Two thoughts have kind of been bouncing around in my head recently, one for a while now and I've finally found the time to put it in the blog.
Ever since Isaiah has come to live with us, people have been extremely generous. We've gotten so much clothing from hand-me-downs to brand new outfits that it's boggled our minds. That being said, I've been developing a theory about the people who design clothing for infants: half of them are childless and have never spent a significant amount of time with the children for whom they're designing.
What's my proof? The absolutely asinine way that they design some outfits. Let me tell you what my wife and I have come to discover: snaps along the inside of pant legs are a gift from heaven. That way you don't have to completely strip down the child when you have to change him or her. We absolutely adore outfits that have this feature.
But, naturally, not all of them do. Some of them have a zipper down just one leg. That is an okay design and still easy to work with. Some people, though, make the ridiculous choice of having no snaps. In other words, to change your child, you have to remove the pants entirely. Granted, this only takes an extra second, but when you're trying to keep a struggling six month old calm while you change him, those extra seconds can be a pain.
There are two outfits, though, that just annoy me to no end. What genius decided that buttons were a good choice for baby clothing? I mean, honestly! Isaiah rarely sits still long enough for us to get half a dozen buttons down the front of his shirt. Use snaps, people!
And the other outfit that drives me loco? Some genius put the snaps on the back of the outfit! Now you tell me, how did that moron think this was going to work, especially if the child had to be changed?
But enough about clothing. Here's the other thing that's annoyed me recently.
This past Saturday, my brother-in-law and I went to see 300. I was curious to see how it all hung together, especially since I had read that they filmed the whole thing on a sound stage and digitally added stuff like backgrounds, the army, blood, all that stuff later. I thought that aesthetically, the film was great. My one gripe would be the many times the director seemed to fall asleep on the slow-motion button. Ratcheting up the drama is one thing; overusing it is another.
The thing to keep in mind is that 300 earns every inch of its "R" rating. Lots of blood, lots of violence, lots of naked people, the usual stuff that gets things an "R." So as I'm watching this movie, I heard someone cough in the theater. I turned to my right, and there were at least half a dozen kids, all of whom couldn't have been older than ten, sitting there with their parents.
Now, I realize, none of those parents will likely stumble into my blog. Moreoever, even if they did, I can't tell them how to raise their children. But taking kids to see 300? Really? How, exactly, is that a good idea? Personally I hope those kids have nightmares for a few weeks and keep their parents up all night.