Oh my…they lowered the price AGAIN! Says only 1 more left in stock…and even cheaper at Amazon (who owns Endless – wha?)…what’s a girl to do…
He hasn’t done this in awhile so he felt it was time. He recognizes that he needs to be better about that since his Dogster pals don’t know about his twittering (@StormDevil)…he is quite the popular guy :)
Just yesterday the team from our SEO marketing firm came for a meeting and asked about the buds (they do work at my company almost daily too!) before they got in the door.They really can’t help being so dang cute and awesome :)
If you are interested you can always click on the Dogster buttons on the right (done the column a bit) to see what they are up to.
Here is his page – the diary is down at the bottom. :)
This bag really isn’t my normal style but the leather just looks so luscious and soft…makes me want to own it! :) And it’s *ONLY* $2,395 (plus tax of course) Such a bargain ;-) I’d still take my Jimmy Choo Ramona (and really the Judith Leiber cupcake as well) but this one is quite the fantasy bag…maybe deserves a trip to Stanford Shopping Center to see if Neiman’s has it so I can hold it :)
5
Aug
Had trouble deciding on which shoes to wear today! The reason this is funny is because I used to have no black/dark shoes to fit this category – open toe heels but not sandals/wedges. Husband would looks at my shoes and say “How can you need *another* pair of black shoes??” Well simple, there are:
Work Pumps – high (4″+)
Work pumps – low (-4″)
Pumps – dressy
Flats – casual
Flats – work dress
Wedges
Flip-Flops (don’t even count)
Strappy high heel (more of a sandal) – going out/dressy
Strappy high heel – casual/work acceptable
Peep toe pumps – dressy
Peep toe pumps – casual/work acceptable
Casual but not too casual heel to wear with capris or skirts – work
F Me Pumps (see bottom of page for these…)
There are probably more I haven’t listed. But this is your basic black shoe list (and brown shoe list if you are like me.)
So I have purchased a few pairs of shoes this year to try and fill out some of these categories. And after doing so – I found myself debating WHICH pair to wear today instead of lamenting that “I had nothing to go with this outfit!” YAY!
Outfit = simple one. Pair of Seven For All Mankind A pocket jeans – (sparkly butt to go w/my new Edward Cullen poster ;) )
7's sparkle :)
Plus white lace tank top under a gray J. Crew cashmere short-sleeved cardigan. Now which shoe…
Steve Madden Makel - black
or
Guess Nevel - pewter
I wanted an open-toe shoe so as not to wreck my pedicure! Plus it is summer. I love them both and both went with the my outfit…
So after walking around the house while I finished getting ready I chose the Steve Maddens as they were a bit more summery/open. And good thing I didn’t walk out of the house with 1 of each on like I *almost* did!! Because then I would have to take this lunch break to go buy a matching pair of shoes at the mall instead of write this :)
And of course explain once again to my husband why I needed *another* pair of black shoes…silly boys…
Like these (that I WILL have someday!)
Christian Louboutin Very Prive Peep-Toe Pumps - Suede
Oh…and these from the 2009 Fall Collection:
HOT!!!!!!! But I want the burgundy/black combo please :)
Women should really never give up their paying jobs in this world. This leads to giving up your freedom.
A single person spends their money on whatever they want. Irresponsibly or responsibly – it’s all up to them. Save it. Invest it. Spend it. Blow it in Vegas. Do what you want with it. It’s all yours. You earned, you spend it.
Then you get married….And even if you do not combine your checking, savings, credit cards, etc. you generally still put a majority of your money towards your mortgage, furniture, home improvements, bills, etc etc. And this is *without* kids. Once kids enter the picture – I think all of your money goes in that bucket!! :)
Now, if you are lucky (yes lots of hard work but come on – you are awesomely lucky too!) and have enough money where you can spend willy-nilly (or put all your money in your stock account, or collect cars, or donate it all to saving fluffy animals or buy 1000 acres in Wyoming) and no one cares – AWESOME! GO YOU! But most people are not in this category. Most (married/co-habitating) people contribute a good portion (if not all) of their take-home earnings to joint expenses. Thankfully the government likes to take their portion off the top so you don’t have to worry about that…
But when a women leaves her job and stays home (*usually* when they have kid(s)), she stops bringing home a paycheck. Now, if she is a normal wife in this situation and is taking care of the household (along with the kids if in the picture) then she hasn’t stopped working. Just stopped being paid and intrinsically valued for the work done. And then something happens which, to me, is one of the worst thing’s ever. Someone else has control. Want to get your hair done? Go to a Saturday lunch with your friends? Go to the movies? Buy something? Have a drink out at dinner? Well, you probably have to clear it with the earner now. Or at least explain it afterward when asked where that money went.
Now, I know there are women out there are who are gold-digging whores who look for men to marry to support them and do not want to work at all. Some probably feel a reciprocal relationship of “I give you lots of sex and you take care of me completely.” If both parties are OK with this, fine I guess. It’s a mutually beneficial relationship as long as it’s completely understood by both parties. Gross concept of marriage but oh well.
And there are some who don’t even bother to act like a wife/partner for their husbands and just want someone to take care of them. Likely jumped from daddy to them or from 1 sucker to the next sucker – whatever. They probably never really had to take care of themselves so see nothing wrong with this behavior. And they find men who do it so it’s proven out as a successful path. And if the guy puts up with it – oh well, his fault. Except that it serves as a bad example of women. I hate those women.
I also know there are men who think if the woman stays home and takes care of the house, all the errands, cooking, laundry, kids, pets, etc. etc. she still isn’t really “working”. After all, she didn’t have to put on a tie this morning. Or sit in on a 3-hour meeting. She got to stay home all day and watch TV or read magazines, right? What she had to do was “easy”.
I can’t think of worse thing than having to ask someone for money. It actually causes a physical reaction in me. Or the idea that someone is “taking care of me.” Ugh. One of many reasons I could never be a Liberal Democrat.
Now, do I love the fantasy of not working long hours and having my husband buy me nice things and flowers, pay for my poodle-time and take me on awesome vacations? Of course!! Who wouldn’t?! Sounds great! But what would I give up for that? That’s the question.
Currently, I work more than full-time hours in 1 job, spend hours on another job/project plus take care of 2 homes and all errands, laundry, cooking, grocery shopping, paying bills, all pet-related stuff plus twittering and blogging :) Now, I have a housekeeper 1x per week at home because I frackin’ refuse to clean bathrooms on my weekends. Most hated chore EVER. But I pay for this luxury out of MY paycheck. Along with a fair share of household bills. And I do still clean bathrooms (along with everything else) at our vacation house when we go. I don’t complain about doing any of this – I’m good at it & hate when it’s not done – but I would love if I felt it was truly valued.
So now the question is would I give up my full-time paying job, along with the hours and stress that go with it, so that my days weren’t always so filled with work and chores? Just handle the household stuff and that’s it? Potentially have more time off (with non-fluffy children that is simply untrue but with huskies it is a possibility :) ) But then earn no money of my own? No…not really…no possible way.
Finding someone who is truly a partner means they do take care of you. And you take care of them. It’s a reciprocal relationship that you both benefit from and that makes you both happy. And hey, if you find a guy who makes a good living and doesn’t want his wife to have to go to work 9-5 (or much longer in reality) because he makes plenty of cash – then that’s really great. But again – what are you giving up for that? Is he going to ask you where that $50 went when you meet friends for lunch? Or get a mani/pedi? Or buy a pair of shoes? If so – keep your job. Make your own money. Don’t look to anyone to support you.
And keep your job so that when you go out to dinner and he complains that you guys eat out too much, or that you ordered an appetizer or a $10 drink with your meal, you can pull your cash or card out of your own wallet and pay. And look at him like “Really?”
THAT control over yourself and your own life is priceless.
Today, August 4 is said to be the day Dom Perignon invented champagne back in 1693. Now, I have no idea if this is true. Not sure anyone can confirm this as all parties involved are long gone and record-keeping was a bit spotty back then what with no iPhones, laptops or even a PC around ;-)
The funny thing is naturally occurring bubbles were seen as a problem at the time in wine-making so this was more of a problem than an invention but I’ll take it :) And from what I have read, what was invented back then as a sparkling wine/champagne bears no resemblance to what we love to toast with now.
The Dom :) Looks like its bubbling over to me :)
Now, if you know me, you know I call all bubbly ‘champagne’ (or just bubbly) because that whole “it can’t be called champagne if the grapes aren’t from that region” is phooey to me. But I’ve ranted about that before so won’t re-hash :) So if you are offended if I call a delicious Gloria Ferrar Carneros Cuvee or a Schramsberg Brut “champagne” – you should hang up right now because I simply don’t care if I offended your delicate sensibilities about that.
Champagne is a happy drink. It can be served, and goes well, with any food – from fanciful 6 course dinners to pizza. A long-standing holiday tradition for me is when trimming my Christmas tree I order pizza and drink champagne. Love this! Another of my favorites treats is, when my husband is out of town and I don’t need to make dinner and feel like being bad, a glass of dry Brut with a McDonald’s cheeseburger and fries. The salty food and sweet but not really that sweet Brut mixture is fantastic! I *highly* recommend you try it!
But whatever the truth is about the true origins of champagne, we do owe the Dom (not to be confused with the Don!) a big THANK YOU anyway! And I see this as a good enough reason to toast him this evening with a glass of bubbly – although likely not opening one of my bottles of Dom to do it since I can’t drink the entire thing by myself and it is school night after all :)
If you love champagne like I do, I highly recommend reading “The Widow Clicquot”:
I really liked this book. A good amount of reading on champagne making history in general plus about the Widow’s life. Fun read for sure. Starts off a bit slow so keep with it :)
And if you really want to try a “fancier” bottle of bubbly but find the prices out of reach, look around for a newly released vintage and just hold onto it for a few years. They are still pricey but much less so and it’s a great way to enjoy a really nice bottle on a special occasion later. Champagne should be enjoyed within 10 or so years of its vintage year (on bottle.) Although I had a bottle of Cristal that was given to me as a gift (2 bottles actually) about 13-15 years ago. I finally just opened 1 of them last year and it was GREAT! I need to enjoy the other one soon because if it were to go bad – I would definitely cry over the needless waste of a $400+ bottle of anything!!
And get yourself a champagne stopper so you don’t have to drink it all in 1 night (this is for the less expensive bottles – finish your good ones!) Or *horrors* waste it….this was the best buy ever! I love mine from Beverages & More. I think it cost like $5.00 or something. I had one from Bed, Bath & Beyond – not as good.
Hope you enjoy some soon!
This op-ed is an example of why this issue is not a simple one. This was in today’s Wall Street Journal 8/3/09.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574322084279548434.html
Gay Marriage, Democracy, and the Courts
The culture war will never end if judges invalidate the choices of voters.
We are in the midst of a showdown over the legal definition of marriage. Though some state courts have interfered, the battle is mainly being fought in referenda around the country, where “same-sex marriage” has uniformly been rejected, and in legislatures, where some states have adopted it. It’s a raucous battle, but democracy is working.
Now the fight may head to the U.S. Supreme Court. Following California’s Proposition 8, which restored the historic definition of marriage in that state as the union of husband and wife, a federal lawsuit has been filed to invalidate traditional marriage laws.
It would be disastrous for the justices to do so. They would repeat the error in Roe v. Wade: namely, trying to remove a morally charged policy issue from the forums of democratic deliberation and resolve it according to their personal lights.
Even many supporters of legal abortion now consider Roe a mistake. Lacking any basis in the text, logic or original understanding of the Constitution, the decision became a symbol of the judicial usurpation of authority vested in the people and their representatives. It sent the message that judges need not be impartial umpires—as both John Roberts and Sonia Sotomayor say they should be—but that judges can impose their policy preferences under the pretext of enforcing constitutional guarantees.
By short-circuiting the democratic process, Roe inflamed the culture war that has divided our nation and polarized our politics. Abortion, which the Court purported to settle in 1973, remains the most unsettled issue in American politics—and the most unsettling. Another Roe would deepen the culture war and prolong it indefinitely.
Some insist that the Supreme Court must invalidate traditional marriage laws because “rights” are at stake. But as in Roe, they are forced to peddle a strained and contentious reading of the Constitution—one whose dubiousness would undermine any ruling’s legitimacy.
Lawyers challenging traditional marriage laws liken their cause to Loving v. Virginia (which invalidated laws against interracial marriages), insinuating that conjugal-marriage supporters are bigots. This is ludicrous and offensive, and no one should hesitate to say so.
The definition of marriage was not at stake in Loving. Everyone agreed that interracial marriages were marriages. Racists just wanted to ban them as part of the evil regime of white supremacy that the equal protection clause was designed to destroy.
Opponents of racist laws in Loving did not question the idea, deeply embodied in our law and its shaping philosophical tradition, of marriage as a union that takes its distinctive character from being founded, unlike other friendships, on bodily unity of the kind that sometimes generates new life. This unity is why marriage, in our legal tradition, is consummated only by acts that are generative in kind. Such acts unite husband and wife at the most fundamental level and thus legally consummate marriage whether or not they are generative in effect, and even when conception is not sought.
Of course, marital intercourse often does produce babies, and marriage is the form of relationship that is uniquely apt for childrearing (which is why, unlike baptisms and bar mitzvahs, it is a matter of vital public concern). But as a comprehensive sharing of life—an emotional and biological union—marriage has value in itself and not merely as a means to procreation. This explains why our law has historically permitted annulment of marriage for non-consummation, but not for infertility; and why acts of sodomy, even between legally wed spouses, have never been recognized as consummating marriages.
Only this understanding makes sense of all the norms—annulability for non-consummation, the pledge of permanence, monogamy, sexual exclusivity—that shape marriage as we know it and that our law reflects. And only this view can explain why the state should regulate marriage (as opposed to ordinary friendships) at all—to make it more likely that, wherever possible, children are reared in the context of the bond between the parents whose sexual union gave them life.
If marriage is redefined, its connection to organic bodily union—and thus to procreation—will be undermined. It will increasingly be understood as an emotional union for the sake of adult satisfaction that is served by mutually agreeable sexual play. But there is no reason that primarily emotional unions like friendships should be permanent, exclusive, limited to two, or legally regulated at all. Thus, there will remain no principled basis for upholding marital norms like monogamy.
A veneer of sentiment may prevent these norms from collapsing—but only temporarily. The marriage culture, already wounded by widespread divorce, nonmarital cohabitation and out-of-wedlock childbearing will fare no better than it has in those European societies that were in the vanguard of sexual “enlightenment.” And the primary victims of a weakened marriage culture are always children and those in the poorest, most vulnerable sectors of society.
Candid and clear-thinking advocates of redefining marriage recognize that doing so entails abandoning norms such as monogamy. In a 2006 statement entitled “Beyond Same-Sex Marriage,” over 300 lesbian, gay, and allied activists, educators, lawyers, and community organizers—including Gloria Steinem, Barbara Ehrenreich, and prominent Yale, Columbia and Georgetown professors—call for legally recognizing multiple sex partner (“polyamorous”) relationships. Their logic is unassailable once the historic definition of marriage is overthrown.
Is this a red herring? This week’s Newsweek reports more than 500,000 polyamorous households in the U.S.
So, before judging whether traditional marriage laws should be junked, we must decide what marriage is. It is this crucial and logically prior question that some want to shuffle off stage.
Because marriage has already been deeply wounded, some say that redefining it will do no additional harm. I disagree. We should strengthen, not redefine, marriage. But whatever one’s view, surely it is the people, not the courts, who should debate and decide. For reasons of both principle and prudence, the issue should be settled by democratic means, not by what Justice Byron White, in his dissent in Roe, called an “act of raw judicial power.”
Author:
Mr. George is professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University and founder of the American Principles Project (www.americanprinciplesproject.org).Robert P. George, J.D., D.Phil. is one of America’s foremost scholars in the fields of constitutional law, ethics, and political philosophy.
Dr. George has won numerous awards for his academic and civic work, including the Presidential Citizens Medal.
He has served on the President’s Council on Bioethics and as a presidential appointee to the United States Commission on Civil Rights. He is a former Judicial Fellow at the Supreme Court of the United States, where he received the Justice Tom C. Clark Award.
Robert P. George, J.D., D.Phil. is one of America’s foremost scholars in the fields of constitutional law, ethics, and political philosophy.
Dr. George has won numerous awards for his academic and civic work, including the Presidential Citizens Medal.
He has served on the President’s Council on Bioethics and as a presidential appointee to the United States Commission on Civil Rights. He is a former Judicial Fellow at the Supreme Court of the United States, where he received the Justice Tom C. Clark Award.
3
Aug
…for this bumper sticker:
Obama administration passing law to allow searches of personal computers for copyright issues?
Interesting…aren’t the liberals always saying its the Republicans who are so 1984? Seems Obama didn’t get that memo…
2
Aug
…by Trailer Choir. I have not stopped laughing (or humming this tune) since I saw this video on CMT…it’s darn funny – give it a quick watch :)
