Today, I really enjoyed being a mommy. My little Espresso, normally full of energy from the moment he wakes up, wasn't all smiles and giggles today. He was extremely fussy, had a fever and was very irritable. While I enjoy my happy, smiley, energetic boy, it is rare that our little boy lets us hold and cuddle him if we are in a seated position. Any time we try holding him, while we are seated, he squirms his way out of our loving arms, only to find himself laying flat on the couch or about to fall out of chair. He does like to be held, but only if we are standing and moving. I know I'll have a lot to keep up with once our Espresso is in high gear.
But today was different when our boy woke up with a fever. Today, he wanted his mommy instead of his jumperoo. I was able to rock my fussy, little boy, without him squirming away from me, into a calm, relaxed state. It was so wonderful. He put his head on my chest and rested so peacefully for 20 minutes. It was heaven! After calming him , I continued to hold him and sang a hodgepodge of songs from Amazing Grace to Polly Wolly Doodle All the Day before he fell asleep. Oh...it was just about heaven being able to cuddle my sweet boy.
I think I would wish for a fever every day just to get a chance to just cuddle with my boy.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Monday, September 29, 2008
Vocabulary lesson
I listen to Rush Limbaugh daily. He's my main source of news and my main source to keep my sanity from all the liberal infested media. He made an excellent point today in regards to the bail out package, which at that time, had not yet been voted down. There are many people in this country who go about their daily business, work hard, pay their bills etc. And there are others who are looking for a free lunch, a handout, an easy step up and they look to the government to provide all of the above. The latter is NOT the governments responsibility.
As Rush did, let me quote from the the Preamble of the Constitution. I would assume most of us has to memorize that in school. Well, it's high time we brushed off our American history books.
The Preamable: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
I think there is one phrase, as Rush pointed out, that needs to be cleared up. People assume it's the government's job to give them the "American dream." Too many Americans believe they are entitled to certain things (a house, a nice car, a job) simply because they live in America. Sorry to burst your bubble, but no where in our Constitution does it say the government's job is to hand things to you on a silver platter or entitle you to anything besides protection and upholding the law.
The one phrase that gets misconstrued is "promote the general Welfare." Promote does not mean ensure. The word promote means to encourage, advocate, assist aid, boost, develop, stimulate. It does not mean ensure: make certain of, see to it, confirm, establish.
Our government's job is to PROVIDE that every American has the opportunity to PROMOTE, what they believe, is the best way of life for them. It is not to ENSURE that every American have what their neighbor has or ENSURE an equal style of living for all Americans.
Words have meanings and we have brains (and dictionaries) to know and understand the meaning of those words. Instead of listening a politicians interpretation of the Constitution, why don't we all have a sit down and read what our government is and is not supposed to do. I think we'd all be better off that way instead of taking someone's word for it.
Oh...and if the language of our Constitution or the Founders is too nebulous for you, I'm sure they still sell dictionaries at Barnes & Noble.
As Rush did, let me quote from the the Preamble of the Constitution. I would assume most of us has to memorize that in school. Well, it's high time we brushed off our American history books.
The Preamable: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
I think there is one phrase, as Rush pointed out, that needs to be cleared up. People assume it's the government's job to give them the "American dream." Too many Americans believe they are entitled to certain things (a house, a nice car, a job) simply because they live in America. Sorry to burst your bubble, but no where in our Constitution does it say the government's job is to hand things to you on a silver platter or entitle you to anything besides protection and upholding the law.
The one phrase that gets misconstrued is "promote the general Welfare." Promote does not mean ensure. The word promote means to encourage, advocate, assist aid, boost, develop, stimulate. It does not mean ensure: make certain of, see to it, confirm, establish.
Our government's job is to PROVIDE that every American has the opportunity to PROMOTE, what they believe, is the best way of life for them. It is not to ENSURE that every American have what their neighbor has or ENSURE an equal style of living for all Americans.
Words have meanings and we have brains (and dictionaries) to know and understand the meaning of those words. Instead of listening a politicians interpretation of the Constitution, why don't we all have a sit down and read what our government is and is not supposed to do. I think we'd all be better off that way instead of taking someone's word for it.
Oh...and if the language of our Constitution or the Founders is too nebulous for you, I'm sure they still sell dictionaries at Barnes & Noble.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Friday night debate
Like millions of Americans, I tuned into the debate Friday night between Senators McCain & Obama. I think the Presidential debates are so misnamed. They don't debate. All the do is tell their side of things, not attempt to prove why the other side is wrong. Oh, they do some of that, but if you've taken a debate class, as I have, what they did Friday night was NOT a debate.
I also think it's completely pointless to have debates. I would say the majority of Americans know or have a good idea WHO they are going to vote for come November. If you're undecided, well...my guess is that you have not been following what has been going on for the past year. Where the candidates stand is no secret. All that information has been hashed over and over for a year.
Since I a McCain "supporter," I naturally saw McCain as the winner just like Obama supporters saw Obama as the winner. (So, once again, the purpose of a debate? Persuade uniformed voters who've been in la-la land the past year? )
I've read some assessments of the debate and while I agree with some, it's all a matter of opinion, and that opinion is based on who you are supporting.
I do think McCain came across as condescending at times, but how could he not? Here he is, a SENIOR senator who has YEARS of service to his country and tons of experience, having to listen to some junior, and I mean really junior, senator who has done squat in his 3 years in the Senate, tell him he's wrong and all the "mistakes" he's made in the Senate. If you do nothing, it's hard not to make mistakes or vote the wrong way. Which is why I think Obama doesn't want to be in Washington to work on this bail out plan. He doesn't want vote the wrong way. (That's my take on it all).
I did not see this written in an follow-up columns on the debate, but I was getting annoyed with Obama constantly interrupting McCain. Talk about rude and not respecting someones time. Wait your turn, Messiah - sorry had to throw that in. Obama also gave some very haughty and arrogant looks over at McCain. Oohh...you could see Obama seething inside being slammed with facts that Obama had to twist to lessen the blow.
To me, the difference was so clear on liberal vs conservative - even though I don't see McCain as a true conservative.
I know it's impossible to get a straight answer out of a politician and I know politicians are great a mincing and changing the meaning of words, and while both sides did that, it was Obama who constantly was saying "let me tell you what I mean..." or "let me explain what I meant by that..." or "I didn't say that, let me tell you what I said...". When you are constantly doing this, to me, that indicates someone is changing their tune or trying to make what they said sound less stringent or less offensive.
It still boggles my mind that someone with hardly any experience thinks he can run for President - Obama. When he votes "present" simply to avoid making a decision, where does that show leadership? When he says "call me if you need me" in regards to the bail out plan in Washington, that tells me he thinks more of himself than he does his country. I would like to remind Senator Obama, you were elected a Senator from Illinois. You've not been elected President of the United States - yet. At least give the appearance that you are doing your job - the Senate job, and I'm not talking about flying in for one meeting. Get yourself on the Senate floor. You could really show leadership if you weren't so absorbed in running for President. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that McCain, who went back to DC to work on the bail out plan, DOES put country first.
Ok, I had to get that out. Back to the debate... It was completely pointless. Yeah, it's part of our history to have them, but I would REALLY love to see a REAL debate between these two with graphs, charts and lessons of history proving why what one candidate said is COMPLETELY wrong. That way, it could be proven that Conservatism is and always will be better for people than Liberalism, unless you're a slacker who wants everything done for you.
But until that day, every Presidential debate is just this is what I say and this is what you say...
I also think it's completely pointless to have debates. I would say the majority of Americans know or have a good idea WHO they are going to vote for come November. If you're undecided, well...my guess is that you have not been following what has been going on for the past year. Where the candidates stand is no secret. All that information has been hashed over and over for a year.
Since I a McCain "supporter," I naturally saw McCain as the winner just like Obama supporters saw Obama as the winner. (So, once again, the purpose of a debate? Persuade uniformed voters who've been in la-la land the past year? )
I've read some assessments of the debate and while I agree with some, it's all a matter of opinion, and that opinion is based on who you are supporting.
I do think McCain came across as condescending at times, but how could he not? Here he is, a SENIOR senator who has YEARS of service to his country and tons of experience, having to listen to some junior, and I mean really junior, senator who has done squat in his 3 years in the Senate, tell him he's wrong and all the "mistakes" he's made in the Senate. If you do nothing, it's hard not to make mistakes or vote the wrong way. Which is why I think Obama doesn't want to be in Washington to work on this bail out plan. He doesn't want vote the wrong way. (That's my take on it all).
I did not see this written in an follow-up columns on the debate, but I was getting annoyed with Obama constantly interrupting McCain. Talk about rude and not respecting someones time. Wait your turn, Messiah - sorry had to throw that in. Obama also gave some very haughty and arrogant looks over at McCain. Oohh...you could see Obama seething inside being slammed with facts that Obama had to twist to lessen the blow.
To me, the difference was so clear on liberal vs conservative - even though I don't see McCain as a true conservative.
I know it's impossible to get a straight answer out of a politician and I know politicians are great a mincing and changing the meaning of words, and while both sides did that, it was Obama who constantly was saying "let me tell you what I mean..." or "let me explain what I meant by that..." or "I didn't say that, let me tell you what I said...". When you are constantly doing this, to me, that indicates someone is changing their tune or trying to make what they said sound less stringent or less offensive.
It still boggles my mind that someone with hardly any experience thinks he can run for President - Obama. When he votes "present" simply to avoid making a decision, where does that show leadership? When he says "call me if you need me" in regards to the bail out plan in Washington, that tells me he thinks more of himself than he does his country. I would like to remind Senator Obama, you were elected a Senator from Illinois. You've not been elected President of the United States - yet. At least give the appearance that you are doing your job - the Senate job, and I'm not talking about flying in for one meeting. Get yourself on the Senate floor. You could really show leadership if you weren't so absorbed in running for President. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that McCain, who went back to DC to work on the bail out plan, DOES put country first.
Ok, I had to get that out. Back to the debate... It was completely pointless. Yeah, it's part of our history to have them, but I would REALLY love to see a REAL debate between these two with graphs, charts and lessons of history proving why what one candidate said is COMPLETELY wrong. That way, it could be proven that Conservatism is and always will be better for people than Liberalism, unless you're a slacker who wants everything done for you.
But until that day, every Presidential debate is just this is what I say and this is what you say...
Friday, September 26, 2008
For all you chocoholics!
I received this recipe in an e-mail from my cousin. For whatever reason, I decided to try it. If you ever have a craving for chocolate, but don't want to go through the process of making and then baking a cake, this is a great simple, small recipe to indulge your chocolate craving.
5 MINUTE CHOCOLATE MUG CAKE
4 tablespoons flour
4 tablespoons sugar
2 tablespoons cocoa
1 egg
3 tablespoons milk
3 tablespoons oil
3 tablespoons chocolate chips (optional)
a small splash of vanilla extract
1 large coffee mug
Add dry ingredients to mug, and mix well. Add the egg and mix thoroughly. Pour in the milk and oil and mix well. Add the chocolate chips (if using) and vanilla extract, and mix again. Put your mug in the microwave and cook for 3 minutes at 1000 watts. The cake will rise over the top of the mug, but don't be alarmed! Allow to cool a little, and tip out onto a plate if desired.
EAT! (this can serve 2 if you want to feel slightly more virtuous).
And why is this the most dangerous cake recipe in the world? Because now we are all only 5 minutes away from chocolate cake at any time of the day or night!
5 MINUTE CHOCOLATE MUG CAKE
4 tablespoons flour
4 tablespoons sugar
2 tablespoons cocoa
1 egg
3 tablespoons milk
3 tablespoons oil
3 tablespoons chocolate chips (optional)
a small splash of vanilla extract
1 large coffee mug
Add dry ingredients to mug, and mix well. Add the egg and mix thoroughly. Pour in the milk and oil and mix well. Add the chocolate chips (if using) and vanilla extract, and mix again. Put your mug in the microwave and cook for 3 minutes at 1000 watts. The cake will rise over the top of the mug, but don't be alarmed! Allow to cool a little, and tip out onto a plate if desired.
EAT! (this can serve 2 if you want to feel slightly more virtuous).
And why is this the most dangerous cake recipe in the world? Because now we are all only 5 minutes away from chocolate cake at any time of the day or night!
What's your blend?
I'll be the first to admit that coffee is disgusting. However, coffee loaded with flavored creamers and sugar is very tasty! Most of my friends drink coffee this way - doctored up to cover the bitter taste. Are there still people who drink coffee black? And if there are, they are probably senior citizens who rely on that morning cup o'joe to keep them kicking one more day. It makes me wonder who first brewed the first cup of coffee and the thought occurred to them that this would be something GOOD to drink. After all, it's just bean juice - very tasty bean juice with a 1/4 cup of vanilla caramel creamer added.
I've also wondered how and why coffee became SO popular in this country. If we have any origins as a country, England would be tops in the category. England is known for its huge consumption of tea. They made the afternoon tea time a mainstay in their society. So why are we not huge tea drinkers? Yes, we drink tea - sweet tea in the South - but in comparison to coffee, coffee based products outsell any tea. While I cannot prove this, I think our coffee loving society had its birth at the Boston Tea Party. We all know the story, a bunch of "Indians" boarded a British ship, and dumped the tea overboard. That begun a boycott of British tea, and while some began drinking Dutch tea, I think that opened the door for coffee. Look where we are some 232 years later! We'll pay for an overpriced coffee based drink at Starbucks.
I'm very much appreciative of those "Indians" who dumped the tea overboard in 1773. I would be missing so much every morning. I look forward to my coffee, with creamer, every morning and rely on it's perkiness to perk me up. Unfortunately , I am the only one in our household who enjoy the morning brew.
With so many brews out there and so many different ways you can get your favorite coffee drink at Starbucks, I am convinced that people could concoct their own brew/blend to fit their personality. I'm a latte - sweet, light and refreshing with just enough coffee flavor for a boost. My hubby, if he did like coffee, would be a black cup o'joe - consistent, strong and bold. My little boy, who will hopefully like coffee along with him Mommy, is a little espresso - a burst of energy and giggles!
So w/out further ado, let me introduce you to the Treillis Coffee House family:
Cup o'joe standing in the rugged state of Alaska.
Caramel latte in her favorite spot in Fredericksburg
Our little espresso and his teddy, Chester
I've also wondered how and why coffee became SO popular in this country. If we have any origins as a country, England would be tops in the category. England is known for its huge consumption of tea. They made the afternoon tea time a mainstay in their society. So why are we not huge tea drinkers? Yes, we drink tea - sweet tea in the South - but in comparison to coffee, coffee based products outsell any tea. While I cannot prove this, I think our coffee loving society had its birth at the Boston Tea Party. We all know the story, a bunch of "Indians" boarded a British ship, and dumped the tea overboard. That begun a boycott of British tea, and while some began drinking Dutch tea, I think that opened the door for coffee. Look where we are some 232 years later! We'll pay for an overpriced coffee based drink at Starbucks.
I'm very much appreciative of those "Indians" who dumped the tea overboard in 1773. I would be missing so much every morning. I look forward to my coffee, with creamer, every morning and rely on it's perkiness to perk me up. Unfortunately , I am the only one in our household who enjoy the morning brew.
With so many brews out there and so many different ways you can get your favorite coffee drink at Starbucks, I am convinced that people could concoct their own brew/blend to fit their personality. I'm a latte - sweet, light and refreshing with just enough coffee flavor for a boost. My hubby, if he did like coffee, would be a black cup o'joe - consistent, strong and bold. My little boy, who will hopefully like coffee along with him Mommy, is a little espresso - a burst of energy and giggles!
So w/out further ado, let me introduce you to the Treillis Coffee House family:
Cup o'joe standing in the rugged state of Alaska.
Caramel latte in her favorite spot in Fredericksburg
Our little espresso and his teddy, Chester
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Forced vote
I do not care for either Presidential candidate. Both support or have supported bills/legislation/ideas/causes that I do not support or align with my world view. There are other Presidential candidates that I align more with my beliefs, but have no chance in winning the Presidency. So this leaves me in a quandary. Do I vote for someone that has no prayer of becoming President or do I vote for one of the two mainstream candidates in hopes that the lesser of two evils will be elected President.
Does anyone else out there feel this way?
Here's where I stand. Obama will never have my vote. Apart from his social & fiscal policies that I absolutely disagree with, his lack of experience, questionable associates and an inability to prove leadership, in my mind, make him unqualified to lead this country.
I've never been a fan of McCain. His support of McCain/Feingold and McCain/Kennedy, infringements upon our freedom of speech, make me take note that if he can support to limit one of our freedoms, which one of our freedoms next will be limited or even worse, stripped away. He's a bit of a hot head and known as a maverick . However, his policies are not completely socialistic and I can find certain areas where we do agree. What makes McCain more like able is his vp choice - Sarah Palin. While Palin is known for her strong conservative stance, she has yet to prove herself on a bigger stage with the pressures from the left bearing down on her. I love Sarah Palin, so far, but only time will tell if conservatives can hail her as a Margaret Thatcher.
To sum up where I stand, I am more anti-Obama than I am pro-McCain, which therefore makes me vote McCain. I believe this election will be very important as to which direction America goes. If we believe in American exceptionalism, in American greatness and we want this nation to be a better place for our children, a vote for Obama would weaken the foundation our country was built upon and force government more and more in our lives. He would weaken America with his policies, apologize to the world for every past, present and future action, and tax EVERY American to the core.
I can't throw away my vote to another candidate I may agree more with because a President Obama would have dire consequences on this nation.
Does anyone else out there feel this way?
Here's where I stand. Obama will never have my vote. Apart from his social & fiscal policies that I absolutely disagree with, his lack of experience, questionable associates and an inability to prove leadership, in my mind, make him unqualified to lead this country.
I've never been a fan of McCain. His support of McCain/Feingold and McCain/Kennedy, infringements upon our freedom of speech, make me take note that if he can support to limit one of our freedoms, which one of our freedoms next will be limited or even worse, stripped away. He's a bit of a hot head and known as a maverick . However, his policies are not completely socialistic and I can find certain areas where we do agree. What makes McCain more like able is his vp choice - Sarah Palin. While Palin is known for her strong conservative stance, she has yet to prove herself on a bigger stage with the pressures from the left bearing down on her. I love Sarah Palin, so far, but only time will tell if conservatives can hail her as a Margaret Thatcher.
To sum up where I stand, I am more anti-Obama than I am pro-McCain, which therefore makes me vote McCain. I believe this election will be very important as to which direction America goes. If we believe in American exceptionalism, in American greatness and we want this nation to be a better place for our children, a vote for Obama would weaken the foundation our country was built upon and force government more and more in our lives. He would weaken America with his policies, apologize to the world for every past, present and future action, and tax EVERY American to the core.
I can't throw away my vote to another candidate I may agree more with because a President Obama would have dire consequences on this nation.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Can you repeat that?
Can you repeat that? I've been saying that A LOT lately. At first I thought I was losing my mind (and my hearing) because I could simply not hear or clearly understand the spoken word unless spoken to a very high volume. One evening, after asking my busband, who was standing 5 feet away from me, repeat himself 3 times, I knew it was time to see an ENT.
I thought I had some permanent hearing loss from all the ear infections I suffered as a child so I prepared myself to accept that hearing aides may be in my future. However, after a hearing test, my ear drums checked as fine as well as my sensory nerves. So what in the world was causing me to miss so much?
The doctor diagnosed me with Otosclerosis. It sounds much more serious than what it actually is. To sum it all up, the bones of my middle ear have fused together preventing the sound vibrations to pass through to my inner ear. The Stapes bone, also known as the Stirrup bone, vibrates as sound is passed through which then results in the inner ear transmitting the sounds to the brain to be processed into words and sounds (Amazing, huh). After a hearing test was completed, I was told that I had a 45% hearing loss in my right ear and 35% hearing loss in my left ear. No wonder I couldn't hear or understand things!
So when did this Otosclerosis start? We asked the doctor that questions, but there is really no way to determine when it started or if I had it all along. There are disagreements among doctors as to whether Otosclerosis is hereditary. Some believe it is but if it is, it generally skips 1 to 2 generations, so it makes it hard to link as hereditary. Most doctors believe that Otosclerosis begins to develop in your mid-twenties, but most people with Otosclerosis do not notice much of a change in their hearing until they are older and in which they simply opt for hearing aides, thinking their hearing is failing due to old age.
I saw a drastic change in my hearing once we moved into our new home in Alabama. I thought the house, with it's wood floors and high ceilings, were causing and "echo" affect making it hard for me to hear. We now know the house was not the issue. When we moved into this house, I was 3 months pregnant. Throughout my pregnancy and immediately after our son's birth, I noticed my hearing deteriorating. We learned from the ENT that the hormonones in a woman's body when pregnant will make the Otosclerosis much worse. Once again, I was thankful I was not losing my mind, but there was a reason my hearing dropped so rapidly.
I have three options to treat Otosclerosis: !) do nothing 2) hearing aides 3) surgery. Number 1 is not even an option, so that leaves 2 & 3. We have learned in our research that when choosing a surgeon to operate on your ear, you want to chose a surgeon who has done this on a frequent basis. As with all surgeries, something can go wrong, but if it went wrong in my case, I could lose all hearing. (Thankfully they do one ear at a time, so if you did lose your hearing in one ear, you'd still have the other ear to hear some) We've seen a local surgeon who has done hundreds of these surgeries, but we are still not convinced that he is who we want to go with, if I do have the surgery. As things are currently, I have to be in the same room with our son (if awake) otherwise I cannot hear him. When he's taking a nap, if I do not have on the monitor, I cannot hear him crying until he is yelling at the top of his lungs. As of today, we are still locating other surgeons who may have done this type of surgery, a stapendotomy, a few more times.
When visiting with the local surgeon, he had me try on hearing aides and I could not believe how much I was missing. I actually had to tell my husband not to talk so LOUD! I'm not opposed to wearing aides. They are so small these days you can hardly tell someone is wearing them, BUT, it's just something else that needs time and attention and upkeep.
I told my hubby that if we do have the surgery, it needs to be done asap. I need to be able to leave our son in a room, even for just a few seconds, and hear him at the same time. Once our son is mobile, if he's awake, I will be trapped in the same room with him because I would be too afraid to step out knowing I could not hear if something happened or was about to happen. Also with the surgery, I am to avoid picking up anything heavy and all bending over. Hmm...that's rather hard to avoid with a baby and once our son is mobile, it will be even more difficult. Recovery of your hearing may take up to 6 months, in which our son would be a year old.
If I had the surgery done locally, I could have my right ear done this year. I could always put off my left ear for awhile, if everything went well with surgery on my right. There are lots of if's!
Whatever we do, surgery or hearing aides, I can't wait for my hubby to say "can you hear me now?" and I can answer YES!!!!!!!!!!!
I thought I had some permanent hearing loss from all the ear infections I suffered as a child so I prepared myself to accept that hearing aides may be in my future. However, after a hearing test, my ear drums checked as fine as well as my sensory nerves. So what in the world was causing me to miss so much?
The doctor diagnosed me with Otosclerosis. It sounds much more serious than what it actually is. To sum it all up, the bones of my middle ear have fused together preventing the sound vibrations to pass through to my inner ear. The Stapes bone, also known as the Stirrup bone, vibrates as sound is passed through which then results in the inner ear transmitting the sounds to the brain to be processed into words and sounds (Amazing, huh). After a hearing test was completed, I was told that I had a 45% hearing loss in my right ear and 35% hearing loss in my left ear. No wonder I couldn't hear or understand things!
So when did this Otosclerosis start? We asked the doctor that questions, but there is really no way to determine when it started or if I had it all along. There are disagreements among doctors as to whether Otosclerosis is hereditary. Some believe it is but if it is, it generally skips 1 to 2 generations, so it makes it hard to link as hereditary. Most doctors believe that Otosclerosis begins to develop in your mid-twenties, but most people with Otosclerosis do not notice much of a change in their hearing until they are older and in which they simply opt for hearing aides, thinking their hearing is failing due to old age.
I saw a drastic change in my hearing once we moved into our new home in Alabama. I thought the house, with it's wood floors and high ceilings, were causing and "echo" affect making it hard for me to hear. We now know the house was not the issue. When we moved into this house, I was 3 months pregnant. Throughout my pregnancy and immediately after our son's birth, I noticed my hearing deteriorating. We learned from the ENT that the hormonones in a woman's body when pregnant will make the Otosclerosis much worse. Once again, I was thankful I was not losing my mind, but there was a reason my hearing dropped so rapidly.
I have three options to treat Otosclerosis: !) do nothing 2) hearing aides 3) surgery. Number 1 is not even an option, so that leaves 2 & 3. We have learned in our research that when choosing a surgeon to operate on your ear, you want to chose a surgeon who has done this on a frequent basis. As with all surgeries, something can go wrong, but if it went wrong in my case, I could lose all hearing. (Thankfully they do one ear at a time, so if you did lose your hearing in one ear, you'd still have the other ear to hear some) We've seen a local surgeon who has done hundreds of these surgeries, but we are still not convinced that he is who we want to go with, if I do have the surgery. As things are currently, I have to be in the same room with our son (if awake) otherwise I cannot hear him. When he's taking a nap, if I do not have on the monitor, I cannot hear him crying until he is yelling at the top of his lungs. As of today, we are still locating other surgeons who may have done this type of surgery, a stapendotomy, a few more times.
When visiting with the local surgeon, he had me try on hearing aides and I could not believe how much I was missing. I actually had to tell my husband not to talk so LOUD! I'm not opposed to wearing aides. They are so small these days you can hardly tell someone is wearing them, BUT, it's just something else that needs time and attention and upkeep.
I told my hubby that if we do have the surgery, it needs to be done asap. I need to be able to leave our son in a room, even for just a few seconds, and hear him at the same time. Once our son is mobile, if he's awake, I will be trapped in the same room with him because I would be too afraid to step out knowing I could not hear if something happened or was about to happen. Also with the surgery, I am to avoid picking up anything heavy and all bending over. Hmm...that's rather hard to avoid with a baby and once our son is mobile, it will be even more difficult. Recovery of your hearing may take up to 6 months, in which our son would be a year old.
If I had the surgery done locally, I could have my right ear done this year. I could always put off my left ear for awhile, if everything went well with surgery on my right. There are lots of if's!
Whatever we do, surgery or hearing aides, I can't wait for my hubby to say "can you hear me now?" and I can answer YES!!!!!!!!!!!
Welcome to the coffee house
Welcome to my coffee house. It's not actually a coffee house, but a room I was allowed to decorate as I pleased. I created the Cafe de Treillis. It's not completely decorated as I would like, but that's not keeping me from enjoying my retreat. And since I have created my coffee house/cafe, I thought it only proper to do what you do at coffee houses & cafe's - Talk about politics, religion, express opinions and life in general. This election, being a mommy and life in general will give me enough to talk about. So, pull up a chair and grab a cup of joe!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)