A Funny Story

We don't live in the most diverse area. It's one of my concerns with raising children in Southwest Missouri. When we lived in Raleigh, NC, Sam met many people of different races, sexual orientations, and religions. This area is pretty white.

So, I've been using Barack Obama as an example to help educated the kids about equality in America (and our country's history of inequality). We've talked about how Senator Obama is the first black man to be a major party's candidate for President of the United States, and he may be the first black President. From these conversations, I learned that Sam had noticed that people have different skin colors, but didn't know how to talk about this. So we talked about how light-skinned people are usually called "white" or "Caucasian," while Senator Obama is called "black" or "African-American." We also talked about how not to talk about skin colors in ways that are offensive, and that it is what is on the inside that really counts.

At his summer camp a couple of weeks ago, Sam rode horses. When I picked him up, I was asking him questions to get him to talk about his day. I asked, "what color were the horses?" to which he replied, "one was blond like me, and the other three were African-American."

I am so glad my little man wants to be appropriate and not hurt others' feelings or say things that are offensive. But I have to tell you, it took everything I had not to laugh out loud at that one. Kids are so cute!

Vacationing at Home

We stayed home for our vacation this year, and we had a gret time! Here are some of the pictures of the boys enjoying themselves around the area.

We went to Dickerson Park Zoo.



Ben had his birthday. He is now 3!


We went to Silver Dollar City, White Water, and Celebration City. Here are the boys on the Tilt-A-Whirl at Celebration City.


I've also updated the sidebar with more pictures of what we've been up to this summer.

Tell Me Again What's Wrong with Speaking Spanish?

I heard a lot of rhetoric on CNN today about Barack Obama thinking it is a good thing for kids in America to learn to speak Spanish. Some people seem to feel like this is an affront to America. You know they are low on things to bash Obama about when this is the best thing they can come up with.

The school my son will be attending this fall had a pilot program for the students to learn Spanish last year. I was thrilled when I heard this and hope that the program will continue. Everyone knows that it is when children are young that they are most able to absorb new language skills. I see learning foreign languages as a part of a well-rounded education. I personally have studied French and Spanish, though, sadly, I am fluent in neither.

Spanish is one of the most spoken languages in the world. As the economy becomes more and more a global one, and as the world grows smaller and smaller, who wouldn't want their child to be able to communicate with as many people as possible? It only increases the child's chances of having a better job and securing his or her economic future. More educated, employed, wealthy Americans. Yes, I see how this Spanish thing is so terrible for our country.

Speaking English is important if you live in the United States. I think all children being educated here should read and write English well. But being able to communicate in multiple languages? This is important if you live in the world.

Why Hillary's Women Supporters Should Vote for Barack Obama

Today someone mentioned to me that they are aware of a demographic of women who supported Hillary Clinton for President who are very angry that Barack Obama will be the nominee for the Democrats in November. Some of these women have waiting a lifetime to see a woman break through the glass ceiling of Presidential politics, and feel they have been robbed of the opportunity. Many of these women would never vote for John McCain, but they are considering not voting at all.

There are two major reasons these women should vote for Obama, and I hope they will consider it. The first is that in a very close election, not voting for Obama is effectively the same as voting for McCain. When every vote counts, Obama obviously needs very vote he can get.

The second reason is the Supreme Court. If a woman is concerned at all about reproductive freedom, then she should be very concerned about who makes up the Supreme Court. The next President will likely get to appoint at least 2, if not more, Justices to the Supreme Court. If John McCain is allowed to make those nominations and appointments, the outcome could be very detrimental to the Roe v. Wade decision. The pro-life movement chips away at Roe v. Wade wherever they can get a foot in the door. Any state law pertaining to reproductive freedom that is challenged as unconstitutional has the potential to make it to the Supreme Court. It is more likely that Roe v. Wade will be upheld if Obama is the one making the nominations and appointments.

There are other issues that are important facing the Supreme Court as well. One has to give a great deal of thought to what type of court best serves our country before deciding how to vote, or not to vote at all, in the election.

I was, and still am, a die-hard Hillary supporter. I would love to see a female president. I have not always been the biggest fan of Barack Obama. But it is time for us to pull together and think of the bigger picture. It is time for women to get behind Obama and make sure that he is elected the next President of the United States.

It's All In Your Head

At least that is what former Senator (and economic advisor to John McCain) Phil Gramm (R-Texas) wants you to believe.

I am so sick of rich people trying to tell the rest of us that our country isn't in real economic trouble. Phil "let them eat cake" Gramm actually went so far as to call the people who are struggling right now with losing jobs, unbearable medical bills, high costs of commuting to work, and increased costs of basic necessities "whiners."

Well, Phil, it would be nice if no one in America had to worry about these things, but that's just not the case for the majority of Americans. It would be nice to be in the upper 1-2% of Americans making over $200,000 per year. It would be nice to know that you aren't living pay check to pay check. But it's not reality. And I think you should have to live on $75,000, $50,000, $35,000 a year or less to really understand the reality of what is going on. The Phil Gramms of the world should be forced to live on that type of budget and figure out how to feed a family of 4 or more, pay for daycare, have gas to get to work, and keep the lights on and a roof over their heads as a huge reality check.

I was in a local restaurant on a recent Saturday night. In the past, it was not unusual to wait 45 minutes for a table. We walked right in and were seated among many empty tables. I went to a local water park in June, on my vacation at home (gas was too expensive for us to go anywhere). In previous years, it was too crowded to park and the lines for water slides were long, especially on the weekend. This year, no problems. No crowding. No people. There is no explanation to these events, which are happening more and more frequently, than people not having enough money to do the things they used to do.

Geez, Phil Gramm. Come down from your golden palace and get a clue, or shut your mouth.

To Put It Bluntly...

...there is absolutely no point to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Just because Roy Blunt (R-MO) says there is don't make it so.

There is not enough oil in ANWR to make it worthwhile anyway. They won't be able to pull enough out to justify the costs, and that is by even the most generous of estimates. Why go in and trash a pristine part of the planet, possibly making fragile species of life extinct for what amounts to a literal drop in the bucket of oil? I'll tell you why. More money for the oil business in the short term. Yep. They go in, make a few bucks, continue to charge the public out the wazoo because of the cost of going up there to get it, and before we all know it, it's all sucked out and used up. ANWR is trashed beyond repair, but oh boy! those rich oil folks will be even richer. You know, the guys turning the record profits right now on the backs of regular working Americans.

Roy Blunt himself said it would take 15 years to get oil out of ANWR if we started drilling right now. So ANWR is the answer to our current fuel-cost crisis, but it will take 15 years to get the oil from up north refined and to the pumps. Blunt speculated that just saying we are going to open up ANWR would scare the world market into decreasing oil prices. Really? We've said we're going to produce different cars that use less oil, and that didn't scare them. We've said we're going to develop alternative energy sources, and that didn't scare them. I wonder on what facts Blunt is basing his assumption.

I had to be such a skeptic, but I think the reason for Republicans wanting to open up ANWR is that they can't stand to lose. They are a predominantly rich white male bunch, used to getting their way, and they just can't stand that they were told no. They didn't get ANWR before, and now they want to use the current economic crisis to take advantage of the American public to try to pressure the Democrats in Congress to reverse the decision. Shame on them! There is no real reason to go after ANWR, and it won't solve our problems.