When you are a twin, you're constantly vying for someone's attention. You're never getting someone's undivided self. You learn to share and take turns, but if you're three, well, sometimes those lessons don't always stick. You love your sister more than anything, but sometimes you just want her to disappear for a hot second so you can get a hug without her clamoring up for the same attention. Is nothing to be yours, ever?
I can't imagine this.
It ramps up tenfold when they're sick. Especially since one usually gets the other sick, meaning the sick-phases are rarely in sync. One almost always feels better than the other one. In physical symptoms, that is.
This particular illness first hit Dulce over the weekend. She got a lot of attention because she was quite sick and she needed it. Natalina was fine, bouncing off the walls, and trying to distract me from caring for Dulce at every opportunity, but in a good-natured way.
Natalina fell really ill just yesterday, as Dulce began her upswing. Now, Dulce had gotten used to all the extra attention, and resented the shift as I had to turn my eyes to Lilly for a while. She tantrumed, cried, pretended to be sicker than she was and tried all sorts of things to even the balance of attention out.
I try, really try, to give both kids an equal share, but when one is sick, I cannot take time to comfort the other one's jealousy. I'm busy trying to break a fever or calm a coughing fit.
It becomes a competition as to who is the most sick.
It's not that I don't love you, child, it's that I cannot comfort you while I comfort your sister, especially since you both refuse to share my affection. I can't sit with both of them at the same time. I can't hug both of them at the same time. I can't do anything with the two of them. That messes with their competition.
This spills into wellness, as well, with the occasional "You said Dulce was beautiful. I'm not beautiful." Or "You called Lilly nice, I'm not nice?"
The sooner the girls get the notion of "both" the better. But I can't say I fault them for not understanding it. Most children don't have to learn "both" until, well, they grow up and get married.
Chicken Bacon Onion Garlic Salt Pepper Cheese Olive oil Butter
First, fry up your bacon and set it aside. Also, preheat your oven to 325.
Then pour out the grease, but don't wipe the pan. Add a splash of oil and a tablespoon of butter. Saute your chicken about 4-5 minutes on each side. Put them aside.
In the same pan, fry your onion and garlic.
Place chicken, bacon and onion and garlic, in that order, in a casserole dish. Top with cheese.
Bake for 10-15 minutes, until chicken is done and cheese is melted.
Problem: Your kid won't eat breakfast, or get dressed, or brush her teeth...again. She'd rather cry.
Solution: Choices. You already knew that. But specific kinds of choices. And a limited number of choices. Make the choosing part of the routine. Offer the choice at the same time each day. For instance, when my bundles of whine come up the stairs in the morning, we go into the bathroom together (the glamour of being a mom, let me tell you). I ask them, every morning, before they can come up with their own endless request list, if they'd like to brush their teeth upstairs or downstairs. Immediately, the brain cells that would otherwise be engaged thinking up illogical reasons to cry are now focused on one thing, upstairs or downstairs. They make a choice. Then right after they finish that, the next choice. They know it's coming because it's part of the routine. Pants or a skirt? And instead of dawdling over dots or stripes, they are focused. Do they want pants or a skirt. Breakfast time. I give them four choices for this. Oatmeal, grits, yogurt or applesauce. They don't have as much time to tantrum over not being able to eat in front of the TV because they have to concentrate on which food they want for breakfast. And then when they don't want it, all you have to do is tell them that they chose it, and tomorrow they can choose something different. That doesn't mean they'll be completely calm the whole time, but it helps. It keeps them in control while giving them boundaries that they need to keep level.
"What does it say about the college co-ed Sandra Fluke, who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex? What does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute."
Republican Representative Tim Murphy falls all over himself when Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius explains that the administration's current contraception ruling upholds religious freedom by exempting houses of worship, religious nonprofits and religious hospitals. The onus will fall on the insurances, instead.
"You're setting up a rule that not even Jesus and his Apostles could adhere to."
Actually, I'm pretty sure they could. These two men look like idiots, and they bring down their cause.
The arguments being put forth by the Republicans and the Church are abhorrent and ugly. I was undecided on this issue until I heard those fighting for the rollback of the legislation--the words that were supposed to turn me toward the Church turned me away instead. That's not the kind of ally you want, Church. You want to bring people to your side of the argument. The Democrats and women's rights groups don't even have to speak in this debate, as far as I'm concerned. You've made their point for them.
"So Miss Fluke, and the rest of you Feminazis," says Limbaugh, "here's the deal. If we are going to pay for your contraceptives, and thus pay for you to have sex. We want something for it. We want you to post the videos online so we can all watch."
Allowing someone contraception at an affordable price is not "paying them to have sex," Mr. Limbaugh. And referring to a woman who wishes to have control over her own body as a "slut," gains you no points anywhere. Many women working for the Church are married (I was), and are having sex with their husbands (guilty). You want them to post sex videos online because they used birth control? Hyperbole or not, that's disgusting. And isn't there something in the Bible about not coveting one's neighbor's wife or something? But that's irrelevant, isn't it? You'd just be watching so that you could call them whores. It wouldn't turn you on at all. Either way, you're gross.
Sandra Fluke stood up for herself, saying this type of misogynistic language is "evidently still acceptable (and) that's just very problematic."
It is. Why should women have a say about their bodies when men like Rush have their religion they have to protect. After all, we're all just sluts and prostitutes. Surely Jesus wouldn't treat women like people who had any rights. Oh wait.
Meanwhile, Rep. Tim Murphy is embarrassing and infuriating. This exchange speaks for itself, really.
Health & Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius: "There also is no abortifacient drug that is part of the FDA approved contraception. What the rule for preventive care…"
Rep. Tim Murphy: "Ma’am that is not true…Is the morning after pill or something like that an abortifacient drug? Yes or no."
Kathleen Sebelius: "It is a contraceptive drug."
Rep. Tim Murphy: "Yes or no?"
Kathleen Sebelius:" It's not an abortifacient drug… It does not interfere with a pregnancy. If the morning pill were taken, and a female were pregnant, the pregnancy is not interrupted. That’s the definition."
Rep. Tim Murphy: "Ma’am that is your interpretation, and I appreciate that’s your interpretation."
Okay, so you didn't like that the answer to your yes or no question was no. I get that. It must be frustrating not to know what words mean. But that doesn't make the definition of an abortifacient drug Sebelius's interpretation. It's a definition. And it's backed by doctors, which Sebelius points out.
Kathleen Sebelius: "That’s what the scientists and doctors…"
Rep. Tim Murphy: "We’re not talking about scientists. Ma’m we’re not talking about scientists here, we’re talking about religious belief. Ma’am, I’m asking you about a religious belief. In a religious belief, that is a violation of a religious belief."
Actually, you were just talking about scientists. Their work is important when you differentiate between interpretation-based opinion and fact, which is what Sebelius was trying to do. On the other hand, what you changed the subject to, Murphy, religious belief...well, what is that other than interpretation? So, in one breath you break down Sebelius's argument, saying it's interpretation, then in the next, you trash her argument because she's talking facts and you're talking interpretation. You have to choose one method and stick to it, sir. Or at least wait thirty seconds before the twist. Give the listeners a chance to forget what you've just said.
Not one to let a good trick go, you do the exact same thing just two minutes later.
Rep. Tim Murphy: "Who's going to pay for it? Who pays for it? There's no such thing as a free service. The reduction of the number pregnancies compensates for the cost of contraception."
Kathleen Sebelius: "Providing contraception as a critical preventive health for women and for their children reduces costs."
Rep. Tim Murphy: "Not having babies born is a critical benefit."
Kathleen Sebelius: "Family planning is a critical benefit"
Rep. Tim Murphy: "You said avoiding pregnancy."
Okay, you asked her how this measure would viably pay for itself and she told you. Not having babies is not a bad thing. Not everyone wants or needs 10 kids. So, yes, to some women, not having babies is a critical benefit. Family planning is a critical benefit.
And avoiding pregnancy is family planning. You are planning for your family. Again with these pesky definitions, with words meaning things. Of course, you would already know that if you were listening to our Health and Humanitarian Services Secretary.
Religion, Republicans, with these guys on your side, you're pretty much bringing a knife to a gun fight. And stabbing yourself with it.
