Sharing an important post

June 10, 2010 at 9:33 am (Baby, Opinion, Parenting, Politics, Toddler)

I’ve been following this blog for a while now, having been directed to it by Matt Logelin’s blog.  At first the story was captivating, then heartbreaking, and I was truly invested in the lives of this woman, this mom, who so easily could have been me.

Now, she finds herself in an impossible situation.  One that should not EVER happen in this country.  A family should not have to put themselves in debt for health care.  I could never write about it as well as she can, so please take the time to read her most recent entry and then read her story.

The Spohrs Are Multiplying


Permalink Leave a Comment

A final word on President Bush

January 16, 2009 at 5:27 pm (Opinion, Politics)

This is not a Bush rant, I know that is surprising for those of you who know me.

Last Monday, Bush held his last press briefing and I listened to it.  He was witty and self-depricating and (gasp!) likeable!!!! He was genuine.  I will never agree with his politics and I still believe that he has made many bad decisions.  But I think he has allowed himself to be steered by party leaders and advisors.  i think someone told him that he needed to be stiff and serious.  But in the waning days of his presidency, I have seen a few interviews with him – one in the White House with Laura talking about their last Christmas.  I saw that same side of him that I hadn’t seen in the last 8 years.  Maybe he has allowed himself to let his guard down and be himself more, instead of always being “The President”.  It’s easy to play Monday-morning quarterback and say that he would have higher approval ratings and fewer critics if he had been more of this likeable guy from Texas instead of the bumbling idiot who I saw most of the time during his interviews.   Obviously we never know what would have happened and we can’t re-write history.

I still would not have agreed with him or liked him, but there is a possibility that I would definitely have seen him as more tolerable.  After last night’s “farewell address” in prime time, he was his normal stiff self and I was disappointed because I was looking forward to seeing more of his real self – the family man, the sports fan, the husband and father who was born into a political family.   Nevertheless, all his foibles aside and his conservative nature aside I think that he loves this country and is proud to have served as president.  Only time well tell how History treats him in the future.

Now, onward to President-elect Obama and the unknown that will be the next 4 years!

Permalink Leave a Comment

Adieu 2008!

December 31, 2008 at 12:04 pm (Baby, Family, Holidays, House, Parenting, Politics) (, )

I have to bid a fond goodbye to 2008.  It was a big year for me.  I went from “Leanna” to “Mommy” (actually Mama).  I have always had this quirk.  Please don’t laugh at me.  I prefer even numbered years.  No reason.  I just do.  So it is with a small amount of trepidation that I look forward to 2009.  There are a few things that I am looking forward to in 2009.  First and extremely importantly, saying Adios to Pres Bush and hello to President Obama.  I hope that the transition is smooth and that things can turn around in this country.  Second I am looking forward to hopefully being able to sell our house and move to a larger one with a yard for Alexis.  I am also looking forward to the possibility of baby #2 (and final baby).  Well, at least being pregnant not actually having baby #2 in 2009.

As for New Year’s Resolutions, I don’t do them.  I resolved several years ago to stop making resolutions.  I think they just set me up for failure.   So, I will just be positive and start fresh with all the promise and anticipation that January 1st brings.

Permalink Leave a Comment

Political Commentary

October 1, 2008 at 11:50 am (Family, Opinion, Parenting, Politics) (, , , )

I know I have totally been slacking on updating my blog.  So to ease myself back into blogging, I am going to start with someone else’s words.  I am copy and pasting this from the Miami Herald, it’s a column by Carl Hiaasen about Sarah Palin.  I know that some of her supporters are asking about feminists and where are they now that it’s a Republican not a Democrat.  I just want to clarify that Sarah Palin is about as anti-woman and anti-feminism as you can get.  Her decisions to have a career and raise a family is not in question – I think it’s wonderful that a woman can successfully do both.  I also so not question her decision to support her teenage daughter – as a mother, I would expect nothing less.  Though, I do question her thinking on “abstinence-only” sex education, maybe if her daughter had known about birth control and condoms she would not be in this position.  In my opinion having a vagina does not entitle someone to the support of feminists.  So, any woman who supported Hillary Clinton will not blindly support Palin b/c the only thing they have in common is their gender and above-mentioned vagina.

Here’s the article by Carl Hiaasen, it’s from the Herald on Sunday 9/28

If Palin were a male candidate . . .

The vice presidential debate is set for next Thursday, and millions of voters will be watching to see if moderator Gwen Ifill of PBS behaves herself.

Most journalists are still getting accustomed to the Sarah Rules, as established and enforced by John McCain’s campaign team. The most important is Sarah Rule No. 1: Don’t treat Gov. Palin like a male candidate, or you’ll be accused of character assassination.

Maybe this is why McCain has kept Palin sequestered from the press — not because he’s terrified she’ll pull a Dan Quayle and say something goofy (as she did to Katie Couric), but because he gallantly wants to protect her from all the chauvinist meanies who would ask impertinent questions.

Likewise, the same right-wing gasbags who’ve trashed Hillary Clinton for 16 years have morphed into sensitive souls when it comes to their own hockey-mom candidate. Each unsettling news revelation about Palin is automatically decried as a sexist smear.

If Palin were a male candidate, Democrat or Republican, she’d be taking heat for ducking reporters when the election is only five weeks away. Yet, except for a few grumps, the media have reluctantly accepted the Sarah snub as the new order of things.

In the big debate it will be interesting to see if the rules are followed, or broken.

If Palin were a male candidate, for example, she would again be asked (as Charles Gibson did) why she took credit for killing Alaska’s notorious Bridge to Nowhere, when in fact she supported the $223 million boondoggle until Congress turned against it.

If Palin were a male candidate, she might also be encouraged to discuss why she chose a high-school pal to head Alaska’s Division of Agriculture at a $95,000 salary. Among her flimsy qualifications, the woman, a former real-estate agent, claimed an affection of cows.

If Palin were a male candidate, she’d be asked why she put another childhood friend in charge of a money-losing, state-subsidized creamery that was supposed to shut down until Palin reversed the decision. As The Wall Street Journal reported, the doomed dairy cost Alaskans more than $800,000 in additional losses before it was finally closed.

Explain $17,000 `per diem’

In fact, during her short stint as governor, Palin has appointed several school buddies to well-paying state posts. Her legislative director was in the same junior-high band with Palin. Another old classmate was operating a Mailboxes, Etc. franchise when the governor appointed him head of the state’s economic development office.

If Palin were a male candidate who claimed to be a crusading, cost-cutting reformer, she’d be asked what made her any better than other politicians who hand out fat government jobs to cronies.

Maybe if she were a male candidate, she’d be pressed to explain why she billed the state more than $17,000 as ”per diem” expenses — for 312 nights she spent at her own home.

Palin’s staff told The Washington Post that the governor is entitled to such payments under Alaskan law, but a male candidate would be quickly reminded that even members of Congress don’t receive a per diem allowance for routine home visits.

A male candidate would be asked how he could promote himself as a ”maverick” while dunning taxpayers on his expense accounts.

If Palin were a man, she’d be questioned closely about her professed aversion to pork-barrel government spending, since she has happily pledged $500 million of her state’s money toward a 1,715-mile natural gas pipeline.

Speaking about that as-yet unbuilt project, Palin got on stage at the Wasilla Assembly of God and told churchgoers: ”God’s will has to be done in unifying people and companies in getting that gas line built, so pray for that.” As you might imagine, this is a popular clip on YouTube.

A male candidate would be ridiculed — no, make that crucified — for suggesting that the Lord has taken a personal interest in natural-gas extraction. Luckily for Palin, the Sarah Rules censure such commentary as anti-religious.

Imagine if her Democratic opponent, Sen. Joe Biden, had been videotaped while being solemnly blessed against ”every form of witchcraft.” The Republicans would jump on it, running blistering ads to portray Biden as a whack job unfit for the vice presidency.

President Palin?

Wondrously, though, Palin has yet to face any questions about her weird anti-witch inoculation at the hands of one Pastor Thomas Muthee in 2005. It’s sort of creepy to watch, but who knows — maybe this stuff really works for future vice presidents. Maybe Spiro Agnew should have tried it.

Once upon a time, any person who sought the second-highest office in the land could expect to be grilled almost as unsparingly as a presidential candidate. Biden himself has been slammed during campaign interviews, not always unfairly.

Yet the Sarah Rules allow everyone to explain Palin’s words and past actions except Palin herself.

If she were a man, they wouldn’t be praising her for being a hockey dad. They’d be calling her a lightweight who shouldn’t be a hundred heartbeats from the Oval Office, much less one.

Permalink Leave a Comment

Are you living under a rock?

July 15, 2008 at 3:55 pm (Opinion, Politics, Random) (, , , )

I believe our president is, as he has declared:

Financial system is ‘basically sound’

Um, WTF? I have countless foreclosures in my neighborhood alone that point to a different picture.

Further, on the lifitng of the ban on offshore drilling he said, “I readily concede it won’t produce a barrel of oil tomorrow, but it will reverse the psychology,”  Ok – so let’s screw up our environment more and allow oil companies (paragons of virtue) to drill off our shores.  Why you ask?  To reverse the psychology.  It won’t bring down oil prices b/c it’ll be 10 years before any of the oil from that actually makes its way to our cars.  Hopefully by that time, we can come up with alternative fuel sources and not need any of it!! Living in Miami – boy I can’t wait to go to the beach and look out at the beautiful oil rigs destroying the ecosystem!

Permalink Leave a Comment