attainable?

Hon likes to make fun of me and my visions of family (resembling those of Norman Rockwell).
We'll discuss the future and how we want to have things, what we'd like to acheive, what we want for family traditions, etc. Granted I know mine are a bit more "old fashioned" but it's not as if they aren't possible, right?

There are certain things I recall of my own childhood that I know resemble those moments. The winters - coming into the house from the cold, feeling that crunch beneath the boots as you hurry to take off the cold and wet scarves and gloves; trying to get warmed up before the stove or over a bowl of soup.

Or summer eves catching lightening bugs in mayo jars and hearing the frogs and crickets chirp while out in the back yard or park barbecueing and playing tag or kick the can. The only music from someone with a guitar or whistling. The smell of bug spray and those candles burning to keep the mosquitos away.


I still expect we'll have our annual gatherings up north sledding/skiing only hopefully, by the time we have grandchildren we'll be staying in our own cabin on an acre or more of land.

And although the kids may move away in another state or perhaps just across town, I would expect we'll still all get together for holidays with our extended families and enjoy the same things we always have. As it is, we fly kites at the park, enjoy sitting down to dinner together...at least the majority of the week. We take road trips and spend the day together in the car singing (or is it fighting) over the radio. We'll take an evening out to the pizzeria for Italian ices or ice cream...those little moments that you reflect upon as an adult from your own childhood, you know? It's a bit different in AZ but perhaps our time as a family playing Rock Band will count for something? LOL!

Cindy Sommers, good luck

Cindy, as most know now, was recently released from prison after serving 876 days behind bars for a murder she didn't commit. An overzelous DA from San Diego, Bonnie Dumanis, prosecuted an innocent woman with nothing more than character attacks. This woman, Bonnie Dumanis, victimized another woman because she didn't behave correctly, per her standards, as a greiving widow.

Fortunately, Superior Court Judge Peter Deddeh allowed for another trial deeming Cindy's initial counsel as ineffective. He ruled that the prosecutors' description of her "lifestyle" was so inflammatory that it deprived Sommer of a fair trial. This came from the JUDGE!! He noted the bias againsed Sommers.

This FORCED the DA's office to reissue testing of the deceased tissue samples ( that were considered contaminated and inconclusive in the first place ) which came back as normal. To follow in greater detail, the botched "evidence" the DA used for the conviction, you can read the details HERE.

The facts are the facts however you can google the name anywhere if you feel the site isn't objective enough. The data regarding testing, contamination, and inconsistancies run rampant anywhere you look. The defensive back biting between departments is ridiculous and the DA's response to all this is that they did what they were suppose to do. Hm? Convict innocent people? I would think the DA would try to find JUSTICE!

New tests showed not only that she had not murdered her husband, but that he hadn't been murdered at all.

So the question is, why would Bonnie Dumanis convict an innocent woman? Why was she so hell bent on making this woman appear a murderer with no link to purchasing "the poison", inconclusive evidence of poison in the victim's system, witness testimony of how arsenic reacts in the body and that it couldn't have been the culprit, and witness testimony that food poisoning occurred a week or so prior? Why would Bonnie, a person who is suppose to seek justice and protect people from being victimized, attack a woman on how she dresses and behaves without any real evidence of wrongdoing? I must ask, when is this woman up for re-election?

"It's scary how [prosecutors] are dealing with this now," Bloom said. "They're taking credit for doing the right thing. They didn't do the right thing! Justice was done, but not because of the prosecution in this case but despite the prosecution." What's worse is apparently during prep for the second trial the DA's office, once again, asked friends about Cindy's behavior after her husband's death.

Hello??? Did you not realize this tactic may have worked the first go 'round but wasn't ethical; this is why you are having a second trial? Obviously, even knowing you have a bs case you're still trying to save face and your job (CYA) that you would go to any length to convict an innocent woman. Period.

Bonnie Dumanis STOLE 876 DAYS of Cindy's life from her and her children. Does she feel remorse? Watching her on the news she doesn't appear to have any shred of it. Should she be criticized and sacrificed in the media because she doesn't BEHAVE as someone filled with remorse should? Guess society will decide that; they certainly decided on Cindy's behalf. It was, after all, a jury of "peers" that found her guilty based on her behavior and NOT evidence or lackthereof.

Wonder if Bonnie fares better?

hate is hate...

There are days where it feels to never go away. People have so many hang ups; is it jealousy, ignorance, fear? Does it really fucking matter?! Read a letter regarding some disturbing propaganda bs from Bill ( what an ASSHOLE!) O'reilly and you can follow it for yourselves here.

Just pissed me off...why does he give a shit? Do I care what he does in his bedroom? Does it or should it concern me? What does concern me is the hatred and intolerance HE breeds and teaches the young and the stupid of this country. Christ, who will they pick on next?

Boy or girl?

As the weeks dwindle down everyone is in theory mode of what we're having. Grocery shopping the other day the two little one's (now almost 11 and 12) were walking with me asking an "8 ball" questions.

1) Am I preggo with twins? Yes
2) Are they a boy and a girl? Yes
3) Are they two boys? No
4) Are they two girls? No
5) Am I preggo with one? No

They insisted we buy it due to it's amazing accuracy...jury is still out on how accurate it is but they were drawn to it and fascinated by it nonetheless. I must admit I was inclined to believe it as well.

So...some say it's two boys for my face hasn't changed at all, only slimmed a little. Some say it's also boys because I am carrying low...depends on the day really. The heartbeats supposedly say what the gender is; the slower the heart rate the more likely it's a boy and the higher rate a girl. We've been about 10 beats off each time. The latest was 124 and 146 and it's consistent on which baby is lower than the other...hm!?

But in my own experience, a woman with child that was a girl had a complete face makeover au naturale! See example :

No that's not Ms. Piggy nor is it Kathleen Turner standing beside Jennifer Lopez. It is the woman herself transformed before all carrying twins; boy / girl twins to be precise. Notice the width of her nose and chin. If she hadn't been pregnant the tabs would have plagued her with a nose-job-gone-wrong story. It will be interesting to see how she transforms back post-pregnancy.

I've also seen this in family members as well. The idea being the daughter takes all her beauty from the mother hence the mother's, em...change in appearance. I still hold on to that we are having one of each and that they WILL HAVE HAIR! We have another u/s this Wednesday and hon and I guess they'll be about 3 lbs or so each.

Hopefully we'll get more info on the hair status. It is so uber important to me ( bald with taped bows til 5 years of age). We're still working on the name thing although we have much bigger fish to fry as we're really not prepared for what is about to be bestowed upon us in ... oh 6 weeks or so?! Not that I even have a clue how we're not prepared I just know, instinctively we'll say, that we're not! LOL - the two things on my list to still finish up are getting the carpet installed (trying to set appt.) and getting the fence put up around the yard so we can let the dogs enjoy the WHOLE yard and the kids can make their fort with the interior wood fencing that will come down.

Now that we finally got our taxes out of the way we can get these other projects moving right along. What a monkey on the back that was!? I was really enjoying those tax commercials though; the lady at the bus stop yelling she knew what time it was and didn't need the pressure - yea, I was feeling that!!! But it's finally done and hey, we get money so it can't be all bad.

TWINS!

New pics although I took them with my cell so they are fuzzy. Our tech sucked anyway - she was in a hurry? SO we only ended up with two good profile pics which I will try to take better copies of and the repost later ... but for now...

Twin ATwin B

Puttin' the kibosh on political bs emails...

There has been email circulating about Clinton v. Obama and who's more qualified. The email specifically points to the legislation that Clinton has accomplished against Obama and blurbs about Obama actually being a more qualified candidate. Well, an article off Newsweek that refers to factcheck.org shows the true dirt, objectively.

"We can say for sure...that Clinton has been the sole original sponsor of more bills than Obama at a slightly higher annual rate; that she's been more successful than Obama at passing bills through the Senate and into law; and that, while she has sponsored a number of seemingly frivolous bills that were signed into law, these are comparable to many of Obama's bills and common in the Senate generally.

"One final thought: Recently we published a special report warning readers about the high level of inaccuracy in chain e-mails. This one is no exception. In fact, with its anonymous author and grammatical errors, not to mention a redundancy or two, it's a classic of the genre. If you find one of these e-mails in your in-box, our suggested course of action remains the same: Just hit delete.

To read the article in its entirety you can click HERE. It's worth the read.

In other news from Newsweek and factcheck.org :

Per his latest advertisement ...
"I'm Barack Obama. I don't take money from oil companies or Washington lobbyists, and I won't let them block change anymore. They'll pay a penalty on windfall profits. We'll invest in alternative energy, create jobs and free ourselves from foreign oil."

"It's true that Obama doesn't take money directly from oil companies, but then, no presidential, House or Senate candidate does. They can't: Corporations have been prohibited from contributing directly to federal candidates since the Tillman Act became law in 1907.

"Obama has, however, accepted more than $213,000 in contributions from individuals who work for, or whose spouses work for, companies in the oil and gas industry, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. That's not as much as Sen. Hillary Clinton, who has received more than $306,000 in donations from people tied to the industry, but it's still a substantial amount."

...yea, a far cry from ZERO! Change you can believe in...do you want that in $20's, $10's...

April Fools....

You knew that was coming...



for the entire article check it HERE!

Very interesting article I read...

I was reading the local newspaper this eve and in the Travel section wasn an article about a man (who wanted to remain anonymous) out walking his dog and coming across quite the find. Check out the pics.

Amongst a barrow in Derbyshire, England, he located a mummified figure within a fissure that had recently opened. Approximately 2 feet long and 1 foot wide, this piece of earth opened up and uncovered a small humanlike figure. As it was described in the article:

"The bones of its diminutive, humanlike skeleton were hollow, like a bird's, making it particularly light, an anatomical preculiarty whose contribution to airworthiness was enhanced by the body's extremely leaflike -- uh, lifelike -- wings."

This was amazing to see, and especially looking at the back of the fairy...the way her wings were breaking down. The remains were 8 inches long with skin, teeth, red hair, and were examined by anthropologists and forensic experts who confirmed the body to be genuine.

He told his wife about the find and opened a box to show her proof of what he spoke. She wanted to take it to a museum but he thought they could make money from it. They actually set it up on EBAY and rec'd the highest bid of £280 before one anthropologist in particular contacted the man and arranged a private settlement to take the remains for testing and verification.

It was this scientist that studied the subject along with his colleagues and Cryptozoologists to determine it was genuine. There were no other figures found in the area and the exact location was never disclosed although they did speculate for the state of mummification, it was likely more than 400 years old. It was also concluded that they were likely to live amongst tree tops, rarely walking along the ground and that they likely retreated either underground into caves or migrated during winter months.

"Whether they still exist is another question but the remains found in Derbyshire have laid thousands of years of folklore to rest."