Clearly Nebulous

Russell Crowe and Ben Affleck have a warning for BHO and the Dems

In their upcoming movie, State of Play, a character says to Crowe -- seen at the 1:30 mark in this trailer

http://www.imdb.com/video/screenplay/vi3269395225/

"Do you have any idea what you're threatening here? Billions of dollars. That's Wrath of God money."

With nearly a trillion at stake, surely the Apocalypse is at hand...

BHO and I agree: D.C. Drivers are Wimps!

"Can I make a comment that is unrelated to the economy very quickly?" the new president told reporters at a gathering with business leaders. "And it has to do with Washington. My children's school was canceled today. Because of, what? Some ice?"

For once, I can agree with Obama.
 
I'm from Chicago, too, and the 6 or 7 winters I have spent here in the D.C. area, I have been amazed at how a little bit of snow or ice shuts this place down.
 
But doesn't that make me and Obama statists or climatists or some other -ists? We just don't understand.
 
We just don't understand what it's like to grow up in an area that doesn't have the great abundance of plows and road salt like they do in upstate Illinois.
 
We just don't understand the barriers that people of this region have had to overcome in getting a sufficient education to make their way along a snowy or icy roadway.
 
We just don't understand how hard it is to pull one's self out of a ditch when they were unable to successfully navigate a treacherous back street.
 
We just don't understand how they've suffered the absence of role models who can steer them in the right direction when their rear wheels start fish-tailing in the slush.

Only when a D.C.-area driver wins the Indy 500 in a snowstorm will the real healing begin.
 

This Package ain't Stimulating

I have to defer to the expert on this one -- my husband wrote "10 Reasons to Whack Obama's Stimulus Plan" found here: http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-commerce/2009/1/27/10-reasons-to-nix-the-stimulus-plan.html

Apparently it was so enlightening that it was read -- point by point -- on the floor of the House this afternoon by Rep. David Dreier (R-CA). (My husband is officially in the congressional record!)

I'm sure the average citizen out there is thinking -- "Something has to be done. Obama and the Dems are just giving another approach a shot." They hear about plans to spend billions on education and health care and infrastructure and everything else under the sun, and they think "Well, we should be spending money on those things."

Well, I need to spend money on food every month, but would I give even $1000 to my teenage daughter and set her free at our local supermarket? Chances are she would buy plenty of the necessities, but more likely than not there would be a lot of junk.

That's what we have here folks. Under the guise of fixing this economy, the American public is letting loose Congress to chuck in every little program they have had on their shelves for the past eight years. There is no way that every billion is going to help get this country back in good shape.

Although there was some good news -- after an outcry from pro-life advocates when Congressional Democrats placed a bailout for Planned Parenthood in the bill, apparently Obama has told them to remove it. Is there going to be time to go over this entire bill with a fine-toothed comb to root out all the wasteful and objectionable allotments? Not bloody likely.

Just today the Drudge Report exposed funding for STD prevention and treatments. What has that got to do with stimulating the economy? And I'd be hag-nabbed before I just let $4B find its way into the pockets of ACORN without a fight.

Yes something has to be done. But didn't we learn from the waste of the first bailout? Huge, bundled, pork-laden packages -- with little or no oversight -- do not work. Small bites at a time will make this all go down better and a lot easier to digest.

Award Season is Now Open Season

Back in 1978 I didn't understand the controversy surrounding Vanessa Redgrave's acceptance speech at the Oscars -- and Paddy Chayevsky's admonishment later in the telecast. I understood the flak in 1993 when Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon ignored the script and made a plea for the people of Haiti. More people agreed with them but, just as in the former case, there was a consensus that the Academy Awards -- that award shows in general -- were not the place for political statements.

Sometimes folks were a bit more indirect. When Holly Hunter accepted an Emmy in 1990 for her role in the tv movie Roe v. Wade, she said she wanted to acknowledge people who stood up for what they believed in. (Really Holly? Like the Ku Klux Klan or Timothy McVeigh? Didn't you mean people who stand up for what you believe in?) Since she won for a role directly related, she wasn't taken to task.

But for the past few years now it has been creeping in little by little, getting more and more overt and now it's open season at award shows.

Whereas in 2004 Sean Penn made a vague reference to there being no WMDs, he accepted his SAG award last night making no apologies for his particular views. He and Tom Hanks are entitled to their opinions, but attacking those who disagree at the podium or on the red carpet has no place.

But tell that to Dana Delaney or Eva Longoria who seem to think that 1.2 million abortions per year in this country isn't enough -- we need more and we need to provide them beyond our shores as well. Don't be shy ladies, don't feel like you have to use veiled euphemisms. Tell us who you're wearing, and tell us how much money Planned Parenthood International should get.

But it's not just the stars shooting off their mouths: The SAG ceremony had a montage of "trailblazers" -- oh, how nice, I thought as they showed Lucille Ball and Gene Kelly -- oh wait, it's about those who broke the color barrier in Hollywood, ok that's cool -- but oh wait, now they have to throw in the scene from Maude where she decides to abort her baby.

Blazing a trail indeed. Just like Dr. Kevorkian.

Even though all is right with the world now that Obama is president, it apparently isn't enough. If anything, sufferers of Bush Derangement Syndrome have become emboldened, also coming down with Palin Derangement Syndrome and all kinds of other maladies that find them spewing political statements left and right. Everyone has an opinion and they're not afraid to tell it.

Come on folks. I want to see the pretty dresses. I want to hear about the exotic locations and the funny backstage stories. If I have to listen to a thank-you laundry list of everyone from your lawyer to your acting coach to your landscaper -- fine.

Just leave politics out of it.

Today I am so proud...

of my husband. He was invited by CNBC to sit in one of the commentator's chairs during the inaugural proceedings. He sometimes had to fight to get a word in edgewise amongst the dozen or so folks who were on the air during the two-hour broadcast, but he played his part in journalistic history.

At my behest, he wore a red tie. (And was well-spoken and looked handsome as always.)

Here's a snippet of his appearance: http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1006360358&play=1

Ok, so just like you should never call an old boyfriend when you've had a few too many, nor send a letter written in anger... it's best for me to leave things until another day. Once again, I am a tempest of emotion regarding this whole new administration. I can't trust myself to comment without regretting what I may say.

I will say only this -- (pause, pause, pause -- think, think, think -- several minutes pass...)

I believe nothing is as it seems. Not what I think it is, not what anyone else thinks it is. Only as the days unfold will we truly know what lurks in the hearts of certain men and women -- exactly what they will attempt to do remains to be discovered.

Everyone will be disappointed in some way. No one will be completely satisfied. It has been set up for failure. Many of us know this and expected it with anyone at the helm, but many more will be stunned as the promises made cannot be kept.

There are those who will forgive everything, and those who will not give an inch. Thankfully most of us will fall in the middle. But make no mistake -- I predict there is turmoil ahead. Unlike any we've seen before, from both sides of the political spectrum.

I hope those in the middle will not turn away and be weary. They must stand for what they want, not step aside and let bullies win. They must not throw up their hands and walk away when they discover that  "change" does not bring an end to the in-fighting.

No single man or woman can be everything for everyone. Whichever party you may belong to, or whichever issues are dear to you, if you agree, stand up. If you disagree, say so.

We all casted our votes. But now the real work begins -- for each and every one of us.

Fare Thee Well, G.W.B.

On this, his last full day in office, I extend thanks to the man who has served as our national leader for the last 8 years.

He had his share of missteps -- not nearly as many as his detractors would claim -- but I honestly believe he was a man who had his heart in the right place. I worry when I consider who it seems are writing the history books these days, but I think that the stories which will emerge in the coming years will show just how lucky we were to have him in the White House during some challenging times.

For keeping us safe from terrorists, for the attention paid to the plight of AIDS in Africa, for the care and concern exhibited to those who served in our military and their families, for defending freedom around the globe, and for defending life here in our nation...

Thank you, Mr. President.

 

Sanctity of Human Life Day 2009

The day is almost over. It will be at least 4 years until a day of commemoration like this will come again. I've read over and over lately that the doom and gloom I feel is misplaced. With all that is going on, there are much bigger bailouts to fry.

I truly want to believe this. That we can hope to at least hold on to the status quo. Just as stronger pro-life legislation has failed to pass in some states -- mostly due to wild accusations of possible consequences of such legislation by pro-abortion forces -- we can still call upon a weary electorate to not allow the pendulum to swing the other way.

But with a pro-abortion president, a pro-abortion Hollywood and news media, a pro-abortion atmosphere at the majority of our nation's universities, and Christian churches across the land that either promote or turn a blind eye to the tragedy of abortion -- and the deep pockets they all appear to have -- I must say my spirits are very low.

However, we are still the majority. The number of abortions performed on younger women continues to decline. And I know that the message of pro-life feminism -- its belief in not only the sanctity of human life, but that abortion ultimately harms women and does not advance equality or freedom, but instead violently oppresses a class of pre-born people -- is reaching the hearts and minds of more and more people each day.

We must lay the groundwork in the belief systems of our children. Embolden them to respectfully challenge those who would attack those beliefs. And not allow the clear truth to be obscured by euphemisms and twisted facts.

With a heavy heart I pray for our nation, and those who will never know her glory because of those who have managed to pervert her ideal of the right to life. May God have mercy on us all as this new administration threatens everything we have fought so hard for.

We must fight on.

Chicken Pox Ain't No Party

Have you been asked to one? A "chicken pox party"? Seems they're all the rage -- ok, maybe not. Maybe most folks realize that intentionally exposing your child to a potentially deadly disease is nothing to celebrate.

Growing up, chicken pox was looked upon as rite of passage. My mother, a nurse, purposely put my sister in bed with me when I had them so that she would catch them, too. Mom wanted to get it all over with. Even nurses back then considered chicken pox and other "childhood diseases" benign. Remember how the kids on the Brady Bunch all got the measles? Weren't they having a good time, as always?

But we know better today.

When my oldest got chicken pox, it was the pits. She was so uncomfortable, and she wasn't the best patient. I had to wait on her hand and foot, and she couldn't sleep, so I was up almost all night. When the vaccine became available in time for the rest of my children, I jumped right on board -- I have to admit it was mostly to spare me the inconvenience as well as them the discomfort.

Call me irresponsible -- believe me, I've heard worse over on a message board I frequent. There is a very heated debate going on about whether to immunize or not. And the fear of autism is only a small portion of the picture. There are some folks out there who have a real distrust of the medical community. (Others are libertarian types who just don't want to be told what to do.)

Today we know that chicken pox, measles, influenza -- these and many others are deadly diseases. Before the vaccine, there were 10,000 hospitalizations per year for chicken pox and 100 child deaths. (While I have to admit, I have no further breakdown of that number -- e.g. what ages or if the victims had compromised immune systems -- the fact remains: They all caught them from someone else.)

So fine. Don't immunize your children. That's your right. A right I intend to invoke if they start requiring the "Gardasil" shot. But if a school system requires them, prepare to home school your kid. (Or heck, start your own school -- another argument for school choice!) I'll also support keeping your kids away from public sports leagues, and other organized activities that involve physical contact.

Whereas going out your door everyday -- or sending your children out your door -- requires a leap of faith and acceptance of possible consequences, no one has the right to knowingly endanger children.

The Trouble with Harry (and Tom and Dick and...)

Being somewhat conservative, I don't worry too much about being politically correct because I think that sometimes the P.C. crowd goes too far and victimizes far too many.

But I believe in being polite and sensitive to others, and in bringing about civility. I don't accept "well, it's all an inside joke/term of endearment/camaraderie" or the other lame excuses that are thrown about to excuse the use of derogatory terms.

I sat there in disbelief when poor Elisabeth Hasselbeck was making an impassioned plea toWhoopi -- how do I explain to my children that it's ok for some to use the n-word but not others?

"You don't understand," Whoopi said over and over, not really answering EH's desire to understand it. Yes, there is something about a community "taking back" a word and therefore diffusing it of its "power" to deride. But I say, why not just refuse to use it, acknowledge it, or give it any credence at all?

I had a Jewish friend who would say "He's such a Jew" if someone was careful about their money, but she didn't mean it as a compliment. Just because she is Jewish doesn't make it ok.

So now we have Prince Harry in another flurry, this time over demeaning names he used toward fellow soldiers. It has been explained that it was all a part of the camaraderie in the unit, that the names were said out loud by everyone to everyone's faces and that it was understood as a morale booster -- or something to that effect.

Now, I saw Band of Brothers and I understand that it's a tactic the military uses to help units bond. That by calling each member a name, you're making each one understand that there is no one among them who is any better than the others.

I'm all for embracing racial identity and boosting troop morale. But we're all grown-ups here. Can't we find a way to come together other than by calling each other names?

How Far Are am I Willing to Go?

So I heard a statistic that 15% of women say they are writing a blog. No idea where that came from or who was asked. I imagine that for women my age who are not writing about a single topic -- cooking or traveling or running a business --and instead are jumping into the breach of politics and other topical subjects, the number is much smaller.

And of course, the object is to have people actually read what you have to say. For creative satisfaction, economic profit, or both. So far I've opted only for the former, but including ads is so simple these days, I'm sure it will happen sooner or later.

Of course the question then becomes, what am I willing to do to increase my readership? My husband joked that I should show video of me writing my blog in a bikini -- or something to that effect since that seems to be what it takes to make it in the blogosphere.

Or if not a visual teaser, a juicy post could draw folks in. The more provocative the better. Well, I sorta had my share of that. My post about the first attack on Team Sarah that I witnessed -- since it contained very graphic language, even though I cleaned it up for my site -- was picked up by a couple of other sites that used the most lurid snippet it could for the headline, and therefore I wound up with hundreds and hundreds of page views.

I didn't intend for that to happen, but it did -- and it was quite a shock to the system to go from at most a few dozen hits to hundreds. I had to decide -- was this the path I was going to follow?

Well, I'm not going to give the Daily Kos anything to worry about. Clever as I am, and certain as I am that on a daily basis I could come up with some kind of attention-grabbing headline and exploit the latest hot topic, I've decided to take the higher ground. I'm not going to shyaway from occasionally venturing into the dirty world of politics, but I'm not going to be a page view whore either. (Oooooooh!)

The day may come when I give the Huffington Post a run for the money, but I ain't counting the individual hits before they hatch.

  

My 100th Post -- How about something completely different?

Naaah! So all kinds of U.S. birth rate statistics have been flying about lately...

First there are the stats that say birth rates are up in all demographics -- not just the raw number, but the percentage of women who gave birth in just about every category is up. For the first time since 1971, the U.S. birth rate is (barely) above the "replacement" rate of 2.1 births per woman. (By comparison, the E.U.'s rate is only 1.47!)

btw These are stats for 2006, so I was glad to do my part on that one! And in general, congrats to all my fellow mothers from that year. In my book, more babies = more blessings and it is all good.

The other rates that are up are births to single women. Again, up in just about every demographic. Some dramatically so. For 20-24-year-olds, which was at 37 percent in 1990, now we find that 58 percent of births to women in that age range are to single moms. That's... a lot.

But I think the more astonishing figures for unwed births are found in the racial breakdown. The rate for the largest sector, white women, is at about 26 percent, while the smallest -- Asian -- is only 16 percent. But the other group rates blew me away: Hispanics are split evenly at 50 percent, Native Americans are at 64, and non-Hispanic blacks... 70 percent, yes 7-0, of births are to single moms!

I'm no expert, but there seems to be something really not right here. We are failing minorites in a big way. But that's a much bigger fish to fry another day...

Re: the general increase in births, it is of course celebrated by fellow pro-lifers. Pro-abortion forces on the other hand spin it into a tragedy as they declare it's a result from fewer "reproductive service providers."

That's funny. It seems to me that despite the dearth, women were able to reproduce... Oh wait, you mean abortion providers. Of course! If only there had been more abortionists there would be fewer babies in our country!

(Not that "too many babies" is a problem, but if it were -- wouldn't the best/easiest/most sensible answer be less sex, not more abortions? I can hear them: No, not that -- anything but that!)

It couldn't possibly be that women chose not to abort because they realized it's not what they want, it had to be because that "choice" wasn't available. Well, the abortion rates for 2006 aren't available yet, but the last year released was 2004 which showed a decline to a level not seen since 1974. So it's not just an astronomical rise in the pregnancy rate -- more women are choosing life, especially teens. I'll stand by the notion that more often than not it's a conscious choice, not a paucity of providers.

Re: the rise in single motherhood. Again -- it's a tragedy to pro-abortion groups, because to them it signals lack of abortionists, but you aren't going to hear them say that they have any kind of problem with the absence of fathers and the diminishment of the family.

Of course, that's the first words out of more conservative folks. Single motherhood = bad. Oh, yeah, in cases like Bristol Palin, they're glad more women are choosing to have their babies and taking responsibility. But some are going so far as to say that all single moms -- if they don't intend to marry the father -- should put their children up for adoption.

Nothing against adoption -- but it's not for every single mother (me). And nothing against supporting marriage and working to have both a mother and father (who are married to each other) in the home raising their children, but it's not always the best short-term solution for some women. Long-term I would agree -- children fare better with a father around. But again, sometimes it is not in a woman's control, and they shouldn't run out and get any guy just for the sake of having a man in the house.

We have to be careful that while we encourage the family unit, pregnant single women don't feel ostracized to the point of making a really devastating decision.

Let's do what we can to support women who find themselves in a bind, no matter what the circumstances, and realize that there can be more than one life-affirming way that works best for all those involved. Our top priority should be creating a society that welcomes children and supports women -- without putting constraints on either.

Madoff Makes off with PP Money

The good news is that a big donor to Planned Parenthood lost a bunch o' bucks in the Madoff scandal, and so PP is now laying off 20% of its staff.

Of course, this could lead to one of their biggest fundraising efforts as word spreads that they have fallen victim. Since you just know they will find some way to blame it on Bush, libs will line up to ensure that women across our nation will continue to be able to end their child's lives to solve problems. (Don't use other solutions! We must save this sacred cow!)

And of course Obama will use it as an excuse to replace the lost funding and then some. So instead of some liberal foundation's pockets, abortion money will come from ours.

Excuse me if my exuberance is subdued. I hope I'm wrong...

A New Wrinkle in Birth Planning

A new study gives some info to chew on for mothers-to-be re: scheduling c-sections. I'd say it was quite surprising.

Ok, so I've mentioned how my last 5 children's births were induced, right? Heck, one could argue all 7 had some "unnatural" intervention. My first -- I went in with very mild pains, but I was 39 weeks along so they broke my water bag and then things took off on their own.

With my second, my waterbag broke 10 days early, and with little progress I was given pitocin without an epidural. Worst. Pain. Ever. Definitely not the plan.

The twins were the first conscious decision to go in prior to any sign of natural labor. Again, I was 39 weeks and big as two houses. It went so well, that with my three subsequent pregnancies (again 39 weeks and gi-normous each time) I convinced my doctor to induce.

Ok, so it all went fine for me, and there were no c-sections, and no complications. Looking back, I would have done the same, because they were 39 weeks along, but here's what this study found that moms considering an earlier delivery should consider:

Performing repeat elective c-sections at 37 weeks gestation nearly doubles the chance of any complication, and causes four times more cases of respiratory distress. The actual percentages of any complication: a 15 percent chance versus an 8 percent chance. So not a huge number, but I'd say worthy of taking into consideration.

Even at 38 weeks there was a 50% greater chance of a problem, and even a few days more saw a 20% increase. Most of the complications were not life-threatening, but many involved testing and treatment and a longer hospital stay, and sometimes a trip to intensive care.

So whereas I can relate to "I am so over being pregnant" and wanting to deliver when certain loved ones are in town, it really seems to be worth giving your little one those extra days to minimize the risk.

Because let's not forget, it is all about them -- giving them the best start in life.

Not so fast -- about those virginity pledges...

Maybe you saw it in your local paper. Here in D.C. this was the headline in the Washington Post: "Premarital Abstinence Pledges Ineffective."

Oh, the liberal press must have been salivating when they caught wind of the study that was published this month in Pediatrics magazine. Yeah, we'll show those conservative parents -- all that hooey about taking a pledge doesn't do any good. A promise to God doesn't mean a thing -- kids can't control themselves. Sex will happen, despite all your guilt trips and bible-thumping.

Yep, I just may as well chuck any notions of having my 14-year-old daughter take such a pledge. I should just run out and arrange a Bacchanalian orgy for her friends. If they're going to do it anyway, why not let 'em really live it up?

But of course, all the mainstream media got it wrong -- except for (small fanfare) U.S. News & World Report, my husband's employer. (I'm sure he didn't catch wind of it yet -- he's been too busy lately checking on the supervolcano in Yellowstone.)

It was Dr. Bernadine Healy, the former head of both the Red Cross and the NIH who is now their health editor, who pointed out that "virginity pledging teens were considerably more conservative in their overall sexual behaviors than teens in general -- a fact that many media reports have missed cold."

For example, teens who take a virginity pledge:

-  generally have less risky sex (fewer sexual partners and within a serious relationship)

-  are less likely to have a teenage pregnancy (or to have friends who use drugs, too)

- have less premarital vaginal sex (the Post article did not make the distinction that "having sex"  included a wide range of intimate activities in the study)

- tend to lose their virginity at age 21 (as opposed to 17 for the average American teen)

And one out of four of these teens do in fact keep the pledge to remain chaste -- somehow, despite all the media's "evidence" to the contrary about teenage sexual urges.

And, of course, despite the daily onslaught on tv, in movies (hope you didn't let your daughter see the second Traveling Pants movie), in just about everything around them that oversexualizes their environment outside the home or church community.

Don't be so quick to give up on the idea of a pledge -- for both your sons and daughters. Don't be so quick to offer to get them contraceptives.

The Jonas Brothers and Jordan Sparks will not be your only allies. This is going to catch on. Because while kids are impulsive, they also can be thoughtful and smart. Making a pledge and learning to respect themselves and to protect their future... It will take more than a short course at a youth group and a one-time ceremony, but we can guide our kids make the better choice.

 

An Un-learning Moment: Don't Look the Other Way

An article from the "Department of Human Behavior" in today's Washington Post (always an interesting column to read) examines our reactions to misfortune on a grand scale.

It starts out with an analysis of what the Obama administration promises to do if another Rwanda-style genocide were to occur, and then cites studies that try to explain why we are more moved by the tragedy of, say, a family put out of their home by a fire than the mass suffering in Darfur.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/04/AR2009010401307.html?sub=AR

It basically concludes that our brains have been wired to lean towards helping in situations where a larger percentage of people can be helped, not a larger number. We are also more likely to help if we can save all or most, regardless of the numbers.

For example, if we could give money to help save 10,000 out of 40,000 lives versus funds to save 20,000 out of 200,000 -- apparently our reaction is to help those in the first category. Better to help a higher percentage than a greater number, our grey matter decides.

Same is true in small numbers. In another study, folks were more willing to give money to save one child suffering from cancer than eight children. (Although it doesn't address whether or not the personalization of that single child made the test subjects more likely to help since they identified more with her and her personal story.)

I'm inclined to think -- is it too much of a leap to say that our minds don't usually make the analytical jump to saving a greater number of poor souls because our gut reaction is we prefer to be part of a more successful rescue? Everybody wants to be on the winning team, after all.

Bottom line for me here is: Though we all will continue to have our particular causes that we support for highly personal reasons, and we all still will be persuaded by the personal stories of others, we also need to train ourselves to be more analytical of where we allocate our (however regrettably) limited resources.

Let's not turn our backs on the seemingly faceless masses simply because we didn't take the time to think it through.

 

"School" is not a four-letter word

So a new school in the U.K. is declaring that it is not a school -- because that brings up negative images in young people's minds. Instead it is a "place of learning."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/jan/02/school

So we should just abandon any notion of having our children accept what a great privilege an education is. If they don't like something, let's sugarcoat it. Ok, that may work for yucky-tasting medicine, and sure let kids put cheese sauce on their broccoli...

But let's put an end to thinking school is anything less than the best of opportunities.

I've heard more than a couple of complaints today from my girls, on this last day of the winter break (of course, not "Christmas vacation," as we grew up calling it... but I digress...)  When my kids complain about school I remind them what a great advantage they have in life because of the education they receive.

Not everyone in the world enjoys such a benefit -- especially girls. I point out that there are some girls in the world who attend school in secret, at risk of great punishment. Those brave souls take that risk because they realize the rewards of scholarship, and the opportunities it leads to.

They may roll their eyes, and say "Yeah, I knooooooooow." But it will sink in slowly but surely. Better to stand up and declare the truth than let our kids turn into mushy illiterates.

Whatever happened to "a mind is a terrible thing to waste"? Let's not be content to let our children throw their brains on the trash pile just because they're bored or not having their needs met.

Let's challenge them to be all they can be, not placate their "fragile psyches" with torpid terminology.

Born under less than perfect factors -- what a Tripp!

So Sarah Palin is a grandma, and she and her daughter and son-in-law-to-be are showing great grace under pressure. They are also standing up to the snide comments and false reports to present a great example of how to deal with a not-all-that-uncommon family situation.

They are showing everyone that just because a blessing arrives under less than ideal conditions doesn't make it any less of a blessing. My oldest daughter arrived unexpectedly, but -- while I wish she had the more ideal life she deserved -- no one can tell me that she is worth any less.

How should we judge our grandchildren, our children, or heck any person on earth? On the circumstances of their conception or birth? So a child born to a married couple who waited until they had enough money saved and live in a house and then maybe had a little trouble conceiving so they more greatly appreciate the miracle of their child's entry into the world -- does that baby have more worth or potential? Are those parents superior members of society?

Sure we try to guide young people to make choices that would prevent this situation -- but the other side of the coin is that we don't want to make them feel we won't support them should a pregnancy occur. It's a fine balance, and one could argue that perhaps Bristol felt a little too secure in her family situation.

She knew that she and her boyfriend would be able to deal with this challenge, and that their families would be there to back them up. She knew that a baby may cause a detour in life, but not a dead end. So she and Levi took a chance, and sure enough, as they often do, a sperm met an egg and a little life began.

But by no means is Bristol being cavalier about her situation. She has said “Teenagers need to prevent pregnancy to begin with – this isn’t ideal. But I’m fortunate to have a supportive family which is dealing with this together. Tripp is so perfectly precious; we love him with all our hearts. I can’t imagine life without him now.”

So congratulations to Bristol and Levi, and may your son, Tripp, be blessed with health and happiness -- wishes that every child, regardless of how they came to be, richly deserve from us all.

They're Resolutions not Resolute - shuns

Yeah, there are two schools of thought on resolutions -- those that make them over and over, regardless of the outcome year in, year out. And those who scoff at them, thinking they're pointless because "no one ever keeps them."

Well, everybody's right -- but I still try to wipe the slate -- well, maybe not "clean" every year, but I definitely feel as though the new year is the best time to get back on track, and give yourself a kick in the pants to be the best you can be.

Just because chances are I'll veer off-track again doesn't mean I should forego trying -- and this isn't the only day of the year to make these promises to myself. The thing to avoid is cutting yourself too much slack. Balance, ever finding the balance...

So in addition to the usual avowals, I'm going to do my best to post at least once a day, and to comment on more topics, and to write even if there's only a little to say. Brevity has it's place as does verbosity.

And if I could just stick to the one about getting up earlier, I would kill so many birds with but one little stone...