|
:Random thoughts from a Renegade Mom:
|
Friday, February 24, 2006what would you do with millions? so my hubby and I have been doing some dreaming about what we might do if we suddenly found our selves with money coming out our wazzo! We've talked mostly about building our dream homes. I'm torn b/w having that country farm/orchard that I've had a fantasy about for the past several years and having the ridiculously large house with the manicured lawns and the live in help. I'd love to live on 15 simi-wooded acres with a large plot for a substainible garden, some chickens (even thought I hate chickens), horses for the kids and a lovely brook running through the property. I have visions of the kids running happily unencumbered by traffic or strangers, picking berries, playing in the creek, taking care of the animal. A dog plays a role in the fantasy also. I can see myself picking corn for dinner and baking peach pies fresh picked from our orchard. In reality I don't think I'd ever be able to keep up with that kind of lifestyle I've never lived like that, I don't know the first thing about growing crops or taking care of animal. I'd most likely bore with the whole vision after a few years and when the kids started to whine that there was nothing to do and they wanted to go into town to play at the playground. On the other hand having that house in the "gated" community that had two wings and an indoor pool. Having a maid, or a staff of housekeepers. That would be great. But I'd worry that my children would lose touch with the realities of the world and grow up republican! I don't want to be one of THOSE people. I, PERSONALLY, don't like Those people. I'd never make friends. We'd never be invited to the Jones house b/c we aren't OLD money. I'd have a hard time keeping my real friends b/c they'd be uncomfortable with the whole "filthy rich" crowd we lived around. I'd get calls about my kids throwing things at the neighbors yipp-yipp dog. Maybe if faced with a butt load of money, we wouldn't change too much. Get a nicer house. Better cars. Take trips when we wanted to, not when we could afford to. Have a kick ass computer and home theater. But other than that, I can't think of what I would realistically change. So how about you??? What's your fantasy? What do you think you'd do in reality?? Gina froze in time on 6:24 PM [ | ]
Thursday, February 23, 2006report from the front lineIf this move doesn't kill me, I'm not sure my marriage will survive! I've never moved with my husband before. He had this house when we met. I "donated" all my furniture to my roommate when I moved in here. I had one car load of personal things to move. But now I have a whole house to move. 36 days, what I would otherwise view as a long time for planning and moving sounds like two days to me. And I feel like I'm at it alone. Now don't get me wrong my husband has been a super troop, hauling boxes to storage, hauling boxes up and down stairs, but I have never seen anyone pack like him. He has to pick up and look at and think about every thing he puts in the box. It is driving me mad. I pack (or really we are going through the boxes that where stored in the attic/basement) four boxes for every one he muddles through. And to top it all off the kids are really starting to stress. And when my kids stress out they act up. Did I say 36 days seem like just a few, well on the note of family relations I think 36 days might as well be 6 months! I'm off NEXT weekend to look at some rental houses. It kills me to go back to renting, but we are not going to be able to get our house on the market for several months after we move. But at least this way we can really talk about building a house this time!!! Gina froze in time on 6:29 PM [ | ]
Wednesday, February 22, 2006The signs point to the end of the world!!!! The first sign of the apocalypse is upon us!! The words "No, Blaine, I think you're wrong. I agree with President Bush." Actually came out of my mouth!!! Get all your affairs together and prepare! Yes, I know, I disagreed with my republican husband on the side of Bush! But I do agree that it would be wrong, hypocritical, even dangerous for the US to hold Mideast countries to a different standard than it would any other foreign country. For those of you not up on the news: At issue: Bush's strong defense of an arrangement that would put a government-owned United Arab Emirates company in charge of major shipping operations in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia. The deal transferring port management from a British firm to Dubai Ports World has already been approved by both companies and an administration review panel. Despite Bush's assertion that UAE has been one of the most helpful Arab countries in the war on terror, both Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee and House Speaker Dennis Hastert of Illinois threatened legislation to put the deal on hold. Bush, in turn, vowed to cast his first veto - if necessary - to stop any such attempt. Now the truth. Dubai is a Holding company. Strictly speaking, the term "holding company" might be used to describe any company that owns a majority of shares in another company. Usually, though, the term signifies a company which does not produce goods or services itself, but, rather, whose only purpose is owning shares of other companies (or owning other companies outright). An American company RUNS the ports. The US COAST GUARD controls SECURITY at our ports. Now that being said, I do think there is a lot to be said about our port security...mainly IT SUCKS. Some real talk about the security of our ports would do us some good. But again, I have to agree. I don't think there is a major risk from having Dubai take over for the British company. Gina froze in time on 7:15 PM [ | ]
Tuesday, February 21, 2006Drink (Breast)Milk to loss weight! A new study published by Dr. Matthew W. Gillman has concluded that the longer infants are breastfed, the lower their risk of being overweight as a teenager. The study claims that there does not appear to be direct correlation to sociocultural factors, it's purely the breastfeeding. The study controlled for the fact that, now a days, breastfeed babies are likely to come from educated, higher income families where children are less likely to be over weight to begin with. So the study followed families that had siblings that had different breastfeeding lengths. They found that even within a single family, children who were breastfed for a longer time were slightly less likely to become over weight than their siblings who were breastfed for a shorter period. It was found that each 4-month increase in breastfeeding was linked to a 6 percent dip in the risk of becoming overweight by adolescence. A theory for this is that breast milk may have lasting metabolic effects that aid in weight control. Or, possible, the breastfeeding, itself, has behavioral effects; with breastfeeding, the length of any one feeding depends mostly on the baby, whereas mothers who bottle-feed may keep feeding their infants until the bottle is empty. Gina froze in time on 6:56 PM [ | ]
Monday, February 20, 2006Religion in literature...sort of.The WildHunt has provided me with some interesting links, the first is a look at some of our "favorite" Science fiction authors and their religious affiliations. It's interesting to look back at some of the works I've read and think about how their religion may have influenced their work.The second is a look at ther religion of comic book characters... Storm (X-men) and Dr. Leslie Thompkins (batman's close friend) are both Goddess worshipers and my favorite: the Legion of Buddhist super-heroes: Wolverine Swift Shockwave Dalton Dr. Druid Green Arrow Multiple Man Thunderbolt Harvest Bulletproof Monk Tara I mean really who knew that Buddhism lent itself to being a superhero! Gina froze in time on 9:24 PM [ | ]
Sunday, February 19, 2006Prediction of deathResearchers at the San Francisco VA Medical Center have created an index that is 81 percent accurate in predicting the likelihood of death within four years for people 50 and older. The index, which weighs different mortality risk factors according to a simple point system. The studies authors are saying that this is potentially useful to health care providers, policymakers, and researchers. The information can be obtained using only a 12-question form that "could be completed in a few minutes by a patient or medical office receptionist," according to lead author Sei J. Lee, MD, a geriatric specialist at SFVAMC. The authors say "For patients and caregivers, predicting near-term likelihood of death is useful when making decisions about medical tests and clinical care. For example, is it worth it to order a Pap smear or colonoscopy for a particular patient? Those sorts of screening interventions generally don't help patients until five to eight years after they are given. Doctors need to get a sense of who will survive long enough to benefit."While I do agree with the studies authors that this could be a very helpful tool to a number of people, I worry that they will be using it just as the authors describe. Denying care to people "predicted" to die. This could potentially be used to increase life span. If morbidity in forcasted in four years, then a doctor can look to see what factors could be changed to improve a patients chances of survival. But instead I fear that this will be a tool that is used to evaluate the benefit of giving care to patients. "Well it looks as if you will be dead in the next four years so we can cancel that mammogram and the cholesterol screening. Hey you'll be dead before either of those will kill you. Gina froze in time on 6:42 AM [ | ]
|
The chaotic life of a (exausted) mother of
2 little mosters, I mean children. These are my thoughts on life and the world around me, so I can talk about things other than diapers! Current news, health and women's issues.
[=Current Terror Alert Level=]
_______________
_______________
_______________
Rate Me on BlogHop.com!
designed by: dreamwalker |
