A Splendid Surprise

I've found myself overwhelmed with upcoming events in my life. I have several social events that I'm hosting in my house in the near future, plus I'm preparing to have my mom move in with us.

One project that I need to address soon is the upstairs closet. It may not seem that important, but I need to move my current school room into that closet. Unfortunately, that closet has become a catchall for any number of things. It literally became impossible for me to walk into it (it's long and narrow) because of the mess.

Yesterday, instead of dealing with anything, my response was to go in my room, close the door and take a nap.

Last night, Dave and I had to go to a meeting. When we came home, Madeline announced that they had cleaned out the closet. What an incredible surprise! I would never have even thought to ask them to do that. It looks great, too. I'm able to see where everything is, and it will be much easier to decide where things should go.

I love my kids.

Four-Year-Olds and Games

A few observations about playing games with 4 year olds:

When Madeline was 4, she loved to play Candy Land. Except, she didn't really want to play with the cards. She mainly wanted to play with the girl and boy figures (especially the girl ones). The game playing was more about relationships than any gamesmanship.

When Henry was 4, he liked to invent games. They had convoluted rules, involved superheroes, and were time consuming. I didn't spend much time playing games with Henry at that age.

Grace also likes to invent games, but her rules are much simpler. She's not that concerned with winning, and she's more inclined to have herself lose a turn than have me lose a turn. Interestingly, style if very important to her. The hand gestures involved in throwing the (pretend, usually pink) die are also very important in determining what happens on each turn.

Surprisingly, I've found that I have more patience in playing games with 4 year olds than I used to.

The Jack Squat System of Accomplishment

I probably shouldn't be posting on this yet. I've known for an hour that Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, and I am still utterly dumbfounded. The committee has determined he was worthy to win based on the fact that he has "captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future" and because of "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples."

This award is even more mind-boggling given the fact that nominations for the award were due February 1. So, Obama was given the award based on 11 days in office.

Giving the world 'hope', is the same as actually accomplishing something? Does the committee realize how ludicrous that is?

I have to admit, I'm not familiar with any of the other contenders for the award. According to the AP, "speculation had focused on Zimbabwe's Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai, a Colombian senator and a Chinese dissident, along with an Afghan woman's rights activist". I'm going to go out on a limb here, and assume that these people actually did something, perhaps even took some personal risks, in the interest of furthering their cause.

But, according to the Nobel Prize Committee, you don't have to do anything to actually accomplish something. With that in mind, I am going to propose the Jack Squat System of Accomplishment. (Trademark Pending)

Probably the best way to describe it is by example:

Today's Goals:

I hope to fold laundry and have it put away. Consider it Accomplished!
I hope to cook for and feed my family 3 times today. Consider it Accomplished!
I hope to take my kids to the library and choir today. Consider it Accomplished!
I hope to do some exercising today. Consider it Accomplished!
I hope to finish grading my kids' schoolwork for the week. Consider it Accomplished!

I have more examples, but I would rather not do the actual work of typing them now. Consider them written.

I can't believe I got so much done already this morning. I'm exhausted. I think I'm going to go back to bed. I'll have to close the door so I don't have to listen to my hungry, bored family all day.

Letter On Healthcare 'Bill'

Following is the text of a letter I sent to Senator Feingold and Senator Kohl. For reference, see There Is No Baucus Bill, The Real Cost of the Baucus Bill, and Quinnipiac poll.

I cannot state in strong enough terms how disgusted I am that the Senate is planning on voting on the Baucus health plan as early as Tuesday.

This is not a piece of 'transparent' legislation, like we were promised by the current administration. This is not even actual legislation - it's a set of concepts. How can you vote in favor of this as early as Tuesday?

The latest Quinnipiac poll shows that 47% of Americans oppose the current health plan, while 40% are in favor of it. By a 57-37 margin, Americans do not want a bill that only Democrats support.

The Baucus proposal (again, not even actual legislation) will have a severe, negative financial impact on most of your constituents. As the CATO Institute points out, "The CBO scoring makes it clear that the Baucus bill's reduction in future budget deficits comes not from controlling government spending or reducing health care costs, but because of a rapid escalation in tax revenues."

It is hard enough to make ends meet. Your constituents do not need a "rapid escalation" in taxation. We will not forget who voted for these tax increases. (And yes, even if they're called something else, they are still taxes.)

How can anyone in good conscience vote for something that 1) the American people (and, indeed, the legislators themselves) have not been able to read ahead of time, and 2)will have such a massive, negative impact on so many?

Do NOT underestimate your constituents. We are angry that the federal government has already saddled future generations with insurmountable debt. We are tired of our viewpoints being marginalized by legislators who are supposed to be our servants. We are sick of stale platitudes used to justify dreadful legislation. We are fervently motivated to oust anyone who opts to put politics ahead of the interests of his constituents.

Letterman's Mandate

This morning I came across probably the best line I've ever read on a blog. With regard to the assertion that David Letterman is "a proverbial court jester, a clownish figure with a mandate to prick the powerful, not set himself up as a model of virtue," Ann Althouse replied,

But the question is sexual harassment, so: Ask not whether he has a mandate to prick the powerful, ask whether he has a prick to mandate the powerless.

Ugh!

Last night was a tough one. Here's my analogy:

Stephanie Plum = Packers
Joe Morelli = Brett Favre
Ranger = Aaron Rodgers
Joyce Barnhardt = Vikings

Imagine Morelli threatening to break up with Stephanie for years. Finally, tearfully, he does. She asks him several times if he wants to get back together and he says, 'No'. So, she decides to commit to Ranger.*

Last night was like a double date between Stephanie/Ranger and Morelli/Joyce. Everyone in the restaurant kept saying how nice Morelli & Joyce looked together. And Joyce punched Stephanie in the gut.

It hurt. It really hurt.

*For the sake of my analogy, I'm ignoring the fact that Ranger isn't in to commitment.

Cute Grace Quotes

The other day we were in the car. For some reason, Madeline and Henry started talking about what they would name their kids when they grow up. Henry, who usually says he's going to have two boys, Bruce and Wayne, said he would name his son Chuck, after Grandpa Chuck. To which Grace replied, "Oh, Mom, isn't that nice. Henry's going to name his son Grandpa Chuck!"

Yesterday, out of the blue, Grace says, "I don't think I'm going to kill my husband. Actually, I think he'll kill me." Too much Monk.