I'm With Her

In what I feel could be a historic election, I am going on the record saying "I'm with her."

Who knows how November 8 will turn out. But either way, I want Cade and I need myself to know I voted for the most qualified candidate.

Is she perfect? No. Is she a shit ton better than the alternatives? Yes.

And even that said, I generally agree with her. Even if the alternatives were reasonable options, I'd still probably be voting for Hillary Clinton. Because she's very experienced, has an even temperament and sees domestic and family issues the same way I do.

If I had one wish for this election (but God knows I need about 10 wishes), it would be that the usually-vote-Republican folks who don't like Hillary Clinton could more often say "I disagree with her policies but she is a viable, generally fit to serve option." Notice I didn't say they would vote for her. That would be lovely of course. But almost more important I think is the ability to politely and intellectually disagree while still acknowledging that the person is not an unrealistic option.

In 2008 when John McCain ran for president, I disagreed with many of his policies. I did not vote for him. But throughout that election, I felt like he was a worthy opponent and probably a very good leader. He was just leading in a direction I didn't want to go. It didn't (and doesn't) make him a bad person, just someone who would tackle things differently than me.

I'd really like to hear more of that about Hillary Clinton. She's imperfect and she has a particular set of beliefs. But she's not a villain. And even if you are not going to vote for her, it doesn't take skin off your back to acknowledge her as a serious candidate and probably someone who truly wants the best for others (even if you disagree about how to get there).

Donald Trump, however, is not a serious candidate. He is an entertainer, a caricature. He is offensive and mean. He is quick tempered, irrational, prejudiced, out of touch and in every way unfit to be president. I'm sad for the GOP that he's what they have been forced to offer America in this election. For everyone's sake, I wish this were a better matched situation. But it is not.

So ultimately as voters we have three choices:

1. A third-party candidate who won't win
2. An offensive, ignorant, egotistical asshole
3. An imperfect but well-meaning and experienced politician

The choice is ours and I am with her.

Don't Pay 'Em

I heard "...but the President and Congress will get paid..." one time too many yesterday. So I started a petition.

If Congress were (ever) to enact a law that said their pay would stop during a government shut down, it would not impact that Congress. It wouldn't go into effect until the next term. This is because of the 27th Amendment which was put in place to prohibit Congress giving themselves a raise.

But that's fine. Unfortunately our government will probably shut down again one day. Even if it 17 years in the future. And when that happens, I don't want those elected officials to get paid during said shut down either.

If you are on the same page, please sign the petition.

A petition may be a long-shot at getting anything changed but history has had a lot of long-shots so what the hell. Might as well give it a go.

More Reason to Love Starbucks

As if I needed more reason.

Their CEO published an open letter requesting people not carry guns into their locations.

Second amendment...enthusiasts...are giving the company flack. But I ask you - what CEO in his right mind would invite the public to carry weapons into their locations? The only logical examples I can think of are the gun and/or sporting industries. Otherwise...why? Why would you want weapons in your place of business, around your employees and customers?

As Howard Schultz says, this is a request, not an outright ban. So he's not infringing upon personal rights.

If the "Starbucks Appreciation Days" hadn't occurred and hadn't implied that Starbucks had an enthusiastic stance on the laws, this probably never would have happened. And gun carrying Americans could have continued to carry their guns inside with them while grabbing a latte. Overwhelmingly in a responsible fashion.

I'm with Schultz. I respect the right to bear arms, and though I may not always agree with it in states where open carry is permitted, so be it. But you can still request people not bring it in to your home or place of business.

I will happily be drinking a $5 coffee* this afternoon while working between appointments.

*Actually I purchase so much Starbucks that today's coffee will be on them. Don't ask how much I spent to earn that perk.

This Day in History

Today's Supreme Court rulings and last night's filibuster at the Texas state Senate make this day in history pretty darn amazing.

With all the crazy, scary things in the world, these are two events that really please me about the world my little boy is going to grow up in. I hope one day he asks me what I thought about the events of June 26, 2013 because I can't wait to tell him.

Not the Same but Equal

Tonight I heard about a friend's (male) coworker who was suspiciously let go very shortly after taking 6 weeks of FMLA. If this were a female coworker all hell and lawsuits would break loose. Because its a guy, not much of a grumble is being created.

This inspired a mental soapbox but soapboxes aren't any fun if they stay in your head. So here it comes guys and gals.

Discouraging men from taking FMLA is one step in a vicious cycle that sets both sexes up for failure.

Here's how I figure: Women having babies take maternity leave. In a culture where men don't also take paternity leave, this means women become comparatively more expensive and riskier employees. Therefore employers are less incentivized to hire, promote or otherwise reward women employees. Conversely, men are forced to choose their careers over their children literally from birth.

Like I said, this is one piece of an overall problem. It starts with the double standard of mothers can take leave but fathers cannot. It's not a huge leap to see how this manifests down the road when it is socially acceptable for mothers to take time off of work for doctors' appointments, parent-teacher conferences and so on. Meanwhile fathers, who have been forced to choose work over kids, continue to do such and risk becoming less engaged parents. If Dad is less engaged, Mom has to pick up the slack or the child suffers (though you could argue that the child is suffering purely from Dad's lack of engagement, regardless of if Mom picks up the slack).

And so the cycle: women sacrificing time, energy and thus reward in the workplace and men sacrificing involvement in their children's lives. Women being treated with kid gloves at work, men climbing the ladder at a disproportionate rate. Women not bringing home as much bacon; men having to bring home more bacon to compensate and therefore virtually becoming indentured servants to their jobs.

All this isn't to say a family that chooses to have Mom stay home or work part-time is in any way wrong. Nor is a family who opts out of paternity leave. But the bottom line is families should have the choice and the workforce (and overall culture) needs to support working parents. Of both sexes.

Or we all lose.

Good Read on American Families

Spurred by a New York Times recommendation, I just read "How Older Parenthood Will Upend American Society." 

First, OK, yes the title might be a bit much. And a second caveat, it's a little science-y. Especially for me. But I'll give you the layman's summary:

People are waiting longer to have kids (in 1970 the average age for a woman to have her first baby was around 21; now it is 25) and as much as there are benefits like general maturity and financial stability to that, there are also risks. Risks include fertility struggles, the child's health, a smaller family "village" to help raise the child and the economics of a shrinking population.

Young parents, on-par aged parents, old parents - all that aside. I really like the way the article ends: with a call to action for a more family-friendly society. There are lots of ideas about what that means. With my thus very limited scope, if I were Queen of the World, I would start with family leave and up it to at least the following

• 6 months maternity leave
• 6 months paternity leave (and somehow make it totally normal and expected by employers that new dads actually use at least most of it)
• partially-paid for the full duration, funded by the government

And then as Queen of the World, I'd move on to these things which have a variety of reasons for being more family friendly than what is happening now

• More job-sharing, starting with, you got it, government jobs
• Make "work-life balance" an everyone's issue, not a women's issue (starting with making the Mitt Romneys of the world also ask men what time they need to get home for dinner with the family)
• Public pre-school because early education is important for the long-haul and as icing on the cake, this would reduce the years that working parents pay for full-time childcare
• Free prenatal health care. Because duh.
• Free childhood immunizations. Because duh.
• Stabilize the cost of college so that educated wanna-be-parents don't have to choose between paying off college loans and baby-related expenses
• Increase incentive (maybe reduced interest rate on federal loans? partial loan forgiveness?) to finish a 2 year degree in 2 years and 4 year degree in 4 years so young adults are ready to enter the workforce quicker and can get their feet under them younger

If you were Queen (or King) of the World, how would you make it more family-friendly?

Politics & Pregnancy

I'm not sure if it is being pregnant, the election or in some cases a combination of the two, but I have been more opinionated than usual lately (and its not like I'm passive most the time).

The example of a gift from Obama that I mentioned in my post earlier this evening, sparked the want to write another post.

Since becoming pregnant, there have been a couple social issues I've started to feel more strongly about (I'm sure raising children will spark a few more).

First, the Texas law requiring an ultrasound at least 24 hours before having an abortion. I'll start by saying I'm pro-choice so the general right to an abortion is one I support. However having had ultrasounds very early in my pregnancy which are incredibly invasive, my outrage is multiplied. First, are women so stupid that we don't understand what an abortion is doing? Second, is the state under the impression that the decision to have an abortion is akin to deciding what to have for breakfast? Goodness! Give us a little credit. And to the multiplying of my outrage, this is, I repeat, an incredibly invasive procedure and for very early in a pregnancy, really the only option. That the government believes it is OK to require something of that level of intimacy is mind-boggling.

Second, affordable contraceptives. I'm very excited for my little one to arrive. We're married, we own a home (ha, 2 soon!), we are gainfully employed, we finished college. In short, we're ready. Even given all that readiness, there are some elements of having a baby that scare the hell outta me. If two ready and excited people are still scared sometimes, imagine the poor couple who is not ready. Having a baby should and can be very exciting. Let's help as many people as possible have that experience and not a terrifying one. Also, a wanted, loved and prepared for child is ultimately better for society and, crass as it sounds, our financial state. When families can plan their children, they can better prepare to care (emotionally and financially) for those babies. If you want to save dollars on the government budget, affordable contraceptives are a much less expensive option than caring for a child.

Third, again affordable contraceptives. This time the idea that it is a "women's issue." We are not having sex by ourselves thank you very much.

Fourth, abortion. (Warning: this one gets heavy.) When we were doing our genetic screening, there were two conditions that were checked for that were fatal. Whether or not I could carry the baby to full-term would remain to be seen but the bottom line was the baby would not live outside the womb. At the time, I frankly just stuck my head in the sand and refused to consider the possibility that my baby could have one of those conditions. (And very thankfully I have a healthy, active, growing baby in my belly.) As I grow  and pass milestones like the halfway point, I can't fathom knowing with such certainty that the baby I was growing would never grow up at all. What a terrible thing to know. How do you even begin to survive 6, 7, 8 or 9 months knowing that? How do you answer the questions about your baby and pregnancy? How do you do anything but mourn to the deepest depths of your soul?? It is for that reason that my commitment to pro-choice laws is infinitely stronger than it was before becoming pregnant. Because if God forbid, my baby boy were not healthy, I would want the choice.

The expression "all politics is personal" is so incredibly accurate.

Lifting the Veil

With the election behind us, I'm lifting the very thin veil on my presidential preference.

Tonight, ABC News did a story on why Mitt Romney thinks he lost the election. In summary, Romney says Obama gave "gifts" to various minority groups and then aggressively got out the vote.

To me this translates into Obama passed policies he believed in and then asked his supporters to vote for him (or the less cynical version, asked Americans to vote for/against him based on those policies...isn't that what you are supposed to judge a presidential candidate on, their policies?).

The "gifts" Obama gave are outrageous things like healthcare or access to a future through skill development. Outrageous I tell you!

And the minority groups who benefited are fringe groups like young adults, women, African-Americans and Hispanics. God forbid they be encouraged to exercise their right to vote.

If affordable access to contraceptives (that enable better family planning, reduce unwanted pregnancy and frankly cost a whole lot less than you and/or the government raising a child), is the President's gift/bribe to me and other women, I will happily take that gift and vote with it.

Can we call low tax rates and loopholes the Republicans' gift to rich people and then accuse them of aggressively soliciting votes? If so, you're on.

Very Strong Opinions About Women Voters

I'm watching the electoral college votes roll in and listening to the political pundits chatter away about this demographic voting this way and that demographic voting that way. I can't help but notice, as I have throughout this election, the discussion of women. "Women care about X issue" and "Women are passionate about Y issue" and "He really depends on women voters in X state."

I'd like to point out a potentially little known fact: Women are half the country.

HALF. So perhaps it is a little presumptive to assume that HALF the population cares about one issue more than another. Perhaps implying that a full HALF of the population votes based on the same predictable 1 or 2 issues is a little insulting.

There's a lot of women voters out there and we are from all walks of life. Yuppies. Soccer moms. Old money. New money. Religious leaders. Secular leaders. Low income. Urbanites. College educated. High school drop-outs. Black. White. Asian. Hispanic. Business owners. Environmentalists. Government employees. The list goes on and on and on.

I think the campaigns and the commentators would be much better served to describe women voters through more narrow segmentation than "women." Do you ever hear "Well he really needs to win the male vote for this election"? No! You hear "White working-class men are critical;" a finely-tuned, specific segment.

Next election, please consider that women voters are defined by things other than their anatomy and speak to and about us as the diverse, critically-thinking individuals we are.

Random Thoughts on a Tuesday in November

In addition to "baby brain" making you forget things, I'm also pretty sure it increases ADD tendencies. Here's a sampling of my random thoughts before 9 a.m.

• The inventor of maternity leggings should be President.
• The starter of Bagel Tuesday at my office should be the VP.
• One of the perks to being pregnant is guiltlessly eating a whole chocolate chip bagel slathered in cream cheese for breakfast. 
• And also putting snack size Hershey's and Three Musketeers bars on that same plate.
• I'm confident Mitt Romney does not turn up the volume and belt "The Pina Colada" song while he's driving. We have so little in common.
• I bet if he wins, Obama would have a more raucous victory party (per the previous thought, among others).
• I'm really interested in what a George Strait presidency would look like.

Good news

In the perfect world, my workday is bookended by ABC News. Today was a day in that perfect world. And on two of the newscasts I watched, I got some news that pleased me.

1. Sam Champion is engaged! Sam Champion is publicly taking advantage of New York's same-sex marriage laws and getting hitched. Three cheers to Sam, his fiance and ABC News for publicly celebrating the upcoming nuptials.
2. Pflugerville ISD is set to offer domestic partner benefits. Now I give Pville a lot of crap for its overuse of "Pf" and my opinion of that stands but I'm a little prouder to live in the Pville area today because these domestic partner benefits include heterosexual and same-sex partners. I dig it.

There's a slew of things in the world that aren't exactly as we would all like them but happy news like today's makes me optimistic that things are going in the right direction.

Congressional Pet Peeve

Should US Olympic uniforms be made overseas? Did Roger Clemens take steroids? Did the New Orleans Saints pay players to injure the competition?

All those questions have one thing in common: Congressional time was spent on them.

The answers to the questions (no, probably, and yes, respectively) are mostly irrelevant for the pet peeve I'm about to cite. My number one pet peeve regarding Congress is when it spends time debating/investigating/etc things that are much too minute for its scope.

We've got 8% unemployment, kids who can't read, an enormous national debt, a social security system that isn't sustainable, homeless veterans and diseases that need curing to name a few. And with all that going on Congress wants to talk about Olympic uniforms?

If we were all clothed, fed, sheltered, educated, healthy and perfectly safe, then maybe these petty issues would be worthy of Congress (or maybe we would demote Congressional service to a part-time gig and save ourselves some salaries but alas I digress). However, not the case.

So please Congress, if you happen to stumble upon this little Blogger blog, reassess what the hell you are debating. Fix the issues that matter and then deal with our various sporting events.

(And because I'm feeling quite opinionated this evening, in regard to the Olympic uniforms, sure, they should have been made in the USA. However they were made by a private company, Ralph Lauren, in partnership with a privately-funded nonprofit, the United States Olympic Committee and thus the manufacturing was the prerogative of that partnership. The idea of a bill that would require the uniforms to be made in the USA, while maybe constitutional [or maybe not, I honestly don't know], is ridiculous. What about good old fashioned free enterprise?)

(Perhaps Congress and I are not so different in that we have strong opinions. At least I'm kept in check by having no more prominent a soapbox than a personal blog. Which is not funded by tax dollars and is not responsible for the well-being of 311 million people.)

Question About the Governor

This is a political post where I am going to try not to be overly opinionated. Because I really have a question for which I want a more clear understanding.

Recent Republican primary debates brought a lot of attention to the HPV vaccine that Rick Perry mandated and then repealed. Lots of Republicans are chewin' him up and spittin' him out over the initial mandate.

This is where I am stuck.

The arguments I've heard are that people don't like that the government was ordering girls to be injected with something. While I can understand that, is it different than the vaccines kids have to have before starting school? If I'm understanding that as the main offense, am I to understand that the same people have reservations or objections to other vaccines? To each his own of course.

Or is it the sexual nature of cervical cancer? I can definitely see that as a differentiator between the HPV vaccine and other vaccines.

The other theory I've thought of is that it was an "executive order." Does that carry a different type of weight and implication that the vaccines that schools require? I know both school vaccines and the former HPV vaccine gave parents an opt out. So if there is a difference between executive order and school requirement, I'm not sure what it is (but am curious to know if you happen to know).

So that's my story. I'd like to fully understand the objections to the HPV vaccine mandate.

Bills or Charity?

This post starts out with lots of caveats. First, I'm a big fan of donations and charity. I think philanthropy, volunteerism and giving back in general are among the most important things a person can do. Only through these actions do I think we can have stable, healthy, thriving communities.

I also know that as Americans, we have it pretty good. Sure, it isn't perfect (hello 10% unemployment), but compared to many places in the world, we have a sweet deal going.

But. You knew there was one.

The US almost defaulted on its bills. And yet, I just saw a news story about billions we are giving in aid to places like Somalia. (Somalia really needs some help. If you want to contribute, you can donate to Doctors Without Borders, UNICEF or a number of other organizations working to care for people there.)

Despite how much Somalia and other countries may need help, I believe you have to take care of yourself first. It's the "put your oxygen mask on before helping those around you" concept which as you know from flying, even includes before you help your kids. You are more help to others when you are in good shape yourself.

If we (like me and Ross) couldn't pay our bills, well, then no matter how much we love puppies or hate cancer, we wouldn't be able to donate to those causes. But admittedly this US problem is akin to not being able to pay your very fancy cable bill but still wanting to make donations. Yes, the cause you are donating to is more important than fancy cable but if you really believe that and want to live that way, the answer is not neglecting your cable bill. The answer is turning off the cable and directing those funds to a higher purpose.

If the US wants to continue to provide international aid and help elevate all peoples, we must cut the fluff from our expenses first. Because when we run out of money, we will be of zero use to those struggling people who need our aid and in fact, may find ourselves in line for aid.

Watch out! Political rant on the horizon

For the past few nights, the news has been saturated with stories about the pending government shut down. I'm going to venture out on a limb and say most of us do not want the government to shut down. Besides the services we'd lose and the people who wouldn't be getting paid, it can't look good to the international community. All around a bad idea.

My first thought is to do an all around budget cut. Using teeny tiny numbers for an example if our expenses are $100 and we only have $98, then just cut 2% of everything. Done.

But maybe that wouldn't work. Maybe there is a segment or two of our government that just cannot have 2% of its budget cut. (I kinda don't really believe this but I suppose it could be the case.)

So let's cut 2% of everything that is nonessential. But now you have the can of worms about what is essential v. nonessential. I have some ideas of what those nonessential items are (as in 99% of the budget) but I won't go into that here.

What I'm saying is I don't really have a solution, not one that is truly actionable for Congress at least.

What I do have is one serious objection.

Paying yourself (Congress, Mr. President) while you figure it out, or in this case fail to figure it out, but not paying the other federal employees who are doing their jobs just fine, is not OK. Most especially it is not OK to withhold pay from military personnel.

I know and agree that Congress and the Pres have big important jobs. I have no objections to their annual salaries (really, I honestly do not). But come on! Military personnel who are in danger are expected to keep being in danger for zero compensation? Meanwhile their families back home are putting the mortgage on a credit card while Mr. Fancy Pants Congressman figures out the budget?

In what world does the guy failing at his job get paid while the guy doing his job get to work unpaid?

I doubt there will be much of it but I whole-heartedly hope that Congressmen and the President will either not accept their salaries during a government shut down or will prompt donate the whole darn check to charity.

Or maybe they'll just figure out the budget in time to not have a government shut down. I sure hope so because the alternative, specifically the who will get paid and who will not, is a travesty.

You voted against what!?

I don't normally get my news from The Daily Show on Comedy Central though I'll admit it does frequently make this political junkie giggle before going to sleep. Well today with house and mass email stress via the Girl Scouts, I didn't catch Charlie Gibson at 5:30 p.m. CST like usual. Sad, I know. So Jon Stewart and The Daily Show was my primary news source for Wednesday, October 14, 2009.

And on that "news source" I learned about the most frightening vote from Congress I have ever heard of. So frightening, I'm going to tell you about it but I'm going to suggest you are seated before you read the rest of this. And if you are a Republican or live in a Republican state, I'm going to suggest you start perfecting the fine art of being embarrassed for someone else.

Minnesota's Al Franken proposed a bill to make the government quit hiring military contractors who prohibit their employees to report on-the-job rapes. Woohoo Franken! A little surprised (ok a lot surprised) that companies can decide a federal law and violation of human rights doesn't apply to them but in some ways, maybe that's neither here nor there. What is here and there though is that THIRTY REPUBLICAN SENATORS VOTED AGAINST THE ANTI-RAPE BILL. 

How do you vote against an anti-rape bill? How do you say rape is a terrible crime that is both illegal and inhumane but yet allow companies, in fact companies that you Senator hire, to have a "mums the word" policy on it? You force these women into hush-hush situations and that's OK!? Do you even have a mother? Would you ask your mother to keep such a crime a secret?

A senator from Alabama said he voted against it because the government shouldn't be interfering in private company contracts, even if they do prohibit the report of a violent, invasive crime and therefore render the victim truly helpless and give a get-outta-jail-free card to the rapist. Point 1 - um, yeah you should. Even from a purely legal standpoint, its the law and laws are only as good as their enforcement. What good are laws against rape if the crime can't be reported and thus not punished? Point 2 - private company contracts aside, this bill was just saying that the government shouldn't hire companies with these practices. You are part of the hiring body and therefore you can hire at your discretion. So why are you hiring companies with such horrendous policies? Point 3 - The US government can tell other countries what form of government they should have, tell me to pay income tax and potentially require health insurance but it can't require itself to only hire ethical companies? Bull crap.

I'd like to note that while I am generally really proud to be from the great state of Texas where we play some of the best football, make AMAZING salsa and are home to George Strait, I am not standing as tall today. My own Senator, John Cronyn, voted against this bill. John, you are an embarrassment to the state of Texas, the US government and yourself; I'm glad I did not vote for you and I hope your press people read this and shudder a little about it. To the other John, McCain that is, I had a lot more respect for you pre-this-vote. I thought you could have been a decent president and in many ways was pretty bummed that we didn't see eye-to-eye on more. This however has destroyed much of my faith in you. I'm glad I didn't vote for you and I'm glad I'm not from Arizona (however as noted above, Texas apparently isn't much better though I assume Hutchinson voted with Franken since she's not on the vote-against list and 98 senators voted...).

To all 30 of you schmucks, which is as vulgar as I'll get because my mother reads this and it feeds into my Facebook so potentially Girl Scout volunteers also read this, I'm sure you have a tough, thick political skin and hear about the opposition to your politics daily. This though was infringing upon the Hippocratic oath and as the leaders of millions, you should have to abide by this just as doctors do. I truly hope that at some point in your lives you look back on this and think "that was truly a stupid, hurtful, unethical and embarrassing vote. If given the chance, I would change my actions."

Hmmph. And THAT folks, is EXACTLY how I feel about all this.

48 days & counting

Here's to hoping that in 48 days I'll be a married homeowner. We're down to the nitty gritty on the wedding and have placed an offer on yet another house.

The wedding plans are down to dress fittings, RSVPs (ahem, if you haven't RSVPed, you totally should b/c its way fun to get RSVPs), bridal showers and vendor confirmations. However each day that it gets a little closer I get a little more anxious. I hope I'm not a basket case by the week of!

The house we've put an offer on is 3 bed 2 bath in a really nice new-ish Pflugerville neighborhood. The neighborhood is one of my favorite factors. The current owner hasn't done much in the way of decor or upgrades so its kinda plain jane now but I think it has a lot of potential. With a little paint, fun light fixtures and maybe some new floors one day, it can really be OUR home. And I'm at the end of my househunting rope so I hope it comes through.

Now 2 points of commentary on current events.

1. Colt McCoy, QB for UT, was just on the news commenting on a teammates injury. He texted the guy that he was praying for him. All about prayer and good thoughts, but how sad is it that now we can just text each other and that's perfectly acceptable? What happened to a good old fashioned phone call or God forbid, a visit? Sigh, at least he didn't Facebook the guy with his prayers.
2. What's so wrong with the President encouraging kids to finish school and reach for the stars? There are two districts in Austin not showing tomorrow's speech. Democrat or Republican he's our president and encouraging kids to get an education. Goodness, kids have so many bad influences that it amazes me we are debating a GOOD influence/message in their lives.
   

Thank You Pres. Obama

On Monday Ross and I figured out something that a lot of people already knew - that $8K first time homebuyer's stimulus is a CREDIT not a deduction.

By Tuesday night we decided we should buy a house. Now we are up to our ears in new lease terms, tax credits (woohoo!), savings plans, MCC, mortgage lenders and rush-wedding-planning. I won't bore you with the details, mostly because its already making my head spin, but I think with a little help of Pres. Obama and Uncle Sam, we can buy a house this year. So here's our new goal: homeownership November 2009.

Mommy & Daddy Warbucks

The Q1 campaign dollars are out. Most camps have 'fessed up to how much the public has thrown their way -- Obama being the most notable exception.

Folks, so far its Mitt and Hillary. The leaders for their respective parties, he's raised $21 million; she's raised $26 million. I have to tell you, if these dollar amounts are any indication of how the primaries will go, then I shall lead Texas to seccession. Now if Hillary is elected, I think Texas will secede all on its own. Mitt -- I dont know what the state would do if he were elected.

Thankfully I trust my fellow Americans enough to believe in Novemeber 2008, it won't come down to Mitt and Hillary.

Rubbin Elbows

I am going to rub elbows with my buddy Barack. On April 20th. He's coming to BU. And I am PUMPED. Then I am going to go walk for cancer. It shall be a great day full of hope, productivity and energy.