if i knew then what i know now...

as a sufferer of hypothyroidism, ive been able to control most of the negative side effects that i have, but there's one that really bugs me, and for years i have not been able to control it...dry skin. my skin has been terribly dry for as long as i could remember, and sometimes it gets so bad that the skin on my face begins to get leathery, cracked and tender, and actually flakes away. it has been the worst, and i've tried over twenty products over the years to try and improve my skins condition. the issue with doing this however, has always been that you just in general have to be careful about what products you use--some of them can cause severe reactions, and worsen the condition. for about a year and a half (since ecobaby was born actually), ive been using lanolin for my terrible skin, figuring that if it could help cracked nipples from breastfeeding, it could help cracked skin from the dry winter weather and hypothyroidism. well i was right, to a point. the problem with the lanolin was that i had to apply it three times per day to have continuously soft and supple skin, it was thick and sticky to apply, and often left my face glossy looking for up to two hours, sometimes longer. but since it was the best option that i had, it was what i used. at least it somewhat controlled the flaking, and took away the itch. well! one day, while surfing the web, i just happened to come across an article explaining the way commercial lotions work. the article was so well written, and made quality lotions out to be heroes for people with extremely dry skin. it was a great article, but i was afraid to try out anything else other than my lanolin. fast forward two weeks later. i received in the mail a freebie packet that i had signed up for the month earlier. i had basically forgotten about the packet, and since it was a surprise packet, i wasnt sure what i was going to get (but me being the "if its free its for me" type, didnt mind the surprise). well lo and behold, the packet was full of facial care items, toiletries and lotions. so i took my chance and tried one by nivea.

it didnt melt my face off.

but...it also wasnt the absolute best. a few hours later, my face was dry and itchy. so i thought to myself, well nivea is top of the line and its not working for me, then there must be little hope for my face...little affordable hope anyway.

my face eventually got so tight, itchy and dry that i went to wash it and apply my lanolin...but i couldnt find it. ecobaby had gotten to it clearly, and thrown it somewhere. with a dry, tight, itching face i had no choice...

i ran into the bathroom, and slathered on my face the closest thing i could...my husbands dial nutri skin lotion.

i brought these huge bottles of dial nutri skin lotion for .99 each at a super sale shop rite was having, and i had 2.00 off coupons...so i racked up. and in over a year, had never used the stuff.

what in the world was wrong with me?!

this stuff IMMEDIATELY calmed my face down, IMMEDIATELY moisturized it, and IMMEDIATELY softened my skin. the next morning, my skin was STILL moisturized! it lasted through my sleep! i felt so good i didnt wash my face (dont judge me) until that night...and it wasnt until i washed my face that i needed a new application. so i generously applied it.

the next day, my flaky skin was gone. after about a week, i noticed that not only was my skin OBVIOUSLY improving in health and feel, but there were no adverse reactions. it has a light fresh scent, is non greasy/oily and is a pretty great deal at about 7.00 for a huge bottle (maybe 32 ounces?).

i officially fell in love.

now i use the stuff every day, all over my body, and cannot believe how clear my skin is getting, how much better it's feeling and how much better it looks. all the time the solution was right under my nose.

why didnt someone tell me about dial nutri skin lotion a year ago?! i could've saved myself some pretty painful days, but better late than never...this stuff is my new best friend!

should Christians celebrate halloween?

this question has been plaguing me for many years, namely since i've had children. as a Christian, i always want to walk in the ways established by God, doing as He requires Christians to do, and not as i want...or doing as i want, so long as it's according to His will.

but i have to admit, i have never reached a conclusive, decisive or even satisfactory answer, even though i've researched the question and potential answers many times. so it's left me sort of scrambling last minute to decide what to do concerning the celebration of holidays, namely halloween.

why am i confused only about the celebration of halloween?

well for me, i can't even fully answer that question without confusing, or even contradicting, myself. the only thing about the holiday that i can really put my finger on that would keep the question alive of whether or not Christians (and moreso--my family and i) should celebrate halloween is that fact that i always feel something eerily sinister about the holiday when it comes around.

but that's all that i get. this odd feeling that there's something about halloween that i shouldn't be celebrating. i've had this feeling since i was young (about 7) or so, i think it stemmed from the fact that halloween always frightened me in one way or another as a child (i remember being the mad hatter from alice in wonderland--a scary childhood story in and of itself but more on that another day--and i was terrified of the costume. and then my mom dressed me up as a cinderella one year and when i looked at the eye holes in the mask i freaked out because it was so scary looking). but regardless of why or how the feeling came to be an innate part of me is irrelevant, the point is, it's there and it's never left. but even still, i can't figure out why as an adult i am still so murky on the answer to this question.

add this (the fact that i really don't know why i should or shouldn't be celebrating halloween) to the fact that the girls' school always celebrates it in a harmless and even fun way, and i'm stuck every year begrudgingly celebrating halloween with my children...even if just by giving out candy to the neighborhood children.

so i decided to end the confusion once and for all this year (after i've already determined that my children will not celebrate halloween--but not for reasons one might think--they're actually on punishment, so i was able to use that as the "excuse", but i'm even questioning the correctness of my motive and actions in this case too) by researching and finding answers to the question from different sources.

one of my favorite sites answers the question this way, and explains the origins of halloween here, and good old fashioned wiki says this about the origins of halloween.

now while according to everything i've read, the ultimate decision of whether or not to celebrate halloween is left up to the individual, there were some key points that stood out to me that made my thoughts concerning the question a bit easier:

"The ancient Celts believed that the border between this world and the Otherworld became thin on Samhain, allowing spirits (both harmless and harmful) to pass through. The family's ancestors were honoured and invited home while harmful spirits were warded off. It is believed that the need to ward off harmful spirits led to the wearing of costumes and masks." -wikipedia.org

"Bonfires played a large part in the festivities. All other fires were doused and each home lit their hearth from the bonfire. The bones of slaughtered livestock were cast into its flames.[6] Sometimes two bonfires would be built side-by-side, and people and their livestock would walk between them as a cleansing ritual." -wikipedia.org

*i have to take note here...the whole bonfire ritual sounds like a mimicing of the animal sacrifices done in the Old Testament*

"Another common practice was divination, which often involved the use of food and drink." -wikipedia.org

"Trick-or-treating resembles the late medieval practice of souling, when poor folk would go door to door on Hallowmas (November 1), receiving food in return for prayers for the dead on All Souls Day (November 2). It originated in Ireland and Britain,[19] although similar practices for the souls of the dead were found as far south as Italy." -wikipedia.org

with that being said, and the fact that the Bible is specifically against divination, inviting spirits (demons) within one's environment, and casting/psychics/witchcraft/sorcery/etc., and all of these things are in some way, shape or form associated with halloween, i believe that i am correct in the belief that i should NOT be celebrating halloween.

and i don't believe that i need to "replace" halloween with a celebration of another type. for me, i'd rather my family just avoid the whole scenario altogether.

now this is just my belief, i say that every Christian should come to the conclusion of whether or not to celebrate halloween by reading the information available on the topic and then consulting with God on the final matter.

gee, that was easier than it's ever been in the past.

now that i've answered this question which has been hounding me for quite some time, the best action to take with my children is just explain to them why we don't celebrate it anymore, and then simply not celebrate it. for the last few years, i haven't allowed my children to go to school for the halloween celebration, but i think it's time to get a tad bit stricter on the reasons why.

i suppose it won't be that easy, but that's my final answer and i'm sticking to it.

"but you don't believe in God!"

today i was perusing my facebook friend's status messages, and came across someone who is on my list that was lamenting that someone "supposedly close" to her remarked that she "didn't believe in God" during a conversation, and how that really made her feel worse than she's already feeling.



well, my first thought was, "well you don't believe in God as far as i know." but because the topic was sensitive and people were swarming around her post like bees, bobbing their heads in agreement with her lamentations and telling her that "God loves us all and you too, and you'll be fine" and the usual hodgepodge of politically correct garbage, i simply didn't say anything...but moved on to another status update.



now, i may be a bitch here because i've been just mean these past few days, but for the life of me, i can't see why she was so hurt over someone telling her that truth when in fact, as i said before...she indeed does not believe in God.



a little background to make this story clearer. the woman in question lost her mom about a month ago pretty unexpectedly, and she's been struggling with her mother's death. so now, i suppose to help her sort out her feelings, she suddenly believes in God wholeheartedly, or is needing God to believe in because she feels like she has lost a good portion of her life with the death of her mother, or something along those lines.



but i still can't understand why she was so upset at the comment that she received. i mean, especially since this is the same woman who has mocked the worship of Christians, the philosophy of true Christians, and our goals in this life. i distinctly remember 2 discussions i had with her in which she used secular logic to compare worshipping God and believing in Jesus to "worshipping an apple or whatever your heart desires" and another where she mocked those who forgave others for trangressions, and the words of Jesus on forgiveness concerning forgiveness, saying it's basically a copout from facing our weaknesses, and that any person who truly forgave is a weak minded being.



now that her mother is passed and moved on, she is suddenly trying to read the Bible and "get clarity and peace" concerning her loss. typically human, and typically secular. mean? i'm not so sure. true? definitely.



this reminds me of the addage, "no one needs God until He's all that they have left."



for some odd reason, i cannot wrap my head around her anguish at that comment the friend told her, that she doesn't believe in God. i must be missing a point here? why was it such a low blow to say that? sounds like the truth to me. i mean, should Christians not speak the truth in every situation? she didn't say that the other woman was rude or condenscending when she said it, so i can't assume that she was. i don't know what her tone/intent was with the words, or even the whole situation surrounding and leading up to and beyond those words that were spoken. but given what i do know, i am absolutely stumped.



now this is the daughter of my mother's best friend who died. she and i are the same age and as far as i know, played in the same playpen as little girls...but because we are so fundamentally different as adults, i don't converse with her much. she is no stranger to me however, my older sisters and mom consider her and her family to be our family. granted, i am not that close to them as a family unit, but i do have a knowledge there that goes a bit beyond facebook statuses. and usually her words would just roll off my back, but this is something that for some reason has stuck itself into my brain and i can't shake it loose, as i just can't understand it.



i am going through the responses she's given and received since that inital comment, looking for a straw to grasp to understand this situation better, but so far i am honestly confused. this woman is really emitting a believable pained response to what she was told it seems. and the more i read, the more i am prompted to break up the pity party by asking, "well DO you believe in God?" but then that would seem to cause a bigger problem.



now i am in no way, shape or form downplaying the pain she must be going through because of her mother's death...i can't fathom it and i cannot relate to it as i have not lost my own mother. so i don't want to give that impression. but i just don't understand that how a basically self proclaimed atheist can feel pain at being reminded that they don't believe in God when they are in a painful/helpless situation? i would think they wouldn't even turn to God, since to them, He doesn't exist? it makes me wonder, were they discussing how God can help her get through the pain, and the convo went wrong?



this also makes me wonder, in however long from now, when her healing over her mother's death has begun, will she once again mock those of us who truly do believe in God?

in a *tide-al* wave of dilemma!

ok, so i've come across a stump in my usually flawless frugal abilities!

my cousin brought me a huuuggeee container of tide detergent last month that was given to him that he didn't need. so me, being the frugal genius i am, took it gratefully and used it immediately.

well, i loved the way tide detergent cleans our clothes, and i love the fact that you truly only need one capful. now this is especially great news because we wash clothing on average 4x a week in my household. and this is especially great news because i've been washing off of this same container of tide for the past 2 weeks at 2 loads per day 4x per week and i still have about 1/3 of the container left.

the horrid news about this situation is that the particular bottle of tide that i was using costs 20.00 AND i have to set our machine on the longest setting *which uses more electricity* than i normally do to get those clothes good and clean. eek. now usually i spend about 10.00 per month on detergent and it gets our clothes nice and clean on the shortest setting possible, which cuts down on energy costs for my household and laundry time in general.

however, the tide gets out tough stains and it also gets out grease stains better than my current detergent *which DOES get out the stains but i have to use shout on them beforehand*.

so that is my dilemma. do i start using the tide at 20.00-24.00 a bottle *depending on where i shop* and using the longest laundry setting *which is double the time of the shortest* to clean our clothes, or do i revert back to the 10.00 worth of detergent i buy *which is a blend of detergents* and shout gel along with the shortest laundry cycle to get our laundry done? we save about 15.00 per month on our energy bill using shorter laundry cycles. unfortunately, our appliances aren't the most energy efficient available, and we aren't allowed to just change them because i don't own my home.

so hmm...what SHOULD i do? i was thinking about keeping a small bottle of the tide on hand to use, but that may be more trouble than it's worth. so i do need suggestions!

19 things i like about the duggar family.

during my spiritual journey these past couple of weeks, it was revealed to me that one of the things preventing me from continuing up my spiritual ladder to the position i should be in is the fact that i am not humble enough. so i pondered this dilemma of mine, mainly because i'm not exactly sure if i understand the definition of humilty. after spending much time looking up acts of humility and lessons on humility taught by Jesus Christ, i sort of kind of grasp the idea of humility better, and after much prayer and talking with the Father, i even see in myself where i do indeed need to become a more humble person. and i have been striving diligently over these past few days to become more humble.

it "just so happens" that i've also been watching more television lately. i am not sure if this stems from my search for humility in a world that's not so humble *and what better place to see how unhumble the world is than tv?*, or if it stems from the fact that i haven't been feeling my greatest *more on that later*...but whatever the case may be, i have found myself to be this learning-to-be-humble couch potato.

so while flipping haphazardly through the television stations at 3am four nights ago, i came across the television show on tlc "19 and counting", the reality show about jim bob and michelle duggar, a married couple with 19 children. i watched the show mainly because it piqued my curiosity, and i didn't think much of it...they seemed like an ok enough couple and that was it.

it "just so happens" *it's amazing how God works*, that the next day, i caught myself watching not one, but another two episodes of 19 an counting, and this time i had more time and inclination to actually pay this family attention.

and i came to the startling conclusion that i actually admire the duggars very much, and how i am becoming more humble by forming my own opinions of people and situations instead of relying on the opinions of others and the media to shape mine for me.

so, because i actually like the duggars that much, despite some of the not-so-nice things i've read about them, i've decided to make a like of 19 things that i really admire about the duggars, just from what little i know about them *and trust me, i will be watching them daily now*:

1. they have home church, and do not attend "formal" church services *more on that another day*.

2. their children play instruments.

3. their children are very well disciplined.

4. their house is very clean.

5. jim bob and michelle clearly love each other.

6. their ideals are in alignment with each others, and none of them "force" themselves on anyone else, they are who they are and it works out beautifully.

7. they do alot of community work.

8. michelle homeschools all of her children, and makes it look easy.

9. they eat pretty healthy foods, for the most part.

10. they have 5 acres of farmland.

11. before they became "famous", their family was well in tact and in order, despite jim bob making an average salary and michelle not working.

12. michelle is a sahm *woohoo!*

13. their children are actually cute.

14. they stick to their belief systems, no matter what others think or say.

15. they have never used welfare to support their children *not that i am against welfare, more on that another day*

16. michelle still has a great shape to have delivered 19 children.

17. they utilize technology PROPERLY...for education, not recreation.

18. they utilize the knowledge of the people they meet.

19. they live a relatively simple life, without the clutter of too much modernism.

it's already humbling to see how my own mindset is formed when i don't allow others to infiltrate my thoughts *i was surprised at how much i allow that*, how much in common i have with other people, to recognize that i'm not above or below anyone, and to realize just how much alike people really are.

what say you?

ok, since i'm at a computer quickly i HAVE to post this and i am asking anyone who reads this to please give feedback, especially if they are Christian OR have a loved one in prison.

my initial purpose of this blog was to relieve tension and stress about my life as a wife to an inmate and a mother to 3 active children. it was also to show others the ups and downs of prisonlife and parenthood. as it's grown though, it's become a conglomerate of the above and also a blog about my life in general, including frugality, my personal growth and some key points of who i am *a lover of animals, pro-life, etc.*. i will admit, because i am somewhat anonymous here, i feel comfortable enough to speak my heart on many things, and it's a huge relief to just let it all out when it seems like i can't speak to any other people about something in particular that i am going through. this is especially helpful when i can't speak to my hubby because of phone, letter or visit restrictions too. and even then, there are alot of things that i haven't let it *although i sure do wish i could lol*, because i feel like they are private just between he and i and/or our family.

now, i was told by a fellow Christian here that my blog is sinful in that i am revealing too much about my marriage, not being very Proverbian at all in my wifeliness. aside from one set of posts that revealed a series of problems we were going through *and actually worked through*, i don't find any posts especially *sinful*. but because i'm intrigued and definitely need to know if i'm sinning *so i can fix it because what we do not know isn't held against us but what we do know is*, i would like to know what others think about this accusation, in light of what they have read here thus far and even moreso if my blog is sinful in any way.

but please note, i made an exception for my blogposts from 2008, when i was a very different person than i am now *still a Christian but not as studious in the faith as i am now. this blog was even under another name then, it was not a Proverbs wife's life*. i did make mention to said Christian that what i have posted in my earlier writings on this blog *from the summer of 2008 mainly* are older postings of an older me and are not indicative of who i am now. these postings are not often and although they are secular in nature, still aren't extremely explicit or straight out crazy. but i kept these postings as a true confession of my growth as a Christian and a person. i feel that if i edit this diary of mine it won't be accurate of who i was and who i am. i am not ashamed of those postings because they are in the past, and in God i am made new. so i don't linger on them, nor do i hide who i *used* to be.

i stated this to said Christian, and i wonder if she deliberately used that information to create a post designed to accuse me of sinning. hmm. i wonder this especially because she immediately directed her comment concerning my various postings in this blog, and i wonder if she would have thought to do that on her own had i not mentioned my older musings first.

so at this point in time, i am not sure if the remark from her was a rebuttal to the comment that i posted to her or if it was given in genuine concern about the fact that i *may* be sinning (and i use that term lightly insofar as her remarks to me are concerned). but i'd like to get some comments on this all.

what do you see when you read this blog? can you see some changes in my demeanor and attitude *alot of people say they can in my regular non-online life* or are there no differences? are my old postings compared to my 2009 postings useful in seeing this change, if any? am i sinning and don't know it? am i ok? is there anything that you as a reader of this blog *and i know there aren't that many but still* think i should know?

what say you?

The Maker's Diet.

this book is an excellent read, even for those who are not neccessarily religious but want to change the way they view their food and eating habits, and for those who want to change their way of life and eat healther, get in shape and be better for it.

i got so excited towards the end of The Maker's Diet that i went on a binge and threw away half of my kitchen. i don't really regret it--one read and you'll feel bad for eating non-organic, and feeding it to your kids, if you have any.

this book also made me revamp my mindset that i had about food before, as viewed in this post. not that i was wrong before, but i'd say more ignorant. there was a response given also to my post that i didn't quite "get" back then, but i get it now--thanks to the person that wrote me that post! now i see why pork is bad for you as well as other foods, and i understand that God's rules concerning food did not change. the only thing that did change is that now, eating whatever you want isn't a sin, but the bad for you foods still remain bad for you. you just won't go to hell for eating them.

i've decided to switch us over to a 50% minimum organic diet. this includes all dairy, fruits and vegetables. i'm aiming for all organic meats, but thus far those are expensive. for now i just try to get meats raised and prepared in the most natural, humane ways.

but what an excellent read it is...i got my copy for 99 cents off ebay *now you really didn't think i'd purchase this sucker for 15.00 new right?!* however, i've read in various places online that the author of this book, Jordan Rubin, offers free copies to those who are in financial straights but wish to obtain the information he provides.

i personally love the book. it's not gimmicky or weird and the rules really are simple and common sensical. of course those who aren't spiritually inclined will scoff at the more spiritual side of the book. and that's just fine. the rest of us appreciate his words and his relationship with God--i personally cried during a few pages.

we are making the transition to a naturally healthy lifestyle with this book and a few other resources i've obtained over time, and to be honest it's much easier than i imagined it'd be. i'm happy i'm doing it--my kids love organic 1% milk just as much as regular whole milk and the prices (which i'll blog about after my first full organic shopping experience coming up) thus far don't seem to be abnormally out of range. i paid 4.19-4.59 for a gallon of hormone/antibiotic laced milk, and now i pay 4.99 for a gallon of certified organic milk. well worth the extra few cents for the better health and piece of mind. now i feel guilty if i even think about getting my kids non-organic milk--like i'm purposefully giving them hormones and antibiotics in every cup of milk. we've even started on organic sugar (2.50 for 1.5 pounds). and that's not any fault at all of The Maker's Diet, i've been feeling this guilt trip rising in the back of my throat for a few weeks now!

i'm going to complete the book again and then just start the diet (which comes in three different phases and levels), but i'm already eating better after the first read. now i know that there's a possibility that what we eat isn't as organic as it could be, even if it's stamped by the usda as organic, but i can taste the difference in the milk that we drink now, and i can taste the difference in the sugar and the vegetables. the flavors are smoother, more robust. i noticed the milk tastes creamier and lighter. the vegetables have a sweeter, stronger taste. so i don't know if it's psychological or what, but so far we're enjoying it and i figure it has to have LESS chemicals in it than non-organic, which is always a start.

i didn't forget!

i didn't forget about my beautiful blog, i promise. there's been alot going on but i still have no computer and am trying to figure out exactly how to blog from my cell phone.

for now i will say this...

spiritual warfare is a very real phenomenon and so worth looking into. i have been growing in my spirituality and facing some difficult, metamorphosis like times, and now i notice that i am beginning to second guess, question, cry, worry...things that are so unlike me.

i know this is an attack on who i am, my spirit and all that i stand for and aspire to be, for myself, my family and my God.

but i know what i am facing; i am prepared to battle.

i'll return, just wanted to let my blog know i didn't forget about it--i think about it more than anything else when i need to express myself.

a blogger must have.

i just couldn't let this one slide--it's a keeper for sure. while i wasn't going to get out of bed on November 4th, 2008--i just might have to put on my flip flops and head on down to the polls--because i'll have a FIT if the republicans win this election AGAIN.

like i said--this one is classic and goes down in blogger history haha.

sarah needs to just go back home to Alaska and do what she does best!


Attacks, praise stretch truth at GOP convention
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080904/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_fact_check


ST. PAUL, Minn. - Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and her Republican supporters held back little Wednesday as they issued dismissive attacks on Barack Obama and flattering praise on her credentials to be vice president. In some cases, the reproach and the praise stretched the truth.


Some examples:

PALIN: "I have protected the taxpayers by vetoing wasteful spending ... and championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress. I told the Congress 'thanks but no thanks' for that Bridge to Nowhere."

THE FACTS: As mayor of Wasilla, Palin hired a lobbyist and traveled to Washington annually to support earmarks for the town totaling $27 million. In her two years as governor, Alaska has requested nearly $750 million in special federal spending, by far the largest per-capita request in the nation. While Palin notes she rejected plans to build a $398 million bridge from Ketchikan to an island with 50 residents and an airport, that opposition came only after the plan was ridiculed nationally as a "bridge to nowhere."

PALIN: "There is much to like and admire about our opponent. But listening to him speak, it's easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or reform — not even in the state senate."

THE FACTS: Compared to McCain and his two decades in the Senate, Obama does have a more meager record. But he has worked with Republicans to pass legislation that expanded efforts to intercept illegal shipments of weapons of mass destruction and to help destroy conventional weapons stockpiles. The legislation became law last year. To demean that accomplishment would be to also demean the work of Republican Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, a respected foreign policy voice in the Senate. In Illinois, he was the leader on two big, contentious measures in Illinois: studying racial profiling by police and requiring recordings of interrogations in potential death penalty cases. He also successfully co-sponsored major ethics reform legislation.

PALIN: "The Democratic nominee for president supports plans to raise income taxes, raise payroll taxes, raise investment income taxes, raise the death tax, raise business taxes, and increase the tax burden on the American people by hundreds of billions of dollars."

THE FACTS: The Tax Policy Center, a think tank run jointly by the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, concluded that Obama's plan would increase after-tax income for middle-income taxpayers by about 5 percent by 2012, or nearly $2,200 annually. McCain's plan, which cuts taxes across all income levels, would raise after tax-income for middle-income taxpayers by 3 percent, the center concluded.

Obama would provide $80 billion in tax breaks, mainly for poor workers and the elderly, including tripling the Earned Income Tax Credit for minimum-wage workers and higher credits for larger families.

He also would raise income taxes, capital gains and dividend taxes on the wealthiest. He would raise payroll taxes on taxpayers with incomes above $250,000, and he would raise corporate taxes. Small businesses that make more than $250,000 a year would see taxes rise.

MCCAIN: "She's been governor of our largest state, in charge of 20 percent of America's energy supply ... She's responsible for 20 percent of the nation's energy supply. I'm entertained by the comparison and I hope we can keep making that comparison that running a political campaign is somehow comparable to being the executive of the largest state in America," he said in an interview with ABC News' Charles Gibson.

THE FACTS: McCain's phrasing exaggerates both claims. Palin is governor of a state that ranks second nationally in crude oil production, but she's no more "responsible" for that resource than President Bush was when he was governor of Texas, another oil-producing state. In fact, her primary power is the ability to tax oil, which she did in concert with the Alaska Legislature. And where Alaska is the largest state in America, McCain could as easily have called it the 47th largest state — by population.

MCCAIN: "She's the commander of the Alaska National Guard. ... She has been in charge, and she has had national security as one of her primary responsibilities," he said on ABC.

THE FACTS: While governors are in charge of their state guard units, that authority ends whenever those units are called to actual military service. When guard units are deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan, for example, they assume those duties under "federal status," which means they report to the Defense Department, not their governors. Alaska's national guard units have a total of about 4,200 personnel, among the smallest of state guard organizations.

FORMER ARKANSAS GOV. MIKE HUCKABEE: Palin "got more votes running for mayor of Wasilla, Alaska than Joe Biden got running for president of the United States."

THE FACTS: A whopper. Palin got 616 votes in the 1996 mayor's election, and got 909 in her 1999 re-election race, for a total of 1,525. Biden dropped out of the race after the Iowa caucuses, but he still got 76,165 votes in 23 states and the District of Columbia where he was on the ballot during the 2008 presidential primaries.

FORMER MASSACHUSETTS GOV. MITT ROMNEY: "We need change, all right — change from a liberal Washington to a conservative Washington! We have a prescription for every American who wants change in Washington — throw out the big-government liberals, and elect John McCain and Sarah Palin."

THE FACTS: A Back-to-the-Future moment. George W. Bush, a conservative Republican, has been president for nearly eight years. And until last year, Republicans controlled Congress. Only since January 2007 have Democrats have been in charge of the House and Senate.

pondering blogs.

i wonder, if you post continuously about the same thing on your blog, day in and day out, does that make you obsessive about that topic? does it make it so if some of your readers feel that you obsess over that topic, because it's all you talk about? does it change things if your blog is a "diary" type blog versus a "category specific" type blog?

i wonder, if you have a blog like mine, one with no rhyme or reason, just saying what you feel at that particular time about what's on your mind or happening in your life at that particular time, is it safe to say that your life is like that? no real rhyme or reason, just going through the days as they come, and reacting to your experiences according to the way you feel at that moment? no real "planning" or "organizing" what you're going to say? because you don't plan on your blog, is that indicative that you don't plan adequately in real life?

should you post on your blog for the pleasure of others, or yourself? if you are posting a "diary" type blog, but it has the "feel" of being more created to attract the audiences' eye, does that make your blog a sham? not authentic? does it mean that you "ramble" to cater to everyone else, versus yourself?

if you read a blog full of fancy vocabulary that's not saying a dang on thing really when all is said and done, is it safe to say the blog author is the same way? what about if a blog is relatively simple reading but it says alot? is the author like that? is it safe to say that a blogs wording is reflective of it's author? is this always the case, or just sometimes, depending on the blog/author mood? do some people make their blogs super fancily written, only to "dumb down" when they are no longer writing on their blog? do some people do the opposite? write their blogs simply enough, easy reading, but in real life are really complex people that are more complex than the most complex words and thoughts? is my blog a "baby blog" or a "big reader" blog? do i care? should i care, since this blog is my "diary" of sorts? should i want more readers, or should i just be here in my own little space, marveling that i only get about 10 hits per day, which would make my blog basically a nothing in bloggerspace?

these are just some random questions that i always think about as i read through some blogs. sometimes, i have to stay away for a few days from certain blogs (and i am not saying my blog doesn't deserve to be stayed away from--but it's MY blog so i'm here as often as i like to be) because it just seems that the message, while not always negative or positive, is always redundant, and sometimes too much of one thing isn't good. and i have to wonder about the author of those blogs. is this just an outlet to release steam built up by that particular topic, or does this topic engulf their every fiber? then in the same breath, sometimes i go to certain blogs all the time because the message IS redundant, and i feel that those blogs keep me on my toes about certain things that should be redundant in my life. they teach me alot about the same subject. i am often drawn to these blogs because i see that my real life is sorely lacking some good knowledge about the area. now the odd thing is, two blogs on the exact same topic, saying the exact same thing, can elicit totally different responses from me. one blog i can be glued to like a bee to honey, the other one, like a roach to a can of raid. and i find that odd myself, especially if the blog is talking about the same thing.

i also find it odd how some blogs emulate each other. i even asked myself, "is there some secret blogger society that i don't know about?" because some blogs seem to post about the exact same topic on the exact same days for the exact same length of time. odd. i then wonder about blogs that post daily and get no hits, and the blogs that post sometimes once every two weeks, if that, but never dissuade a pretty large reading group. i wonder about alot concerning blogs, i don't know why. should i care why? hehe. i dunno. but i do think about it. i am certain that as i become more accustomed to blogging, and am not so new to the scene, these questions will eventually dwindle.

but for now, whatever the reason (or lack of), i am always pondering blogs it seems.

ok...very bad, but i HAVE heard worse.

now, while the story is crazy and saddening, i think the worst part of the story is the last part. placed into foster care? those poor kids will never be the same...worse off than they were with their dad probably.

Father accused of caging kids in his truck
Man's explanation: He didn't have a baby sitter
AP

POSEN, Ill. - A suburban Chicago man locked his two young daughters in a wire cage hidden in the back of his pickup truck because he didn't have a baby sitter, officials said Thursday.
Ricardo Gonzalez, 35, of Midlothian, was arrested Monday after a woman at a gas station in Posen heard a crying child and spotted him pushing small hands back into a cage, police said.

He had a wire cage behind the front seats of his truck, police said. Black-tinted windows and a large plywood board in the back window concealed it.Gonzalez told police he used the cage because he didn't have a baby sitter. He also said he wanted to control the girls, ages 2 and 5, so they wouldn't run away. Police said the girls did not live in the cage.

Gonzalez will appear in court July 31 on charges of misdemeanor child endangerment. Cook County prosecutors were exploring Thursday whether the charge could be upgraded to a felony.
A telephone listing for Gonzalez could not be found, and it was not clear whether he had an attorney.

The children were turned over to the state child welfare agency and placed in foster care Monday.

Agency spokesman Kendall Marlowe said the department was investigating abuse allegations against the father. It had previously found the mother neglectful and provided unspecified "supportive services" to the family.

of things related and unrelated - 7/1/08

i have a really bad cold, and now i'm getting an earache. i am going to force myself to go to the doctor...it's been literally years since i've had an ear infection.

in an effort to expand my horizons/borders/mindset more, i've decided to add a google newsreel to my blog. that way, when i view it, i can also view current stories. i am doing this because i don't watch tv nor do i ever read the news. one time there was a main water break in the city and i didn't find out until a week after it happened. people went without water for five days--i had NO clue. not good.

advil pm really, REALLY works. i use my coupons of course and get a bottle worth 5.00 for about 0.80, so of COURSE it's worth it to me! but it really works...and if i say that, it's good! because i have an extremely high pain tolerance, so most regular medicines and doses don't work well for me.

adopt a soldier! i adopted one, and he hasn't written me back. it's a little wierd writing and mailing off letters when you aren't sure that they reach their destination. in my mind, i imagine them going on a journey and winding up in some far off land that i'll never get to see. a little bit wierd, but hey. the instructions say to keep writing, even if you don't recieve a respons. and they aren't coming back to me...so they are going somewhere.

blogs on racial justice and racism and american politics really have me questioning some of my prior beliefs. i guess you can say that i grew up pretty sheltered or something because i have yet to experience racism on some of the both subtle and grand scales that i am reading about, despite being a black woman. my mom says that i probably had no clue when it was staring me in the face. at this time, i am not sure if that is a good or a bad thing.

i've decided to get a dyson, and not a kirby. i've also decided to hold off on replacing the carpet in the living room until i see how well (or not well) the dyson works for us. whatever i can do to save money, i'm all for.

lately we've been cooking, and cooking good meals at home. i might be the next emeril.

i am still feeling lil' wayne. i heard his entire CD, and i love it. of course i have no real clue about "hip hop" and what not, i am really commercial in a sense...but i still am snapping my fingers and clicking my heels to the beat (he is my guilty pleasure).

for some odd reason, our pit-bull isn't reacting as well to the ivermectin drops this time around as she usually does. i'm not sure if it's the humidity, or the being in the house so much, or what. but i expected a way better improvement than i've been getting from the medicine.

a new take on circumcision (pt. 2).

after reading a comment posted in my blog from a man who is against circumcision, i decided to do some research (as always)...and this is what i have found to be the most ACCURATE, UNBIASED research from the federal government, not from yay or naysayers either way...and i am going to follow this. it was stated in the comment that 97% of Christians are not circumcised...i have not found proof for or against that data, but it doesn't sound accurate to me. in another blog i also read that only 15% of men in the world are now circumcised. i also find that hard to believe. so...this is what the federal government has to say about it:

"Circumcision is the surgical removal of foreskin from the penis of an infant boy. The operation is usually performed for cultural, religious, or cosmetic reasons rather than for medical reasons. Some organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, maintain there is insufficient evidence that routine circumcision is medically necessary. However, there is research suggesting that some health benefits may be gained, including a slightly decreased risk of developing penile cancer, a lower chance of urinary tract infections in newborns, and a potentially lessened risk of HIV transmission.
AHRQ's new report is an analysis of hospital-based circumcisions in 2005. Among its findings:

-- In the West, only 31 percent of newborn boys were circumcised in hospitals in 2005. That compares with 75 percent in the Midwest, 65 percent in the Northeast, and 56 percent in the South. Factors influencing circumcision rates may include insurance coverage and immigration from Latin America and other areas where circumcision is less common.

-- Nationwide, about 56 percent of newborn boys—1.2 million infants—were circumcised. The national rate has remained relatively stable for a decade. It peaked at 65 percent in 1980.

--About 60 percent of circumcisions were billed to private insurance, 31 percent were billed to Medicaid, nearly 3 percent were charged to other public programs, and about 4 percent were uninsured. " ~ Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (a division of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services)

now, i am all for every parent making their own decision about the matter. just thought that i would clear up a few questions for myself. i have read repeatedly that circumcision results in more protection from HIV. it undoubtedly looks better according to many, i read that about 65% of women prefer uncircumcised penises (i know i do...read about women and sexual preference concerning circumcision here), and there is the penile cancer issue. i know that my father had to be circumcised in his mid 60's for medical neccessity. we had to take turns going to his house to make sure that he had help completing certain tasks. this is also a pretty cool article, which gives reasons why circumcision may be a favorable choice in males.

my decision still remains the same for my unborn child, and the reasons for it are still the same. just thought that i would note what i found while looking for ACCURATE information on the subject.

a new take on circumcision.

today i was on one of my favorite sites, gotquestions.org, and i was randomly reading questions and answers, and i came across this:

"Question: "What does the Bible say about circumcision? What is the Christian view of circumcision?"

Answer: There are different issues that are wrapped up in the question of whether males should be circumcised or not. One issue is that of religious teaching: what does the Bible, God’s Word, say? Another issue is: as a matter of health, should males be circumcised?Concerning the first issue, since we are no longer under the Old Testament Law as Christians, circumcision is no longer required. This is brought out in a number of New Testament passages, among which are the following: Acts 15; Galatians 2:1-3; 5:1-11; 6:11-16; 1 Corinthians 7:17-20; Colossians 2:8-12; Philippians 3:1-3. As these passages bring out, being saved from our sins is received through trusting in Christ to save us from our sins, and it is this act of turning from our sin and self-righteousness and turning instead to reliance upon Christ’s finished work on the cross that makes us “circumcised of heart” and that the works of the flesh accomplish nothing.In Acts 16:3, Paul had a missionary helper, Timothy, circumcised so that his being uncircumcised would not be a hindrance to them as they sought to reach out to the unsaved Jews on their missionary journeys. Thus, although the Bible gives Gentile (non-Jewish) believers the liberty of not being circumcised, it was a liberty that Timothy was willing to give up for the sake of reaching out to unsaved Jews. However, as the passages in Galatians bring out, Paul refused to compromise the issue with those who said that one must be circumcised in order to be either saved or sanctified in Christ.There are practical issues involved with circumcision as well. Some parents have their sons circumcised so that they will look like all the other males in their culture. Some parents are concerned that their son would someday be in a locker room and find themselves different from everyone else. In some cultures, though, males are not commonly circumcised. There is also the issue of health. Doctors debate back and forth in regard to whether there are any health benefits to circumcision. Any couple with such concerns should definitely speak with a doctor in regards to this issue." ~gotquestions.org

now, with the circumcision issue, i am all for whatever parents want to do, but i have to admit, i get irked by the "anti circumcising parents" that try to force their beliefs of how cruel and unusual circumcision is to a child down the throat anyone willing to listen (it reminds me of those picketers that line the front of abortion clinics with building size images of mutilated fetuses). in my opinion, it is no more cruel or unusual to circumcise a child than it is to get immunizations, or put an infant to sleep in a room across the house in a cold crib and then paddle back to a warm bed with the comfort and closeness of another, or allow a toddler to scream herself to sleep for days, sometimes weeks straight in an attempt to get her to sleep alone. and at the end of the day, the decision of whether or not to circumcise is as unique as the decision of naming the baby.

with that being said, my husband and i have always decided that if we were to have a son, we would have him circumcised. for me, once again, it was a religious belief that i had never updated myself on, for him, it was a health issue. he decided that he did not want our son to go through the issues with hygeine that he saw the youngsters in his family go through with being uncircumcised, and he also wants our son to "look" like him, and i decided that it would be symbolic of our religion to circumcise our son. when we thought that our youngest was a boy, i thought about us performing a ceremony much like a brit, but more in tune with our religious beliefs (we wouldn't have used a Rabbi or Jewish doctor neccessarily--but would have picked another Christian doctor to perform the circumcision). since we had a daughter, that was unneccessary (but i am still hanging onto that idea as we have decided that we would like to try for a son before our youngest one's fifth birthday). we have still maintained that if we have a son, he will be circumcised, even though i have learned (and will share with him) that it is no longer "neccessary" to circumcise him as a symbol of keeping our covenant with God.