Day game alert: Chattanooga is at Mississippi at 10:30 a.m. and Rochester hosts Pawtucket at 12:30 p.m. Both times are Central. To listen, go here and click on the appropriate team. Or, once a game is about to start, you can go here and click on either "home" or "away".
The Twins have played 14 games this year; 6 have been decided by 1 run, 4 have been decided by 2 runs. We've scored 40 runs and allowed 56 for a -16 run differential (2.85 runs/game vs. 4.0 runs/game). We need a little better pitching a lot better hitting, especially with RISP.
Same record at this point in 1991. Right where we want em
It's a trap (?).
The Twins are having a lot of bad luck compared to last year. Last year, the Twins were dead last in the AL in OPS+ at 90 but were basically league average in runs scored. This year so far, the Twins are league average at 99 OPS+ but are nearly last in runs scored (yes, they have passed the Rays and are tied with the A's). After being very fortunate at stringing together base runners last year, they are being very unfortunate this year. The Twins lead the AL in LOB (by far) after being next to last in LOB last year. Last year, the Yankees led the AL in LOB and were second in runs scored.
My empirical observations tend to support this hypothesis. I sometimes forget that luck is still a thing in baseball.
Yar.
Last year the Twins had a 113 OPS+ with RISP, 117 with runner at third and less than 2 outs (scoring 222 runs in 358 PA), 137 with runner at 2nd and one out, 170 with runner at 3rd and one out, 174 with runners at 2nd and 3rd and one out, 132 with runner at 2nd and 2 out, 171 with runners at 2nd and 3rd and 2 out.
Most of these splits are for pretty small slices.
Seems like you kind of cherry picked their clutch stats. Look how terrible they were at these clutch situations:
2 out, 1-3 -- 52 sOPS+
2 out, --3 -- 56 sOPS+
Overall it does look like they were lucky in clutch situations--or is it that they were unlucky with no one on base? It's not like 1530 PA with RISP is that much more susceptible to luck than 3522 PA with no one on.
I think there are sometimes contributing factors to why we see splits like this, acknowledging that luck also plays a major role. For instance, a team that hits a lot worse with no one on base could be filled with younger hitters that aren't as good against breaking pitches and better against fastballs that pitchers feel more compelled to throw with runners on base.
It doesn't seem like they were especially lucky in high leverage situations--92 tOPS+ in high leverage, 115 tOPS+ in medium leverage, and 92 tOPS+ in low leverage situations. That kind of luck could be even better than RISP luck.
Also fully acknowledging the large role luck can play here, but lineup construction and individual players' hitting abilities could affect these numbers as well. If a team has a big split between good and bad hitters, with the good hitters all clustered together in the lineup, then you would expect the good hitters to have more chances with people on base than the bad ones would, leading to better hitting with runners on.
Except if the good hitters keep getting on base, that eventually means the bad hitters get up to end the inning. That theory really only works if the good hitters hit a lot of home runs to clear the bases before the bad hitters get up.
Or the bad hitters hit into a lot of double plays. Or if they were placed in the lineup in order of hitting ability. That would also minimize the number of times the worst hitters come up with runners on base.
Yes, I consciously cherry-picked in an effort to better understand how they were so successful last year in converting runs despite a below-average offense.
Attn: Rhu_Ru: There's a passel of brass in today's WGOM video.
Oh, I've seen it, but I'm not sure how to rate it; choosing baritones (four!) over trombones is disconcerting. But still -- low brass!
Can you let it slide this time?
[Sad trombone]
After a brief Mark Jackson scare yesterday, Woj is reporting the Wolves are trying to seal the deal with Thibs as coach/POBO and Scott Layden as GM. Layden is currently an assistant GM with the Spurs, so I'll take it.
After reading Robson's take, I'm glad they are trying to have Layden as GM, even if Thibs would have final say. I think he needs an exec that will remind him to reel back on the mins for the starters. He tended to run his best players into the ground in Chicago.
Yep, I'm happy to see that as well. I think it was the most recent Robson/Brauer podcast that they talked about the relative lack of success for the Coach/GM model in the NBA. Van Gundy looks to be doing a good job so far in Detroit, but there is still a long road to get from 8-seed to powerhouse.
Going to be interesting to see how the Thibs/Wiggins relationship grows, Wiggins seems like a complicated guy to coach. Thought the way Mitchell handled him was one of the bright spots of Sam's tenure.
That Marc Jackson stuff was truly the stuff of nightmares, so I'm incredibly pumped to hear this news. I'm trying to wait until the contracts are signed before getting too excited, because Timberwolves.
I can't wait for his press conference. I can't wait for the season. I can't wait for the playoffs!
I wonder if Mark Jackson himself (or agent) sent out those Wolves rumors just to drum up interest in him.
ESPN is reporting Thibs' deal to be 5 years, $50M (not done yet). Sure hope the Wolves don't spend all their money on a coach instead of free agents.
BREAKING: AP Source says Tom Thibodeau has signed contract and is the Timberwolves coach and President of Bball ops
My cousin was an ob nurse in Phoenix. She had one dad that was such a jerk in the delivery room that she kicked him out and the mom thanked her. His name was Curt Schilling .
Does anyone have any idea how in the hell to get a 4.5 year old to take a bath without screaming? We're gonna end up having the smelly kid.
Have a 4.4 year old that doesn't scream when taking a bath.
I don't even know what her problem is. Some days she'll at least take a bath, but will just scream and scream when it's time to wash her hair. Other days, like tonight, attempts at bathing are a complete disaster. I have no idea where we went wrong on this.
Heh, I doubt you went wrong anywhere. The jalapeño went through a multi-year phase of not liking to have his hair washed. At around age 4.5 I think we started offering the option of showers, and since he was in control for when his head was in the water and when it wasn't, that seemed to help. Now washing his hair is usually scream-free and my biggest problem is getting him OUT of the bath.
The trinket is old enough that it might be possible to sit down with her when she's in a good mood (not at bath time!) and tell her you've noticed that she has been unhappy about baths and see if she can give you an indication as to why (water in the eyes, dislikes the soap, or whatever) and then try to come up with some ideas together for how to make the baths better.
If you're doing baths at night maybe try other times of day (morning, before dinner) in case she's in a better mood at other times?
She's also probably old enough that you could do a reward chart--maybe 7 days of baths with no screaming and she can pick out a new toy?
Oh, and it couldn't hurt to pick up The Pigeon Needs a Bath from your library.
If all else fails, a buzzcut is always an option to make the hair washing thing easier . . .
That LTE, by the way, perfectly encapsulates my general parenting strategy: try everything I can think of until something works!
If all else fails, a buzzcut is always an option to make the hair washing thing easier . . .
Second that. Got the oldest's hair cut today after not having it cut in... uh, a while. It was so much easier to wash. Especially since he doesn't like water on his face. Or water being poured on his head.
heh, tonight's incident was a shower.
I suppose I'll try to ask her. I'm pretty sure it's fear of water/soap in her eyes. Tonight it was probably just tired stubbornness.
Also, I would be quite dead if I got her a buzzcut.
Fear can be a good motivator. "If you're not going to wash it, then I guess we'll have to cut it all off." Of course, she has to believe that you will follow through with a threat.
I've been giving the kids showers since before they've been three. We had to at one point because of mold in the wall behind the bathtub.
It helps that we have showers that aren't shower/baths. Those can be tricky for little kids because slippery.
It also helps that my master bath has two standalone showers. So I can have the young ones shower at the same time even if they can't be nice.
Sometimes there are tears though. Equally likely to be about rinsing out hair as getting out of the shower. Their hair is now long enough that they need conditioner so that's rinsing twice.
I read somewhere that Americans do more bathing than necessary anyways. Once or twice a week is generally plenty good.
Kids in summer though.
Showers/baths are often easier and less messy than washing hands arms feet legs faces.
Bugspray and sunscreen too.
I can't get my 8-year old to take a shower most of the time, so I'm not in a position to give advice.
Damnit, y'all. Everytime I start coming around on having kids, a thread like this pops up and I'm all
If it helps, most of the time she'll get in the tub without too much fight and about half the time she'll let us rinse out her hair ok. I threw this post up last night during a major screaming fit she was having, so the reality of the situation may be lesser than an emotionally charged comment.
And at least I didn't say anything about dinner time...
Think about your future though.
Unless you plan on dying young, you'll need someone to take care of you and be your advocate in your decrepitude and senility.
Raise them right and make sure that at least one stays within about two hours of you (or has frequent flyer miles from work).
Plus, don't be a free rider expecting the rest of us to breed enough future workers to pay into Social Security for you.
Nieces and nephews. I already got three of them*, and they all love me. Once my actual siblings start procreating, I'm set.
*Not technically until the wedding, but close enough
I signed up for this retirement plan as well.
In all seriousness, that is a concern of mine as I get older. Mrs. A and I don't have children, and we don't have much for nieces and nephews living close by. We may not stay here, of course--only God knows what the future will hold--but I do think about it once in a while.
I have no complaints about our retirement plan. But a retirement plan won't come with you to the doctor or come visit you in the nursing home. My plan is to retire someplace where I've been a pastor--I'd love it if I could stay where I am the rest of my career and retire here. Even then, though, if I manage to age gracefully it will have been a number of years since I was the pastor before my decrepitude really hits, and people may not have as many memories of their goofy old bear-loving pastor.
People ask us all the time why we don't have kids, and the answer is pretty complicated. Invariably someone will say, "But who will take care of you when you get old?", and my response, invariably, is smith and wesson. Jokes aside, I do have a bit of worry about the who will take care of us question, but like most of my long term planning I'll just punt and figure it out later.
Is it cynical or just arrogant for me to think that if someone has to take care of me, I'm too old and it's time to be moving on?
Need to go out in a blaze of glory, somehow. I'll have to find risky hobbies.
And really, there's not a lot you can do about it now, anyway. We can do what we can to take care of the financial end, but as far as someone to actually come and help, well, there's not a lot you can do until you're closer to needing the help.
Fwiw, I and my parents watched my Aunt care-take for my mom's parents for about a decade, even though they had the financial wherewithal to have professional care. It took away the best years of her retirement and, IMO, destroyed her (she developed dementia only a couple of years after they died).
YMMV, but I don't think my parents want me or my brother nurse-maiding them for several years. And I don't want my kids being our caretakers.
We don't all get the choice. But I intend to make that choice to be prepared financially to not depend on my kids.
There are many reasons to have kids, personal finance isn't one of them.
There are many reasons to have only one kid, personal finance is one of them.
But the marginal costs are lower the more you have. --Says the guy who's stopped at four.
I feel that right now the marginal mental/psychological/opportunity costs of a fifth would put my wife and me in a deficit.
Also, those marginal costs go up the larger the spacing. LBR is 4+ years old and if we had another, she'd be about 5 at the next one's birth if the timing worked as it did for the first four.
A five-year gap gives up a lot of those marginal-cost benefits and would feel closer to starting over at nearly 40 years old. --But we can make it up in volume!
I'll listen to your marginal costs discussion once you've dealt with college and weddings, thankyouverymuch.
I say the first parent who helped their kids through college did everyone else no favors, and we should all refuse to participate in that scheme.
Too late.
For you, maybe. But make life better for the rest of us by cutting off your kid!
Too late.
1. I didn't get any money from my parents to go to college, though they did lend me the car I'd been driving as a high schooler. I did have a choice scholarship, though.
2. Our wedding was largely funded by EAR and I, though her folks bought the dress, and my folks gifted us that same car and their timeshare week for the honeymoon. (Which we exchanged for a week in Avon, CO.)
P.S. Get your lawn out from under me!
I agree. But I see how much help my parents need right now, and it is a concern that we're not going to have any kids to help us.
1. Showers.
1a. Showers with mist setting on the shower head if the wiener kid stands out of the water. Horrible for rinsing out shampoo, but the kid's body will be mostly clean.
1ai. Showers with mist setting on the shower head after a buzzcut.
2. Chlorinated swimming pool.
3. Toys and themed soaps.
We've got a shower head that has two head on it. One is fixed and the other is on a hose with a valve to such between one, the other, or both. It's useful for rinsing hair since it has a very low, gentle flow setting. Also works great for washing the dog!
That does sound handy. The girls really like the mist, so I save it for when I need a reward to hand out or to give them a special treat for no reason. It does make the bathroom kindof foggy though (the exhaust fan is not enough for it).
When I was a kid, my parents used to wash my hair by having me lie down on the kitchen counter with my hair over the sink looking up. It made it easy for them to wash without shampoo getting in my face. Also, we always made sure when the boys were young that we used body wash that was tearless. Just because it is labeled for kids doesn't mean it is tearless.
Just because it says tearless doesn't mean it is.
Just because it doesn't sting (I test with my own eyeballs) doesn't mean they won't react like it's battery acid.
this
-and-
this
Day game alert: The Rochester Red Wings, with Jose Berrios pitching, play Pawtucket starting about now. To listen to the game, go here and click either "home" or "away", depending on which broadcast you want to hear.
I was thinking about the reluctance of so many people to attribute Mauer's struggles the last couple of years to his concussions, or to say that his recent resurgence (SSS) might be due to the effects finally going away. As I write player biographies, once in a while I'll come across someone who'd established a level of play for a few years, then suddenly dropped off for no apparent reason. If they were at a high enough level to begin with, they stuck around and sometimes returned to that previous high level eventually. If they were at a medium or below level, they usually had their careers end. I wonder how many of those players had concussions that went undiagnosed or unacknowledged.
From the chairman's 1Q report:
I recently met with Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton. He told me, “UP is the best railroad in the state working with our communities. My staff wanted me to know that, and we want to know what we can do to help you.” This is high praise, and it’s what we want to hear in every state.
I've been helping coordinate a machine move this week, not typically something I'm required for. The 3am Corridor Manager calls aside, the interactions have all been refreshingly useful.
Day game alert: Chattanooga is at Mississippi at 10:30 a.m. and Rochester hosts Pawtucket at 12:30 p.m. Both times are Central. To listen, go here and click on the appropriate team. Or, once a game is about to start, you can go here and click on either "home" or "away".
The Twins have played 14 games this year; 6 have been decided by 1 run, 4 have been decided by 2 runs. We've scored 40 runs and allowed 56 for a -16 run differential (2.85 runs/game vs. 4.0 runs/game). We need a little better pitching a lot better hitting, especially with RISP.
Same record at this point in 1991. Right where we want em
It's a trap (?).
The Twins are having a lot of bad luck compared to last year. Last year, the Twins were dead last in the AL in OPS+ at 90 but were basically league average in runs scored. This year so far, the Twins are league average at 99 OPS+ but are nearly last in runs scored (yes, they have passed the Rays and are tied with the A's). After being very fortunate at stringing together base runners last year, they are being very unfortunate this year. The Twins lead the AL in LOB (by far) after being next to last in LOB last year. Last year, the Yankees led the AL in LOB and were second in runs scored.
My empirical observations tend to support this hypothesis. I sometimes forget that luck is still a thing in baseball.
Yar.
Last year the Twins had a 113 OPS+ with RISP, 117 with runner at third and less than 2 outs (scoring 222 runs in 358 PA), 137 with runner at 2nd and one out, 170 with runner at 3rd and one out, 174 with runners at 2nd and 3rd and one out, 132 with runner at 2nd and 2 out, 171 with runners at 2nd and 3rd and 2 out.
Most of these splits are for pretty small slices.
Seems like you kind of cherry picked their clutch stats. Look how terrible they were at these clutch situations:
2 out, 1-3 -- 52 sOPS+
2 out, --3 -- 56 sOPS+
Overall it does look like they were lucky in clutch situations--or is it that they were unlucky with no one on base? It's not like 1530 PA with RISP is that much more susceptible to luck than 3522 PA with no one on.
I think there are sometimes contributing factors to why we see splits like this, acknowledging that luck also plays a major role. For instance, a team that hits a lot worse with no one on base could be filled with younger hitters that aren't as good against breaking pitches and better against fastballs that pitchers feel more compelled to throw with runners on base.
It doesn't seem like they were especially lucky in high leverage situations--92 tOPS+ in high leverage, 115 tOPS+ in medium leverage, and 92 tOPS+ in low leverage situations. That kind of luck could be even better than RISP luck.
Also fully acknowledging the large role luck can play here, but lineup construction and individual players' hitting abilities could affect these numbers as well. If a team has a big split between good and bad hitters, with the good hitters all clustered together in the lineup, then you would expect the good hitters to have more chances with people on base than the bad ones would, leading to better hitting with runners on.
Except if the good hitters keep getting on base, that eventually means the bad hitters get up to end the inning. That theory really only works if the good hitters hit a lot of home runs to clear the bases before the bad hitters get up.
Or the bad hitters hit into a lot of double plays. Or if they were placed in the lineup in order of hitting ability. That would also minimize the number of times the worst hitters come up with runners on base.
Yes, I consciously cherry-picked in an effort to better understand how they were so successful last year in converting runs despite a below-average offense.
Attn: Rhu_Ru: There's a passel of brass in today's WGOM video.
Oh, I've seen it, but I'm not sure how to rate it; choosing baritones (four!) over trombones is disconcerting. But still -- low brass!
Can you let it slide this time?
[Sad trombone]
After a brief Mark Jackson scare yesterday, Woj is reporting the Wolves are trying to seal the deal with Thibs as coach/POBO and Scott Layden as GM. Layden is currently an assistant GM with the Spurs, so I'll take it.
After reading Robson's take, I'm glad they are trying to have Layden as GM, even if Thibs would have final say. I think he needs an exec that will remind him to reel back on the mins for the starters. He tended to run his best players into the ground in Chicago.
Yep, I'm happy to see that as well. I think it was the most recent Robson/Brauer podcast that they talked about the relative lack of success for the Coach/GM model in the NBA. Van Gundy looks to be doing a good job so far in Detroit, but there is still a long road to get from 8-seed to powerhouse.
Going to be interesting to see how the Thibs/Wiggins relationship grows, Wiggins seems like a complicated guy to coach. Thought the way Mitchell handled him was one of the bright spots of Sam's tenure.
That Marc Jackson stuff was truly the stuff of nightmares, so I'm incredibly pumped to hear this news. I'm trying to wait until the contracts are signed before getting too excited, because Timberwolves.
I can't wait for his press conference. I can't wait for the season. I can't wait for the playoffs!
I wonder if Mark Jackson himself (or agent) sent out those Wolves rumors just to drum up interest in him.
ESPN is reporting Thibs' deal to be 5 years, $50M (not done yet). Sure hope the Wolves don't spend all their money on a coach instead of free agents.
Layden to be GM as well.
I broke the 100pg mark on IJ last night. Officially the furthest I've gotten in it.
My mind is so preoccupied with basketball right now that I spent too long trying to figure out what the 100 point guard mark is.
Dido
Harriet Tubman on the new $20.
Awesome.
And we'll see it in.... 2030.
If we're still using paper money then.
Tigers-Royals are the Wednesday night ESPN game.
Times, they have changed.
This seems like a good time to share this story.
My cousin was an ob nurse in Phoenix. She had one dad that was such a jerk in the delivery room that she kicked him out and the mom thanked her. His name was Curt Schilling .
Does anyone have any idea how in the hell to get a 4.5 year old to take a bath without screaming? We're gonna end up having the smelly kid.
Have a 4.4 year old that doesn't scream when taking a bath.
I don't even know what her problem is. Some days she'll at least take a bath, but will just scream and scream when it's time to wash her hair. Other days, like tonight, attempts at bathing are a complete disaster. I have no idea where we went wrong on this.
Heh, I doubt you went wrong anywhere. The jalapeño went through a multi-year phase of not liking to have his hair washed. At around age 4.5 I think we started offering the option of showers, and since he was in control for when his head was in the water and when it wasn't, that seemed to help. Now washing his hair is usually scream-free and my biggest problem is getting him OUT of the bath.
The trinket is old enough that it might be possible to sit down with her when she's in a good mood (not at bath time!) and tell her you've noticed that she has been unhappy about baths and see if she can give you an indication as to why (water in the eyes, dislikes the soap, or whatever) and then try to come up with some ideas together for how to make the baths better.
If you're doing baths at night maybe try other times of day (morning, before dinner) in case she's in a better mood at other times?
She's also probably old enough that you could do a reward chart--maybe 7 days of baths with no screaming and she can pick out a new toy?
Oh, and it couldn't hurt to pick up The Pigeon Needs a Bath from your library.
If all else fails, a buzzcut is always an option to make the hair washing thing easier . . .
That LTE, by the way, perfectly encapsulates my general parenting strategy: try everything I can think of until something works!
Second that. Got the oldest's hair cut today after not having it cut in... uh, a while. It was so much easier to wash. Especially since he doesn't like water on his face. Or water being poured on his head.
heh, tonight's incident was a shower.
I suppose I'll try to ask her. I'm pretty sure it's fear of water/soap in her eyes. Tonight it was probably just tired stubbornness.
Also, I would be quite dead if I got her a buzzcut.
Fear can be a good motivator. "If you're not going to wash it, then I guess we'll have to cut it all off." Of course, she has to believe that you will follow through with a threat.
I've been giving the kids showers since before they've been three. We had to at one point because of mold in the wall behind the bathtub.
It helps that we have showers that aren't shower/baths. Those can be tricky for little kids because slippery.
It also helps that my master bath has two standalone showers. So I can have the young ones shower at the same time even if they can't be nice.
Sometimes there are tears though. Equally likely to be about rinsing out hair as getting out of the shower. Their hair is now long enough that they need conditioner so that's rinsing twice.
I read somewhere that Americans do more bathing than necessary anyways. Once or twice a week is generally plenty good.
Kids in summer though.
Showers/baths are often easier and less messy than washing hands arms feet legs faces.
Bugspray and sunscreen too.
I can't get my 8-year old to take a shower most of the time, so I'm not in a position to give advice.
Damnit, y'all. Everytime I start coming around on having kids, a thread like this pops up and I'm all
If it helps, most of the time she'll get in the tub without too much fight and about half the time she'll let us rinse out her hair ok. I threw this post up last night during a major screaming fit she was having, so the reality of the situation may be lesser than an emotionally charged comment.
And at least I didn't say anything about dinner time...
Think about your future though.
Unless you plan on dying young, you'll need someone to take care of you and be your advocate in your decrepitude and senility.
Raise them right and make sure that at least one stays within about two hours of you (or has frequent flyer miles from work).
Plus, don't be a free rider expecting the rest of us to breed enough future workers to pay into Social Security for you.
Nieces and nephews. I already got three of them*, and they all love me. Once my actual siblings start procreating, I'm set.
*Not technically until the wedding, but close enough
I signed up for this retirement plan as well.
In all seriousness, that is a concern of mine as I get older. Mrs. A and I don't have children, and we don't have much for nieces and nephews living close by. We may not stay here, of course--only God knows what the future will hold--but I do think about it once in a while.
Your flock's got to count for something.
They do...
I have no complaints about our retirement plan. But a retirement plan won't come with you to the doctor or come visit you in the nursing home. My plan is to retire someplace where I've been a pastor--I'd love it if I could stay where I am the rest of my career and retire here. Even then, though, if I manage to age gracefully it will have been a number of years since I was the pastor before my decrepitude really hits, and people may not have as many memories of their goofy old bear-loving pastor.
People ask us all the time why we don't have kids, and the answer is pretty complicated. Invariably someone will say, "But who will take care of you when you get old?", and my response, invariably, is smith and wesson. Jokes aside, I do have a bit of worry about the who will take care of us question, but like most of my long term planning I'll just punt and figure it out later.
Is it cynical or just arrogant for me to think that if someone has to take care of me, I'm too old and it's time to be moving on?
Need to go out in a blaze of glory, somehow. I'll have to find risky hobbies.
And really, there's not a lot you can do about it now, anyway. We can do what we can to take care of the financial end, but as far as someone to actually come and help, well, there's not a lot you can do until you're closer to needing the help.
Fwiw, I and my parents watched my Aunt care-take for my mom's parents for about a decade, even though they had the financial wherewithal to have professional care. It took away the best years of her retirement and, IMO, destroyed her (she developed dementia only a couple of years after they died).
YMMV, but I don't think my parents want me or my brother nurse-maiding them for several years. And I don't want my kids being our caretakers.
We don't all get the choice. But I intend to make that choice to be prepared financially to not depend on my kids.
There are many reasons to have kids, personal finance isn't one of them.
There are many reasons to have only one kid, personal finance is one of them.
But the marginal costs are lower the more you have.
--Says the guy who's stopped at four.
I feel that right now the marginal mental/psychological/opportunity costs of a fifth would put my wife and me in a deficit.
Also, those marginal costs go up the larger the spacing. LBR is 4+ years old and if we had another, she'd be about 5 at the next one's birth if the timing worked as it did for the first four.
A five-year gap gives up a lot of those marginal-cost benefits and would feel closer to starting over at nearly 40 years old.
--But we can make it up in volume!
I'll listen to your marginal costs discussion once you've dealt with college and weddings, thankyouverymuch.
I say the first parent who helped their kids through college did everyone else no favors, and we should all refuse to participate in that scheme.
Too late.
For you, maybe. But make life better for the rest of us by cutting off your kid!
Too late.
1. I didn't get any money from my parents to go to college, though they did lend me the car I'd been driving as a high schooler. I did have a choice scholarship, though.
2. Our wedding was largely funded by EAR and I, though her folks bought the dress, and my folks gifted us that same car and their timeshare week for the honeymoon. (Which we exchanged for a week in Avon, CO.)
P.S. Get your lawn out from under me!
I agree. But I see how much help my parents need right now, and it is a concern that we're not going to have any kids to help us.
1. Showers.
1a. Showers with mist setting on the shower head if the wiener kid stands out of the water. Horrible for rinsing out shampoo, but the kid's body will be mostly clean.
1ai. Showers with mist setting on the shower head after a buzzcut.
2. Chlorinated swimming pool.
3. Toys and themed soaps.
We've got a shower head that has two head on it. One is fixed and the other is on a hose with a valve to such between one, the other, or both. It's useful for rinsing hair since it has a very low, gentle flow setting. Also works great for washing the dog!
That does sound handy. The girls really like the mist, so I save it for when I need a reward to hand out or to give them a special treat for no reason. It does make the bathroom kindof foggy though (the exhaust fan is not enough for it).
When I was a kid, my parents used to wash my hair by having me lie down on the kitchen counter with my hair over the sink looking up. It made it easy for them to wash without shampoo getting in my face. Also, we always made sure when the boys were young that we used body wash that was tearless. Just because it is labeled for kids doesn't mean it is tearless.
Just because it says tearless doesn't mean it is.
Just because it doesn't sting (I test with my own eyeballs) doesn't mean they won't react like it's battery acid.
this
-and-
this
Day game alert: The Rochester Red Wings, with Jose Berrios pitching, play Pawtucket starting about now. To listen to the game, go here and click either "home" or "away", depending on which broadcast you want to hear.
I was thinking about the reluctance of so many people to attribute Mauer's struggles the last couple of years to his concussions, or to say that his recent resurgence (SSS) might be due to the effects finally going away. As I write player biographies, once in a while I'll come across someone who'd established a level of play for a few years, then suddenly dropped off for no apparent reason. If they were at a high enough level to begin with, they stuck around and sometimes returned to that previous high level eventually. If they were at a medium or below level, they usually had their careers end. I wonder how many of those players had concussions that went undiagnosed or unacknowledged.
From the chairman's 1Q report:
I've been helping coordinate a machine move this week, not typically something I'm required for. The 3am Corridor Manager calls aside, the interactions have all been refreshingly useful.
Prince found dead in his Paisley Park studio.