Posts
All Comments
Just like when you were in school, to participate you have to register.
After watching the Sarah Palin be paraded in front of the media and the McCain campaign doing everything in their power to protect Mrs. Palin from any rogue questions, I am glad someone else has come out and say what I've been thinking!
I've been a little out of it lately and haven't read, blogged or done much else for the past couple of weeks. Part of it is realpolitik toddler hasn't been napping, so I haven't had much time to sit and read and blog. But miraculously today, we are napping, so time to blog.
Women, women, women. Like 1996, 2000,and 2004, women, and specifically mothers will make the difference in this year's campaign. We moms have been courted time and time again and this year isn't any different and I am not sure how I feel about it. I understand the demographic that each campaign is trying to get to and introducing their candidate to this demographic, but I think I am insulted the way both have gone about it. Senator and Cindy McCain on Rachel Ray and Michelle Obama on Paula Deen's show , does this mean that this is the only type of television that mother's watch? Cooking shows? Now I understand that it is to show a different side to the candidates, actually just to Senator McCain, since Barack Obama wasn't on Deen's show, but I would be curious to see some numbers on if individuals that stay home, like mothers, that will actually base their opinions on who they will vote for by how the candidate or significant other of the candidate performed on a let's face it, a talk show. Again, I understand widening the base and it makes for riveting TV, to watch Senator McSame (McCain) make his rib recipe, but yet again I am a little bothered by the indication that is how I and other mothers get to know the candidates.
I'll be the first to admit that when it comes to economics I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer. My area of expertise goes as far as supply and demand and that is about it. As an avid fan of NPR, I do get a chance to listen to MarketPlace, so while I know what is going on, I won't say that I understand it completely.
Having said that, I've been doing some research on Secretary Paulson's bail out bill in front of Congress to get a better grip of what this means for me and the other 2 of you who read this blog. Of everything that I have read, what struck as the biggest slip under the rug move since, GITMO, is Section 8 of the bill that states "Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency." What?! Huh? Got you've to be kidding me? I thought I remember something in my civics class from high school about checks and balances. Apparently, President Bush, once again believes that aren't any checks and balances and it's either his/the Secretary of the Treasury's way or the high way. Now, I know this doesn't mean that the Secretary can go and just do what he wants with our taxpayer dollars, but it seems pretty close to that.
Everything I have heard and read indicate that our financial stability is under a huge crisis - no argument there. I am sure Secretary Paulson is a very creditable person - for god sakes he is the Secretary of the Treasury - but to give him carte blanche to do what ever he wants?! That to me seems a little nerve wrecking. While I know the job isn't political, well maybe slightly, is this really such a good idea? To not have any knowledge of what the Secretary is doing? If it all goes horribly wrong, then what happens? We won't know what decisions have been made and what the basis for particular actions where, because what goes on in the Secretary's office, stays in the Secretary's office. I just hope he isn't using a dart board.
Since we've been home, I've been looking closely at realpolitik toddler's (RT) toys. Some of the toys in and around his toy basket, he has had since he was 6 months old while the others have just been accumulated since that time. Yesterday, as part of my fall clean up, I decided that I would pull all of his toys out and begin to separate things that he still plays with vs things that he has showed no interest in or is too old for now. Of course as soon as I began the process RT woke up from his nap, and pulled Every.Single. Toy out! This did not help with my organization and make me more confused on what to actually pack away and what we should keep out a little while longer. But that isn't the reason for this post - well kind of.
Because I feel the need to infuse some new toys into RT's repertoire. A. To keep him entertained and B. to have new toys for the kids in his playgroup to play with when they come over. I decided I would take a gander at the local toy store to see what new and exciting toys are out there for a 2 year old. 2 words. Not Much. I sense that two year olds are kind of in that stage where they are too old for some toys and too young for others. I try to adhere to the labels that give you an indication of age appropriateness of games/toys, but I am having a hard time finding something in the 2 year old age. Hence I feel like I have entered the toy black hole. While I so want to purchase new toys for RT to play with and entertain himself while also making sure that the game/toy I do purchase will actually go to good use.
It's just a big dilemma at this age I am torn! Not to mention what happens come December?!?!
example #1
example #2
Ok, ok I know he spent 5 years in a Vietnamese prison where who knows what happened to him, but seriously. He has handlers and obviously speech writers, can someone give him some tips to loosen up?!
After 7 weeks on vacation and then another 2 weeks getting myself and realpolitik baby back on our regular time schedule, it's time to begin blogging again.
