Don't take medicine in front of a baby!

According to many authorities, such as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration:

"Don't take medicines in front of children younger than 4 years old. They may try to copy your behavior."

Babies imitate. It's a well known fact.

The actions of Miss Baby yesterday underscored this warning. Her grandmother and aunt were busy with Christmas baking. Miss Baby was watching. Within minutes the little girl was beating and pouring imaginary batter to make imaginary cookies.

Babies learn by mimicking. Don't set a little one up for a potential life-threatening incident. Every year thousands of children consume dangerous medicines and must be rushed to Emergency. Keep all medicine locked away and do not encourage a baby's interest in your medicine cabinet by taking pills, capsules and syrups in their presence.

It takes guts, stick-to-itiveness, patience and more to learn to walk

Fiona may soon give up keister scooting for walking.

Watching a baby leaving babyhood to become an active toddler is to be privy to an amazing transformation. I'm in awe of Fiona as I watch her systematically working oh-so-hard to perfect a difficult skill: walking.

Fiona has never crawled. She keister-scoots. First, she tugs off her socks, they are too slippery and she needs the friction of her bare feet on the smooth floor. Then, she stretches out her legs, gets a grip on the floor with her heels and pulls herself forward. It doesn't sound efficient but it is. She can scoot from one end of the house to the other in very short order.

In preparation for her learning to walk, I removed a large, glass coffee table from our front room. I worried that if she fell and hit her head on that table, she would get badly hurt. It was a wise thing to do but quite possibly unnecessary. Babies don't just stand up and promptly fall on their face when learning to walk. Babies aren't stupid. (Still, accidents do happen and removing anything that could injure a falling toddler is important.)

Fiona began her quest to walk by pulling herself up on anything that provided a good grip. No surprise here. But as quickly as Fiona learned to get herself up, she learned to lower herself back down. I had read that babies needed to be given support to get back down without injuring themselves. Maybe some babies need this, but not Fiona.

Pulling herself up allowed Fiona to work her legs and strengthen them. Soon the hand-grip only steadied the baby. Her legs were strong enough to raise her to a standing position without assistance from her arms.

With strong legs well practised at raising her to her feet, Fiona no longer required a hand-grip. She began using smooth, vertical surfaces to steady herself. With a wall, for instance, she could slide her hand both up and down the wall, steadying herself while standing up and again when sitting back down. Perfect.

Fiona is now standing unaided for a quarter minute or more. But she keeps her centre of balance such that she always falls forward and breaks her fall with her hands on the wall. Like I said, babies aren't stupid.

Walking is going to take strength, along with balance, and she she seems to have figured that out. Starting this week Fiona embarked on an exercise program to build the necessary strength and balance. She stands on Judy and my double bed, getting herself up without support. This is tough and she often falls. She is practising three things on the bed: getting up, standing unsupported and making a controlled fall. And doing it where she has a soft, cushy surface on which to tumble.

I bet she is walking within a week.

Lindsey Graham: The parrot's not dead . . .

Lindsey Graham, right, with John McCain at the Forum.

One of my favorite Monty Python Flying Circus skits was The Dead Parrot Routine. A routine about denial.

Over the years, I have learned that that routine plays itself out in many different forms daily --- and sadly, but not unexpectedly, it is not funny in these reincarnations.

Take Lindsey Graham, a U.S. senator who would make Monty Python proud. With the U.S. deep in financial doo-doo, and to a great extent because of its involvement in two foreign wars, one truly unnecessary, Graham was back saber rattling this past weekend at the Halifax International Security Forum held in Nova Scotia, Canada.

With his party, the Republicans, now controlling the U.S. Congress, the senator from South Carolina felt empowered to threaten Iran with the full wrath of the mighty United States military. Tehran must veer from their present course when it comes to developing and constructing the bomb.

Graham was addressing a panel looking at the ramifications of the recent U.S. midterms on American foreign policy. AP reports Graham said that if the United States were to go to war against the Islamic republic, it would not be to:

". . . just neutralize their nuclear program, but to sink their navy, destroy their air force and deliver a decisive blow to the Revolutionary Guard, in other words neuter that regime."

Reportedly, Graham's position left many "stunned." Personally, I think it left Graham looking a little stunned.

If you have five minutes, check out this video found on YouTube which argues that the South Carolina senior senator is as delusional and just as openly ridiculous as Baghdad Bob, a propagandist for Saddam Hussein.



For a more complete report and a video of Israeli defense minister Ehud Barak at the Forum commenting on Lindsey Graham's remarks, check out my post on Digital Journal.

Eggs: Healthy or Not?

The other day the University of Western Ontario sent out a press release informing the media that an acclaimed researcher at the London Ontario university had co-authored a review of dietary cholesterol studies.

The doctor, David Spence, along with two other Canadian experts in the field, came to the conclusion that dietary cholesterol is bad, very bad. Just about the worse offender when it comes to supplying a concentrated dose of dietary cholesterol is the egg.

The review points out that one egg contains from 215 to 275 mg of cholesterol. In comparison, the infamous KFC Double Down contains 145 mg of cholesterol. For those who don't know, the KFC Double Down sandwich replaces the bread or bun with two KFC chicken breasts to hold multiple slices of bacon and cheese.

The London Free Press, the local paper, carried a story on the review under the headline "Eggs worse than Double Down."

That, of course, is not quite what the doctors were saying. In fact, Dr. Spence told The Free Press that the Double Down is a "dietary disaster."

No, the doctors were talking only about cholesterol and they did raise some interesting points.

The paper correctly points out that The Heart and Stroke Foundation has given eggs their seal of approval. Yet, a search of the foundation's website finds this warning.

" . . . foods that contain high levels of dietary cholesterol, such as egg yolks, may have a small effect on blood cholesterol levels in people diagnosed with high blood cholesterol or type 2 diabetes. A recent study showed that individuals with type 2 diabetes need to watch their egg intake because it can increase their risk of heart disease. The Canadian Diabetes Association suggests that people with diabetes may have up to two eggs per week . . . speak to your healthcare provider, who will advise you on how much food containing dietary cholesterol you should eat."

In their review, the Canadian trio points out that in two major studies those who developed diabetes while consuming an egg a day doubled their risk of cardiovascular disease compared to those eating less than an egg a week. The studies also showed a significant increase of new onset diabetes with regular egg consumption.

There seem to be some points of agreement between the Heart and Stroke people and the three renegade researchers.


A story in Canada.com reported:

The last time Spence spoke out publicly against yolks in his local newspaper, his house was egged.

"I had to pay someone 150 bucks to come in on a ladder and clean up the second story. They hit the wall on the second floor and the door and the windows on the main floor."

But he remains unperturbed. He said yolks "shouldn't be regarded as an item that's suitable for human diets" for anyone at risk of vascular disease. "And you name me a Canadian that isn't."

Ironically, on the very day The Free Press was warning its readers of the health risks posed by eggs and dietary cholesterol, the paper carried a story on one of nature's most nutritious foods: Eggs!

If you still want to eat eggs, and I can understand that, Dr. Spence sets an upper limit of 200 mg. of dietary cholesterol a day. I guess that means only eating half a yolk at one sitting. It will make for some rather lightly coloured omelets but I can "live" with that.


To see my take on this story running in Digital Journal click HERE.

For The London Free Press story by Debora Van Brenk, click HERE.

Twitter and Flickr for citizen journalists

One of the neat things about blogging is being your own publisher. It is almost like putting out your own magazine. And just as no newspaper or magazine should go without images, your blog posts should not go begging for pictures.

Wikimedia Commons is one excellent place to look for copyright free images. Lot's of folk sharing lots of pictures are to be found there. Another good site is Flickr. Both sites make the copyright restrictions which apply to each image very clear. The restrictions vary from image to image, so stay alert as you search for pictures. Twitpic can also be a source of images but I have questions about using pictures found on Twitpic. More on this later.



The above images are from Twitpic. I simply added the embedding code into the HTML of the Blogger page. The code is right there for the taking on the Twitpic page. Clicking on the glorified thumbnail image, above, will bring up the original Twitpic page.

Twitpic Photo: Yaman09

You can take larger images from Twitpic but you must view the full sized image and then right-click to Copy Image or Save Image As... You can also point, click and drag the image onto the desktop.

If you Copy Image, you can paste it directly into a photo enhancement program, like Photoshop, for cropping and tweaking.


If you copy, drag or save the image, this will break the link to the Twitpic's originating page. You must add a link under the picture to restore the connection. This is demanded by Twitpic:

"Remember! Twitpic Community Guidelines specify that if you post a Twitpic photo on an external website, the photo must link back to its photo page."

This all sounds good and sounds safe. No copyright infringement here, right? Since the embedding code was supplied, putting these pictures on one's page must be O.K., right? I don't know.

The first image may have been shot by the person twittering, making them the copyright holder, but I am suspicious of the middle image of Colbert and Stewart and the next one of Colbert alone. Were these images really taken by the person twittering? I have my doubts. A lot of stolen images are to be found in the Twitpic mix.

Flickr Photo: Jeff Gates

Flickr Photo: Bridgette Blair

The two large images above were taken from Flickr. The first big image was removed from Flickr using a download function found on the Flickr site. It is a big file. The second was taken by right clicking the largest posted image available and using the "Copy Image" function. Afterwards, I resized the second image so that it would load faster. This resulted in a little loss of quality. (I can live with the loss; I, and my readers, like the speed.)

Flickr Photo: Joe Newman

Both these images appear to be safe to use on a blog but the Creative Commons licence seems to put them off limits for newspapers and others who would use these image to generate income. Click on the photographer's name in the credit line under the image, the name is linked to the originating Flickr page.

Flickr Photo: Bridgette Blair

The Flickr image, above left, has been cropped to accent the subject of the photo. It has also been brightened using Levels and Curves in Photoshop. I believe this is allowed.

The "Palin" picture and the crowd images were fitted onto the page using Blogger supplied tools with a little tweaking. When the second image, the horizontal one, was placed and sized, it was too large for the space. This forced the horizontal image to appear below the image of "Sarah Palin." By finding the size of the image in the HTML code, this is very easy, and subtracting ten percent from both the height and the width, the image was made to fit. (Use the Preview function in blogger to check your layout before posting. Be warned that your Blogger page may format differently on different computers.)

So, if you are blogging and need images, Flickr seems to offer the safest images for placing on your site. Flickr users are photographers while Twitpic users are posters of pictures --- pictures which may or may not be owned by the poster.

Be aware that Getty Images uses Flickr. You can see these images but you cannot use them without paying Getty. Pay close attention to the info found under the heading License. Make sure that you scroll the Flickr page so that you can see all the license info. Sometimes the Getty copyright warning may not be shown without scrolling. Watch for the black Getty Images symbol; If you see it, don't use the image.

Links: Flickr, Twitpic search

If you are writing a blog on a news event, remember to google the event itself or the event's sponsors.

The Government of Chile posted excellent shots from the recent rescue of the Chilean miners.

See: Government of Chile, Flickr page.

From the Democratic Party Facebook page.

The Democratic Party in the States have a Facebook page where they often post pictures. There were a lot of excellent pictures posted there from Obama's recent four-day tour of the west.




It is not always possible, but when it is, the safest pictures to use to illustrate your blog and other posts are the pictures you shoot yourself.

The American West, popular with tourists the world over, shown in my shot.

Cheers!
Rockinon

She's a trooper!

"Hey grandpa! Would you like to read a book together?"

Miss Baby took a tumble today — a bad one. She struck her head and her forehead quickly grew red from the blow. It left a small bump. She cried some but she really got into a sobbing roll when the doctor in emerg began poking and prodding her.

When the doctor got to his last test, he brought out a small flashlight. Miss Baby's eyes lit up quicker than the doctor's flashlight. She stopped crying; This was getting interesting. As the doctor moves his light to left and then to the right, her eyes would follow. No matter where he moved that light, she didn't take her eyes off that weird brightly lit thing. It was clear she had never seen anything quite like it. It had peaked her curiousity. Her steady, unflinching interest told the doctor she was fine.

From the hospital she went straight to grandma and grandpa's rather than returning home. She may have gotten the all clear from emerg but she was still under mom and dad's and grandma and grandpa's close observation.

The moment I carried her into the kitchen, she spotted a banana on the counter and immediately reached out her hand. She grabbed the banana and laughed as she waved about her yellow prize. We got a bowl, a fork, her spoon and we sat down together at the table. Sitting on my knee, she helped me peel the banana. She took her spoon and helped pulverize the sweet, soft fruit. With only one tooth it is still best to squish food before eating. And then she settled in to eat her half of the banana.

She always shares her prize with me; We each get half. She sits on my knee and smiles and laughs, enjoying the obvious camaraderie of the moment.

We're buddies. And I cannot convey to you how very happy and relieved I am that my little buddy is just fine. Her head is a little bruised but she's not complaining. She's a real trooper!

The iPhone: The latest toy of choice!

Fiona watching the trailer for Despicable Me! on her mom's iPhone.

An article in the New York Times called the iPhone "the most effective tool in human history to mollify a fussy toddler."

Reportedly, one of the first words uttered by many of our youngest generation is "iPhone!" This may be overstating the case. "Da!" and a waving hand with finger pointing at the popular Apple device may be more accurate.

"Play the video again. Please."

For many children, such as my little granddaughter, the iPhone has become the toy of choice. She would sit and watch video trailers on YouTube, such as Despicable Me, for hours if I allowed it; I don't. The screen tapping and finger sliding actions that control an iPhone all mesh perfectly with Fiona's developing motor skills.

The phones have proven to be amazingly rugged --- standing up well to being dropped by enthusiastic little techno geeks. Of course, when one stands only about two feet tall a phone does not have far to fall.

On reading the following, I said "Been there and done that":

One mother recalls the first time her daughter, barely 2 years old, held her husband's iPhone. "She pressed the button and it lit up. I just remember her eyes. It was like 'Whoa!' "

Our daughter Ashley, Fiona's mom, shot a video on her iPhone of Judy and I departing on our recent extended vacation. While we were gone, Ashley played the iPhone video for Fiona who giggled when we waved to her from the screen. Soon the little girl was waving back. Returning, after almost six weeks away, we were greeted with a waving welcome from our laughing granddaughter. There was no playing strange.

Software developers understand the attraction of the iPhone to the very young and have released apps designed for little children but marketed to parents. These "educational" apps may be as simple as electronic flash cards teaching reading and spelling.

Other apps are as new and different as the iPhone itself. Pocket Zoo streams live video of animals from zoos around the world. iGo Potty, sponsored by Huggies Pull-Ups training pants from Kimberly-Clark, rings parents reminding them when it's "Potty Time." The app comes complete with "Fun Stuff" for children.

All this interest in iPhones by young kids is not without detractors. Many pediatricians see the phones as similar to television and suggest the same guidelines. The American Academy of Pediatrics has long advised parents not to allow children to watch any TV until after their second birthday.

Many question whether electronic flash cards are a good way to teach language. Rather than handing a child an iPhone, perhaps it would be better to simply spend more time talking directly to the child.

I don't know. I'll bet after Johannes Gutenberg began pumping out children's books, maybe early versions of The Cat in the Hat, parents of young children were probably warned by psychologists of the time that books were not a good way to teach children anything. It would be better to simply spend more time with your kids, I am sure they were told. So, forget those new fangled book things was the word on the street back in 1440.

But maybe it is not an either/or situation. No one is going to argue that children do not need interaction with the people in their young lives. Of course, they do. But electronic devices are going to play a big part in their futures, possibly a little interaction with an iPhone can be a good thing.