I don't get SpongeBob

To contact us Click HERE
Norah recently discovered SpongeBob SquarePants, and she digs it a lot. Not to the point of obsession, but she still likes it. So I've been watching with her, mainly because I've been sitting in the same room. I know that a while back, SpongeBob was a bit hit with adults as well as kids (my brother-in-law, as far as I know, still likes it), but I just don't get it. SpongeBob is, in a word, annoying. In two words: REALLY ANNOYING. I mean, it's mildly amusing, but I can't imagine anyone over the age of 10 enjoying it for more than five minutes. After about five minutes I just get sick of it. It's not really that hilarious. I'd like to say that its popularity among older people is due to the fact that they watch while they're, you know, enjoying some natural consciousness-altering substances, but my brother-in-law certainly doesn't do that, so that can't be all of it. Can it?

Can someone explain it to me? I just don't get it. Frankly, Disney's Phineas and Ferb is much, MUCH better thant SpongeBob SquarePants, at least for adults. I think it's better for kids, too, but Norah digs the absorbant, yellow, and porous dude. There's just no accounting for taste!

"Five years, that's all we got"

To contact us Click HERE
So I've decided to stop blogging here. I figure five years is a good run. I've just been running out of things to say, I guess. Plus I have some things in the real world that are taking up my time, so I just can't devote as much time to this. I'll still be blogging about my daughters, and I'll still be blogging about comics, but I just don't feel like writing about myself and my thoughts anymore. I'm too busy trying to take over the world!

Thanks for reading, everyone (you know who you are!). I'd tell you to follow me on Facebook, but I hardly ever use it, or on Twitter, but that's even more inane than blogging, so I'll just say thanks. It's been fun.

Fun at Grandma's

To contact us Click HERE
On the Saturday before Easter we went over to my mom's to have a little Easter egg hunt and celebrate Luke's Birthday.Anthony had to work again, so he missed out. But we still had lots of fun!My mom rented a bouncy house. The kids had so much fun. We had the bouncy house from 9-2pm and the kids jumped on it almost the entire time!

Luke was really unsure about the bounce house. I started jumping to see if he'd like it, but he ended up crying.So I took him out and we played with the balloons. 

My mom just put together this cute wall of all the pictures of our family and also some of the fun things the kids have made her. 
Seeing how cute it all looks together is motivating me to do one of our own. I just never seem to actually get it done.Mom can you come to my house and do one for me??




After awhile Luke wanted to play in the bounce house.I think he saw how much fun the girls were having. 
Then it was time for us to have an Easter egg hunt.My mom hid diet cokes for me to find. Olivia and Grace helped me. Each kid had a color egg to find and 20 eggs each. Luke had to find yellow and also got to find cute little cars. 
Olivia had to find pink. She loved finding the eggs. 
Grace had to find purple. This year I hid them a little harder for her to find. She found most of them but couldn't find 2. Too bad I forgot where the last two were hiding. :) 
My mom's niece Kylie was also over to play. The girls loved playing with her!
Then everyone got a big Easter basket to open!Luke disappeared for a few minutes and I found him with his mouth covered in chocolate! He had found a chocolate candy on the floor. We still don't know what happened to the wrapper. I think he ate it?After that we frantically picked up all the candy on the floor and made sure the big kids didn't let Luke have any candy.We sang happy birthday to Luke and let him try some birthday cake.He was really unsure about it and ended up smearing frosting everywhere. Luke got lots of birthday presents but lost interest after I opened the first one. First birthdays are fun for the mommas because we get to open all of their presents. :) Then the kids got to dye their own Easter eggs. They had a blast and the eggs turned out so pretty.I was so exhausted when I got home I slept for three hours!!

Guess what? A giveaway that's what! - CLOSED

To contact us Click HERE
Winner: Emily said...

I follow both blogs!

fallingfan at gmail.com

April 18, 2012 11:03 AM 

Katie from For Lauren and Lauren  is giving away a beautiful Pom Pom Flower headband from her darling etsy shop for shop to one of my readers! The winner will get this adorable headband in black,  white, green, blue or yellow.  Please note that there is an alligator clip on the back of the  flower so the headband can be worn as a hair clip or a head band.  A little about Katie... My name is Katie and I blog over at . . . for Lauren and Lauren. I am a wife, Jesus follower, sister, aunt, teacher, crafter, runner, and sweets lover..  I started blogging when my sister Lauren, and future sister in law Lauren, convinced me that I should start a blog to share my daily outfits, projects and etsy shop.  I've been reading blogs for a long time and did not realize what I was missing out on!   I didn't realize what a community there was in blogging and that I could really get to know others.  When I started blogging I thought I would just post pictures of my outfits, but I realize that is such a small piece of what I want to share.  I'm excited for my blog to be a mix of my style and craft projects, but also about what I'm learning in life!   Are you ready to win? Mandatory: Follow Keeping up with the Cantelmo's and For Lauren and Lauren Additional Entries: Favorite Katie's shop on Etsy  Like Katie's Facebook page Like Keeping up with the Cantelmo's on Facebook Follow Keeping up with the Cantelmo's on Bloglovin  Blog, tweet, or share this giveaway on  Facebook for an additional entry!
Good luck friends!

Stuff that I don't need but I just kind of want.....

To contact us Click HERE
Football Pattern Isn't this just the most sweetest thing for a brand new baby boy ever??? Love it! The pattern is only $4 on Etsy. Too bad I would have no clue how to make it! My Sweet Muffin race car tape My sweet Muffin has this fun race car tape to entertain your little one. Too bad it's $22! I'd rather just use masking tape but still great idea!
My Sweet Muffin Baby Doctor Ok, this is a darling little outfit from My Sweet Muffin for only $29!!!  I actually really want this because my new little man will have a grandpa whose a doctor, a grandma whose a nurse practitioner, and two aunts' that are nurses. I just think this would be darling! Get your craft on Isn't this the cutest hat from Get Your Craft On? I just love it! But it's sold out. Bummer. Board Book from Romp I love this board book from Romp roughly $8. I think it's a great way to either document your child's art or have an older sibling make for a new baby. What a great keepsake? I have a few blank books that Grace has made but I love love love this board book idea!!! Ergo Baby by Petunia Pickle  $160 is way out of my price range for a front pack plus I have a great Baby Bjorn and a Moby Wrap that I use all the time. But I just love Petunia Pickle and I am dying to have an Ergo.  Ok. Enough said. Don't need it....just want it.
What are you dying to have that you just don't need??

I've been meaning to write about racism, but I've been too scared

To contact us Click HERE
I'm not racist. Not even a little bit. I reject Avenue Q's song "Everyone's a Little Bit Racist" completely (and, even though I haven't seen the show, I know that's satirical, but still). I'm not racist.

How can I, a middle-class white man, make that statement? I mean, I must be, as the song says, a little bit racist, right? I must harbor some resentment toward people who aren't white people, right? I'm deluding myself, right?

Well, I don't think so. I know that some people are racist, and I know I'm not perfect, but racism just isn't a part of my mental or emotional makeup. I'm not even trying to be "politically correct" and say that I'm careful never to offend people while I'm really masking my racism. I still use the term "black" more often than "African-American," and if that makes me racist, then I guess I am. But that seems silly. Everyone calls me white and not Polish-Lithuanian-German-Scotch/Irish American, and that's fine. Maybe that makes those people racist, too.

I don't know why I'm not racist. My parents don't act like racists, but they're more prejudicial than I am, and I call them on it all the time. They don't go around burning crosses, but they do make generalization based on race, and I always have to point out how silly they sound when they say it. My father is worse than my mother, but they both do it. I don't think of them as racist, but I suppose some people would. The point is: When I was growing up, they never made those statements around me (my parents, to their credit, understood that adults don't really need to discuss absolutely everything with their impressionable children, so I never knew much about my parents' political beliefs, for instance, until I was much older, because when I was 12, it wasn't any of my goddamned business), and they never did anything that was racist. It was never an issue for us. I didn't know many people of different races, because Bucks County in the 1980s was mostly white, but when I did encounter people of different races (mostly Asians, if I remember correctly), I didn't really think anything of it. They were just kids. Of course, some of the stereotypes applied, but not to the point where I could say "Man, all those Asian kids are good at math and science!" It just wasn't an issue.

It became less of an issue as I got older, because I met more and more people and learned more and more about people. I have worked with people of other races and taught people of other races, and if I was racist before (and I doubt it), I learned that you really can't generalize about people. Why this is a stunning insight I'll never know, but it seems some people still can't make it (including, occasionally, my parents). I say I'm not racist not only because I don't discriminate against people (I'm not in any position to do so, but it's not like I would anyway), but because I never make statements (or even think statements) like "Well, all black people like fried chicken." I think that's what people say when they claim that everyone is a "little bit" racist - doesn't everyone say or think something like that at some time or another? Well, I don't. I've said things like "When I taught, I noticed that many of the Hispanic kids came from single-parent households," but if that's racist, we might as well never discuss anything ever again. That's just a statement of fact based on the kids I talked to. It's certainly not generalizing, as in, "All Hispanic kids come from single-parent households." That would be untrue and racist.

I suppose it depends on your definition of racism. Have I told racist jokes before? I sure have, when I was a kid and didn't know any better. I've also told Polish jokes even though I'm Polish, so there's that. Yes, the jokes were racist, but I also had no idea that they were racist. Nobody told me, either, I just came to the realization that they were. I don't call people "Oriental" anymore, either, because those people who were offended by it said it was dismissive, and as I read exactly what "Oriental" meant, I came to realize that while I might not consider it offensive, it's defining a group of people by what they are not, i.e. European. "Oriental" is a term that Europeans used to define something exotic, and it's outdated. I don't think it's politically correct to call someone Asian (or, better yet, by their specific nationality), but if it is, so be it. Similarly, I don't think calling someone "black" is racist, mainly because I see far too many "African-Americans" calling themselves "black." Of course, many African-Americans call themselves the "n" word, too, but I never use that because, well, it's racist. It saddens me when black people call themselves the "n" word, as well.

Again, it gets back to your definition of racism. Is it racist to look at demographics and state facts that can be gleaned from them? Is it racist to point out that Pine Ridge, the reservation in South Dakota that is famous because of the Leonard Peltier case, is the poorest place in the United States? I suppose it's racist to draw conclusions about all Indians (whoops, can I not use that term, even though many Natives use it?) from the example of Pine Ridge, but some people say we can't even draw conclusions about the residents of Pine Ridge from the example of Pine Ridge. Again, how can we ever fix the problems of minorities in this country if anyone who addresses them is shouted down with charges of racism? I know my history, and I know that the problems faced by minorities are largely "not their fault." However, at some point, someone - black or white or yellow or red - has to talk about what can be done to alleviate those problems and what everyone - not just white people, not just black people - can do to move forward. It's too easy to shout "racism" and ignore anyone who doesn't agree with you.

I write this because of many factors, but Roger's Labor Day post helped spur me on. In that post, he links to a letter from the editor in GQ magazine (yeah, I know) in which the editor writes about having a discussion about race and how the president needs to start one. This ties into Roger's larger theme about how civil discourse has become decidedly less civil, to the point where people at a town hall health care meeting heckled a woman in a wheelchair who was worried about losing her coverage. Yes, a woman in a wheelchair. Later on in the video, two interesting things occurred: One man, who was interviewed about it, said he wasn't at the meeting to listen to anyone's opinions (what, pray tell, are the town hall meetings for, then?) and another person, commenting on the story, claimed that if you're a Republican, you're evil and racist and ugly and you don't like porn. Okay, maybe not that last part, but he basically stereotyped all Republicans as hateful people, which seemed to me as bad as heckling someone at a town hall meeting who doesn't agree with you. That's why we never have frank discussions about race - because it's far too easy to shout, and if we disagree on health insurance, can you imagine the bile that will be unleashed if President Obama started a national discussion about racism?

I'm certainly not condoning racism. I know it's still far too prevalent in this country. When my parents, who are extremely tolerant people, can say things like "Well, that's just the way Hispanics are," I know that plenty of people harbor far uglier thoughts. But it's never fun, no matter how ugly your beliefs are, to be yelled at about them. If we begin a discussion about race, minorities will have to get used to the fact that there are some really, really stupid people out there - and guess what? Some of them are minorities! Yelling at racists won't change their minds; it will simply entrench their opinions more. Some people think, "Well, it's fine that I yell, because I don't want to engage racists in meaningful conversation anyway," but that seems like a silly opinion to have, especially if you want to change minds. If you want to feel morally superior to people, yelling at them is fine. But to change someone's mind, you have to understand why they feel a certain way. Most people don't want to know why someone is racist, they just want them to stop being racist. Similarly, most racists don't want to talk about it, because they think they'll get yelled at. Most racists, I would guess, are "casual" racists, like my parents, who wouldn't dream of discriminating against someone based on their race but think nothing of making generalizations based on race. So they would be appalled that someone thinks they're racist and would immediately get defensive. There's room for leeway on both sides. And, of course, it's very difficult to bring it up with anyone, because even racists are aware of the ugly history of racism. If it's your family, you might be able to bring it up (as I do with my parents, even though I never say they're racists), but it's something you just don't bring up with people, even if they're close friends, unless it gets obvious. I certainly don't blame people for never speaking of it; nobody wants to admit they make racist statements, even if they aren't aggressive racists.

I'm not sure what the solution is. I have a feeling I know why I'm not racist. Part of it is because my family was never one to put pressure on the kids to conform. We had a strong family structure (and my grandparents were racist in the way that people born in the first two decades of the twentieth century were; i.e., they were raised with certain attitudes and never gave them much thought, but they didn't go around burning crosses and lynching people, either), but it was never a case of my grandfather or father sitting me down and explaining what the world was like and if I was a real Burgas I'd think that way too. It's no revelation to say that racism is learned, and I think a lot of it has to do with parents and grandparents making a concerted effort to "indoctrinate" their children. My parents never believed in that. They raised me by example, and generally, their example was a good one (as I wrote, they rarely discussed "adult" topics with me). I learned from their actions that we should treat people as individuals, so even if they thought all Pakistanis, for instance, were raving Muslims lunatics (they didn't), I'd never know, and the only Pakistani I ever met was a wonderful man who made us dinner one night, and damn! it was tasty. Many young people learn to parrot their parents' prejudices, and by the time they start thinking for themselves, it's too late. The other reason I'm not racist, of course, is where I grew up. I grew up in a middle class neighborhood and was exposed early on to a relatively liberal lifestyle (my parents voted for Ronald Reagan, I know, but it's not like they were hardcore Republicans - they just didn't like Carter). And I went to college, where any prejudices I might have had (and I don't recall having any) were blown up fairly quickly. I just never cared about someone's label. Again, maybe early on I wasn't exposed to large groups of a certain stereotype living up to that stereotype, so I didn't get a chance to "learn" that "all" of a certain minority was lazy or drunk or angry or dumb, and by the time I met members of those minorities I was smart enough to realize that one drunk person doesn't mean everyone of that group is drunk.

One thing that seems crucial for combatting racism is thinking about our attitudes toward the world, something I do maybe even too often. Whenever I ask my parents to "prove" what they're generalizing, they sputter a retraction and we all move on. If you ask racists where they get their information, they either retreat further into name-calling or they're forced to realize they don't have accurate information. At least then they're exposed and they might be forced to re-evaluate their thoughts. Many don't, of course, but instead of yelling at them, people should ask them why they believe what they do and try to get them to admit it's all anecdotal, based on one experience they had when they were 12 years old, or it's something "their Daddy always said." People don't think enough these days, and it's frustrating. One thing I appreciate about my father is that he does a lot of research before he makes up his mind. Once he makes up his mind, his opinion tends to calcify into hard certainty even if new evidence comes to light, but at least he does research beforehand. I know that education won't solve all our problems, but it's a start.

I don't mean to be so self-congratulatory in this post, because I'm well aware of my shortcomings. Racism just isn't one of them. And I don't think I'm alone in this. I've never heard my lovely wife express any sort of racist sentiment. Beyond that, I'd like to think most of the people I've met in my life aren't given to generalizing based on race, but, like I mentioned above, it's very difficult to tell. But I do reject the idea that "everyone's a little bit racist." You might think that would make it easier to discuss racism. I think it puts people on edge and less trusting. If I ever meet Roger (although then I'd have to go to Albany, and who wants that?), I'd like to think we could meet without either of us thinking to ourselves, "Well, this guy is white/black, so he has some attitudes about things that are common to his race." That seems awfully shallow.

Or maybe I am just deluding myself. Maybe I'm a raving racist and I just don't know it. That would be weird.

Why didn't I love Inglourious Basterds?

To contact us Click HERE

I saw Quentin Tarantino's newest movie last week. I enjoyed the hell out of it. Really. But it was kind of like junk food, wasn't it?

I got in a bit of an argument with the guy at my comic book store about this. I told him that after we saw Inglourious Basterds, I couldn't figure out what the point was. He told me it didn't need a point. But I disagree! Yes, this is America! Disagreement is the spice of life!

Let me start by saying that I really enjoyed it. I just wrote it above, didn't I? Tarantino certainly knows how to put a movie together, and he's dynamite with actors. He often gets career-best performances out of actors. Brad Pitt is fantastic and funny, Mélanie Laurent is hard-ass and steely, Diane Kruger is wonderfully glamorous, and the Basterds themselves are excellent. Christoph Waltz is getting all the Oscar talk, and he's astonishing as Colonel Hans Landa, the "Jew Hunter." He's amazingly evil and refreshingly civil, except when, stunningly, he's not. The opening scene, when he shows up at a Frenchman's farm looking for a Jewish family, is one of the tensest scenes Tarantino has come up with in years. Waltz does a wonderful job with this utter opportunist, who does his job well but isn't above getting something for himself. Tarantino, naturally, comes up with some excellent action (a Mexican stand-off? in a Tarantino film? you don't say!) and sudden and shocking violence, and he reaches into his usual bag of tricks to twist the narrative around a bit - not as well as he's done in the past, but he's still a very good filmmaker. The grand finale is a wonderful orgy of violence and sly humor, and the final scene is a nice touch. Plus, Mike Myers is hilarious in his brief scene.

So what's my problem? Why can't I love this movie? Well, as I wrote, it's junk food. I couldn't quite figure out why Tarantino made this movie and what he's trying to say. My friend said it doesn't matter, that I should just enjoy it for the entertainment. However, I said that Tarantino has been making movies for almost 20 years, and he hasn't made one with something interesting to say since Jackie Brown, which came out in 1997 (granted, he's only directed two movies in between that one and this one, but still). We know he can make dazzling technical movies and that he can get excellent work out of his actors. Can he do anything else?

Getting back to Inglourious Basterds (and yes, I'm going to SPOIL it, so read no further if you really want to see it clean): What's Tarantino really trying to say? Ultimately, this is Death Wish with better financing and better acting. It's a revenge fantasy, and while I don't have an issue with revenge fantasies per se, Tarantino's last big movie, Kill Bill, was also a revenge fantasy. Revenge obviously plays a big role in all of his movies, to the degree that he's almost pathological about it, but does it need to be the driving force of this movie? We've heard the objections to the movie, about how it distorts history and is therefore disrespectful to Jews, because Tarantino's belief that killing Hitler somehow makes up for the millions slaughtered by the Nazis. I didn't get that - this is like a lot of old-time World War II movies, in which the Holocaust is virtually ignored because it gets in the way of a good action movie. Sure, Tarantino can make an action movie set in World War II in which he gleefully kills the Nazi High Command - I don't have a problem with that. I guess my objection is more with the tone of the movie. Tarantino seems to be far too gleeful about this movie, and it jars with the somewhat serious tone the movie has for a good deal of it. I wasn't particularly uncomfortable with Brad Pitt being a cheery psychopath, for instance - his attitude seems to be the one you need in a horrible war. It just seems like Tarantino, for all his gifts as a filmmaker, simply wants to revel in what he can do instead of trying for something more. If we look at someone like Scorsese, for instance, as an example of someone who has always resisted stereotyping. We might think of him as a director who makes bleak movies often starring Italian-American New York gangsters, but he's made a lot of different kinds of movies - he made The Age of Innocence, The Last Temptation of Christ, After Hours, The Last Waltz, and Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore, for crying out loud. Scorsese is a great director because he doesn't let himself get pigeonholed. Tarantino, it seems, pigeonholes himself.

I suppose I'm not explaining myself very well. Tarantino is a gifted filmmaker, but he's content to mine the movies he saw in his childhood for inspiration and simply update things with tongue in cheek. Inglourious Basterds is a "remake" of an old Italian movie, for instance. I assume that Tarantino has seen the great World War II movies of the 1960s and 1970s, because that's when he was growing up. But even those movies took the war seriously, even if they had some humor. Tarantino takes nothing seriously, apparently, and because he doesn't make straight comedies, he usually falls short of greatness because of this. At least that's what I think. Maybe I'm not getting it across very well. Sorry!

Anyway, Inglourious Basterds is a marvelous movie to watch. I just didn't get enough out of it. Oh well.