Sunday, March 26, 2006

Chicken Ranch

So my fiance's dad took us to a dinner theatre tonight, where we were treated to an off-off-off-off-Broadway production of "The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas". Even more fun, my fiance is (vaguely) related one of the main characters!

Sadly, the whole thing is based on a true story. I'm not all that crazy about prostitution, even the "good" kind (without beatings, and pimps, and drugs), but I'm far less fond of the hypocrisy that happens when politicians get bees in their bonnets about "sin". Kinda like the trumped-up drug charges that led to the naming of names in the Odessa "massage parlor" scandal in 04/05. Oh well. I guess that'll teach 'em to just keep it in their pants (or not get caught).

Saturday, March 25, 2006


It sure sucks when your blog has an audience of, like, three, and of those three, one has given up wasting time on the internet for Lent.

Thursday, March 23, 2006

I bet he's a Native American

"Part of enforcing our borders is to have a guest-worker program that encourages people to register their presence, so that we know who they are and says to them, 'If you're doing a job an American won't do, you're welcome here for a period of time to do that job.' " -the W

It's okay to come here as an illegal immigrant as long as you're willing to do the nastiest jobs for the lowest pay! We'll let you! But don't you come here thinking you're going to get health care, or a better way of life for your family, or to make more money than the white kids!

Filthy Mexicans. How dare they build our homes, pick our fruit, clean our bathrooms, and bus our tables. I think we should all support HR 4437 so that anyone whose papers are even the slightest bit off should automatically be a felon and get sent to jail with murderers and rapists. Who's with me?

Wednesday, March 15, 2006

Fun with Cut and Paste

I found this over at the "Ah Yes, Medical School" blog (which is snort out loud, shoot soda out your nose funny) and I, uh, borrowed it. Yeah. So, I'd like to introduce the Standardized Patient Video Watching Drinking Game!!!!!!!!

"Standardized Patient Video Watching Drinking Game Instructions:

Take a shot every time…
-You forgot to wash your hands
-You “accidentally” felt a boob while doing the cardiac exam
-You broke the exam table while trying to pull out the leg rest
-You demanded to actually do the rectal/breast/pelvic exam rather than accept their index card with the fake results
-You faked taking the blood pressure
-You faked any other part of the exam
-You finished 10 minutes before everyone else

-The actor went out of character
-The actor had dirty feet
-You had to touch the actor’s feet and pretend like it didn’t bother you
-You broke the fourth wall and winked at the camera
-You started laughing at the patient for no obvious reason
-You ran out of things to ask after about twenty seconds
-You referred to yourself as the "lowly" medical student

And finally, as the biggest no-no, take ten shots every time...
-You introduced yourself as “Dr.""

I think I just broke something laughing so hard (albeit silently, as I'm in the library and should be quiet). It must be a med student thing.

Tuesday, March 14, 2006

PMSing like a 13-year-old

So I keep thinking about my earlier post with guilt. I really didn't want to be all like "blah blah blah my opinion good your opinion STOOPID" but I think I did anyway. I also snapped at my fiance several times earlier for things like talking with food in his mouth (ew, and I KNOW his momma raised him better), receiving stupid magazines (he's got some kind of special deal to get his favorite magazines, but it means receiving "Working Mother", "Woman's Day", "National Geographic Kids", and "OK Weekly"), and generally being himself. My boobs are sore, I got peed on at the dog park, and I wanted to just KILL this woman who didn't pick up after her dog. This is all after I scored about 53% on a Qbank practice test earlier, which means I'd get into residency in some place like Kansas, probably in geriatrics (inside medical joke).

Is it any wonder that after dinner I demanded chocolate, in the shape of ice cream?

How Rumors Get Started

I had my (first) wedding shower Sunday. It was awesome. Lots of my female relatives were there, as well as some good friends. I got tons of goodies, we ate cake, and talked woman-talk. Here's where the real "advice" started coming down. As we admired lingerie (AWKWARD, in front of my mother and great-aunts) and discussed my future children (again, AWKWARD, but fun), the wisdom of women, handed down for generations, started to appear. Picture the scene in "My Big Fat Greek Wedding" where her mom says she was told on her own wedding day that women are tigers in the bedroom, and you'll see kinda what I mean (but not as gross, I swear).

These are educated, enlightened women, and I love them all, friends and family alike. I was slightly disappointed at some of the comments I heard, however.

1) "You have to get your son circumcised. It'll be one less reason for the other boys to make fun of him in the locker room." Now, I understand the sentiment behind this comment, uttered by a mother of 2 boys. She didn't want to give them any added disadvantage in life, and I totally understand that. At least she didn't say "It's healthier", or we might have had words. However, as more and more couples choose not to circumcise their sons, I doubt that locker room pressure will be such an issue.

As for the science behind the issue, there is as great a risk of complications from the circumcision procedure as there is risk of UTI in an uncircumcised child, and these risks are less than 2%. So, make your decision based on religious or aesthetic reasons, and leave cleanliness out of it. Besides, little girls have complicated skin folds that need washing, too, and no one is saying we should cut off their labia to prevent yeast infections. (People in countries who do practice FGM do so for other, more sinister (IMHO) reasons).

2) "You can't sleep with your baby. They have issues and never want to leave your bed." Oh, man. That's almost as bad as "You'll roll over and smother them." Is there a risk? Of course. However, a healthy adult would be awakened if they rolled over onto an infant. Do you roll over and smother your partner? Or your pet? If not, then you wouldn't roll over onto a baby. Who is at higher risk of smothering a baby? Obese parents and intoxicated parents. Smoking moms shouldn't sleep with their babies no matter what, as smoking increases SIDS. What actually seems to be riskier than you smothering the baby is the softness of your mattress and blankets. To prevent SIDS parents are encouraged to place babies on a firm mattress with no/few blankets and to keep them lying on their backs. So, to cosleep, you can pull the bassinet over to the edge of the bed, or you can buy a sleep positioner for the baby (which I'm sure you'll have anyway) and put it in a safe place in the bed, provided both partners are comfortable with the idea.

As for baby behavior, there have been studies discounting this theory, and probably some studies supporting it. Anytime the studies are 50/50, I tend to think other factors are involved, and I've read a possible explanation that sleeping habits enforce other behaviors in the home. If you cosleep with a dependent child, they'll be dependent, but they'd be that way in their own bed in their own room. Same for an independent child.

Do I think cosleeping is always right? No. I do know, however, that if almost every culture in the world besides ours does it successfully, then it can't be the evil demon that the crib manufacturers have spent a lot of money to make us believe it is. How sleeping with an infant for 6 months to breastfeed is going to make them a total Momma's boy forever totally blows my mind. In America, though, we want our children to be totally independent from day one, and we think putting them in their own room is going to make them "tougher" or something. I know I'm not putting this well, and my hands are too cold to go back and try to write more intelligently, so I apologize.

Another argument against cosleeping that I've heard is "it cuts down on our privacy". Again, I'm not even talking about sleeping with a 4-year-old, I'm talking about sleeping with (or near) a newborn for easy breastfeeding and bonding. A) For several weeks/months, mom is going to be too sore to appreciate any "private time". B) Since when is bed the only place we can be intimate? If you have a sleep disorder like insomnia, the doctor will recommend "sleep hygiene" to you, where bed is only a place to sleep. If you get in bed and don't fall asleep, they'll tell you to get up. Train your body to think bed = sleep. I do like the intimacy of sleeping next to my fiance, but our relationship is not just sexual, and I don't see how having a baby nearby is going to utterly kill our desire for each other. I think the lack of sleep is going to do that just fine.

Despite the almost angry sound of this very poor writing, I'm not. I love these women, as I said before. Most had more experience than I, as I have no children yet and won't for a while. Thus, I'm totally giving myself the chance to change my mind. I'm also giving myself the freedom to read the research on such topics, rather than solely relying on old wives' tales. However, they sure are fun to hear and debate.

Saturday, March 04, 2006


Which do I want more?


(Bad Grammar Makes Me [Sic])

or B)
(Good Grammar Costs Nothing)

The grammar nazi in me is soooooooooo tempted...

(I'm sorry if the pics are blurry or don't work...)

Friday, March 03, 2006

No More Tests

nomoretests nomoretests nomoretests nomoretests nomoretests nomoretests nomoretests nomoretests nomoretests nomoretests nomoretests nomoretests nomoretests nomoretests nomoretests nomoretests nomoretests nomoretests nomoretests nomoretests nomoretests nomoretests nomoretests nomoretests nomoretests nomoretests nomoretests nomoretests nomoretests nomoretests

Thursday, March 02, 2006

Random Thursday

  • I became an aunt again yesterday. She was born on 3/1/06, weighing 7lbs, 6 oz and measuring 21.5 inches long. Congrats, happy parents!
  • I bought a bunch of candy, Oreo packets, etc. yesterday to make gift bags for the group of first year girls I tutor in physiology, only to realize that I was getting stingy with the dividing process--I didn't want to put too many Hershey's with toffee in each bag, lest there be none leftover. Thus, I came to the conclusion that I really buy candy to make gift bags simply so I can have the remainder. For shame!
  • In this household dedicated to food, my fiance purchased a chocolate-flavored Nylabone for our dog yesterday. Needless to say, he loves it, at least as much as he loves carrots (the dog, that is, not the fiance).

Wednesday, March 01, 2006

More bad food

I can't lie. I am obsessed with food. I loves me some food. I just had a terrific hamburger, all loaded up with tomatoes, lettuce, onions, mustard, and ketchup on a wheat bun, and it was fabulous. I am all about the food, which probably explains why I have failed to lose weight since starting this kick-my-ass workout class.

That said, this kind of shit makes me really mad. Basically, there is proposed legislation that would remove all state food safety laws not currently in the FDA guidelines. The coalition arguing for this law states that "Food cannot be safe in one state and unsafe in another. " In reality, it seems that grocery store chains and food manufacturers, who are members of this coalition, are trying to reduce costs by setting the lowest common denominator across the board, so they don't have to meet higher standards in California than in Louisiana.

My arguments (and others') against this bill are:
A) States have to at least live up to the FDA standard currently. States have always been able to add onto federal laws if they felt the need for stricter control. If the fed doesn't like it, the Supreme Court strikes it down. There's no need to waste Congress' time with legislation that no one is really lobbying for, except the food industry, who has everything to gain by making food safety laws less stringent. B) What is the point of forcing all states to the same food standard? We don't all eat the same kind of food, we don't all have the same kinds of weather, etc., but the fed is going to tell me that they know better than I do what safety measures I can enact. C) After the Vioxx mess, the carbon monoxide in the beef, and the amazing disappearing over the counter morning-after pill debate, I totally trust the FDA to have my best interests at heart.

You know, I used to believe in capitalism more. I used to think companies truly acted in the consumer's best interest, or the consumer would vote with his dollar and take his business elsewhere. I'm starting to find examples of the opposite, however, mostly in situations where the consumer doesn't have all the info. If you don't know which meat packer sold Kroger your steak, how do you know whether safety measures were met? Or if there's CO in your meat? There are some free-market solutions to these problems: buy organic or "natural" meat products, which are produced to more stringent standards. However, big companies like Horizon have been pushing for a less demanding definition of certain organic practices, essentially making the word "organic" on their products meaningless. (see here).

I think I'm hopping off my soapbox now. Lo siento.