Redneck's Wife
Saturday, October 22, 2005
Friday, October 21, 2005
We've come a long way, baby!
Ha! Modest swimwear.
I just came across this on Manolo's shoeblog.
Maybe people can wear this to the Christian gym!
After looking at this site, I have one word: Itchy!
Though maybe this would cover up the stretchmarks and cellulite resulting from my pregnancy...at the cost of making me look like an 80 year old.
ok, now I'm off to do something productive with the rest of my day. ¶ 10:03 AM 2 comments
Ha! Modest swimwear.
I just came across this on Manolo's shoeblog.
Maybe people can wear this to the Christian gym!
After looking at this site, I have one word: Itchy!
Though maybe this would cover up the stretchmarks and cellulite resulting from my pregnancy...at the cost of making me look like an 80 year old.
ok, now I'm off to do something productive with the rest of my day. ¶ 10:03 AM 2 comments
Not tagged, but doing it anyway.
Birgit had this on her blog:
1.Go into your archives.
2. Find your 23rd post.
3. Post the fifth sentence (or closest to it).
4. Post the text of the sentence in your blog along with these instructions.
5. Tag five other people to do the same thing.
Well, here's mine, a typical sarcastic comment:
"Oh, apparently not."
I'm not tagging anyone, but if anyone wants to do it, go ahead! It was interesting to look at my archives. I didn't realize how many posts I actually had. I still don't know exactly (too lazy to count), but it's over 100. ¶ 9:46 AM 2 comments
Birgit had this on her blog:
1.Go into your archives.
2. Find your 23rd post.
3. Post the fifth sentence (or closest to it).
4. Post the text of the sentence in your blog along with these instructions.
5. Tag five other people to do the same thing.
Well, here's mine, a typical sarcastic comment:
"Oh, apparently not."
I'm not tagging anyone, but if anyone wants to do it, go ahead! It was interesting to look at my archives. I didn't realize how many posts I actually had. I still don't know exactly (too lazy to count), but it's over 100. ¶ 9:46 AM 2 comments
Thursday, October 20, 2005
Insulting
In a short break from pregancy stuff, I just have to say something about the Harriet Miers Supreme Court nomination.
This has been bugging me for a while. Ever since she was first put forward, it seems that the main reasons the president has given conservatives for supporting her are:
1. I know her.
2. She's a woman.
3. Trust me.
Well, in short, those reasons suck.
The first problem I have with the nomination is that it seems sneaky. Why pick someone who has a very thin record, and not many written opinions regarding constitutional issues? When Bush nominated John Roberts, everyone agreed that he was highly qualified. He had argued many cases before the Supreme Court, he had clear conservative ties, and even those on the other end of the ideological spectrum agreed that he knew what he was doing. With Miers, we get no such impression. We know that she's a Christian, but so what? Her lack of a record communicates that the administration is trying to hide something. Why not just be honest? Pick a nominee who has a clear conservative record, if that's the kind of person you want on the court. Will there be a battle? Sure, but let's go for it. Don't give us someone no one knows anything about and then just ask us to trust you. When Clintion nominated Ruth Bader Ginsburg, he didn't try to hide that she's a liberal. Just be honest.
Secondly, so Harriet Miers is a woman. Big deal. I would rather have a man that is qualified than a woman who is not. If you can find a woman who is clearly qualified, great. I'm sure there are some out there. But don't just pick a woman to fulfill some kind of quota. That isn't what conservatives do. That's what conservatives are always complaining about liberals doing.
The third thing that bothers me is that the Bush administration seems to misunderstand the conservative base. With Miers, the insinuation is "she's against Roe v. Wade". Well, okay, but there are lots of other issues out there that we care about. There are lots of other issues that come before the Supreme Court. How about property rights? Illegal immigration? Prisoner abuse? The death penalty? The pledge of allegiance? Does she have any knowledge about these issues? What is her constitutional philosophy? Conservatives want someone who interprets the constitution according to the original intent of the framers, not according to the judge's personal preferences. Conservatives (well, some of us, anyway) don't want a right-wing activist, we want an originalist. Hey, maybe sometimes the interpreting the constitution according to original intent may lead to Supreme Court decisions contrary to some conservative preferences, but the constitution will be followed, and that is the important thing. So, Miers is against Roe v. Wade. But why is she against it? Is it because she thinks abortion is wrong, or is it because she beleives it was bad law in the first place?
I have actually heard a talk show host say, "I'm supporting Miers because James Dobson and Jay Sekulow support her." To me, that is ridiculous and scary. Why can't you think these things out for yourself? There are real issues at stake here. This is not some kind of game.
Then, I see this article in the Chicago Tribune, talking about how Miers didn't even do a complete job filling out a questionairre given to her by the Senate Judiciary Committee. This is the kind of thing that seems to communicate to the Senate and to the rest of us, "screw you, the president likes me, so I don't have to give you anything." Many of the senators on the committee said that this is insulting, and it is.
That is not how this country works. We have a democracy, not a dictatorship, and I don't take the president, or any other politician, on his word. Explain to us why we should support this person. Give some solid reasons to support her. Tell us about her background. Don't say "Trust me". Ronald Reagan said, in 1980, in response to Carter asking the American people to trust him:
So, no, Mr. President. I don't trust you. Not until you give me a reason to. ¶ 12:01 PM 2 comments
In a short break from pregancy stuff, I just have to say something about the Harriet Miers Supreme Court nomination.
This has been bugging me for a while. Ever since she was first put forward, it seems that the main reasons the president has given conservatives for supporting her are:
1. I know her.
2. She's a woman.
3. Trust me.
Well, in short, those reasons suck.
The first problem I have with the nomination is that it seems sneaky. Why pick someone who has a very thin record, and not many written opinions regarding constitutional issues? When Bush nominated John Roberts, everyone agreed that he was highly qualified. He had argued many cases before the Supreme Court, he had clear conservative ties, and even those on the other end of the ideological spectrum agreed that he knew what he was doing. With Miers, we get no such impression. We know that she's a Christian, but so what? Her lack of a record communicates that the administration is trying to hide something. Why not just be honest? Pick a nominee who has a clear conservative record, if that's the kind of person you want on the court. Will there be a battle? Sure, but let's go for it. Don't give us someone no one knows anything about and then just ask us to trust you. When Clintion nominated Ruth Bader Ginsburg, he didn't try to hide that she's a liberal. Just be honest.
Secondly, so Harriet Miers is a woman. Big deal. I would rather have a man that is qualified than a woman who is not. If you can find a woman who is clearly qualified, great. I'm sure there are some out there. But don't just pick a woman to fulfill some kind of quota. That isn't what conservatives do. That's what conservatives are always complaining about liberals doing.
The third thing that bothers me is that the Bush administration seems to misunderstand the conservative base. With Miers, the insinuation is "she's against Roe v. Wade". Well, okay, but there are lots of other issues out there that we care about. There are lots of other issues that come before the Supreme Court. How about property rights? Illegal immigration? Prisoner abuse? The death penalty? The pledge of allegiance? Does she have any knowledge about these issues? What is her constitutional philosophy? Conservatives want someone who interprets the constitution according to the original intent of the framers, not according to the judge's personal preferences. Conservatives (well, some of us, anyway) don't want a right-wing activist, we want an originalist. Hey, maybe sometimes the interpreting the constitution according to original intent may lead to Supreme Court decisions contrary to some conservative preferences, but the constitution will be followed, and that is the important thing. So, Miers is against Roe v. Wade. But why is she against it? Is it because she thinks abortion is wrong, or is it because she beleives it was bad law in the first place?
I have actually heard a talk show host say, "I'm supporting Miers because James Dobson and Jay Sekulow support her." To me, that is ridiculous and scary. Why can't you think these things out for yourself? There are real issues at stake here. This is not some kind of game.
Then, I see this article in the Chicago Tribune, talking about how Miers didn't even do a complete job filling out a questionairre given to her by the Senate Judiciary Committee. This is the kind of thing that seems to communicate to the Senate and to the rest of us, "screw you, the president likes me, so I don't have to give you anything." Many of the senators on the committee said that this is insulting, and it is.
That is not how this country works. We have a democracy, not a dictatorship, and I don't take the president, or any other politician, on his word. Explain to us why we should support this person. Give some solid reasons to support her. Tell us about her background. Don't say "Trust me". Ronald Reagan said, in 1980, in response to Carter asking the American people to trust him:
Mr. Carter says, trust him. Well, that's not what this country is all about. We don't place trust in one man. If there's trust placed in anyone it's the trust placed in the American people, and it's up to the elected leaders to not violate that trust. It is a belief of principles and ideals that survive, not the trust of one man.
So, no, Mr. President. I don't trust you. Not until you give me a reason to. ¶ 12:01 PM 2 comments
Wednesday, October 19, 2005
No stork yet, Feeble!
Gosh! I've been so negligent lately. I realize that an extended period of no posting at this point in my pregnancy makes people wonder: Hmmm, she hasn't posted in a while, has she had the baby? Feeble Knees even posted as much!
Not yet! Thanks for praying though, I really appreciate it.
This is interesting, though. A couple weeks ago I left a message for a friend to "please call me back right away". I didn't really think about it, but she called, worried. "Are you okay? Are you in labor?" Oops. No. I just wanted to ask you about having lunch.
Also, one of my haircut clients left me a message and asked if I could squeeze in one more haircut before the baby. I, in turn, left her a message with times, days, etc. She called me back, leaving another message. Then, I forgot about it. Two days later, I remembered in the middle of the night that I hadn't called her back. When I called the next day, she said "Oh, I was sure you had the baby! I wasn't going to call you for another week!"
I called Cindy yesterday, and was greeted with "Are you in labor?" Then there are the daily calls from mom-in-law. God help me if I go past my due date! Will there be hourly calls? Will I still be able to be nice?
So, I have to be careful what I say. It's a really weird feeling knowing I could go into labor at any time. In the grocery store this weekend, the expiration date on the milk was after my due date.
Ok, baby. Whenever you're ready! ¶ 10:20 AM 4 comments
Gosh! I've been so negligent lately. I realize that an extended period of no posting at this point in my pregnancy makes people wonder: Hmmm, she hasn't posted in a while, has she had the baby? Feeble Knees even posted as much!
Not yet! Thanks for praying though, I really appreciate it.
This is interesting, though. A couple weeks ago I left a message for a friend to "please call me back right away". I didn't really think about it, but she called, worried. "Are you okay? Are you in labor?" Oops. No. I just wanted to ask you about having lunch.
Also, one of my haircut clients left me a message and asked if I could squeeze in one more haircut before the baby. I, in turn, left her a message with times, days, etc. She called me back, leaving another message. Then, I forgot about it. Two days later, I remembered in the middle of the night that I hadn't called her back. When I called the next day, she said "Oh, I was sure you had the baby! I wasn't going to call you for another week!"
I called Cindy yesterday, and was greeted with "Are you in labor?" Then there are the daily calls from mom-in-law. God help me if I go past my due date! Will there be hourly calls? Will I still be able to be nice?
So, I have to be careful what I say. It's a really weird feeling knowing I could go into labor at any time. In the grocery store this weekend, the expiration date on the milk was after my due date.
Ok, baby. Whenever you're ready! ¶ 10:20 AM 4 comments
Braggarts!
Catching up on my blog reading today, I ran across two posts that made me jealous.
Katherine muses: "When you already live in paradise, where can you go for vacation? Oh, I know, someplace even cooler!"
Jon rejoices in being able to drive in the carpool lane all by himself.
Man! You people are soooo fortunate. No, really, I'm happy for you. I am, I swear. ¶ 10:12 AM 0 comments
Catching up on my blog reading today, I ran across two posts that made me jealous.
Katherine muses: "When you already live in paradise, where can you go for vacation? Oh, I know, someplace even cooler!"
Jon rejoices in being able to drive in the carpool lane all by himself.
Man! You people are soooo fortunate. No, really, I'm happy for you. I am, I swear. ¶ 10:12 AM 0 comments
