Gaff (no surprise, of course, but funny just the same)
While talking to Katie Couric, the always good for a chuckle, Joe Biden (D-Delaware) (and current VP candidate) got to talking about what leaders need to do in times of economic crisis. The following statement came out of his mouth:
“When the stock market crashed, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television and didn’t just talk about the, you know, the princes of greed. He said, ‘Look, here’s what happened.’”
It’s super funny, no? Since Hoover was in office when the stock market crashed, and that whole thing about television not being around until the late 1930s.
Oh, Joe Biden, we’re so glad you’re here to keep us smiling.
PS – If Palin had uttered those words. Don’t you think you would’ve heard of it before now? Yeah. Thought so too.
Read MoreThings to Come
Weeks ago I told you that I thought one Mr. Big Boy was attempting to give up his morning nap. I have pushed and pulled and prodded to keep it. He was obliging me for a bit there, but I believe it may be officially over (weeps…gnashes teeth). I am going to need to figure out the best way to handle showering before lunch with a toddler who desperately wants to get in the water too, but whose tubes may be jeopardized by all that business. What? What’s that? Take a shower while Jud is still at home and before Gideon is awake? Hahahahahaha! You don’t know me at all, do you interwerbs?
In the same category, Gideon has added three teeth in the past three weeks. Two molars (both on top, opposite sides) and one bottom tooth up front. I’m sure more are coming. The slightly elevated temperature and puddles of drool on the wood floors are such bad OPSEC. He’s going to have to work on that before he goes all military and stuff. We’ll help him out as best we can.
And, finally, proving he is the ultimate man-child, the kid can’t get enough football. Ever. And you should check it out…
Football from JudandKim on Vimeo
In Search of a Bathroom
Disclaimer: This one’s graphic. Consider thyself prepared.
You may or may not know by now that I am 14 weeks preggers. Yep. Behbeh Project is in it’s second season. A different channel, but just as riveting (and there goes my last male reader. Ah, well. Ta-ta.). We are excited and so thankful for the newest blessing and very very happy to add another real live person into this home that is needing another little mouth to help us all laugh and coo and increase in love all the more. I am also very tired. Like I’ve never known before (except those first three months of sleep deprivation where I could not remember to do things that were not all that important, like shower. And eat).
So, due to the gestating and the expanding midsection and all, my bowels have been less than kind to me. I’m not a puker. Have never been one, really. When things get wonky down there, it’s usually the other kind of explosion. Neither are good, all things considered, but I hate throwing up like I hate dill and, people, that is some strong hate.
My first sign that I was preggers was the constipation. I never suffer that fate. I’m a very regular gal and to have things slow down, much less, stop up, is a sure sign that I’ve got a little parasitic lovey in my tummy. Sure enough, the stick proved my theory correct. And then things corrected. And then they kept correcting until we’d definately reached over-correction.
The over-correction continued to build until last Monday and Tuesday when I frequently left my 16 month old unattended as I ran upstairs to make it in time to use the little girls’ room. I was about to call off our trip to visit friends on Wednesday because I just could not imagine ten hours in a car with a billion stops along the way.
Wednesday came and all seemed fine. We packed up the car and drove away. Gideon did pretty well, given all of the circumstances. He put up quite the fight in the hotel the first night when we tried to convince him to sleep and spent two hours alternately screaming or being cuddled into quietness, but at least, from my perspective, he only wanted Jud. At least I could lay down and pretend to be asleep.
We arrived on Thursday morning and were really enjoying our time with friends. We went to the camp where they are pouring out their lives and were getting the grand tour when Jud was suddenly seized with the same need I’d had on Monday and Tuesday. By early evening, he was heaving in our friends’ bathroom. We didn’t see him, save for brief 15 minutes intervals, the rest of the trip.
I was bravely driving home on Saturday, hoping to get there without any bodily fluid issues when, about an hour north of Des Moines, I suddenly needed a restroom. Jud took over driving. A few more stops were necessary. We made it home just before the puking began.
I missed my friends’ wedding on Sunday and it was just about the time she was walking down the aisle that Gideon filled his crib with vomit.
It’s been an exhausting, stinky week. I’m just glad it’s over and praying that our friends will be spared the virus that causes expulsion.
All of that to say, let’s all be thankful for when the plumbing works correctly. The bowels hold more power than we typically give credit.
Read MoreBorn Alive Act – Standing Up for What’s Right
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anieuWFWe8s]
Obama and the Born-Alive Act [Yuval Levin]
Six years ago, Congress passed the “Born-Alive Infants Protection Act,” making it illegal to kill a child who is fully born during an attempted abortion. The bill passed without a single opposing vote in either house, and was signed into law by President Bush on August 5, 2002. When he was a state senator at that same time, Barack Obama opposed a state version of the bill in Illinois. His explanation for the vote since then has been that the state version did not include a so-called “neutrality clause” which says explicitly that the bill is not meant to influence the legal standing of a fetus before birth one way or another. The federal law contained such a clause, and the state law, Obama has long insisted, did not. As recently as June 30, the Obama campaign made that caseto answer the charge (in that case from Bill Bennett) that Obama had opposed the Born-Alive Act.
But now, the National Right to Life Committee has uncovered proof that Obama in fact voted in committee against even the version of the Illinois Born-Alive Act that did include exactly the same “neutrality clause” as the federal bill. On March 12, 2003, when the bill was being debated, an amendment was added that inserted the neutrality language of the federal bill verbatim into the Illinois bill. Obama voted for the amendment (that’s the vote on the left-hand column on this committee vote record), and then voted against the amended bill (that’s the vote on the right on the same document). All the Democrats on the committee (which Obama chaired) followed his lead, and the bill was defeated.
This was, again, legislation that in the same form had by then passed unanimously at the federal level. Even NARAL did not oppose it. Apparently Barack Obama did, and his old explanation for doing so seems at odds with the facts.
Some more background from the NRLC here.
Read MoreFor the Record
THE FOUNDATION
“National defense is one of the cardinal duties of a statesman.” —John Adams
“Charlie Gibson got it wrong. There is no single meaning of the Bush doctrine. In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration—and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today. It is utterly different. He asked Palin, ‘Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?’ She responded, quite sensibly to a question that is ambiguous, ‘In what respect, Charlie?’ Sensing his ‘gotcha’ moment, Gibson refused to tell her. After making her fish for the answer, Gibson grudgingly explained to the moose-hunting rube that the Bush doctrine ‘is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense.’ Wrong. I know something about the subject because… I was the first to use the term. In the cover essay of the June 4, 2001, issue of the Weekly Standard entitled, ‘The Bush Doctrine: ABM, Kyoto, and the New American Unilateralism,’ I suggested that the Bush administration policies of unilaterally withdrawing from the ABM treaty and rejecting the Kyoto protocol, together with others, amounted to a radical change in foreign policy that should be called the Bush doctrine. Then came 9/11, and that notion was immediately superseded by the advent of the war on terror. In his address to the joint session of Congress nine days after 9/11, President Bush declared: ‘Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.’ This ‘with us or against us’ policy regarding terror… became the essence of the Bush doctrine. Until Iraq. A year later, when the Iraq war was looming, Bush offered his major justification by enunciating a doctrine of preemptive war. This is the one Charlie Gibson thinks is the Bush doctrine. It’s not. It’s the third in a series and was superseded by the fourth and current definition of the Bush doctrine, the most sweeping formulation of the Bush approach to foreign policy and the one that most clearly and distinctively defines the Bush years: the idea that the fundamental mission of American foreign policy is to spread democracy throughout the world… Yes, Sarah Palin didn’t know what it is. But neither does Charlie Gibson. And at least she didn’t pretend to know—while he looked down his nose and over his glasses with weary disdain, sighing and ‘sounding like an impatient teacher,’ as the [New York] Times noted. In doing so, he captured perfectly the establishment snobbery and intellectual condescension that has characterized the chattering classes’ reaction to the mother of five who presumes to play on their stage.” —Charles Krauthammer
Read More