Position 1
Hold your baby so that her ear is against your chest. Let her hear your heartbeat. You can manoeuvre her into this position by slipping one of her arms around your upper waist. Her shoulder, head and one side of her body should be in contact with your body. You can sit if it makes you feel better as you will feel the strain of the baby’s weight on your back if you need to hold this position up for more than 15 minutes. Just be wary of where your baby’s arm is at all times.
Method 1
Use Position 1 then gently tap on the bottom of her thigh or her bum bum in a constant tempo. When she is drifting into sleep, slow down your tempo until you ‘come to a complete stop’. Once you stop tapping, do not immediately place her into her crib. Let her sleep without the ‘tapping’ momentarily. If she stirs, resume tapping and repeat.
Method 2
Use some soft music (light classics or voiceless music work best) and the swaying of your body with her in Position 1 to mimic the motion of a rocking cradle. Hum along with the music if she is still but does not want to close her eyes. This may mean that she likes it ‘there’ and does not want you to put her down, thus refusing to sleep. The humming will put her at ease and her eyelids will drop fairly quickly.
Method 3
If you do not have music, hum a simple nursery rhyme in a fairly low tone and combine the use of the tapping motion in 1. When she starts to drift off, lower the volume of your voice until you can stop humming completely. Retain the tapping motion until she does not stir. Use Method 1.
How to tell if she is already in dreamland.
While some babies keep very still, they may not be fully asleep yet. To tell whether they are really asleep or not, lift a limb (arm or leg) gently then let go so the limb drops. If you feel resistance during the lifting, or if the limb shows any other movement apart from just plain falling (shifts to the side, adjusts itself so it is more comfortable) then you need to keep at it.
Wait another 5 minutes before you try it again. Or stop when you hear snoring.
Good luck.
Aug 31, 2009
Aug 27, 2009
Reading - The Ultimate Pastime
I read Enid Blyton as I was growing up in the small town of Tawau in Sabah (part of Borneo, where Sipadan Island and Pulau Tiga is).
By 12, I read Agatha Christie (Who killed Roger Ackroyd?) and Sir Author Conan Doyle (Sherlock Holmes)
At 15, it was Shakespeare (the abridged versions because who reads the originals?): The Merchant of Venice was my favourite.
In university, I read Jeffrey Archer. I love practically all his works except the Prison Diaries.
In the first year I came out to work, I read Dan Brown (love the concept, not so keen on the story), and Kate Mosse. As well as the last book in the Harry Potter series. I love JK Rowling.
Now I read just about any book that comes recommended... and some that don't. But who sets rules when it comes to reading?
Currently, I have at hand A Prisoner of Birth by Jeffrey Archer (forever a fan of his) and let me say that this is what it feels like when one says "someone has to prise me off the book".
It mirrors the story known as The Count of Monte Cristo. Edward Dumas, and his love Mercedes has been replaced with modern-day Danny Cartwright and Beth. Instead of a Count, the protagonist is now a knight, a Sir. There were many other similarities between the two stories but so far, in the reviews I've read, no one said anything about Mr Archer ripping off the original.
By the way, Jeffrey Archer was a member of parliament, and has been incarcerated before. The circumstances on which he was put away shows heavily on this new book, which would explain how he could tell effectively how one can get framed for a crime he didn't commit, quite easily. He has since declared his withdrawal from politics and will focus fully on his writing. Which I think is good news for fans like me *grins*.
I have not reached the end of the book, trying very hard to but with a 4-mth old brat at the side, you find time slipping out of your hand like grains of sand. Looking forward to his trademark twist-in-the-tale climax. One thing's for sure.. Jeffrey Archer never disappoints.
By 12, I read Agatha Christie (Who killed Roger Ackroyd?) and Sir Author Conan Doyle (Sherlock Holmes)
At 15, it was Shakespeare (the abridged versions because who reads the originals?): The Merchant of Venice was my favourite.
In university, I read Jeffrey Archer. I love practically all his works except the Prison Diaries.
In the first year I came out to work, I read Dan Brown (love the concept, not so keen on the story), and Kate Mosse. As well as the last book in the Harry Potter series. I love JK Rowling.
Now I read just about any book that comes recommended... and some that don't. But who sets rules when it comes to reading?
Currently, I have at hand A Prisoner of Birth by Jeffrey Archer (forever a fan of his) and let me say that this is what it feels like when one says "someone has to prise me off the book".
It mirrors the story known as The Count of Monte Cristo. Edward Dumas, and his love Mercedes has been replaced with modern-day Danny Cartwright and Beth. Instead of a Count, the protagonist is now a knight, a Sir. There were many other similarities between the two stories but so far, in the reviews I've read, no one said anything about Mr Archer ripping off the original.
By the way, Jeffrey Archer was a member of parliament, and has been incarcerated before. The circumstances on which he was put away shows heavily on this new book, which would explain how he could tell effectively how one can get framed for a crime he didn't commit, quite easily. He has since declared his withdrawal from politics and will focus fully on his writing. Which I think is good news for fans like me *grins*.
I have not reached the end of the book, trying very hard to but with a 4-mth old brat at the side, you find time slipping out of your hand like grains of sand. Looking forward to his trademark twist-in-the-tale climax. One thing's for sure.. Jeffrey Archer never disappoints.
Aug 25, 2009
Halal
Malaysia is a Muslim country but non-Muslims are given allowances to practise their own cultures. This is why you find plenty of dishes here cooked with pork as a main or side ingredient.
And whilst many neutral establishments would say that they serve no pork, what they serve may not be halal: a requirement or condition of the type of food that Muslims are allowed to consume.
Many of us, including Malaysians misunderstand the meaning of the world Halal. We tend to synonymize the word with Pork, a notion which is far from the truth. See the following video, Halal, another project from 15Malaysia for a slapstick form of explanation to what it really means.
I'd like to add a side explanation about why many people would mistake pork- and lard-free for being halal foods. In order for food to be halal, it has to be slaughtered in the most humane way possible. Yes, I know... how can 'slaughter' and 'humane' be used in the same sentence and still make sense?
The kill
Well, it is quite impossible to eat meat without first killing the source first, and whilst many slaughterhouses use electricity or other methods that liken to murder to achieve that goal, animals/meat that are prepared in halal form .. die fast, and relatively painlessly. They use a method of slaughter which is so quick that (I've heard) the animals can still blink after the cut has been delivered. This I learned from hearsay.
Compare that to the way my mother in law kills the geese that she rears and you will agree that it is a more humane way. I heard from my husband that she slits their throats, then lets them run around, the head dangling from the neck by thin strips, until they bleed out and die. You can imagine the mess they make.
Now before you go calling for petitions to against my mother in law, she has stopped rearing geese because they are so damn loud and fierce and I have no proof of this having happened... though it does make for a good conversation piece. And it does drive my point home.
Why no Pork?
Well, it seems that pigs are the only animals that have cloven hooves and no necks. It has been stated in the holy book that this animal cannot be consumed because of those two characteristics. Pigs having no necks cannot be killed in the halal form and thus cannot be killed humanely (as required by the religion) and thus cannot be consumed because it cannot ever be 'halal'. This I learn from wikipedia.
Benefits of halal (and kosher)
Animals that were killed in the halal and kosher (will get to that later) way do not 'suffer' and thus do not hyperventilate or wriggle violently like a fish out of water (at the brink of death). This allows the meat to be more tender and palatable due to the lack of lactic acid build up in the body. This I learn from my course in university.
Kosher
Kosher food is the equivalent of halal foods. Kosher is practised by Jews. Halal is practised by Muslims. Again, if you look closely, there are many ways that peoples are alike.
Why then do we still like to focus on the differences that separate us?
And whilst many neutral establishments would say that they serve no pork, what they serve may not be halal: a requirement or condition of the type of food that Muslims are allowed to consume.
Many of us, including Malaysians misunderstand the meaning of the world Halal. We tend to synonymize the word with Pork, a notion which is far from the truth. See the following video, Halal, another project from 15Malaysia for a slapstick form of explanation to what it really means.
I'd like to add a side explanation about why many people would mistake pork- and lard-free for being halal foods. In order for food to be halal, it has to be slaughtered in the most humane way possible. Yes, I know... how can 'slaughter' and 'humane' be used in the same sentence and still make sense?
The kill
Well, it is quite impossible to eat meat without first killing the source first, and whilst many slaughterhouses use electricity or other methods that liken to murder to achieve that goal, animals/meat that are prepared in halal form .. die fast, and relatively painlessly. They use a method of slaughter which is so quick that (I've heard) the animals can still blink after the cut has been delivered. This I learned from hearsay.
Compare that to the way my mother in law kills the geese that she rears and you will agree that it is a more humane way. I heard from my husband that she slits their throats, then lets them run around, the head dangling from the neck by thin strips, until they bleed out and die. You can imagine the mess they make.
Now before you go calling for petitions to against my mother in law, she has stopped rearing geese because they are so damn loud and fierce and I have no proof of this having happened... though it does make for a good conversation piece. And it does drive my point home.
Why no Pork?
Well, it seems that pigs are the only animals that have cloven hooves and no necks. It has been stated in the holy book that this animal cannot be consumed because of those two characteristics. Pigs having no necks cannot be killed in the halal form and thus cannot be killed humanely (as required by the religion) and thus cannot be consumed because it cannot ever be 'halal'. This I learn from wikipedia.
Benefits of halal (and kosher)
Animals that were killed in the halal and kosher (will get to that later) way do not 'suffer' and thus do not hyperventilate or wriggle violently like a fish out of water (at the brink of death). This allows the meat to be more tender and palatable due to the lack of lactic acid build up in the body. This I learn from my course in university.
Kosher
Kosher food is the equivalent of halal foods. Kosher is practised by Jews. Halal is practised by Muslims. Again, if you look closely, there are many ways that peoples are alike.
Why then do we still like to focus on the differences that separate us?
Aug 22, 2009
7 emotions you never knew until you're a parent.
For something to be considered a Science, it has to: be backed by evidence; be retestable by others; and all come to the same conclusion. Crud... now that I think of it.. I think that is the definition of a hypothesis.
But.. who cares?
The point I'm driving home today is the evidence of that bond which exist between mother and child.
Love can hardly be called a Science. So many conclusions could come from the same initial point: You may marry him and live happily together forever with him, or You may divorce him within the next three years. You may cheat on him or be cheated on by him and still stick together as a couple "for the sake of the children". You may find out he is a closeted gay. You may tell him that you are a closeted lesbian or bisexual on your 5th wedding anniversary. You may even find him divorcing you to be with your mother (sick I know... but it happens).
So why then do experts insist on mothers breastfeeding their babies to 'strengthen that bond between mother and newborn' hours after she has just given birth?
No, it's not because they are sadistic maniacs.
It's because this bond, you can see and feel it: the evidence of love.
*jeng.. jeng... JENG*
7 emotions you never knew until you're a parent.
Once you've become a mother, you will feel the following 'new (undiscovered until now)' emotions:
1. When your child cries nonstop in the first week or two, you will feel helpless and will begin crying along with it.
2. When you partner shouts or 'pats' your newborn to make it stop crying, you feel a slice into your already delicate heart and will be compelled to 'protect' your child.
3. When you hold your child against your bosom (that's chest, for the rest of you modern peoples), you will feel that nothing wrong could ever and will ever happen to your child.
4. When you are able to calm your newborn down and make it stop crying by holding it or speaking softly to it, you will feel like you've won the Nobel prize.
5. When you are able to make your newborn stop crying by 'hitting' her puny little backside, the guilt you feel afterwards makes you feel willing to face the firing squad.
6. The first time you see your newborn smile at you, you'd be as excited as the day you bought your first car.
7. When your newborn grabs your finger and would not let go, you'd let it hold your finger for just one more second (and another, and another)... even if the building is on fire.
There's actually a whole lot more than just seven.. and these aren't exactly 'emotions' but to be fair, you seriously will not understand them until you've become a parent yourself. Seriously.
But.. who cares?
The point I'm driving home today is the evidence of that bond which exist between mother and child.
Love can hardly be called a Science. So many conclusions could come from the same initial point: You may marry him and live happily together forever with him, or You may divorce him within the next three years. You may cheat on him or be cheated on by him and still stick together as a couple "for the sake of the children". You may find out he is a closeted gay. You may tell him that you are a closeted lesbian or bisexual on your 5th wedding anniversary. You may even find him divorcing you to be with your mother (sick I know... but it happens).
So why then do experts insist on mothers breastfeeding their babies to 'strengthen that bond between mother and newborn' hours after she has just given birth?
No, it's not because they are sadistic maniacs.
It's because this bond, you can see and feel it: the evidence of love.
*jeng.. jeng... JENG*
7 emotions you never knew until you're a parent.
Once you've become a mother, you will feel the following 'new (undiscovered until now)' emotions:
1. When your child cries nonstop in the first week or two, you will feel helpless and will begin crying along with it.
2. When you partner shouts or 'pats' your newborn to make it stop crying, you feel a slice into your already delicate heart and will be compelled to 'protect' your child.
3. When you hold your child against your bosom (that's chest, for the rest of you modern peoples), you will feel that nothing wrong could ever and will ever happen to your child.
4. When you are able to calm your newborn down and make it stop crying by holding it or speaking softly to it, you will feel like you've won the Nobel prize.
5. When you are able to make your newborn stop crying by 'hitting' her puny little backside, the guilt you feel afterwards makes you feel willing to face the firing squad.
6. The first time you see your newborn smile at you, you'd be as excited as the day you bought your first car.
7. When your newborn grabs your finger and would not let go, you'd let it hold your finger for just one more second (and another, and another)... even if the building is on fire.
There's actually a whole lot more than just seven.. and these aren't exactly 'emotions' but to be fair, you seriously will not understand them until you've become a parent yourself. Seriously.
Aug 20, 2009
Potong Saga: A Malaysian Short Film (15M)
This project showcases 15 local film makers, the list of which includes Yasmin Ahmad, and a movie by Ho Yuhang featuring the controversial Namewee of the national anthem scandal fame. If that got your interest piqued, guess what, here's the video. Do not attempt if you don't want to laugh today.
Also available is Chocolate by Yasmin Ahmad, one of her last works before her passing. Rummage around in Youtube, you will find it, quite easily.
Note: The name Potong Saga is a play at the first national car Proton Saga and the word 'Potong' which means cut. Muslims are required by religion to circumcise themselves. In cases where boys turning of age are to be circumcised, the exercise is done with a small ceremony. I'm guessing that the Saga in its English meaning is also at play here, referring to the whole ordeal to be a saga of sorts.
Also available is Chocolate by Yasmin Ahmad, one of her last works before her passing. Rummage around in Youtube, you will find it, quite easily.
Note: The name Potong Saga is a play at the first national car Proton Saga and the word 'Potong' which means cut. Muslims are required by religion to circumcise themselves. In cases where boys turning of age are to be circumcised, the exercise is done with a small ceremony. I'm guessing that the Saga in its English meaning is also at play here, referring to the whole ordeal to be a saga of sorts.
Aug 16, 2009
Book review: Revelation
The story started out slow about a hunchback lawyer, who is the hero (wow, three words I’d never thought I’d use in the same line) thinking about opening a hospital with one of his good friends, only to find his friend murdered in horrendous circumstances.
When officials and the coroner himself act indifferent to the murder, our hero Matthew Shardlake takes it to his own hands to get the investigation going. Little does he know, this murder is only one of a series of murders that have occurred, and many more to come. Later on, Shardlake would find out that the murderer is murdering his victims based on the verses in Revelation from the Bible, and is in no mood to stop his murdering spree.
.jpg)
Whilst I agree with some critics, that his storytelling can be a bit slow and hard to devour in just one sitting, it is a good book to pass time with. And the characters grow on you while you find yourself absorbed into the moment in history where all of this is happening. Big names like Thomas Cromwell, Archbishop Cramner, Catherine Parr and King Henry (the king who had 6 wives) pop up regularly amidst the stories of a boy admitted into an asylum for his incessant praying, a modern-thinking doctor trapped in the era of blood-letting as the cure to everything and Shardlake contemplating his love and desire for his recently widowed friend.
I’m reading Sovereign, a previous effort by Sansom also featuring Shardlake, a character that I will grow to like... eventually.
What? He's a lawyer.
When officials and the coroner himself act indifferent to the murder, our hero Matthew Shardlake takes it to his own hands to get the investigation going. Little does he know, this murder is only one of a series of murders that have occurred, and many more to come. Later on, Shardlake would find out that the murderer is murdering his victims based on the verses in Revelation from the Bible, and is in no mood to stop his murdering spree.
.jpg)
Whilst I agree with some critics, that his storytelling can be a bit slow and hard to devour in just one sitting, it is a good book to pass time with. And the characters grow on you while you find yourself absorbed into the moment in history where all of this is happening. Big names like Thomas Cromwell, Archbishop Cramner, Catherine Parr and King Henry (the king who had 6 wives) pop up regularly amidst the stories of a boy admitted into an asylum for his incessant praying, a modern-thinking doctor trapped in the era of blood-letting as the cure to everything and Shardlake contemplating his love and desire for his recently widowed friend.I’m reading Sovereign, a previous effort by Sansom also featuring Shardlake, a character that I will grow to like... eventually.
What? He's a lawyer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)