Monday, May 23, 2005


It's been a busy past few weeks. First of all, little L went legit as Sam and I tied the knot. Nope, no shotgun wedding...more like "we love each other, we want to raise our family together...and...I need insurance." Sentimental + practical. I have to say, L has been remarkably well behaved in public settings. She might fuss at home but in a crowd, she's very chill, curious and observant. (I'm not bragging here - it's just a marvel to witness.)

Meanwhile, Sam and I have been drowning in family of late which is both good and bad. My new sister-in-law, otherwise known as Super Nanny, is always a welcome guest. Mi madre? We went to dinner the other week and she was holding L. Everytime I tried to take a candid picture, mom would start preening for the camera. I finally had to tell her to quit posing and just let me shoot. On the upside, my dad is just great with L. I've always known that he doted far more on my sister than me (not bitter...much) and so, with his granddaughter, he's practically giggly.

Based on anecdotes from other parents, Sam and I are nearing the point where the prospect of having another baby suddenly goes from "are you kidding me?" to "I miss when L was younger [note: L isn't even 4 months old yet]...maybe we should have another baby?" Right on cue, I saw over on Metrodad that he's discussing sex selection treatments for parents. Not only that, but then I caught this story about the correlation between parental occupation and the eventual sex of the baby.

The latter is interesting - no one has a real explanation for the phenom (I'm a bit skepticla about this "systemizer brains creates more testosterone" theory). The former is just a tad disturbing since it's basically social engineering. In either case, it makes me think of the Asian families I've come upon in my time where they have four daughters. Now, call me cynical but anytime I see an Asian family with four daughters, my first conclusion is: "oh, they just kept trying for a son but never got one. Serves you right to keep trying." Hey, what do I know? Maybe they really wanted more kids and gender wasn't a big deal (yeah, right).

As I made brief mention before, Sam and I badly wanted a girl - our other friends who had kids all seemed to end up with two boys and while I know you're not supposed to care - we cared. If we decide to have a second baby, his/her sex isn't as big of a deal, mostly because what we're mostly concerned over is whether or not our second baby would be as good-natured as L is. It seems like in other families we know, when the first kid turns out dreamy, it's like fate dishes out the opposite with the second child and they turn out to be little holy terrors. As challenging as raising L has been as a SAHD, I realize that she's actually extraordinarily easy-going (as Sam jokes, "L didn't that from me"). Sam and I are completely spoiled as a result.

Ok, some cute time. L has recently discoved the pleasures of finger sucking and at our wedding, my friend's daughter "Kiana" also showed that the "two finger" technique is clearly a baby favorite.

(just to be a photogeek - everyone should own an 85mm portrait lens. Seriously.)

Posted by P.L. at 12:01 PM 0 comments

Thursday, May 05, 2005


Ok, by this time, every single baby blogger has already mentioned this, but hell, why not one more? "Ugly children may get the parental short shrift."

Of course, how does one reconcile this with the fact that no parent thinks their kid is ugly?

Not quite as controversial but more practically relevant: forget telecommunicating - it's all about babycommuting.

Last, but not least, another NY Times article, this one on the excess of photography in a digital age

Let's be real: most of us are probably guilty of taking more pictures of our kids than Helmut Newton at a fashion shoot. L is only three months old but she already has seven albums online, the more recent including 46 pics (taken over the course of a month or so). And the thing is: those 46 represent me going through about triple of digital shots and cutting out all the photos I didn't like (and I'm picky).

I do miss shooting on film and one of these days, I might get a roll of B&W and blow the dust off my 35mm. But as all well know, digital photography makes overshooting seductively easy and it's hard to readjust to a reality where you choose your shots more carefully lest you waste pricey film. When you can put nearly 150 hi-res pics on a single memory card, the lure of clicking at will is strong to resist.

Worse yet, I keep meaning to get some of my digi pix printed but have yet to get organized enough to even copy my select shots to a CD.

Posted by P.L. at 1:15 AM 0 comments