For Hanson

And all the other children who are Lost today. . .

Image credit

A Requiem for Hanson

Oh, my goodness.

Just when I've had a pretty cynical season, seeing so much more of the selfish, closed-minded side of humanity, being frustrated by spiritual stagnation and seeing the same sins and self-serving over and over and over and over (in myself, in my family, in our nation). . . something has broken through to me this morning.

If you have been reading my blog for a while, you know I have written before about Julia over at Micah Six Eight, and esp. the "Mulligan Stew" fundraiser she organizes every year to help raise funds to see Eastern European special needs orphans brought into loving families.  She also advocates for who she calls the "Lost Boys," boys with Down Syndrome or Cerebral Palsy or other special needs who were not adopted and are now facing a lifetime of institutionalization in conditions we would call at best "primitive"--or at worst "criminal." 

There was a boy who was given the fundraising moniker "Hanson":

photo from Reece's Rainbow

He was one of the "Lost Boys" that Julia championed.  But he died, alone, in a crib in a barren room--unloved, uncared-for.  Overlooked.  Ignored. Deemed as worthless.

His death is one of those quiet tragedies that play out across our globe every second of every moment of every day.

It is so easy to not think about the things that don't immediately affect us. 

It is so easy to not think about the things that would make our hearts ache, if we stopped to really think about them.  The same things that make God's heart ache.

The world says there's no reason to care about this little boy, half a world away, who spent his whole life in a crib, was not loved, who had physical issues and may have had significant mental delays and was not able to contribute to society.  Because of course these are the things that give our lives worth: our contributions to society.  Or being loved by somebody.  Or having presence in the public arena.  Or even fully understanding what's going on around us. 

Not just being noticed, but being seen.

Yes, those are the ways we assign value to a person.  Estimate their worth. But that's not how God sees our value.

And this morning, I read on Julia's blog a jaw-dropping, handkerchief-filling testimony to the value of a life, when we see "the least of these" through God's eyes.

Ok, maybe the story won't mean the same to you--maybe you won't be struck so hard by all the attention being given to someone who represents the forgotten.  The effort and time and planning and thought being offered as a sacrifice in homage of those who the world says wouldn't deserve it.  Some people are saying, because I love, I care.  And because I care, I grieve.  And because I love and care and grieve--I celebrate.  I urge you to go read it.

On Gay Marriage--with more question marks than exclamation points

Sometimes when I am quiet on this blog it is because I am spending my blogging time writing on someone else's blog. Yes, that's the vanity of bloggers--getting so sure of our own voices that we jump into discussion elsewhere, assuming we are most welcome. ; )  I don't post long comments to other people's blogs often--just when it seems welcomed and warranted.  And sometimes it is better to blog elsewhere, where the topic has already been raised, then here on my own blog, where my opinions might make someone feel less welcome.  I would never want that!  I want this blog to be a safe place for people to visit--and I hope anyone who visits feels welcome and never attacked.  I also never want my visitors to think I am saying my perspective is the right one, and hope you all who read feel comfortable commenting and even disagreeing with me.  (As long as we all stay kind. : ) 

So, there are things going on in the world that I do have strong opinions about that I've never gone into on this blog.  Sometimes because I imagine you are as tired as I am of hearing about them!  And sometimes because I imagine you might be feeling like I am, that there is always someone pointing fingers and name calling those who disagree with them, and so you just don't want to go there.  It feels pretty much like a person is wrong for his or her own opinions about anything wherever they turn in the media/social media.  I might disagree with someone about something, but I try to always see where they are coming from, and affirm their right to their voice, and a different opinion.  At least, I hope I always do. 

Anyway, a few weeks back I was led to this blog post about different Christian perspectives on gay marriage.  It had some of the best dialogue (at least in the comments) I have come across in the whole big national debate--but most importantly, it had some of the most reasonable discussion.  It was a safe place to voice an opinion and be treated with respect.  So I ended up writing my own stance, which I decided to share with you here too:


I find myself in a fascinating place of “betweens”:

–Honored to have gay and lesbian friends and also very conservative Christian friends.
 
–Very aware that in Christ I have the full freedom to love them all, equally, without reservation.

–Christian, but fully aware that I do not (yet?) understand what God thinks about his gay children marrying, but do know that He loves them.

–Pro-civil unions, but saddened by the political usurpation of the covenantal term “marriage” (I think all legally-recognized unions should be civil, and the sacrament of Christian marriage should have nothing to do with the government–too late to turn back that clock, however!)

–Very glad that there are churches that welcome and embrace homosexuality, since I don’t (yet?) know what God thinks about it and gay marriage. But also proud of my church and pastors for not capitulating to cultural pressure to say it is Ok when they believe God’s Holy Word says otherwise. We are in one of the most liberal areas in the US, but our pastors and church body manage to walk that fine line of welcoming and truly loving people, but also not being ashamed to speak what they believe is God’s Truth. God is not politically correct, that I know for sure.

–Believing that our government did (albeit unintentionally) guarantee same-sex marriage in its original documents, when it built our nation upon the right to “pursue happiness.” But also believing that the church must not have the same definition of liberty—our definitions and understandings of such terms must come from Scripture, and from the closest, most accurate reading of it, regardless of whether or not it says what we want it to say.

–Wanting only the best for my GLBTQ (and whomever else I am omitting) friends, and those who are going to be entering into same-sex marriages. I am so happy for them for finding love, and do believe that ANY human love is the result of the lingering image of God within us—we can only love at all because of Him, so any love is worth celebrating—but yet if I do believe that same-sex love is not what God intended, and may be outside of His will for His beloved children, then how am I loving my GLBTQ friends by pretending all is well?

–Actually being quite comfortable with the conundrum above, since I believe we can love people fully, and speak the truth as best we know it, and still live in unity. But very few other people seem to be comfortable with it—needing others to think as they do.

–Really uncomfortable with ANYBODY, on either side of the issue, who claims complete authority about their interpretation of God’s word. Why don’t we hear more qualifiers when people write/speak? Whatever happened to phrases like “according to a traditional interpretation of Scripture. . . ” or “As best as I can understand this passage. . . “? Everyone writes as if they are the final word. (Kudos to Preston Yancey for his carefully-written stance.)

–Concerned that there is such a thing as a slippery slope—and while I completely agree with the commentator who said she would much rather be on the slipper slope with the Holy Spirit than on seemingly firm ground, it sure seems to me that there is historical precedent for and fine logical thinking behind some people bemoaning some of the potential places they foresee this historic moment taking us.

And speaking of which, I used to teach rhetoric at a large university, and taught my students to address “likely objections to their argument” in their persuasive writing. When I see Christians theorizing about the implications of cultural trends, and projecting the future path of our nation, I see a lot of negative backlash from those who disagree, but rarely a logical address of their insights and concerns. In other words, it is really easy to shout things like “hate speech!” and “homophobe” and “fear-monger!” but much less easy to form a clearly-articulated and well-reasoned address of the actual concerns raised. And NEITHER side is very good at anticipating and addressing “likely objections.” While I agree that the original authors of this post did not end up representing a very broad spectrum of opinions on this topic, I have appreciated that the comments section has been overall lucid, respectful, intelligent, and has better addressed dissenting views.

Just a few thoughts to add to the discussion. No human issues are only black and white, and I wish more people were willing to live in the “gray” spaces between. Not saying my “between” stance is the only correct one to have–and thus negating the very idea of it!–but saying I very much appreciate people who are willing to be vulnerable, and seek to understand others, and not claim to have all the answers, not even claiming to have all the questions, but doing their best to love no matter what.

______________

I didn't share the more personal stuff.  Like the fact that DH and I have gay and lesbian friends in real life.  That I actually believe there is nothing wrong with gay and lesbian relationships and believe I am not only called to love all people, but am called to be true friends with them.  I think they should be allowed to marry--in a legal espousement.  But I also think all this changes when the people in question are professing faith in Christ.  Then--I don't know.  I have read lots of theological views about why God does not want his children in homosexual relationships--and their interpretations of Scripture seem sound. Their arguments are logical.  I have also read arguments that attempt to prove that we have traditionally misinterpreted those same passages of Scripture, and God is not anti-homosexuality but actually anti-pederasty (for example). 

I need to tell you that I WANT to be convinced that God is fine with active homosexuality in his faith-professing children, and that He supports gay marriage.  But I have not been convinced--so far the interpretations and explanations of Scripture seem to make more sense the other way.  If anyone reading this wants to recommend a book that successfully posits the Bible as pro-gay stance, please feel free to recommend it. 

Most of all, I want to take God at His word, and not fall into the trap of reading into His word what I want it to say.

I am also confused because there is clear biological evidence that what we call gender is actually much more fluid in it's physical construct than we may have previously believed.  It is really a spectrum,  like so many other things about our physical/emotional/mental natures.  Our biology makes some men more slender and have higher-pitched voices--i.e. slightly more "feminine."  Similarly, some women are stronger and have lower voices--or more facial hair.  Do we say God messed up in making them?  That He clearly slipped a little too much of one gender into the batter on accident?  Or did He make them just like He wanted them--at just a  slightly higher or lower place on the spectrum than what we would expect?

Some people are born with both sets of genitalia, and their "true" gender is not even expressed until they hit puberty.  Again, did God mess up?  Is their condition the result of the Fall, and how all of creation has been perverted away from His original, perfect design?  Or are they perfect, just as they are? 

Some people are born with genetic variances so that they express one  gender their whole life--but in actuality their chromosomes are those for the opposite gender!  Yes, such things happen, and learning about them was the first thing that made me wonder if God might just actually make some people gay.  I strongly urge anyone who is also wrestling with these ideas to watch this video. 

Then again, being created physically to be "gay" might have nothing to do with what God expects of us in terms of Righteousness. 

And I firmly believe that God would not create anyone without any choice but to sin.  How could He? 

But I do also believe we can have genetic pre-disposition to things that could more readily lead us to sin--like chemical imbalances in the brain that are inherited by future generations (we are learning more about this all the time through research into epigenetics).  Also, there are things that we as humans are doing to our environment that are having consequences we never would have anticipated--so then do we say the gender expression differences that come from human meddlings are personal sin or "the sins of the fathers vested upon the children"?  Either way, what do we say to those men and women with corrupted DNA when they show up at church ready to profess faith in Christ but not ready to give up their same-sex partner and commit themselves to a life of celibacy? 

Sigh. 

So, that's why I wrote the above to that web dialogue--to represent the middle ground of people who just don't know what to think, and who don't assume they know what God thinks about it all.  I know what I *think* He says about homosexuality, and what I can then infer He thinks about gay marriage. But I also know Jesus wept.  He knows our human struggles and His heart broke for us--and His love covers all sin.  His quiet voice stills all confusion--but have we learned how to listen?  

I really appreciated this article for how it questioned why we as Christians are so up in arms over gay marriage, something Jesus did not specifically talk about in Scripture, when we are at the same time so conveniently ignoring other things He said loudly and clearly.  One of my favorite quotations from the piece:  "Maybe we should all be required to pick an issue that requires US to change and not OTHERS to change." Now that thought perfectly reflects Jesus. 

One book I just heard about yesterday, which I am now very interested in reading: The Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert: An English Professor's Journey Into Christian Faith by Rosaria Champagne Butterfield.  (Isn't her name straight out of a novel?)  She was a tenured professor at Syracuse, and a lesbian in a committed long-term relationship.  And then. . . God happened.

So, there you go.  I'm out of the closet, so to speak, about my feelings and thoughts about gay marriage.  To sum it all up: I don't know.

Last thought: DH's best friend from high school is a wonderful man named Chris.  He is gay, and when he was going to get "married" (way back when it just meant something to couples as a sign of personal commitment and had no blessing of the state) in Washington state, he invited DH to come.  DH went, gladly, wanting to share in his friend's happiness and show him love.  I remember when I told my parents he was going to do this--anticipating mild disapproval and disappointment, I admit--I was surprised and happy when my dad said, "Good for him."  He recognized that we show God's love to people by being in relationship with them. 

One of our pastors, Dan Kimball, said it this way in a sermon (my paraphrase): anytime a non-believer invites us into his or her life, that space is holy ground.

Anyone want to share more fodder for discussion?  Your thoughts are welcome!

a few thoughts abou Les Miserables

Because Jessica asked!

I won't try to make this sound all film theory formal--reminding myself this is not an academic arena but just me sharing thoughts with my homies. ; ) My critical theories about the most recent Les Mis movie are so far just in defense of the casting, and in wonderment of the overall God arc. 

I heard a LOT of people slamming the performance of Russell Crowe because he did not show a dynamic acting range and they felt his voice was not good enough for the role. These accusations are both true.  And yet, I believe they are a sign of how well he was cast, not how poorly. The limited nature of both his singing and acting in this movie perfectly reflect the narrow and rigid nature of his character Javert. The script is clearly portraying him this way--the depictions of him on high precipices, his lines about balancing on the edge of a knife.  Javert is literally unwavering in his black and white views of crime and justice, and a voice without vibrato perfectly expresses that.

I also felt the epic nature of the story/movie made people want grand acting gestures from all those involved--which most of the actors, esp. Hugh Jackman and Anne Hathaway, delivered, and appropriately so.  But I think Crowe actually did an excellent job internalizing his character, and people were not looking carefully enough at the small and subtle acting choices he made throughout the film that were brilliant characterization. Javert is a man who cuts off emotion, who gives himself over to the Law and the way of legal Right at the sacrifice of his own feelings--of his own personhood.  He says he is the law.  So there would not be much to see on the outside of this character--the struggle to reconcile his identity as Law with Valjean's belief in Grace would be on the inside, a struggle better portrayed through the lyrics of his songs than the expressiveness of his acting. 

In fact, in making his character dispassionate, ultra-controlled, hardened, he is the perfect foil to Anne Hathaway's character Fantine (not Valjean, as we might expect). She was born to a wealthy family, but because of young, foolish love ended up literally in the gutter.  Emotional vulnerability and open-heartedness leads to her demise. Javert admits he was born in prison, and has worked his whole life to rise up in the world.  Emotional disconnect with others and legalistic definitions of worth, truth, right he believes will lead him to victory over his past. 

Her "fall from grace" makes her ultimately vulnerable, dying, in despair.  And in her weakness, God's grace is strong, and Valjean literally swoops down and lifts her from the muck, and the movie clearly tells us when she dies she is at peace with God.  Her precious daughter is also redeemed, by the same human instrument of God--again, swooped up into the strong arms of love--and Cosette's beauty is literally brought forth from ashes.

I remember seeing this Les Miserables in the movie theater, and squirming in my seat not at Russell Crowe's voice, but at Hugh Jackman's.  He is so often straining, eyes bulging, the cords in his neck taunt, the timbre of his voice almost unbearable and the extreme close-ups at such times painful.  And yet. . . I don't think this is a flaw of his singing ability as much as a sign of his excellent sense of emoting through the music.  He is not straining to reach the notes as much as he is straining to restrain them and not overwhelm the microphones held so close--I get the feeling he would have done the same songs much better justice on Broadway.  He was having to hold in his voice to get the proper intimacy and tone of the moment being filmed--"Bring Him Home" is a good example. (Click on that link to see a video clip.)  It is supposed to be a prayer, a whisper of the spirit.  But this song is where his vocal tone is most stretched thin--again, I think because of his attempts to rein in his voice and not overwhelm the scene.  But then I think, why didn't he just use his falsetto?  That is the perfect time for it--to sing more softly, more tenderly.  The very nature of the song seems to demand it.

But yet, I completely believe in Jackman's abilities as an actor, and see only excellence in all other areas of his characterization in this film.  This leads me to believe Jackman's choice to sing the song without falsetto, straining to sing those high notes gently, must be another purposeful choice.  And really, it still works in the scene--because throughout the movie, the times when his voice seems tightest, most strained, are the times when his character IS under strain, is wound tightly, has no release.  So did he choose to sing in a manner that requires so much control because he is showing his character's strong control over his emotions, over his choices?  Does he sing with that strident tone as a means of showing the audience the pent-up tension/energy in Valjean at these moments?   When I look at the singing in the movie as an extension of the acting, I find it is extremely effective at conveying character and the significance of certain moments/choices in the story.

The ground-breaking sound recording technology they used in the making of the movie must have been a welcome challenge for these actors--allowing them to actually *act* their songs instead of just make a pretty voice over later, when the feel of the moment is gone.  And yet, that performance of "Bring Him Home" would keep me from owning the movie soundtrack--it is that painful.  And while painful might have been an excellent acting choice on Jackman's part in the film, it is not going to connect with a listener the same way on an isolated sound recording.

While I was looking up images to share with this post, I found another blogger giving a casual but spirited review of the movie, which I enjoyed.  This was her take on one particular song in the movie, which apparently critics did not like, but which she is quick to defend:

Les Mis isn't about the critics.  It's about the people.  Historically, this story hasn't done well in the eyes of the Uppity and Scholarly Folk who review it in newspapers and such, yet the madding crowd who have bought the book and seen the musical and watched the film are touched by it in a special way.  And isn't that what the story is all about?  Ordinary people, the "lower classes," the uneducated and poor?  I'm not saying that the majority of Les Mis' fan base are peasants, but I am saying that I don't give two beans for the snooty reviewers who say "Suddenly" was too slow-moving and saccharine and nobody liked it.  It's a heartwarming little piece about a man who's become a father overnight, for Pete's sake... it's not supposed to be an eleven o'clock showstopper.  (Oh, and Hugh Jackman's an adoptive father in real life... which I thought added a special tenderness to his performance.  And this song was actually within his vocal range.  So he sounded great.)

 (Hugh Jackman is an adoptive father?  Even more to love!)

OK, enough on that.  As for the God story arc--I just want to say I have not read the novel, but I have seen it performed on stage, and neither fact affects at all my interpretation of how God is portrayed in this particular movie version.  It is perfectly legitimate to analyze something on its own, as its own work, and not have to include other versions or the original text in the analysis.  I am very curious, however, how much God really does factor into the original novel and in the previous film versions.  But anyway, redemption is THE theme of the whole movie, and is played out in so many character's stories.  And God is one of the main characters, and the forward thrust of the whole story--or, one could argue, people who believe in God are.  (I could see someone making a case that God himself is not clearly at work in the movie, but instead people who believe in the saving Grace of God--a potentially important distinction for a film theorist, but splitting hairs for someone who just wants to revel in the positive, affirming nature of this movie towards there being such a real things as Grace that redeems and restores and compels us to love and sacrifice.) 

Eponine also lays down herself for Love, and dies for it

Of course, at the end there is no Jesus required for access to heaven--just the willingness to die for the sake of love or liberty.  Ironically, Javert too died to uphold that which he believed--that Justice is clearly defined and those who adhere to it, who champion it are absolved from having to decide if their upholding Justice is right or wrong.  His wavering from the "straight and narrow" proved the flaw in his "religion"--or his failure as its "priest"--and so letting Valjean go free shook the very core of his identity.  This is why he says there cannot be room in the world (i.e. in his own rigidly constructed worldview) for both Javert and Valjean.  So he chose to kill himself in honor of the Law, sacrificing his life rather than sacrifice his identity.  He could not re-frame his identity around the truth that someone who "deserves" the wrath of the Law might also "deserve" Grace.  That there is no clear, human way to point to who is right and who is wrong, to who deserves punishment and who deserves mercy.  That there is a God who loves those who are unlovable and fallen, but condemns those who have no love or mercy.  And so maybe that is another reason why Javert throws himself into the abyss--when confronted by Grace he had to look into his own soul, and if the proven criminal Valjean is a better man than he himself is, then what hope is there for him. 

In other words, his death is pitiable for its vanity. 

But this is where I am reading into his death more than the movie's cues tell me to.  The movie clearly codes Valjean as a man redeemed by God, who then goes on to redeem others, and all those who sacrifice their lives for others--either personally or politically--end up in heaven.  The movie also clearly codes Javert as a man trapped by his own Law, who spends his whole life upholding Right (according to the Law) but not ever doing Right (according to Grace), who then throws himself into the gaping maw of Destruction/Hell as a final triumph over his fears and assertion of his mastery of his own identity.  So the final thought is that some things are worth dying for, and some are not--and clearly dying for others, for a higher purpose, for Love is a worthy calling, but dying for oneself is pathetic.

It is also interesting to note how much the warm, golden, intimate glow of candles is associated with God and safety and peace and rest.  How Valjean is so often placed in those scenes--subtly emphasizing his being in the presence of--indeed, enveloped by--God.  (As is Fantine.) And conversely how Javert's personal scenes take place in cold, dangerous places, with the notable light being the cold, distant light of the faraway stars (which he also mentions in his songs).  So there is a definite coding there of light = God = Good = comforting.   And dark = Law = hard = dispassionate = unsettling and unsafe. 

I am always fascinated by how God is portrayed in contemporary films, and often think God (or belief in God) showing up in a movie has less to say about a film-maker's personal beliefs as the film-maker's desire to tap into something in the consciousness of its audience.  What does this movie being made, at this time in our nation's history, to this degree of faithfulness to the stage production, with this plot emphasis on standing up for what we view as right and being willing to lay down our lives for it and for others, and with this particular portrayal of God. . . what might this movie tell us about ourselves?  Or what we want to believe about ourselves? 

OK, that's all!  It took we way to long to formulate even that much--wow, I remembered how long I toiled over academic papers  back in grad school.  How fun it is to delve for meaning into movies--and how danged hard it is to say what you mean.

But thanks for inspiring me to be a critical thinker and writer this week, Jessica.  I'd say that's a fine use of the Week Without Children--reminding myself I have interests and thought-power outside of the usual mommying and homewifery!

The Annual Week Without Children

from someone called "Laff Away" on facebook

Strike "weekend's" and rewrite that as "week's" and now you know what I have really been up to. And actually, this year it's a week and a half!  FIL came down week before last to help DH on a project--putting a new roof on the woodshed, and turning it into a deck in the process--and he was ready to head back to Chico on Weds last week.  Well, this week is Vacation Bible School at Oma and Opa's church there in Chico, so we were already planning on taking the kids up this past weekend.  MIL suggested we just send the kids up with Opa a few days early.  Well, why not?  So the annual WWC began last Thursday morning--whoo-hoo! 

Yes, I have projects and things I have been planning to do this week--but the bonus days at the end of last week I decided to make my own personal "mental health" days.  The goal was just to do whatever would make me feel good.

--I started a long overdue cleaning job, on the new baskets I bought for the shower room that have to be meticulously brushed clean because they are starting to mold now that we're not making fires every morning. (Welcome to my world!)  But I am just doing a few baskets at a time, stopping whenever I feel like it and giving myself permission to walk away.  I've got all week. 

--I have exercised almost every day (that's a big accomplishment for me!) by dancing around the house, usually with a can of beans in each hand.  If you don't think that's exercise, think Flashdance.  That's what I've been channeling. Well, that and a little nod to the Sharks and Jets.  Every time I have ended up exhausted and sweaty--but smiling.

--I am eating so little, and feeling so much freedom in that.  I wrote last year about this revelation--that I feel like I normally spend so much of my waking thought on food, and am a little bit of a slave to my wonky blood sugar, yet find my urges for healthy foods like raw fruits and veggies thwarted by my allergies. Ptttthhhhhhbbbbb.  I am still trying to figure out what my body really needs, and then manage to make meals that are good for my body and that are fairly easy to make.  It has not been easy, and I am LOVING having days on end where I don't really need to eat--I am hungry, and that's ok.  I'm not going to be failing as a mom because of it.  I have nothing time-sensitive to accomplish, so I don't need a lot of energy.  I am hungry and it's OK.  It really is spiritually liberating for me.

--Then again, most of what I ate the end of last week was complete junk!  Bwah-ha-ha-ha!  I did errands on Thursday, and found myself driving past an excellent bakery (called The Buttery--if that tells you anything) that I normally never go by, and so I stopped in. And bought two decadent cupcakes--which served as "lunch" for the next two days, so yummy with my tea. ; ) 

--The cupcakes and tea also went really well with the Netflix movies I streamed in the middle of the day, just because I could.  And then Friday night DH and I watched the most recent Les Miserables on DVD--I know a lot of people say negative things about it, but it is still powerful and I think the casting was excellent (and have my official film theorist reasons why, which of course DH got to hear all about last night. ; ).  I also really enjoy the extra dimension lent to the final chorus of "Do You Hear The People Sing" in the movie--the visuals that suggests the line "beyond the barricades is there a world you long to see" is not only politically motivated, but spiritually.  That death itself is a barricade, and heaven is where we will one day find true, complete freedom from all that oppresses us. 

--Yes, with a quiet house and few distractions, I actually have been getting some good thinking in!  I've been working on designing different options/looks/themes for the bunks I really hope we will build this summer for the kids--and even if we don't use any of the designs, I had so much fun getting all creative!  I've been really thinking outside the box, and have been mentally playing with everything from wooden porch posts and rails to copper pipe to antique corbels to wrought iron lamp posts--yes, for structural elements for bunk beds!  Oh, the pin-worthy pictures in my head! ; )

--Oh, the luxury of a "vacation" of not cooking this past week, and eating our favorite indulgences!  We bought a Papa Murphy's gourmet vegetarian pizza, MoBo Sushi vegetarian rolls (ooooooh, I dream of these), and our favorite local Aptos Street BBQ--each of these fed DH and I for two meals.  Chipotle veggie fajitia burritos (if you ask for both kinds of beans and two kinds of salsa and all the extras, those babies are stuffed as big as they can be) were an even better deal--one burrito fed me for three meals!).  Frankly, food expense-wise, this is as cheap of a vacation as we could get. : )  And now I'm getting hungry. . . what do we want to eat for our main meal today?  Ah, this is such a treat.

--I got my hair cut.  And I splurged on a real salon, because I am tired of feeling old, and I wanted to see what a real stylist would do.  Here's the before, at the salon:

My hair had suffered a LOT of damage from my years of pulling it back into sloppy buns with elastic bands.  My advice to you--don't do it.  My poor hair really needed to be loped off to where it was healthy.  So here's the after, at home:

 

Not bad, considering this was taken the next day, after I slept on it.  (I put back on the same blouse so it would be as accurate "before and after" as possible. The "after" pic taken at the salon did not turn out.)  The third day of the haircut, after I washed it and then learned how much magic the stylist did with her conditioner and brush and blowdryer, it didn't look nearly as good.  So for church on Sunday I actually dug out the old fat curling iron I had back in my college years that's been living in a bin under the house to smooth things out nicely. . .  Not sure I will be doing that on a regular basis, so maybe I will just settle for being content with my hair no longer looking so stringy and tired as in photo #1, and who cares if it's pretty.

So that's a fairly good overview of the first half of our WWC. The second half will not be nearly as frivolous--yes, I do have some projects I did want to accomplish before the end of the week.  But it will still be fun, and I'm hoping to make the most of it!

May you all be having good weeks, whatever you are doing!

The Last Princess Party

I've noticed a lot of bloggers taking breaks, or writing less than normal--does that happen every summer?  Well, for me it is just that I got busy and I lost my words all at the same time.  The busy was nothing special--just having DH's parents visit, and finally starting some home-improvement and cleaning projects, and jumping back into summer school for a few weeks.  Really nothing all that interesting to share. Time is just slipping by so quickly--I can't believe the summer is halfway over! As for the losing the words--I dunno, it just seemed like there were plenty of thoughts in my head, but none worth writing down. And I've still been kinda tired--not quite over the hardness of this past Spring.

But we did do one really fun thing since I last wrote, that is totally worth sharing:

The Happy birthday girl, flanked by the twin daughters of my dear Becky.

The third and final Princess birthday party!  "Princess" has been the theme for all 3 girls' 8th birthdays, and each one has been different, all good in different ways--but this one was my favorite.  Happy turned eight the first week of July, and we planned a party outdoors at a local park.  Really nothing fancy--just good friends and imagination!  Of course we invited all our friends to come dressed up as princesses, and it was so fun to see how many of the girls went international.  We raided our dress-up collection--in other words, did not purchase a thing you see in these pics--and I think the costumes all turned out so great!

Maid Sunny, wearing the Madrigal costume my mother made for my elder sister Rebecca back in high school, with vintage costume jewelry we inherited from my grandmother and friends.

Merry-san, in the kimono and clogs my mother received as a gift from a Japanese pen-pal back in the 1950's.  We inherited it last summer, when I was helping my parents sort through their house in preparation for moving--also when we brought the Madrigal costumes and prom dresses and all kinds of other fantastic dress up back with us to CA. 

Prince Smiley--um, Serious 

 

 

We had the party at 6:00 p.m. so that Daddy could come after work, and so I did not have to actually have real food to serve (although a friend sweetly brought chips and salsa to add to the table).  Happy had decided she wanted a white, three-tiered wedding cake for her birthday party.  I decided since the party was going to be so simple, that I was up for the challenge!  I made a three-tiered "Boston Crème Pie," which was the favorite kind of cake my mother used to make for our birthdays when we were kids.  It's basically a sweet white cake with custard layers--mmmmm.  I had no clue how to transport it frosted, though, so I gave it a quick whipped-cream frosting there at the park. 

I suggested fruit to go on the cake, and those she picked ended up rather patriotic--appropriate for the week.  So the final product is not exactly wedding-ish, and is not even all that pretty, but I was just glad it was structurally sound! 

 

 

With the cake we served wedding punch--raspberry sherbet and ginger ale.  Happy and I together made a berry ice-ring to float in the middle. Looking at it now, I think I put the ring in upside down.  But it complemented the cake--and made the birthday girl feel special, which was the goal.

 

 

Traditional birthday activity--reading a story.  This one is called The Seeing Stick, and makes me cry every time I read it. Yes, including at the party. Good thing I had so many eager readers to help me finish. : )

 



 



Becky's girls Miss C and Miss K knew Happy would be wearing this princess dress, which my mother had made for Sunny years back--and so they sewed a dress for Happy's Addy doll to match!  How adorable and clever is that?!

 

 

I just love all the candid girl moments going on.

The party consisted of four simple activities: princess/prince "portraits" (I took everyone's pictures to share with the mommies later), the story reading, then food, then princess charades.  The charades were so cute--the girls had to act out different princesses/queens for us to guess.  And while we did have plenty of Disney princess in there, we also threw in famous characters like Sara Crewe (The Little Princess), and The Princess and the Pea, Esther, The Queen of Hearts, Princess Buttercup (The Princess Bride), and Queen Susan (The Narnia Chronicles). 

I have really enjoyed these themed birthday parties that became tradition, so each girl got to have one of her very own--so far the "Fairies in the Forest Teaparty" at age 5-6, and the "Princess" party at age 8.  DH is adamant that Smiley will not be a Fairy in any Forest, so I'm going to see if he and Smiley will go for a Wood Elves party--as in Tolkien--instead!  ; )  Normally the child's first party comes his or her kindergarten year, which would mean this September, but I'm thinking Smiley will be getting his first party next Fall, because I just can't pull off three parties in as many months!  Because you see, Sunny turned 12 last November, so she is overdue for her party, which I just could not pull off during the school year--because she is dreaming of a pioneer themed party, and sleeping outside in a "covered wagon" and me cooking a dinner of beans and cornbread and then a breakfast of flap jacks the next morning, all over an open fire! We'll see what we can pull off for this party later this summer . . ; )