Posts by David Haywood
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Just caught up with developments on this thread... great to see such lovely stories coming out -- and thanks for all the kind comments...
Despite being tough (at times), I think Sarah Flynn's comment sums up my own feelings about parenting:
Parenting is the bomb, it'll make you nostalgically remember all the best parts of your own childhood and give you the best excuse in the world to recreate them. Some parts are hard, but... it's mostly a gas!
RE: Mark Graham and Jeremy Andrew's kind advice:
Check nappy; check the cry -- are they in pain (pretty unlikely, really)...
Kids need boundaries, everyone knows that, they just tend to forget that it applies from day one.
Nearly everyone has been telling us this sort of thing since day one (nurses, midwife, plunket nurse, etc.) -- but they didn't have to listen to Bob's screams of pain. The specialist who diagnosed the acid reflux said it was a nine-out-of-ten on the scale of severity.
[NOTE: Acid reflux is where stomach acid comes back into the oesophagus and chemically burns the flesh. In babies this is exacerbated when they lie down, and hence they want to be picked up, and held vertically, so that the acid flows (and stays) back in their stomachs].
So he definitely is in severe pain, and hence gets hysterical when we don't do something about it (my comment about him fearing abandonment was supposed to be a joke -- I should learn how to make those smiley face things :"-&^).
Jennifer's mother was so convinced that Bob's behaviour was due to our bad parenting skills that she flew to CHCH to take control of the situation. She is a huge advocate of 'controlled crying' and here's what she had to say after three hours with Bob:
Well of course controlled crying won't work for a baby like Robert. It's just torturing him isn't it...
So I think that if we'd taken the 'experts' advice to leave Bob crying (even for ten minutes) then we would have been guilty of torturing the poor wee chap via his own stomach acid.
I just mention this because the other new parents may end up having babies with acid reflux -- and if they persist with a 'controlled crying' approach then they could actually do some damage.
Incidentally, although 'controlled crying' is the standard approach in NZ, Jennifer has discovered (from researching the subject through medical journals) that it is actually highly controversial in paediatric circles. I don't know enough about the research to have developed an informed opinion on the subject -- but I just thought I'd mention this for completeness (as it were).
But thanks for the advice, Mark and Jeremy, I know it was very kindly meant...
-
Wilkinson,
Thank you for talking about me in the same breath as child abusers and people "who simply shouldn't chose parenthood".
You don't know the first thing about me. And you sure as hell don't know what I've been through caring for this child and making sure that his needs are met.
This piece was intended to be a light-hearted look at the realities of parenting a difficult baby. I don't "complain" about my choice to be a parent -- and I certainly wouldn't go back to the life we had before our son was born.
You clearly have a bee in your bonnet about children -- that's your problem. You don't see the humour in this piece -- fine, I get the message.
But you'll forgive me for pointing out (as you clearly don't realize) that most people would regard your comments -- as a reaction to this piece -- to be deeply condescending and fatuous.
-
Kyle Matthews wrote:
... if that made no sense, pea pods here
We are using 'bum genius' which seems to be a similar system.
you just need to use one of those blue things to catch the brown stuff.
As a practising clean-freak, I am fascinated. What are these mysterious "blue things", and how can I buy one?
-
Emma Hart wrote:
Your sarcasm will get you nowhere, Haywood.
Dude, that wasn't sarcasm -- that was abject humbleness.
But glad that I can be an example of how much worse things can get...
-
Craig Ranapia wrote:
Ah, just wait until Wee Rodders is a petulant, dirty teenager then threaten to e-mail this post to all his friends.
That suggestion is 100 per cent pure genius, Craig. In fact, I'm printing out a hard copy for my future blackmailing needs as I type these words...
Russell Brown wrote:
I feel like I've helpfully intoned "ah, but you'll forget the hard times" so often that it even sounds trite and hollow to me.
Actually, I have to admit that you were dead right in your worldly wisdom. I scribbled this blog on random pieces of paper (and even a box of tissues) as events unfolded. And then, when I finally found a chance to type it up, there were so many things that I'd forgotten: the incident at the supermarket; the mysterious dream about David Slack's beard; the doctor's assertion that water was "far too wet" to use on a baby; Jennifer's baby-silencing bunker...
As Mr Slack himself observed: "The days are long, but the months are short". In fact, I think it's because the days are so long that the beginning of the month vanishes into the misty reaches of memory. I feel like I've lived half my life since Bob-the-baby was born, but at the same time I can hardly remember any of the details.
Paul Brislen wrote:
Have you had the cloth nappy/disposable nappy diatribe yet?
Oh, yes. We're experimenting with cloth nappies at the moment because they're cheaper (so far, so good). But we're certainly not philosophically wedded to them at the expense of turning Bob-the-baby the colour of a baboon. How alarming that must have been!
Emma Hart wrote:
In years to come, someone will email you and tell you they're having a baby. You'll attempt to give them some kind of warning, and they'll reply:
"Jesus wept: your child advice is a little frightening -- but I guess it's best to expect the worst and then be pleasantly surprised."
Oh, Emma, I was so wrong, and you were so right. However, as Jeremy Andrew has kindly noted, I have now mended my ways, and -- as a warning to others -- have attempted to portray the unvarnished truth about babies in this post (perhaps I've toned down reality just a little).
In my defence, Dr Gracewood gives the appearance of being innocent, young (she was in 6th form as recently as 1999, you know), and trustworthy. Who'd have thought she'd turn out to be such a barefaced liar?
InternationalObserver wrote:
You might not be so tired if you let your wife carry a bit more of the load.
Jennifer emailed me to point out your message, InternationalObserver. I think she now sees the error of her ways, and will pull her weight in future.
daleaway wrote:
And you should be due for a run-in with the organic anti-vaccination police any day now, too. Whooooooo-eee!
Actually, I've just recently had that particular encounter...
Anti-vaccination police: I don't know if you've heard about the very real dangers of vaccination...
Me: Actually, I think it's one of the greatest achievements of human civilization...
Anti-vaccination police: Ah... [conversation trails off]...
Glenn Pearce wrote:
We had the same issue with Midwife, "she's just hungry, keep feeding her"... at Birthcare we had to sign an "offical" waiver form acknolwedging the "dangers" of formula feeding when we had to give topups as well!
Our experiences seem to be strangely parallel, Glenn. I put this down to too much Latin. (By the way, have you ever found a practical use for anything from all those years of learning Latin -- I know I haven't.)
Doctor F*cking Lying Beyotch wrote:
You wanna Public Address Gangsta Parenting Rumble, bring it on!
As it happens, I'm already fighting a duel to the death with Bart Janssen in the near future (about the pre-eminence, or otherwise, of the Royal Navy in the late 1600s -- it's a question of honour). But, should I survive, I would be more than happy to bring my posse to any playground you care to nominate. However, I warn you that my posse don’t like to be disrespected any more than I do -- so we will all be hopping mad, and extremely ready to rumble!
James Harton wrote:
I'm expecting twin boys in February. I really hope that I don't wind up with a Little Rodney Hide and a Little Richard Prebble!
Hey congratulations, James! Well, according to our Plunket nurse, Bob is practically the worst baby in Christchurch, so I should think your chances are pretty good of having a less nightmarish experience (although, of course, you will have two of them). But best of luck, mate.
Rob Hosking wrote:
... don't talk to me about the F**g Breast Police.
Sound like you had a very tough time, Rob.
I guess it's not that I necessarily disagree with everything the Breastapo says -- but I was alarmed by their one-size-fits-all attitude (as Emma points out). The lactation consultant at the presentation that I went to basically had no time for any mother who didn't want to give up her career -- and spend the rest of her life chained to her baby. I thought that was a little unrealistic, myself.
Mark Graham wrote:
Use modern medicine. It works... Put the baby in the baby's room...
If I wasn't a believer in modern medicine before the baby came along -- I sure as hell am now.
Putting the baby in another room doesn't seem to be an option for us. If he doesn't get picked up within about five milliseconds, he screams himself to the point of hysteria -- and then it takes ages to calm him down enough to feed. Jennifer suspects that he lives in fear of us abandoning him (with good reason probably, given his behaviour -- the poor chap).
Kyle Matthews wrote:
You know your baby has really achieved true nappy power when the poo comes out, changes direction mid-flight, and goes back up the rear of the nappy, escapes the tightly constrained nappy, either pinned or artificial, heads up the back of their singlet and t-shirt, and attains hair. Twice. In one day.
Yay, something to look forward to...
Bart Janssen wrote:
Oh and just a point about milk allergies, the enzymes the body uses to degrade milk change through development. There is every chance that Bob will grow up with no milk allergy in later in life.
Thanks for pointing that out, Bart. Reassuring to know. Almost a shame that one of us will have to die in our upcoming duel to the death...
-
Ben Austin wrote:
So do any other countries control fireworks quite as much as we do? I've been scanning the papers here and have yet to see the kind of deep, bipartisan coverage we enjoy back home re the issue.
There are much stronger restrictions on fireworks in some states in the US. When we spent a summer in Boston (a couple of years back) fireworks of any kind were totally illegal. Everyone had to drive up to New Hampshire to buy them -- and then risk prosecution setting them off back home in Massachusetts.
By the way, everywhere I've ever spent time in the US has had much stronger controls on everything (with the exception of guns and motorcycle helmets) than in New Zealand. And higher taxes too (when you take state and county taxes into account as well). So much for the land of the free, I always think.
-
Sarah,
I think the defamation occurred when you implied that Key would make such a silly speech without being drunk.
I very much enjoyed your analysis of the videocast -- and hope that the National Party will take some of your points on board...
-
Bart Janssen wrote:
... the Dutch Navy really was the largest and most powerful in the world until the late 1700s...
Ha! This is a question that can only resolved by military means, Dr Janssen! I propose that our fleets meet at Cook Strait. Don't forget to bring your cutlass, you son of a Dutchman.
Er... my information was obtained from the fucking boring book 'A companion to Eighteenth-century Britain' by H.T. Dickinson. I've returned it to the library but I vaguely recall that he quoted size of fleet (number of ships, cannons, etc.) to back up his claim. I also seem to recall that the Chatham 'police action' (just a little Vietnam War joke, there) was part of the reason for the growth in the Royal Navy (note that I say: "... by the end of the 1600s"). So if you have any objections then send them to H.T. Dickinson (but I will try to look into the actual fleet numbers when I get a chance).
I was amused to see that the website of the Royal Navy describes the C17th wars against the Dutch as being fought with "mixed results".
Incidentally, a reason given by many historians for the success of British seapower is that Britain has no land borders (unlike, say Holland or France -- or indeed any other major Western European nation), and so could direct more of their military budget into the navy.
RE: Coal
I didn't mean to give the impression that coal wasn't available in the Netherlands. Dutch coal certainly existed, and, in fact, I seem to recall that the Netherlands has Europe's oldest coal mine. But it seems to have been more difficult (and therefore expensive) to extract than in Britain -- I presume because of flooding issues.Please note that I don't have any of this information at my fingertips any more, so don't quote me on any of my "I seem to recall" statements. I've read about 70 history books over the last couple of months (journal articles, too), and they're all beginning to merge together.
-
Rob Stowell wrote:
... social faux pas -- sort of like using "gay" in one of it's three current meanings, with a member of the wrong generation!
Oh, you've done that too... glad I'm not the only one!
Certainly the Vikings had the technology, tho the square sails weren't ideal...
Yep, one of the more enjoyable bits of research I did for this programme was reading A Viking Voyage: In Which an Unlikely Crew of Adventurers Attempts an Epic Journey to the New World by W.H. Carter. Carter spends a lot of time discussing the joys of tacking a replica turn-of-the-millennium Viking ship out of narrow fjords in Greenland.
... any ideas as to what happened to the technology [for ocean-crossing canoes] after arrival in Aotearoa? How was wind-power being used in the later (1300-1800) period of Maori history? Single-hulled vessels, which by then predominated, must have been better in some ways for inshore work, and coast-hopping.
When I used to lecture on the history of engineering at UoC, we had a guest lecturer (Dr Alan Papesch) spend a couple of hours on pre-European Maori Engineering -- really fascinating stuff (and now that I think of it, maybe I should do an episode on the subject). I seem to recall him saying that double-hulled sailing waka were observed in NZ by Cook (but don't quote me on that), so it's possible that they only finally vanished with the introduction of European-type craft. I imagine that single-hulled waka might be advantageous for river/estuary/harbour/coastal work in terms of ease of paddling -- but this is just speculation on my part.
An interesting (but obscure) point is that apparently both the Maori/Polynesian sail (ra) and paddle (hoe) were lift-based devices -- also the hulls of outrigger waka were produced with asymmetric hydrodynamics so that the two hulls were balanced when paddling. As I recall, the ra were like an upside-down lateen sail, i.e. with the narrow bit at the bottom.
Furthermore, the Maori dimpled the last few metres of their waka hulls (like a golf ball), so as to re-energize the boundary layer and reduce drag (which apparently worked really well at the speeds that waka typically travelled). The effect of the dimpling was well understood by canoe designers and they conducted sea-trials to optimize the extent of the dimpling for each waka. It could probably be argued (and Dr Papesch did) that pre-European Maori knew more about hydrodynamics than Europeans of that time.
But I digress...
-
Apologies for falling behind on questions in this thread... our bad baby (good on the inside, of course) has kept me away from my computer for anything except deadlines...
Andrew Stevenson wrote:
... any other reference points for sources of slavery (energy) runs out and empire/entity contracts?
As Anarchangel points out, it's surprisingly difficult to find any other well-documented examples of a large empire/entity with such a reliance on slavery as the Romans (maybe 25 per cent of the empire were slaves in 150 AD). Some of the Greek city-states approached (or perhaps exceeded) this figure, but they weren't on the scale of the Roman Republic/Empire. You could maybe talk about modern examples such as Brazil or the US confederacy, but to a certain extent it depends on where you draw the boundaries of the empire/entity, and also your definition of slavery (e.g. are serfs also slaves?).
I think, however, that the collapse of empires/entities by conquest can often be attributed to better (or more efficient) use of energy. 'Guns, Germs, and Steel' could almost be restated 'Energy, an Unexpected Side-effect of Energy, and Energy'.
dyan campbell wrote:
The Thai woman said the upright/bent knees posture takes the painful pressure off the kid's digestive tract, and it must, because it can certainly turn a screaming baby into a relaxed baby in a matter of seconds...
And I think the Romans just over extended themselves in their campaign to extent their empire - didn't they neglect life back in Rome at the expense of expansion?
Thanks for the kind advice, Dyan. We've already discovered this technique -- but, alas, it only has limited success. Losec/Omeprazole seems to have produced the best results (although not all that good, frankly).
Your explanation of the collapse of the Roman Empire would certainly have saved Edward Gibbon a few million words! But (ignoring the dubious claim that the Romans "neglect[ed] life back in Rome") it doesn't really answer the interesting questions. What does 'over-extension' actually mean? What made them continue to expand -- was the Empire reliant on continual growth for survival?
The inimitable Bart Janssen wrote:
One factor you haven't mentioned is that while horses may not have provided much more work per energy input than humans they can process food that humans can't. So horses actually increase the energy efficiency of the nation even if they are used inefficiently because they use an otherwise unused energy source.
I didn't mention it, but I did think about it! I'm not sure (a) if grass was an otherwise unused energy source i.e. do grass crops displace other food crops? (b) How much of the Roman horse and oxen fleet was fed grass as opposed to hay/oats/etc. (c) What are the energy implications of 'storing' grass (as hay, etc) for winter. I don't know the answer to these questions, but I am trying to find out more.
But what is really interesting is when cultures seem to simply not "get" a technology. Whole societies just ignoring technology or innovation.
A fascinating question. Why haven't some of the greatest modern engineering societies perfected simple technology e.g. why hasn't the US managed to develop the flushing (as opposed to blocking) toilet; why has China (one of the greatest engineering nations throughout history) stayed with the chopstick when the population eats so much rice.
Any answers gratefully accepted.