Dear Drivers in the small town I live in,
I just want to clear the air so that you all can stop giving me dirty looks while we are driving. I am a city driver. This means that when the light turns green, and I am turning left, I will inch into the intersection. I am not cutting you off. I am ensureing that I will be able to turn on this light just in case you are slow. I do not stop at yield signs unless there is a reason to. If I have a yield sign and there is a car coming, fair enough I need to stop. But if there is no traffic, I will not be stopping. So there's no use honking at me from behind and gesturing wildly at the sign. It is not a stop sign and I haven't done anything wrong. You shouldn't stop either unless there is traffic to yield to. Just because I am from the city does not mean I come equipped with x-ray vision. A blind intersection is still a blind intersection to me. When I come up to the intersection I will stop a little back or creep just a little forward to see around the obstacle. Again, there is no need to honk at me from behind if I stop a little back. I'd like to see any oncoming traffic so as not to endanger my life or the life of my child. Thanks. There's no need to honk at me if my nose creeps out a little either. I am not stupid. I will not just pull out into an intersection when I can't see. And if perchance I don't see you and start to go, and then I do see you and stop suddenly, there's no need to slow down in 10 mph just so you can be sure to give the dirtiest look possible. I saw you, I stopped. Keep going. Nothing to get upset about. And finally, when I'm backing out of a parking space and you come around the corner and I see you and stop, then PLEASE don't honk at me. YOu weren't there, then you were and I stopped. It just makes you a jerk to honk at me after I'm already stopped and waiting for you.
Thanks for your understanding,
Sarah
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Friday, March 5, 2010
Joy
Nathan mentioned to me this morning that he read on a friend's facebook status a quote that sid something along the lines of "people who are only living for adventure and thrill in life need to realize that following Jesus is the greatest adventure of all." or something like that. You know basically what I'm talking about. Anyone who has been a Christian for any amount of time has heard something like that before. The thing I hate about sayings like this is that they imply that life is all about thrill and adventure seeking. I tend to be a person that lives for thrills. Not the skydiving, bungee jumping, extreme hiking thrill; but the thrill of something to look forward to in a day. Going out to dinner or going to the park. I love being able to look forward to hanging out with friends, or a big event that's not too far away. There's nothing I hate more than waking up in the morning to discover that I have nothing on my calendar. Days spent cooped up at home with a 13 month old are less than enjoyable for me. Plus, when I spend the day at home that means I have no excuse not to do the dreaded house work. Days spent at home are a drudgery for me. This shouldn't be!!!! Proverbs 31 describes the house wife as a woman who does the work cheerfully. And the housework really isn't bad at all compared to the days I spent woring at the hotel. (Ugh!) So, where is my joy? Why am I only looking for joy in the here and now and not in the eternal. Parenting my son is eternal, being a good wife to my husband is eteranl. Going out to dinner isn't.
"Oh Lord, focus my mind and heart on You so that I may be eternally minded. Help me to find joy in the everyday life I live, and let my heart be cheerful and pleasing to You!"
"Oh Lord, focus my mind and heart on You so that I may be eternally minded. Help me to find joy in the everyday life I live, and let my heart be cheerful and pleasing to You!"
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Sick?? (A bit of a vent)
I just had to add this, I know I already posted today, but this is my blog and there's no law that says you can't post twice in one day right? :)
On another blog I frequent (I won't say which one and no it's not listed on the side of my page) the writer posed the question: "How do you react when your kid tells you they are sick?" I was SHOCKED by the majority of parents saying that they would have very little sympathy on a sick kid. One parent responded with this little gem:
"I tell them to get going or they will miss the bus. But I am sick. You can be sick at school. Hookey is for when you are well."
WHAT????? Seriously parents??? When my Derek is sick we spend the day in our pajamas drinking juice and watching Baby Signing Time. It's one thing if your school age kid is faking because they have a test or something, but if you are a parent worth your weight in salt you will know if your kid is faking it. I simply cannot imagine EVER telling my kid to suck it up. If your kid is sick, he is SICK! Let him stay home! If for no other reason than not to infect MY kid!!!!!
What is up with parents expecting more out of our kids than we expect out of ourselves??????
On another blog I frequent (I won't say which one and no it's not listed on the side of my page) the writer posed the question: "How do you react when your kid tells you they are sick?" I was SHOCKED by the majority of parents saying that they would have very little sympathy on a sick kid. One parent responded with this little gem:
"I tell them to get going or they will miss the bus. But I am sick. You can be sick at school. Hookey is for when you are well."
WHAT????? Seriously parents??? When my Derek is sick we spend the day in our pajamas drinking juice and watching Baby Signing Time. It's one thing if your school age kid is faking because they have a test or something, but if you are a parent worth your weight in salt you will know if your kid is faking it. I simply cannot imagine EVER telling my kid to suck it up. If your kid is sick, he is SICK! Let him stay home! If for no other reason than not to infect MY kid!!!!!
What is up with parents expecting more out of our kids than we expect out of ourselves??????
Thinking ahead... A lot
Seeing as how I don't have children who are at the age where I can assign them chores, this post may seem a bit irrelevant for me, but it's not. The issue crops up in children's books and in conversations with other parents, and even in movies. I'm talking about chores and allowance. More specifically what is an allowance for and why should or shouldn't children receive it.
There seems to be two primary arguments for not giving children allowance. The first is that they should do their chores simply because they are part of the family. They should not be paid for doing them. The second is the parents saying "my child has what he needs and he does not need any money." They cite several reasons that I've heard for not giving the child an allowance in this second argument. I've heard parents say, "It's my money and my child doesn't need it," "I don't want my child to learn to value money. It's not that important," "My child doesn't need to learn how manage money until he's older," things of that nature.
There are a couple reasons I don't understand either argument. For the first one my question is simply this, why wouldn't you pay your child a small allowance as a reward for doing his required chores? Ok, I get it, chores are a part of life. But so is work. You go to work to earn money. I mean, how well would it fly with you if your boss said to you "you should do your work and do it perfectly simply because you're part of the company. We shouldn't have to pay you to do it." It wouldn't fly with me that's for sure. Neither does it fly with me that I should expect my child to do his chores with little to no motivation other than "you're part of this family." If my dad had said that to me my response would have been something along the lines of "yippee freakin' skippee." For sure children should be taught to help cheerfully and out of the goodness of their hearts on top of their listed chores, but there's nothing wrong at all with paying or rewarding a child for completing their required chores on time (provided they are done well).
The second argument just sounds ridiculous to me. There is no reason your child shouldn't start learning about the value of money at a young age. And if you as a parent just provide whatever they want or need for them without them having to learn to work for it is just a bad idea. That's how you get spoiled children who don't know the value of a dollar. In my opinion anyway.
What do you think about allowances?
There seems to be two primary arguments for not giving children allowance. The first is that they should do their chores simply because they are part of the family. They should not be paid for doing them. The second is the parents saying "my child has what he needs and he does not need any money." They cite several reasons that I've heard for not giving the child an allowance in this second argument. I've heard parents say, "It's my money and my child doesn't need it," "I don't want my child to learn to value money. It's not that important," "My child doesn't need to learn how manage money until he's older," things of that nature.
There are a couple reasons I don't understand either argument. For the first one my question is simply this, why wouldn't you pay your child a small allowance as a reward for doing his required chores? Ok, I get it, chores are a part of life. But so is work. You go to work to earn money. I mean, how well would it fly with you if your boss said to you "you should do your work and do it perfectly simply because you're part of the company. We shouldn't have to pay you to do it." It wouldn't fly with me that's for sure. Neither does it fly with me that I should expect my child to do his chores with little to no motivation other than "you're part of this family." If my dad had said that to me my response would have been something along the lines of "yippee freakin' skippee." For sure children should be taught to help cheerfully and out of the goodness of their hearts on top of their listed chores, but there's nothing wrong at all with paying or rewarding a child for completing their required chores on time (provided they are done well).
The second argument just sounds ridiculous to me. There is no reason your child shouldn't start learning about the value of money at a young age. And if you as a parent just provide whatever they want or need for them without them having to learn to work for it is just a bad idea. That's how you get spoiled children who don't know the value of a dollar. In my opinion anyway.
What do you think about allowances?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
