean, beautiful, unbroken things; time alone with their spouse--every day. Let them thank you for it.

3. How do you think your kids feel when you tell them you hate Mother's Day because you don't feel like a good mother? Like they must be lousy since you're so unhappy with how they turned out. That's how.

4. Who doesn't like to be treated well--breakfast in bed, sloppy kid kisses, hand-drawn cards, the obligatory Mother's Day school-made flowerpot complete with wilted flower, dinner made for you--for one day. Just enjoy it!

5. There is no ideal mother. She is imaginary. We are all inadequate to the task. But we give it our all, and that dedication is worth celebrating.

Photos [Bryan]

Stephen is a gloriously fat and generally happy baby.

Andrew at an Easter-egg hunt (one of three)

Happy Stephen again.

Nora showing off her new pink dress.

Dressed for Easter.

First 100 Days -- Updated [Bryan]

So, we have had 100 days with a new president. Fair or not, since FDR 100 days have been seen as the first time to realistically review a new president. So, here is my review.

Foreign Policy

Successes: One of the major reasons I supported Obama was to change the image of America in the world. It seems to me that, so far, this expectation has been fulfilled -- and then some! The most impressive symbolic acts so far have been the open town hall meetings, press conferences, and speeches he has given in Europe and Turkey. He has impressed foreign leaders, reporters, and citizens far and wide. This will all certainly pay off in the long run. He has already made important moves with Russia in the areas of nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament. His Cuba policy (easing travel restrictions and monetary transactions) is a welcome change, and relations appear to be greatly improving with Latin America. He seems eager to listen, rather than preach.

Failures: He has been unable to convince European countries to increase stimulus spending, which could prove to be very important in the economic recovery. I don't think this is as big a deal as some do, but it is still a failure.

Question marks: The Big Unknown right now is Afghanistan/Pakistan. Obama, as he promised, is sending more troops to the region. I am genuinely unsure of whether this is the best thing to do. The situation is both countries appears is worsening. It also remains to be seen whether Obama has the strength to stand up to the current far-right Israeli government and its odd supporters here at home, and put some real pressure on Israel to stop building illegal settlements in the West Bank (of course, he needs to continue to pressure Palestinians to stop rocket attacks, but that is a given).

Reading: "Signs of Spring: U.S.-Latin America Relations Thaw," Time.
Reading: "Obama in Europe: Overtures to Ovations," Financial times.
Reading: "9 Moments That Mattered," Atlantic
Reading: "Aided by Safety Nets, Europe Resists Stimulus Push," NY Times

Economy

Successes: The stimulus package was impressive. It was probably not big enough and too focused on less-stimulative tax cuts -- but the blame for that lies elsewhere. If anything, Obama might have made a mistake in trusting that Republicans would compromise in good faith. Obama's budget was a much more honest budget than we've had in the past (actually including the costs of war), and contains money for all the right priorities (energy, health care). Not bad at all -- good long, term investment.

Failures: Bailout money is still being spent in unseemly ways, thanks to incomprehensible behavior by Wall Street executives. Obama's response has been erratic and fairly weak.

Question marks: The big banks and the auto industry are still in big trouble. All of the options seem bad. Good luck with that, Mr. President. And, obviously, current deficits are not sustainable. Perhaps the big test of the Obama presidency will be, once the economy recovers, to bring these under control through a mixture of sensible spending reductions, tax hikes, and health care restructuring. He is already taking steps to do this, but we'll see.

Reading: "I give Obama an A, a B and an F," Rob Reich

Restoring the Rule of Law

Successes: Obama seems to have a plan in place to close Gitmo and he has slammed the door on torture practices. His decision to release the torture memos was brave and the right thing to do. Hooray!

Failures: His notions of the legal status of "enemy combatants" and of illegal wire tapping have been indistinguishable from Bush's. Boo! Boo! Boo!

Question marks: I am undecided whether prosecutions of the Bush wrongdoers should proceed in a vigorous way. I can see the need for it (we are a nation of laws, for heaven's sake), but I can also see it completely distracting from the rest of his important agenda.

Reading: "Report Card on Civil Liberties," American Prospect.

Overall, I think he has done a good job so far -- probably even an excellent job. Great challenges and questions remain.

Update:
Some other thoughtful reflections on the first 100 days:
Mike Tomasky: "100 days: Setting the tone for America"
Yglesias: "Obama is on track to accomplish major changes"
Daniel Gross: "The Patient is in Stable Condition"

Jeni's Splendid Ice Cream

One of the best parts about Columbus, Ohio, is Jeni's Splendid Ice Cream. You will never taste such a creative, tasty ice cream menu. My top five flavors:

1. Goat Cheese with Roasted Red Cherries -- Blue Jacket Dairy goat cheese with roasted Michigan cherries.
2. Thai Chili -- Krema Peanut Butter (a Columbus company), with toasted coconut, cayenne and coconut milk.
3. Sea Salt and Olive Oil -- Salt, oil, and pumpkin seeds (no, really, it is great).
4. Pistachio and Honey -- Toasted pistachios with Ashland County honey.
5. Strawberry Rose Petal -- Fresh strawberries, with a hint of real rose.

Springtime on Campus [Bryan]

Spring is my favorite season on a university campus. The energy starts to increase as people sense that the end of the year is in sight. Students begin to emerge from their dormitories and can be seen frolicking, sunbathing, and studying in the sunshine, while a crazy fundamentalist preacher simultaneously calls these young sinners to repentance -- unsuccessfully. I just got back from the central oval, where I sat on the grass, prepared my lesson for Monday, read philosophy, and took it all in. And right now, my office window is open to a blossoming tree just outside. The wind is gently blowing the subtle fragrance inside, and I'm snorting it in like a drug. This is what I signed up for. Life is good.

When it rains, it pours [Ellie]

Look at me posting twice in one day. . .

I've been thinking about nicknames lately. My theory is, either you're a nicknamer or you're not. I love nicknamers. There's something so chummy and at-home-with-the-world about them. If they don't like a person's name, well, they just come up with their own. They never question their right to do so. They are confident that people will answer to whatever they choose to call them. I've always had friends who were nicknamers, and while I've generally hated their nicknames, I've loved what I saw as the desire behind the nicknames--to express their affection in a comfortable shorthand. I wish I were a nicknamer.

I'm not. I've tried. I feel awkward and goofy. I'm pretty much unable to call anyone by anything but the name by which they were first introduced to me. My sons are Andrew and Stephen, not Andy or Steve (I don't mind if it happens some day, I just won't call them that). My nicknames for my kids are unimaginative and lame: two Buddies and a Sweet Pea. I can't even come up with a new nickname for Stephen--he just has to be "Little Buddy" to Andrew's "Big Buddy."

Stephen really ought to have his own nickname. He'll have enough hand-me-downs to deal with in his life. Suggestions, anyone?

A Riff on New Babies [Ellie]

Love it
-new baby smell
-his scrunchy face with its thoughtful expressions
-huge toothless smiles
-cuddling a sleeping baby on my chest
-tiny little shoes
-his chubby thighs and soft skin
-bath time
-knowing someone is so comforted by my presence

Could do without
-the feeling that I'm swimming in body fluids (One day recently I counted seven different body fluids--mine and others--that had been smeared on me during the day. Don't think about this too
closely. . .)
-smelling like sour milk all day every day
-changing shirts three times a day
-having my carefully constructed a wall of airy indifference ("It doesn't matter what happens at home while I'm out; I deserve some time off!"), crumbled by the guilt of opening the door to hear my baby screaming and see my husband looking weary
-the desperate feeling of really needing to nurse
-my incredibly limited attention span
-this terrible sugar craving which is sabotaging my efforts to lose the baby fat

Montreal [Bryan]

Last month was conference month for me. This year, my big conference was in Montreal, Canada. When I first went to these academic conferences, I felt very awkward. "Mingling" has never been an activity that I excel at, or even enjoy very much. Now, though, there is a critical mass of people that I know and like, and it always feels like a reunion to see them all again.

I liked Montreal, too. I spent an afternoon exploring the "old city," the highlight of which was a visit to the beautiful Basilique Notre-Dame de Montreal. It had a stunning interior -- perhaps the most beautiful church interior I've seen. I forgot my camera, but here is a nice shot I found elsewhere.


The next afternoon, I explored the Musée des beaux-arts de Montréal. They have a nice little representative collection -- Monet, Rembrandt, Picasso, Boucher, Renoir, Cezanne, etc.


I then hiked up the Royal Mountain (Mont Real in old French) -- the hill in the middle of the city from which it derives its name. Great view of the city (and my face, I might add).

360 Degrees

By the way, if you are ever in Quebec, be sure to order some Poutin -- french fries, cheese curd, and gravy. Yummy stuff -- "quintessential Canadian comfort food."

Warnicks go semi-vegetarian [Bryan]

I've long resisted the arguments of the various vegetarians I know. Vegetarianism seemed to go hand-in-hand with a style of elitist, latte liberalism that I don't like. Ellie and I were talking the other day, though, and we've decided to substantially cut down on our meat consumption. The number of reasons became too long to ignore. Here are the reasons:

(1) Economic: Meat is expensive. We could save money cutting down.
(2) Health: Meat isn't very good for you; vegetables are.
(3) Ethical: Factor farms, where most meat comes from, are still fairly cruel places. I am not convinced that animals have a "right to life," but I do think they have a right not to suffer.
(4) Religious: The LDS Word of Wisdom suggests that meat should be used "sparingly," while the Bible clearly contains a vegetarian ideal (pdf). It is time to take this seriously.
(5) Environmental: The meat industry is a leading contributor to global warming, water use, and deforestation. (Not that I am convinced that we will make any difference in this regard -- large scale reforms are needed for that, not personal virtue.)
(6) Taste: We like vegetarian cooking quite a bit.

So, there you have it. We won't cut meat out of our diet. It plays an important role in moments of family celebration (Sunday dinner, holiday meals, etc.). From now on, though, we want to eat meat with more conscious "thanksgiving" than as an unthinking habit.

Final Four Picks [Bryan]

March is probably one of my favorite months. Nothing beats the NCAA tourney. I can never get any work done the first Thursday of the action, when games begin at 12:00.

I'm sure everyone has been wondering about my Final Four Picks this year. Here they are: UNC, Duke, UConn, Kansas

I think UNC will win it all if they are healthy. If not, I'd go with UConn.

Xavier is my sleeper team.

Utah, OSU, and Illinois will lose in the second round. BYU and USU in the first.

You can take that to the bank.