"You are so stinkin' cute!"
"Not stinky, just cute."
This is an exchange I had with Anna a few years ago. I think she was in kindergarten. And it's still true.
The other day I checked the girls out of school to get the flu mist. Anna skipped to the car. Why walk when you can skip, right? It got to me. She used to skip everywhere. All the time.
Is this the little girl...
She's in second grade this year.
In second grade you are supposed to read 15 minutes every day. I think that was suggested in first grade, but this year they keep track. Anna is in charge of reporting her progress each week, which then must be verified by a parent. So there have been some interesting reports.
A few times they have gone back to the teacher with margin notes describing what actually happened. Anna hates the notes.
But it has worked. I won't sign a fabricated document -- and I don't know if it is fear of embarassing notes, letting her teacher down, or personal pride that has pushed her to legitimately boost those numbers. But she has started to read more.
Yesterday she sat reading a beginning chapter book for nearly an hour. Ghost Horse, since you asked. Hardly fine literature. But it touched her big little heart. Sniffles were heard.
"What's wrong, honey?"
"She never sees him again."
Stricken face.
Sobs.
"Oh, honey..." (I think we've got her!)
And Kate? Well Kate has had her nose in a book for years. It started around the age Anna is now. Like Anna, she was not the brightest star in first grade reading. But by third grade she was years ahead of level.
I don't think her early teachers suspected a thing. But I knew. I waited. For some reason I was convinced that one day something would just click and she'd be off. And then it happened.
I think I saw Anna's click yesterday. I knew it was coming, but it still made me a little giddy.
It honestly never occurred to me that my girls would not love books. How could they not?! Years ago I read an article that said the strongest predictor in reading success is whether children see their mother reading.
That's a theory I can support!
I spent a good portion of my childhood reading -- in my room, the car, upside down on the couch...
What?
I'll let you in on a dirty secret: I did not read a lot to my children when they were little. And I rarely repeated a storybook in one sitting. I just couldn't do it. After a few books I'd leave it up to them. Even as two-year-olds they sat with their little board books and looked at the pictures.
At naptime the girls would climb into bed with me, they with their stack of books and me with mine, and "read" next to me. We'd go to the library sometimes. But not religiously.
I have, however, always kept my eye out for good, age-appropriate books and stocked the shelves so there would always be interesting options around. I get them on Amazon, at garage sales, Half-Price Books, and the book fair at school. I preview most of them and pass the acceptable ones on to Kate.
And now Anna.
On Sunday I looked up from the book I was reading to find every member of my house sprawled on the couches before me, also reading.
Oh, my heart!
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Historic McKinney Charm or Buy My Friend Glenda's Home
So we all want the quality, high ceilings, sweeping porches, and oversized lots of an older home, right? But let's get serious -- old is not charming in the kitchen or bath. So those have to be renovated.
Only I don't wanna do it. It's messy. And inconvenient. And it always takes longer and costs more than you think.
That's the rule.
But guess what? My insanely talented friend Glenda and her handy hubbie love it. They are working on their third historic home right now. They can't help themselves.
They have skills.
They have vision.
They have a gorgeously renovated old home for sale.
It's got buckets of charm. Completely updated bathrooms and kitchen. Fabulous porches. Nice big garage. And a pool, for crying out loud!
You can take a peek here.
Here are the particulars: 4 bedroom/3 bath/2 living + study/pool/large yard/2 car garage; for more information visit: http://www.lolisa.com/
Check it out, if only to steal some decorating ideas. Then tell all your friends. You could even post it on your blog. Let's go viral and sell this baby! And be sure to tell them Sharon sent you.
Because I want bragging rights.
Update: Glenda's bee-yoo-tiful house has sold! I don't think my blog is the reason but I did notice when I went to check back that the first paragraph on the linked page had changed. It sounded a bit like what I wrote about here. So I'm thinking that's pretty cool...
Only I don't wanna do it. It's messy. And inconvenient. And it always takes longer and costs more than you think.
That's the rule.
But guess what? My insanely talented friend Glenda and her handy hubbie love it. They are working on their third historic home right now. They can't help themselves.
They have skills.
They have vision.
They have a gorgeously renovated old home for sale.
It's got buckets of charm. Completely updated bathrooms and kitchen. Fabulous porches. Nice big garage. And a pool, for crying out loud!
You can take a peek here.
Here are the particulars: 4 bedroom/3 bath/2 living + study/pool/large yard/2 car garage; for more information visit: http://www.lolisa.com/
Check it out, if only to steal some decorating ideas. Then tell all your friends. You could even post it on your blog. Let's go viral and sell this baby! And be sure to tell them Sharon sent you.
Because I want bragging rights.
Update: Glenda's bee-yoo-tiful house has sold! I don't think my blog is the reason but I did notice when I went to check back that the first paragraph on the linked page had changed. It sounded a bit like what I wrote about here. So I'm thinking that's pretty cool...
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Religious Freedom
Do you know who Dallin H. Oaks is? He recently spoke at BYU-Idaho about religious freedom.
A news release from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints states,Elder Oaks has had a front-row seat in observing what he calls the “significant deterioration in the respect accorded to religion” in public life. Prior to his appointment to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Elder Oaks had an illustrious law career. He served as a justice on the Utah Supreme Court, was a professor at the University of Chicago Law School and Brigham Young University’s J. Reuben Clark Law School and clerked for Chief Justice Earl Warren of the United States Supreme Court.
He's smart.
You might have to put on your thinking cap.
Here are some excerpts from his address:
...The free “exercise” of religion obviously involves both the right to choose religious beliefs and affiliations and the right to “exercise” or practice those beliefs. But in a nation with citizens of many different religious beliefs, the right of some to act upon their religious principles must be qualified by the government’s responsibility to protect the health and safety of all. Otherwise, for example, the government could not protect its citizens’ person or property from neighbors whose intentions include taking human life or stealing in circumstances rationalized on the basis of their religious beliefs.
...Religious belief is obviously protected against government action. The practice of that belief must have some limits, as I suggested earlier. But unless the guarantee of free exercise of religion gives a religious actor greater protection against government prohibitions than are already guaranteed to all actors by other provisions of the constitution (like freedom of speech), what is the special value of religious freedom? Surely the First Amendment guarantee of free exercise of religion was intended to grant more freedom to religious action than to other kinds of action. Treating actions based on religious belief the same as actions based on other systems of belief should not be enough to satisfy the special place of religion in the United States Constitution.
...We have endured a wave of media-reported charges that the Mormons are trying to “deny” people or “strip” people of their “rights.” After a significant majority of California voters (seven million — over 52 percent) approved Proposition 8’s limiting marriage to a man and a woman, some opponents characterized the vote as denying people their civil rights. In fact, the Proposition 8 battle was not about civil rights, but about what equal rights demand and what religious rights protect. At no time did anyone question or jeopardize the civil right of Proposition 8 opponents to vote or speak their views.
The real issue in the Proposition 8 debate — an issue that will not go away in years to come and for whose resolution it is critical that we protect everyone’s freedom of speech and the equally important freedom to stand for religious beliefs — is whether the opponents of Proposition 8 should be allowed to change the vital institution of marriage itself.
The marriage union of a man and a woman has been the teaching of the Judeo-Christian scriptures and the core legal definition and practice of marriage in Western culture for thousands of years. Those who seek to change the foundation of marriage should not be allowed to pretend that those who defend the ancient order are trampling on civil rights. The supporters of Proposition 8 were exercising their constitutional right to defend the institution of marriage — an institution of transcendent importance that they, along with countless others of many persuasions, feel conscientiously obliged to protect.
Religious freedom needs defending against the claims of newly asserted human rights. The so-called “Yogyakarta Principles,” published by an international human rights group, call for governments to assure that all persons have the right to practice their religious beliefs regardless of sexual orientation or identity.[xiv] This apparently proposes that governments require church practices and their doctrines to ignore gender differences. Any such effort to have governments invade religion to override religious doctrines or practices should be resisted by all believers. At the same time, all who conduct such resistance should frame their advocacy and their personal relations so that they are never seen as being doctrinaire opponents of the very real civil rights (such as free speech) of their adversaries or any other disadvantaged group.
...While our church rarely speaks on public issues, it does so by exception on what the First Presidency defines as significant moral issues, which could surely include laws affecting the fundamental legal/cultural/moral environment of our communities and nations.
...Fragile freedoms are best preserved when not employed beyond their intended purpose. If a candidate is seen to be rejected at the ballot box primarily because of religious belief or affiliation, the precious free exercise of religion is weakened at its foundation, especially when this reason for rejection has been advocated by other religionists. Such advocacy suggests that if religionists prevail in electing their preferred candidate this will lead to the use of government power in support of their religious beliefs and practices. The religion of a candidate should not be an issue in a political campaign.
...Religious values and political realities are so interlinked in the origin and perpetuation of this nation that we cannot lose the influence of Christianity in the public square without seriously jeopardizing our freedoms. I maintain that this is a political fact, well qualified for argument in the public square by religious people whose freedom to believe and act must always be protected by what is properly called our “First Freedom,” the free exercise of religion.
My dear brothers and sisters, I testify to the truth of these principles I have expressed today. I testify of Jesus Christ, our Savior, who is the author and finisher of our faith and whose revelations to a prophet of God in these modern times have affirmed the foundation of the United States constitution, which as we have said, was given by God to His children for the rights and protection of all flesh. May God bless us to understand it, to sustain it, and to spread its influence throughout the world, I pray, in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.
You can find the entire speech here.
A news release from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints states,Elder Oaks has had a front-row seat in observing what he calls the “significant deterioration in the respect accorded to religion” in public life. Prior to his appointment to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Elder Oaks had an illustrious law career. He served as a justice on the Utah Supreme Court, was a professor at the University of Chicago Law School and Brigham Young University’s J. Reuben Clark Law School and clerked for Chief Justice Earl Warren of the United States Supreme Court.
He's smart.
You might have to put on your thinking cap.
Here are some excerpts from his address:
...The free “exercise” of religion obviously involves both the right to choose religious beliefs and affiliations and the right to “exercise” or practice those beliefs. But in a nation with citizens of many different religious beliefs, the right of some to act upon their religious principles must be qualified by the government’s responsibility to protect the health and safety of all. Otherwise, for example, the government could not protect its citizens’ person or property from neighbors whose intentions include taking human life or stealing in circumstances rationalized on the basis of their religious beliefs.
...Religious belief is obviously protected against government action. The practice of that belief must have some limits, as I suggested earlier. But unless the guarantee of free exercise of religion gives a religious actor greater protection against government prohibitions than are already guaranteed to all actors by other provisions of the constitution (like freedom of speech), what is the special value of religious freedom? Surely the First Amendment guarantee of free exercise of religion was intended to grant more freedom to religious action than to other kinds of action. Treating actions based on religious belief the same as actions based on other systems of belief should not be enough to satisfy the special place of religion in the United States Constitution.
...We have endured a wave of media-reported charges that the Mormons are trying to “deny” people or “strip” people of their “rights.” After a significant majority of California voters (seven million — over 52 percent) approved Proposition 8’s limiting marriage to a man and a woman, some opponents characterized the vote as denying people their civil rights. In fact, the Proposition 8 battle was not about civil rights, but about what equal rights demand and what religious rights protect. At no time did anyone question or jeopardize the civil right of Proposition 8 opponents to vote or speak their views.
The real issue in the Proposition 8 debate — an issue that will not go away in years to come and for whose resolution it is critical that we protect everyone’s freedom of speech and the equally important freedom to stand for religious beliefs — is whether the opponents of Proposition 8 should be allowed to change the vital institution of marriage itself.
The marriage union of a man and a woman has been the teaching of the Judeo-Christian scriptures and the core legal definition and practice of marriage in Western culture for thousands of years. Those who seek to change the foundation of marriage should not be allowed to pretend that those who defend the ancient order are trampling on civil rights. The supporters of Proposition 8 were exercising their constitutional right to defend the institution of marriage — an institution of transcendent importance that they, along with countless others of many persuasions, feel conscientiously obliged to protect.
Religious freedom needs defending against the claims of newly asserted human rights. The so-called “Yogyakarta Principles,” published by an international human rights group, call for governments to assure that all persons have the right to practice their religious beliefs regardless of sexual orientation or identity.[xiv] This apparently proposes that governments require church practices and their doctrines to ignore gender differences. Any such effort to have governments invade religion to override religious doctrines or practices should be resisted by all believers. At the same time, all who conduct such resistance should frame their advocacy and their personal relations so that they are never seen as being doctrinaire opponents of the very real civil rights (such as free speech) of their adversaries or any other disadvantaged group.
...While our church rarely speaks on public issues, it does so by exception on what the First Presidency defines as significant moral issues, which could surely include laws affecting the fundamental legal/cultural/moral environment of our communities and nations.
...Fragile freedoms are best preserved when not employed beyond their intended purpose. If a candidate is seen to be rejected at the ballot box primarily because of religious belief or affiliation, the precious free exercise of religion is weakened at its foundation, especially when this reason for rejection has been advocated by other religionists. Such advocacy suggests that if religionists prevail in electing their preferred candidate this will lead to the use of government power in support of their religious beliefs and practices. The religion of a candidate should not be an issue in a political campaign.
...Religious values and political realities are so interlinked in the origin and perpetuation of this nation that we cannot lose the influence of Christianity in the public square without seriously jeopardizing our freedoms. I maintain that this is a political fact, well qualified for argument in the public square by religious people whose freedom to believe and act must always be protected by what is properly called our “First Freedom,” the free exercise of religion.
My dear brothers and sisters, I testify to the truth of these principles I have expressed today. I testify of Jesus Christ, our Savior, who is the author and finisher of our faith and whose revelations to a prophet of God in these modern times have affirmed the foundation of the United States constitution, which as we have said, was given by God to His children for the rights and protection of all flesh. May God bless us to understand it, to sustain it, and to spread its influence throughout the world, I pray, in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.
You can find the entire speech here.
Saturday, October 10, 2009
K k k katie
Shout out to great Katies I know:
One called from the East just because she missed me. Made me feel so loved. And I needed that this week.
Another blogged from the West. Her perspective and example continue to inspire me and touch my life. Thank you, friend.
The dearest, whose hum button was stuck again last night, ceased when requested and silently channeled her inner music into a little boogie as she unloaded the dishwasher.
So great.
What's in a name?
I love these Katies.
One called from the East just because she missed me. Made me feel so loved. And I needed that this week.
Another blogged from the West. Her perspective and example continue to inspire me and touch my life. Thank you, friend.
The dearest, whose hum button was stuck again last night, ceased when requested and silently channeled her inner music into a little boogie as she unloaded the dishwasher.
So great.
What's in a name?
I love these Katies.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Write Thy Name Upon My Heart
A song I had never heard before was performed at our stake Relief Society meeting, following the General Relief Society broadcast on Saturday.
Endow my soul with loving kindness...
Can't seem to get that line out of my head.
So in the wee hours of this first day of October, awake and unable to sleep, I googled it. Here are the lyrics for the entire song:
Write thy name upon my heart
Jesus, Savior of mankind
Teach me charity unfailing
Teach me compassion, Lord, like thine
Endow my soul with loving kindness
Make me even as thou art
Engrave thine image in my countenance
Write thy name upon my heart
When battles rage; when storms arise
Make me a messenger of peace
Teach me tolerance and meekness
And faith to bid the tempest cease
Endow my soul with loving kindness
Make me even as thou art
Engrave thine image in my countenance
Write thy name upon my heart
Grant me strength to serve thee well
Light my spirit with thy grace
'Til all my works reflect thy goodness
'Til all my labors sing thy praise
Endow my soul with loving kindness
Make me even as thou art
Engrave thine image in my countenance
Write thy name upon my heart
If you are interested, you can find it here.
I checked out the recordng on the site and didn't like the male vocal and "church music" production. I prefer the version I heard -- sisters' voices accompanied by piano.
Simple. Powerful.
Endow my soul...
Endow my soul with loving kindness...
Can't seem to get that line out of my head.
So in the wee hours of this first day of October, awake and unable to sleep, I googled it. Here are the lyrics for the entire song:
Write thy name upon my heart
Jesus, Savior of mankind
Teach me charity unfailing
Teach me compassion, Lord, like thine
Endow my soul with loving kindness
Make me even as thou art
Engrave thine image in my countenance
Write thy name upon my heart
When battles rage; when storms arise
Make me a messenger of peace
Teach me tolerance and meekness
And faith to bid the tempest cease
Endow my soul with loving kindness
Make me even as thou art
Engrave thine image in my countenance
Write thy name upon my heart
Grant me strength to serve thee well
Light my spirit with thy grace
'Til all my works reflect thy goodness
'Til all my labors sing thy praise
Endow my soul with loving kindness
Make me even as thou art
Engrave thine image in my countenance
Write thy name upon my heart
If you are interested, you can find it here.
I checked out the recordng on the site and didn't like the male vocal and "church music" production. I prefer the version I heard -- sisters' voices accompanied by piano.
Simple. Powerful.
Endow my soul...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)