I've had Christmases in the past where I had a hard time a) being excited about the season, b) getting motivated to decorate; and c) being cheerful. But so far, this has been the worst two weeks of December in history.
I still don't have the tree up or even the decorations out of the basement.
I baked cookies all week, and thankfully set the ones aside for the teachers, because the M&M and chocolate chip ones are all gone. Tried to make more yesterday, and they disappeared as fast as they came out of the oven. Out of 6 doxen (okay, probably closer to 5), there are exactly 3 dozen plus two.
I'd planned to have a large stash set aside, but didn't bake any on Thursday, due to Christmas shopping and the fact I kept getting interrupted. Then on Friday, B 'kidnapped' me and we ate a late lunch at Applebee's, then went to the Washington GW Fashions and on to Evansville, first the GW Fashions and Barnes and Noble. Ate dinner at Sonic, then got back in time to divvy up the goods and go to karaoke. Left around 2pm and was home by 1am. So obviously no baking there. I even had to come home and do a load of laundry, since W's game was at 9am yesterday.
And today we're supposed to go to a family get together, and all I want to do is cry.
And I don't know why.
Sunday, December 9, 2012
Monday, December 3, 2012
Getting Excited.....
Saw a post on the digest that 'non-promoting authors will be terminated this winter'. Oh I hope I finally get my letter! Then to respectfully request my rights back, clean up the book again, and send it to SCP!!! And hope that a) S remembers this story; b) D can make a cover as beautiful as the existing one; and c) my affiliation with that publisher will be forever severed:)
But then what will you have to rant about?
Oh believe me; with the daughter's b/f, there will be plenty! Trust me. Also I'm not happy with the outcome of our Presidential election; just been too busy to rant about it.
But then what will you have to rant about?
Oh believe me; with the daughter's b/f, there will be plenty! Trust me. Also I'm not happy with the outcome of our Presidential election; just been too busy to rant about it.
Thursday, October 11, 2012
Another Issue I Can't Stay Quiet About....
A FB friend and former classmate posted a pic of the President making a half-hearted salute while talking on the phone as he exits AF1. He calls this 'disrespectful', and I happen to agree with him.
But another classmate dug up the following info:
"This gesture is of course quite wrong: such a salute has always required the wearing of a uniform." The President is a civilian and as such, his saluting of military personnel is not required, mandated, or expected. (read Marine General Barrow's comment below). The fact that Obama does so at all is a chosen sign of respect and if he doesn't stop and go into a full salute, there is no implication of disrespect at all. There are much better things to get worked up about than this assumed insult that isn't one at all. Should U.S. presidents return military salutes or not?
Longstanding tradition requires members of the military to salute the president. The practice of presidents returning that salute is more recent — Ronald Reagan started it in 1981.
Reagan’s decision raised eyebrows at the time. Dwight Eisenhower, a former five-star general, did not return military salutes while president. Nor had other presidents.
John Kline, then Reagan’s military aide and now a Minnesota congressman, advised him that it went against military protocol for presidents to return salutes.
Kline said in a 2004 op-ed piece in The Hill that Reagan ultimately took up the issue with Gen. Robert Barrow, then commandant of the Marine Corps.
Barrow told Reagan that as commander in chief of the armed forces, he was entitled to offer a salute — or any sign of respect he wished — to anyone he wished, Kline wrote, adding he was glad for the change.
Every president since Reagan has followed that practice, even those with no military experience. President Bill Clinton’s saluting skills were roundly criticized after he took office, but the consensus was he eventually got better.
The debate over saluting has persisted, with some arguing against it for protocol reasons, others saying it represents an increasing militarization of the civilian presidency.
“The gesture is of course quite wrong: Such a salute has always required the wearing of a uniform,” author and historian John Lukacs wrote in The New York Times in 2003.
USA/
“But there is more to this than a decline in military manners,” he added. “There is something puerile in the Reagan (and now Bush) salute. It is the joyful gesture of someone who likes playing soldier. It also represents an exaggeration of the president’s military role.”
Garry Wills, the author and Northwestern University professor, echoed those remarks in the Times in 2007.
“The glorification of the president as a war leader is registered in numerous and substantial executive aggrandizements; but it is symbolized in other ways that, while small in themselves, dispose the citizenry to accept those aggrandizements,” he wrote.
“We are reminded, for instance, of the expanded commander in chief status every time a modern president gets off the White House helicopter and returns the salute of Marines.”
So what I THINK my friend is saying is, if you're talking on a cell phone, don't salute at all? Or take the call while still on AF1.
I'll fix the font later; I need to shower.
But another classmate dug up the following info:
"This gesture is of course quite wrong: such a salute has always required the wearing of a uniform." The President is a civilian and as such, his saluting of military personnel is not required, mandated, or expected. (read Marine General Barrow's comment below). The fact that Obama does so at all is a chosen sign of respect and if he doesn't stop and go into a full salute, there is no implication of disrespect at all. There are much better things to get worked up about than this assumed insult that isn't one at all. Should U.S. presidents return military salutes or not?
Longstanding tradition requires members of the military to salute the president. The practice of presidents returning that salute is more recent — Ronald Reagan started it in 1981.
Reagan’s decision raised eyebrows at the time. Dwight Eisenhower, a former five-star general, did not return military salutes while president. Nor had other presidents.
John Kline, then Reagan’s military aide and now a Minnesota congressman, advised him that it went against military protocol for presidents to return salutes.
Kline said in a 2004 op-ed piece in The Hill that Reagan ultimately took up the issue with Gen. Robert Barrow, then commandant of the Marine Corps.
Barrow told Reagan that as commander in chief of the armed forces, he was entitled to offer a salute — or any sign of respect he wished — to anyone he wished, Kline wrote, adding he was glad for the change.
Every president since Reagan has followed that practice, even those with no military experience. President Bill Clinton’s saluting skills were roundly criticized after he took office, but the consensus was he eventually got better.
The debate over saluting has persisted, with some arguing against it for protocol reasons, others saying it represents an increasing militarization of the civilian presidency.
“The gesture is of course quite wrong: Such a salute has always required the wearing of a uniform,” author and historian John Lukacs wrote in The New York Times in 2003.
USA/
“But there is more to this than a decline in military manners,” he added. “There is something puerile in the Reagan (and now Bush) salute. It is the joyful gesture of someone who likes playing soldier. It also represents an exaggeration of the president’s military role.”
Garry Wills, the author and Northwestern University professor, echoed those remarks in the Times in 2007.
“The glorification of the president as a war leader is registered in numerous and substantial executive aggrandizements; but it is symbolized in other ways that, while small in themselves, dispose the citizenry to accept those aggrandizements,” he wrote.
“We are reminded, for instance, of the expanded commander in chief status every time a modern president gets off the White House helicopter and returns the salute of Marines.”
So what I THINK my friend is saying is, if you're talking on a cell phone, don't salute at all? Or take the call while still on AF1.
I'll fix the font later; I need to shower.
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
Marriage Views
I'm probably going to piss off a lot of people; therefore I'm glad I don't advertise this blog! I found the following on Face Book the other day:
I had a conversation today in which I expressed my delight that our president, OUR PRESIDENT, finally came out in support of gay marriage. “This is huge,” I said, sincerely.
The woman with whom I spoke simply looked at me, genuinely surprised by my excitement. “Really?” she asked.
“Yes! Of course,” was my response. Then with all seriousness she looked me in the eyes and said, “It’s just a piece of paper.”
It’s just a piece of paper? It’s JUST a piece of paper? Are you freaking kidding me?
It’s a just piece of paper that SHE is legally permitted to obtain and throw away at her leisure- and has done so TWICE.
It’s just a piece of paper that elevates those in the LGBT community- our fathers and our mothers, our brothers and our sisters, our daughters and our sons- out of the realm of second-class citizen and onto equal footing with their peers.
It’s just a piece of paper that grants all the legal rights & privileges that most heterosexual couples take for granted.
It‘s just a piece of paper that evokes a sense of acceptance and normalcy.
It’s just a piece of paper that declares to the world that an American ideal has finally been upheld, that our civil rights are indeed inalienable (as our forefathers contended) and therefore must be granted EQUALLY to every American citizen!
It's not JUST a piece of paper. It's THE piece of paper!
Ohhhhh boooooyyyyyy.......
First of all, I'm a firm believer in Marriage= One Man, One Woman.
I fully think Obama's 'switch' is politically motivated, NOT his own views.
I have nothing against the gay/lesbian community; I think if they choose to live in committed relationships, awesome! Get a civil union and draw up a will. And by all means, have a child/adopt a child.
Now, let's tackle the 'piece of paper' comment.
Yes, there are people who view 'marriage' as such. I find these people despicable. Marriage takes MORE than a piece of paper. It requires commitment; love; respect; and the willingness to work through issues together. If all efforts to resolve differences fail, despite counseling, or if abuse is evident, then by all means dissolve the marriage and move on. You may have married the wrong person or for the wrong reasons.
And yes, there are those who don't 'get' this.
GLBT community on 'equal footing'? Are you kidding me?
I personally don't care if you're gay. As far as I'm concerned, we're all on equal ground here. Just because I happen to disagree with your definition of marriage doesn't change anything. Yes, there are 'married' same-sex couples with a better track record than heterosexual 'marrieds'. It all comes down to commitment to each other and IF it is based on biblical principles.
"Marriage': One man, one woman standing before God and publicly professing their love, commitment, and vowing to spend the rest of their lives together.
'Civil Union': Two people, hetero or same-sex, professing their love and commitment to each other. This is NOT sanctioned by biblical principles, and has become more acceptable in the last twenty years or so.
If you choose to believe in God, yet stay in same-sex relationship, it's a matter of personal choice. I'm not condoning it; you're the one who will ultimately stand before God and be judged accordingly.
If you subscribe to any other religion, the same applies. I'm not going to force my beliefs down your throat, and expect you not to do likewise. Everyone's entitled to their opinion; this happens to be mine.
And yes, I address this issue in book #6 of Arbor U:)
I had a conversation today in which I expressed my delight that our president, OUR PRESIDENT, finally came out in support of gay marriage. “This is huge,” I said, sincerely.
The woman with whom I spoke simply looked at me, genuinely surprised by my excitement. “Really?” she asked.
“Yes! Of course,” was my response. Then with all seriousness she looked me in the eyes and said, “It’s just a piece of paper.”
It’s just a piece of paper? It’s JUST a piece of paper? Are you freaking kidding me?
It’s a just piece of paper that SHE is legally permitted to obtain and throw away at her leisure- and has done so TWICE.
It’s just a piece of paper that elevates those in the LGBT community- our fathers and our mothers, our brothers and our sisters, our daughters and our sons- out of the realm of second-class citizen and onto equal footing with their peers.
It’s just a piece of paper that grants all the legal rights & privileges that most heterosexual couples take for granted.
It‘s just a piece of paper that evokes a sense of acceptance and normalcy.
It’s just a piece of paper that declares to the world that an American ideal has finally been upheld, that our civil rights are indeed inalienable (as our forefathers contended) and therefore must be granted EQUALLY to every American citizen!
It's not JUST a piece of paper. It's THE piece of paper!
Ohhhhh boooooyyyyyy.......
First of all, I'm a firm believer in Marriage= One Man, One Woman.
I fully think Obama's 'switch' is politically motivated, NOT his own views.
I have nothing against the gay/lesbian community; I think if they choose to live in committed relationships, awesome! Get a civil union and draw up a will. And by all means, have a child/adopt a child.
Now, let's tackle the 'piece of paper' comment.
Yes, there are people who view 'marriage' as such. I find these people despicable. Marriage takes MORE than a piece of paper. It requires commitment; love; respect; and the willingness to work through issues together. If all efforts to resolve differences fail, despite counseling, or if abuse is evident, then by all means dissolve the marriage and move on. You may have married the wrong person or for the wrong reasons.
And yes, there are those who don't 'get' this.
GLBT community on 'equal footing'? Are you kidding me?
I personally don't care if you're gay. As far as I'm concerned, we're all on equal ground here. Just because I happen to disagree with your definition of marriage doesn't change anything. Yes, there are 'married' same-sex couples with a better track record than heterosexual 'marrieds'. It all comes down to commitment to each other and IF it is based on biblical principles.
"Marriage': One man, one woman standing before God and publicly professing their love, commitment, and vowing to spend the rest of their lives together.
'Civil Union': Two people, hetero or same-sex, professing their love and commitment to each other. This is NOT sanctioned by biblical principles, and has become more acceptable in the last twenty years or so.
If you choose to believe in God, yet stay in same-sex relationship, it's a matter of personal choice. I'm not condoning it; you're the one who will ultimately stand before God and be judged accordingly.
If you subscribe to any other religion, the same applies. I'm not going to force my beliefs down your throat, and expect you not to do likewise. Everyone's entitled to their opinion; this happens to be mine.
And yes, I address this issue in book #6 of Arbor U:)
Monday, January 30, 2012
WTH???
Yesterday at church, we had a visiting monk, touting his annual 'please-support-our-efforts'. I like Fr. Brendan; he has an excellent sense of humor and you can tell he really likes people. But in the middle of his sermon, he touched on something I was not aware of. And had to do a little research.
According to the new 'health care law', which goes into effect Aug 1st, all health care plans will be required to offer free contraceptives, including sterilizations, and that certain religious organizations are exempt 'until they adapt to the new law'.
Fr. Brendan informed us that no longer will Catholic hospitals and schools provide health care for its workers; Catholic Charities will no longer be able to provide adoptive services; and any religious college has to provide contraceptives to their female students.
Okay; I get why many Catholics are up in arms over this, and admittedly, it's the older generation, with a few of the more 'I'm Catholic, and this is our law/rule, so I'm going to abide by it' younger generation.
But can't they meet somewhere in the middle? Only provide the contraceptives for those who WANT it?
I'll admit; the first time I was exposed to the Catholic views, I scoffed at the notion of having to 'get permission' from Rome, just to obtain a divorce or even marry a divorced person. Or for women to receive a special dispensation for having a medical reason to be on birth control. Or for a woman be told 'if you're not going to provide children, then you must live with your husband in a celibate way' (paraphrasing from Common Ground). I found this one ludicrous.
And then when I'd ask other Catholics about this practice, I only had one male tell me if he impregnated his girlfriend, he wouldn't marry her until after the baby was born. WTH???? Girls told me they used protection, regardless of the Church's teaching, especially now since AIDS was an issue. Celibacy was an option few women chose. One of my best friends, on the eve of her marriage, informed me her own mother took her to get on the Pill, since she and her new hubby were about to spend a year on the road. He was a truck driver, so they were taking an extended honeymoon, to show her parts of the US she'd never seen before.
"But isn't that against your religion?"
"Yes, but many don't follow that rule anymore. In this day and age, it just isn't practical."
Contrast this with a family we met ten years ago.
They were low-income; she home-schooled her children; the husband was a reformed alcoholic with his own business. They currently had five children, and at the time we first met them, were hoping they were pregnant again. Church issues came up in discussion, and they admitted they used the Family Planning method, approved by the Church. And yes, she was pregnant again.
Two years later, child #7 arrived. We had gotten friendly at the this point, so I knew more about their financial concerns, and it still blew my mind they were crammed into a tiny house, dependent on food stamps, and other government assistance. And another two years later, she miscarried baby #8 and was told by the doctor to stop having kids; she was putting her own health in danger. This put her into depression, for she felt she was not 'fulfilling God's promise'. Thankfully, she did regain her cheerful self again.
But my question is, what is this teaching her children? That's it's okay to keep having children you can barely afford to raise?
I think it's time for the Catholic Church to stay out of women's health care.
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Decisions, Decisions....
What do you do when a loved one makes a request, out of the blue, which knocks you speechless? When this loved one wants to act out a fantasy, which goes way beyond the boundaries of every moral belief you ever held?
"I just want this to be about pleasure and take this to the next level. Was hoping you'd want to, but if not, then okay...."
I'm soooo torn. On one hand, yes, it would certainly be exciting and also come under 'research'; on the other hand, seriously???? I'm adventurous, but don't think I'm THAT adventurous!
I mean, what happens if things go horribly wrong? I don't want this to affect our relationship. On one hand, if it enhances it, fine. If it's a one-time thing plus enhances it, fine. But what happens if I allow this and am so guilt-ridden afterward? Or this destroys our relationship?
It ultimately comes down to trust. And I do trust him.
I'm just not sure I trust myself to accept the consequences.
"I just want this to be about pleasure and take this to the next level. Was hoping you'd want to, but if not, then okay...."
I'm soooo torn. On one hand, yes, it would certainly be exciting and also come under 'research'; on the other hand, seriously???? I'm adventurous, but don't think I'm THAT adventurous!
I mean, what happens if things go horribly wrong? I don't want this to affect our relationship. On one hand, if it enhances it, fine. If it's a one-time thing plus enhances it, fine. But what happens if I allow this and am so guilt-ridden afterward? Or this destroys our relationship?
It ultimately comes down to trust. And I do trust him.
I'm just not sure I trust myself to accept the consequences.
Friday, December 23, 2011
Grow Up!
Received a phone call yesterday. Again, I didn't have to answer it, but since this person hadn't called on my birthday, and it's so close to the holidays, I opened my phone. And was regretting it two minutes later.
"Happy belated birthday by the way....I'm sick with the stomach flu. I need you to come take care of me." Are you INSANE? With everything I have to do? Hell NO!
"No can do. I'm wrapping gifts and doing last minute stuff. You're just going to have to let it run its course."
"But my laundry is piling up....I haven't seen you in YEARS.....and oh, have you told E about S yet?" You have family in the area; I am NOT going to drive down to do your laundry; and the last time I was in town, you couldn't be bothered to return my phone call! And lately, the only time you call me is when you're whining about something! So yeah, maybe this 'friendship' is getting a little one-sided....
"Yes, I told her last night. She told me she was sorry and that she'd pray for us."
"That's IT? No lecture? No condemnation?" OMFG...E has other things to worry about other than her adopted niece being pregnant....her husband's two nieces had kids at 17 also! She's used to it, sadly enough....just as long as her own daughters behave themselves....."She must be mellowing out."
"Maybe. Look, I've got to get going; I need to run to the store for milk and toilet paper. Give me your new address so I can send your Christmas card out....Thanks; Merry Christmas and Happy New Year."
It's hard witnessing the last choking stages of a dying friendship. In the past twenty-six years, she's been loyal; funny; supportive; and relieved when she 'came out' to me and I didn't judge her. I was there for her when her relationships imploded. I was there for her when her mom passed away. And in the past three years since she's moved back to her hometown, she's reverted to an almost teenage mentality.
She calls me when she's sick. When she's having issues with a destructive relationship. When she's feuding with her family. Or expecting me to drop everything and come take care of her.
I'm tired of listening to her drama. I'm tired of her thinking everything's the same as it was twenty years ago. Why is it some people don't seem to grow up?
Sometimes I think the only reason two of my former best friends stay around is because "Hey, Molly's making a name for herself! We might actually know a celebrity soon!"
And I do have a fear that if I end these friendships, they know too much about things I'd rather not divulge. Not that I'll ever end up on TMZ or Extra or the tabloids....but my kids don't need to know everything!
"Happy belated birthday by the way....I'm sick with the stomach flu. I need you to come take care of me." Are you INSANE? With everything I have to do? Hell NO!
"No can do. I'm wrapping gifts and doing last minute stuff. You're just going to have to let it run its course."
"But my laundry is piling up....I haven't seen you in YEARS.....and oh, have you told E about S yet?" You have family in the area; I am NOT going to drive down to do your laundry; and the last time I was in town, you couldn't be bothered to return my phone call! And lately, the only time you call me is when you're whining about something! So yeah, maybe this 'friendship' is getting a little one-sided....
"Yes, I told her last night. She told me she was sorry and that she'd pray for us."
"That's IT? No lecture? No condemnation?" OMFG...E has other things to worry about other than her adopted niece being pregnant....her husband's two nieces had kids at 17 also! She's used to it, sadly enough....just as long as her own daughters behave themselves....."She must be mellowing out."
"Maybe. Look, I've got to get going; I need to run to the store for milk and toilet paper. Give me your new address so I can send your Christmas card out....Thanks; Merry Christmas and Happy New Year."
It's hard witnessing the last choking stages of a dying friendship. In the past twenty-six years, she's been loyal; funny; supportive; and relieved when she 'came out' to me and I didn't judge her. I was there for her when her relationships imploded. I was there for her when her mom passed away. And in the past three years since she's moved back to her hometown, she's reverted to an almost teenage mentality.
She calls me when she's sick. When she's having issues with a destructive relationship. When she's feuding with her family. Or expecting me to drop everything and come take care of her.
I'm tired of listening to her drama. I'm tired of her thinking everything's the same as it was twenty years ago. Why is it some people don't seem to grow up?
Sometimes I think the only reason two of my former best friends stay around is because "Hey, Molly's making a name for herself! We might actually know a celebrity soon!"
And I do have a fear that if I end these friendships, they know too much about things I'd rather not divulge. Not that I'll ever end up on TMZ or Extra or the tabloids....but my kids don't need to know everything!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)