Been a While

Yes, it's been a while.  I won't try to summarize anything & everything that's happened since those distant days when I posted with semi-regularity.  Let's just jump right back in and see how it goes.  Maybe my days of frequent blogging (at this spot, at least) are over.  No way to tell, really. . .

- - - - - -

A few weeks ago, a bunch of us (Granny L., Mom, Aunt Cathy, Aunt Debbie, Kimberly and I) went "yard saling" together.  I hadn't been to a real yard sale in years, but it was successful (and fun) enough to convince me that I need to go more often.  There's a lot to be said for the thrill of the (bargain) hunt!  

My biggest (both size- and price-wise) purchase that day was a little table for $5.  It looks like it was originally meant for a bedside table, but as we don't need any more of those, I'm planning to use it as an end table on my side of the couch.  (Yes, we each have our own side, where we sit 99.9% of the time.  Doesn't everyone?) While we have two perfectly good end tables already, the way the furniture is arranged (and the way it'll probably stay for some time), I don't have one on my side.  I've been using a folding tray, but this little table should be a strong improvement over that. 

Because the furniture in the main room is all dark-- either stained wood or painted black-- I thought the table, which is white, would look better with a coat of black paint.  Today I lightly sanded it, TSP'd it, then primed it. (The old finish was pretty slick in spots, so I thought I ought to do as much preparation as possible.) It felt a little silly putting white primer on an already white finish.  (Yes, yes.  I probably shouldn't use white primer under black paint, but it was what we had, and I'm sure it'll work just fine.  This thing was going to need at least two coats of black paint, anyway.)

So, we'll see how that goes.  I'd (kind of) forgotten how long it takes me to paint things-- or at least how long it feels.  I'm sure it'll be worth it in the end.  I did remember to take a couple of "before" photos, so I'll be able to have the fun of a big "before & after" reveal.  (Isn't it exciting?)

- - - - - -

I don't remember exactly when I last blogged about non-political, newsy things. . . It was after my parents settled on building the new house, wasn't it?  In any case, that house is a reality now-- is visible from where I sit (or would be if the curtains weren't currently drawn close)-- and is very nearly finished.  It's turned out to be one of those things that simultaneously feel as though they've taken a long time and no time at all.  (So many things feel that way!)

We'll soon have three new neighbors and two new neighbor dogs (not to mention a car or two).  I expect I'll see my parents and youngest sister more often once we're living a short walk from one another, and it should certainly be convenient for carpooling on some of our shopping trips and the like.  Also, there will probably almost always be someone nearby to help in a pinch (especially with my grandparents just another short walk away). 

. . . It just struck me that we'll be living two extremes, soon, with Donald's parents so very far away and mine almost next door.  People talk a lot these days about how small the world has gotten-- and it's true, in a way-- but it still feels plenty big when you have friends and family on another continent.  I wish it were easier (cheaper, safer, faster) for us all to pay casual visits. 

- - - - - -

Well, I consider the waters thoroughly well tested, now.  Pretty much exactly as I remembered it.  It's only a matter of taking the time to write every so often.  (Even if blogs are apparently no longer cool.  Where did everyone go, by the way?  Twitter and Facebook?  Both those places just feel insufficient, compared to blogging.  Oh well, things will always come and go, I guess.)

Young Boozer & Our Gal Twinkle

One of these days, I'll probably blog again.

For today, here are a couple of names we've been hearing on local TV and radio spots (though not necessarily the exact ones linked below)-- Young Boozer and a lady named Twinkle are running for office in Alabama:

Some might say that I (of all people) really shouldn't comment on other people's names.

So I'm not saying a word.  Nope, not a word.  ;o)

Multiple Choice

Someone on Twitter linked to this poll from The National:

So the only reasons you can be expected to say "no" are that you think it won't generate enough revenue to make a difference or because you think "lower income and poor people" will be "disproportionately affected"? 

How about this? -- "NO, I don't particularly want to pay even more taxes, but thanks so much anyway."

Ugh!

Am I Missing Something Here. . .?

(I believe I said something about writing non-political, non-complaining, non-irritated blog entries. . . Oops. . .)

Someone on Twitter linked to this story on The Huffington Post.  Not surprisingly (given the source), whoever wrote this (sorry, can't be bothered to go back and look for a name) seems to disapprove of the April 15th Tea Party protesters: 


". . . some demonstrators expressed their views by carrying signs featuring shocking -- and in some cases hateful -- messages.  In the past, outrageous signs carried by Tea Party protesters have alarmed onlookers for their jaw-dropping depictions, and Thursday's display of signage was much the same."


Shocking!  Hateful!  Outrageous!  Jaw-dropping!  

And those poor onlookers, to be alarmed by the evil Tea Party protesters and their horrifying signage!


All that hype-- and then they include this sign in their "slideshow of the most shocking Tea Party signs". 

(In case something happens to the photo, let me type it out:  It's a simple sign with a simple message: "God only requires 10%".)


. . .Well, aren't you shocked (possibly even alarmed) by that hateful, outrageous, jaw-dropping sign? 

I don't really get it.  What's the big deal?  Am I missing something?  Or in other words, how could even a far-leftist be genuinely upset by this sign?   Is it just because it references the Bible?

All I ever do here is complain. . .

Annoying things seem to be all that have the power to spurn me into action, here on this blog.

The annoyance this time is this story.

For the time when it's no longer available online, here's the gist:

An opinion writer defends Michelle Obama's statement that food manufacturers should "rething the products that [they]'re offering, the information that [they] provide about these products and how [they] market those products to our children".  She (the columnist) doesn't like it that Mrs. Obama "has been accused of 'federalizing fat' and labeled 'the first nanny'".  No, she doesn't like it one bit, because "it's not the federal government that's playing the role of nanny here".   That role has been filled by the evil food and beverage marketers. 

So then she goes on for several paragraphs about how most ads targeted at children "hawk the least healthy foods".  Blah blah blah, "as a sedentary activity, television-watching alone doesn't contribute to childhood obesity; rather, it's the incessant bombardment of ads associated with television-watching that "robustly" correlates with obesity".  It's those wicked commercials!  PBS good, commercial TV bad!

Here's one direct quote:  "So when a child begs for fruit-free Froot Loops, he's simply doing what he's been commanded to do, clean-your-room style, by the marketing nanny."

My answer:  So when your child begs for fruit-free Froot Loops, it's simply part of being a responsible adult that you, the lucky parent, must make the decision whether or not to buy the Froot Loops.

(Incidentally, don't you bet that Froot Loops loves being the first product that comes to mind when people think of sugary, bad-for-you foods that kids love?)

If you decide that your child doesn't really need the "fruit-free" cereal, you get the joyous job of teaching your little sweetie-pie the meaning of the word "NO".   If you find that you have trouble telling your kids "no", I feel sorry for you.  You're really in for it.  Maybe you should consider curbing their "commercial TV" time.  (Heck, if you have a TiVo, you can just fast-forward through the commercials, right?)

Of course, the columnist has already thought of this, but she's not swayed.  She still thinks it's the responsibility of someone other than a child's parents to monitor what food commercials s/he sees-- and by extention, what foods s/he craves.

"Only today is the federal government demonstrating a willingness to risk the nanny state accusations."  (Oh, that's the least of their problems.  They're being accused of much, much worse-- such as ramming through legislation against the will of the people-- dragging us down into debt so deep that it will take generations to dig our way out-- need I go on?)

"We could do without manipulative, profit-driven nannies. But we do need the FTC as a cop on the beat of wayward marketers."

Seriously though, lady!

I mean, are there unscrupulous advertisers?  Yes, there probably are, as there seem to be some unscrupulous people in every profession, if you go looking for them.   But are marketers really the root of the problem, here?  What would you have them do?  Their job is to sell their products-- and there's nothing wrong with their products (if we're just talking sweet foods).  Eaten in proper moderation, even sugary cereals are ok.  ("*gasp*  No.  She couldn't really believe that, could she?  She's finally lost her last shred of sanity. . .")  It's not like they're pushing drugs and alcohol.

At what point do parents take over responsibility for the well-being (including eating and exercise habits) of their own children?  You can't force someone to overeat just by showing them commercials-- and that is doubly true for children, who (generally speaking) do not purchase their own food.  It doesn't matter how many times little Emma sees those commercials for Froot Loops-- doesn't matter how much she decides she wants them-- doesn't matter how she cries or begs Mommy to buy them for her or to let her eat them every day (and in jumbo portions).  Until Mommy (or Daddy or Auntie or whoever) gives in to her every whim on a daily basis, none of it matters.  No-one is forcing Mommy to buy the Froot Loops, and you'll not convince me otherwise.