"Nothing but heaven itself is better than a friend who is really a friend."

Sunday, 4 December 2011


mom is awesome!
she very kindly picked me up for lunch w/ her & leyton (wendy's).  we had quite a lot of fun!  and the toy in his kid's meal was a train.  cuuuute!  : )  
after lunch, we dropped leyton at home for a nap & then mom & i hung out at WM w/ the grocery shopping & the gas getting.  : )  

i got some caffeine free diet mt dew.
it's yummy!
tastes like regular dew - how do they do that?!
and why can't the diet dew w/ caffeine taste like that?

i'm almost done w/ supernatural season 2.
i forgot how heartwrenching it is!  
not sure if i'll finish it tonight or not, but am hoping family video has season 3... : ) 

oh yeah, it's also my kind of hilarious.  
not "big bang theory" hilarious, but the kind of dry, wry, something wit that i love.  
even in the creepy, serious times, there's a line or a look that cracks me the heck up!  

and now it's time for some observations from this week's People magazine: 

- Kim Kardashian & Kris Humphries - 
kris is trying to get an annulment, rather than a divorce (shades of kenny chesney...).  an attorney said annulments are harder to obtain because kris would have to prove fraud was committed.  from what i know of the situation (which, let's face it - could be everything, could be nothing as it's based on what's been made public!), i think fraud HAS been committed.  i think kim defrauded a lot of ppl in her pursuit of her "fairytale dream wedding."  i think she was more interested in the wedding & not actually being married.  i don't think she's a bad person, or that she was intentional in hurting anyone. but i don't think her intention with the wedding was a marriage.  
so, i call fraud. 

i *heart* bunnies... : )  
and also guys.
hot guys are a bonus!  

- whatever crazy rule not only allows but potentially commands both parents in the military into a war zone - 
so, the article was about soldiers' homecomings, and featured a couple of couples who were both enlisted, and stationed either far away from each other & their family or in some cases both stationed in a war zone.  how do we let that happen?  now, i know that ppl choose to be in the military, they are choosing to serve their country, etc. etc.  i'm not trying to debate any of that.  
i'm just confused as to how any of these things could be true: 
-as a soldier, choosing to be a mother knowing that you'll have to leave you kid(s) w/ someone else for months/years on end.
- as the government/military, making mothers (and fathers) be away from their children for months/years on end.
- as the government/military, making BOTH parents be away from their children, period.
i'm sure there are a million excuses for that kind of thing.  the mission is more important, and as a soldier i'm sure you feel that way, too.  but there are so many stories of mothers/fathers going AWOL or trying to, to stay w/ their children... just seems to me that families should have more importance to our military than "the mission."  IMO

- j lo & marc anthony - 
j lo has a new boyfriend, who apparently she's "allowed" him to be around her kids.
marc anthony is apparently upset by this.
he has had a string of girlfriends, too, but apparently the children have not been "exposed" to them?
here's my issue - THEY ARE STILL MARRIED!
neither one of them should be dating anyone.
if the marriage is over, get a divorce.  if you don't want to get a divorce, stop seeing other ppl.
YEESH.  i mean, what exactly ARE you trying to teach your children, anyway?

- britney spears - 
she just turned 30.  (THIRTY, i can't even believe it!  wasn't she just 21?  *laugh*  goodness!)
the article talks about how her bf of 2 years & how he's been ring shopping.  this would be great news!  well, i mean, hopefully it WILL be great news!  *laugh*  
however, i'm a little confused.  she's been doing so well, and her boys are apparently in her custody... but her dad still has "custody" of her?  they said it was "in name only" but that doesn't really make sense.  if she's better, better enough to be raising her kids on the road w/ her and contemplating marriage, then why isn't she allowed to have her own conservatorship?

- ali fedotowsky - 
oh my flippin heck.
another bachelorette/bachelor split.
at least they realized it before the wedding, but the whole article just highlighted the fact that marriage takes WORK.  and you have to be willing to put that in, otherwise there is no point.  the thing that struck me is that she said they weren't making each other happy anymore, that they were having to compromise too much of what they were just to hang out.  
he liked to stay in more.
she liked to be out around ppl.
and they couldn't find a balance to make them both happy?
to me, that just sounds like they were both being selfish.
but i am open to the possibility that i'm wrong on that one.

the thing that strikes me most about all of these instances of ppl giving up on their relationships - or, not the most striking thing of these relationships, really.  what struck me in reading these things was this - in the mail bag section of this issue, was an update that reads: 
Readers were mostly united in dismay about our November 21 Scoop item on Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar expecting their 20th child.  
accompanied by a quote from a doctor (not one who treats michelle) that given her medical history, this is a very high-risk pregnancy, and a quote from a reader wondering why they don't adopt if they are "so desperate for more children."
first of all, this is a couple who have been married for a LONG time.  they are self-sufficient, and are raising all of these children themselves.  they aren't on government assistance or living in poverty.  their children are loved, fed, clothed, cared for, and don't cost the tax payers anything.  given the state of many "hollywood" relationships, shouldn't the only thing we, as a society, say about the Duggars be "Good job!  Congratulations!  Way to go!"??
and secondly - seriously, we're trying to FORCE ppl or GUILT ppl into adopting children instead of having their own now?  
what the heck?!?!
adoption is a wonderful, awesome, amazing thing.  
it is not somehow "better" than wanting to have your own children.
and while i do hope that michelle is really, truly seeking God's will in her continued reproduction, i have to say that EVERY child is a blessing, and praise the Lord for her ability to have them!  

so, there's your novel-length peek into my brain for this evening.  
supernatural is done, so i think i'm going to start a book & read for a bit before bed.  : )  
what do you think about these stories?
do share!  
and have an awesome night, followed by a lovely monday morning!


No comments:

Post a Comment