Airstream Dreams: Part I

It started with heavy doses of reading Little House on the Prairie and The Boxcar Children in elementary school.  I remember thinking how incredible Ma Ingalls was, keeping a such a small, basic home so well and cheerfully.  How creative oldest sister Jessie was in transforming an abandoned boxcar into a comfortable escape for her and her siblings.

All children love small spaces.  We all loved making blanket forts, sitting under tables, cozying up in a closet, setting up in play-houses, sleeping in lofts or tents.  (Well, at least I did.  But maybe I was just as weird then as I am now.)  My reading about families making homes of small spaces just encouraged this enjoyment.

As I grew up, my expectations of comfort changed from closets to over-sized houses.  When Trevvor and I got married and I saw our apartment for the first time, I cried.  How could I set up house in only 450 square feet??  But I did, and when we moved out, I cried again.

After several more moves and a house-purchase later, we were all set up in our current home: a three-bed, two-bath, modest 1200 square foot split-level in a 1970s Birmingham suburb.  It was a good "starter-home," I figured, and that summer we settled in for a least five or ten years.

But after a few months, the moving itch started.  The maintenance and constant grass-mowing was getting tiresome.  We hadn't known how great we had it when we were living smaller!

About that time, we discovered the Tiny House Movement, as it's known.  Here were people choosing to live in less than 200 square feet!  Every inch of these homes was filled with both beauty and purpose.  "Wow," we said.  "That's what we want."  The THM was like a gateway, and one of the worlds it opened up was that of the shiny Airstream.  Simplicity and flexibility.  Way too cool.

But we'd just bought this house, and we wanted to start a family, so we kept chugging away at the American Dream, accepting the status quo, albeit in a rather grumbly way.  We didn't want to be discontent, so we tried to bloom where we were planted, yet every few months, some new hippie scheme would surface, only to be covered up again by the reality of those devilish details.

That was nearly three years ago.

When Charles was born last January, we said, "We're staying put!  We have the baby to think of!"  We also had four cats and a dog.  We would never fit in a tiny house of any kind, especially since we wanted more kids!

But once we settled into life with a baby (sometime around his six month birthday), the itch started itching again.  "We could do this with a baby," we thought, looking around at all of the space and stuff in our house we barely used and thinking of all the time and money we spent keeping up a house and yard we didn't even want.

So we started looking into selling our house.  We listed lots of stuff for sale on Craigslist and eBay.  I spent probably untold hours looking at used Airstreams online and reading tiny-house/minimalism blogs.  Because by now, we'd narrowed our small-living dream down to Airstreams.

During the last nine months, this dream has come on and off, as those details would surface again and we would decide it was impossible.  As some of you know, our plans have changed quite a lot.  We looked at selling our house with a realtor, selling our house ourselves, renting our house ourselves.  Buying a smaller house, renting a smaller house, renting an apartment.  Staying in Birmingham, moving to Huntsville, moving to Georgia.

But the Airstream kept "shining through our murky plans," as it were.  For a while, we even thought we'd be out of our house and full-timing it by April 19.  Obviously that date came and went, and still no firm timeline of what we wanted to do and when.  We just knew why.

And last week, the "why," apparently, proved to be enough.

...TBC :)

Christmas Fever

...And no, I don't mean rabid excitement over everyone's favorite holiday!

We spent Christmas Eve and Day with my parents and brother in Huntsville, per tradition.  This year was a bit different for several reasons:  We were all trying to save money and buck materialism, so gifts weren't as big as usual; we're all trying to eat healthier (and still recovering from prepping our giant Thanksgiving meal), so the food was pretty basic; and--oh yeah!--this year we had a baby to enjoy Christmas with!

But baby Charles' body didn't know it was supposed to feel good for such a joyful occasion, and so Christmas Eve he woke up with only his second fever ever.  His first fever was a couple of weeks ago, and had he not been too warm, I never would have known he was ill.  This time was a bit different--he obviously didn't feel well at all, and he was pretty pitiful for the rest of the day.

Both fevers seemed to be related to constipation and teething, and the Christmas fever added some congestion to the mix.  Both were under 48 hours, and both were relieved when he finally did have a good diaper-full.

I didn't run for a fever-reducing medication at the first sign of a temperature, though I monitored it fairly closely.  We've learned that fevers are a symptom, not a disease and that you should treat the baby, not the symptom.  That means that 1) fevers have a purpose and are a vital part of our body's immune response, so suppressing fever is actually suppressing the immune system, and that 2) since in both cases Charles was handling the fever just fine--no screaming, no extreme lethargy, no glazed eyes or bulging fontanel--we should let it run its course while trying to keep him as comfortable as possible and supporting his little body's efforts to heal itself.

I'm still learning how to do that well, but these are the measures we took to help him:

• We wore him a lot while he was feeling icky, which both comforted him and helped his body regulate its temperature and immune response.
• Since he still nurses for over half his food, we went back to a "liquid only" diet of breast-milk and sips of water to allow his body to focus its energies on healing rather than digesting food (and since constipation was also a problem, he didn't need to be packing any more solid food in there!).
• We pulled out our new Essential Oils and boosted his immune system with Thieves, comforted him with Lavender, and helped manage his fever with Peppermint.  We applied the oils (diluted in coconut oil) to the soles of his feet, the back of his neck, and behind his ears, and we also diffused the same blend into the air.
• We tried to keep the atmosphere calm and relaxing--soft lights, no extra noise, and little stimulation.
• Since constipation seemed to be the main known issue, we tried to help him have a BM by massaging his little tummy with Peppermint oil and encouraging the intake of liquids.

That's about it!  Both times he's recovered well and seemingly quickly--and by Christmas morning, though not 100%, he felt well enough to enjoy opening his presents!  Hopefully we'll post pictures of that fun time soon.

How do you help your child when he/she has a fever?

This is his "I really don't feel good, and this silly hat isn't helping" face

Just because we can...

I had a conversation the other day with a fellow believer who pointed out that the Lord has given us the ability to grow more crops per acre, grow bigger animals for more meat, etc., so therefore we should use that ability to provide more food for a growing population, seemingly no matter what the long-term cost.  The end justifies the means, as it were.

(We were discussing how conservative believers aren't very "green," and those of you who know me are probably pretty aware that Trevvor and I are something of Christian Hippies.  I had been saying that our bodies are temples and the earth is the Lord's creation, and it is possibly sinful to knowingly fill either with toxins.)

I've heard this argument before--God gave us brains, so let's use them!  Well, yes.  I agree.  But we can use those brains for destroying just as easily as for building up.  We have the mental capacity to come up with all sorts of creative ways to kill people en masse (atomic bomb? gas chambers? chemical warfare?--modern man is not immune to creative atrocities any more than our barbarian ancestors).  We have the mental capacity to both kill an unborn child and find a way to make it seem reasonable, even moral, to do so.  We can use stem cells from aborted babies to make medical breakthroughs that would help thousands, tens of thousands!  God gave us brains--let's use them!  Right?

Perhaps not.

Such farming practices such as the ones that allow us to feed more people now are simply unsustainable and will make the earth unable to feed a greater population later.  Do we not have a responsibility towards our children's children as much as we do to ourselves?  Especially since it is false that the current population cannot be fed using sustainable means?  If we focused more on nutrition rather than calories, on growing vegetables and fruits rather than excessive meat and sugarcane, we would have more than enough truly healthful food for everyone today without poisoning the land for everyone in the future.

(As a side note, I'll take the opportunity to throw in here that Westerners are selfish to demand that completely unnecessary food-stuffs such as sugar--which has NO nutritional value and is drug-like in addictive powers--be grown on such a scale.  Not to mention meat, coffee, and chocolate--and don't get me started on corn and soy!--which are not completely devoid of value but are over-consumed to such an extent to have ruined traditional farming practices all over the world in undeveloped countries, which grow luxuries [and nutritionally empty calories] for us at the expense of not being able to grow necessities for themselves. Moderation, people!)

And while I'm already ranting a bit, let me address another argument against caring for creation.  I've heard it said that man will not destroy the earth because God will one day do so, therefore it doesn't matter what man does, the world won't be destroyed until God wills it so.
Really?
That's like saying, "I'm not going to die until it's God's time for me to die, so it doesn't matter what risky behavior I engage in, what I eat, how active I am, or how I care for my body at all.  God's in control, so I don't have to take care of myself--I'll just die when He's ready for me."
In both cases, the speaker is correct.  God will destroy the earth of His own accord, and He will bring us home when He wants us home.  It doesn't matter what we do.  But that doesn't remove from us the burden of caring for that which He has created, be it our fleshly temples or the entire world.

Back to the original point.

No, I do not believe that God gave us brains so that we could poison ourselves, so that we could be so short-sighted as to think that what we do now to maintain our current comfortable lifestyles--Western diet included--won't be devastating for the future.  We have the brain power to have our (lightly sweetened) cake and eat it too!  We can use the brains God gave us to keep His earth pure and our bodies along with it, while still feeding all the precious souls which fill His creation.  It does not have to be one or the other.  Don't use God as an excuse not to dig deeper, to keep searching for more sustainable solutions, to admit that maybe those liberal pagan tree-huggers could have a point.

Yes, we can do all these toxic things in the name of God and science.  But just because we can, doesn't mean we should.

'“All things are lawful,” but not all things are helpful. “All things are lawful,” but not all things build up.' - 1 Corinthians 10:23