May 16, 2012
Honoring Cody
12-year-old Cody Green has always admired the strength and courage of the marines. At 12:35 Saturday afternoon, it was the Marines admiring the strength and courage of Cody.Cody had leukemia since he was 22 months old, but beat the disease three times. Although he was cancer-free, the chemotherapy lowered his immune system and Saturday afternoon, he died from a fungus that attacked his brain. Members of the Marines decided to step in and do something.
"They decided Cody, with the strength and honor and courage he showed through the whole thing, he should be a Marine," said Cody's father David Snowberger.
Cody was given Marine navigator wings and was made an honorary member of the United States Marine Corps. For one Marine, that wasn't enough, so he did even more.
"The night before Cody passed, he stood guard at Cody's door at the hospital all night long for eight hours straight," said Snowberger.
Cody was a fifth grader at Carroll Elementary School and, if you asked anyone, could only be described in one way.
"He was a comedian all the time," said Snowberger. "I mean, nothing was ever negative. He was just always happy, always worried about everybody else."
There is something worth noting here. The anniversary of my nephew's death from leukemia fell a few weeks ago. Like Cody, he had a long battle with the disease. What his life was like during those years is hard for me to imagine, and yet no matter what was thrown at him, he seemed unfailingly calm, upbeat, and more concerned with others than he ever was with his own struggle.
We read a lot these days about how everything - even challenges our parents and grandparents accepted as part of normal life - is too hard; how no one can succeed without help, how it's understandable for people to simply give up unless the world rewards them for every positive thing they do. The idea of developing character - that quiet form of courage that makes a person rise up every time life knocks him down, that focuses on the positive, that rejects self pity and envy - has mostly given way to the notion that we are fragile spirits, easily crushed or dispirited by even the smallest obstacles: a harsh word, an encounter with someone who isn't convinced of our ineffable wonderfulness, a dearth of praise for our actions.
And then you look at children with cancer, and see how they respond to an adversary with the power to end life. At a time when all seems darkest, the power of the human spirit shines forth brighter than the sun.
No wonder these Marines - themselves renowned for their ability to keep fighting, even against overwhelming odds - honor such courage. That refusal to give up is a quality they recognize, and one that could be said to define the United States Marine Corps.
Posted by Cassandra at 08:17 AM | Comments (3) |TrackBack (0) |
Income Inequality at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
The WaPo reveals a deeply shocking disparity in assets held by the President and Vice President:
In contrast to Obama, Vice President Biden has from $2,000 to $30,000 in two savings accounts and $2,000 to $32,000 in four checking accounts, the forms show. The Bidens also had income of $21,000 from a residential property in Wilmington, Del.The forms also underscore that while Democrats may be united in their 2012 campaign focus on “economic fairness,” for Obama, it pays to be a president who has penned several best-selling books.
The Obamas in 2011 held total assets ranging from $2,566,000 to $8,265,000. That’s more than ten times the total assets reported by the vice president and his wife, Jill, in 2011. The Bidens reported assets ranging from $233,000 to $776,000.
The range of the Obamas’ total reported assets is changed – although not necessarily down — from 2010, when the first couple’s disclosure forms showed assets from $2.8 million to $11.8 million. The lack of a specific dollar figure stems from the fact that the forms require only that assets be reported within broad ranges.
Hmmmm.....
Posted by Cassandra at 07:53 AM | Comments (12) |TrackBack (0) |
May 15, 2012
Taking "Obama Everywhere" a Bit Too Far....
Back in 2009, the Obama Permanant Re-Election Committee came up with what may well turn out to be this administration's signature public policy initiative: the loopy "Obama Everywhere" campaign. It wasn't long before even stalwart leg tinglers were thoroughly sick of it (and him):
"Stick out your tongue."I did so, and the dentist wrapped some gauze around it and said, "I need to explain myself about the public option."
Stunned, I raised myself up in the chair and looked. It was Barack Obama.
"I'm both for it and against it," the president said. I tried to bolt but he had me by the tongue. I squirmed and cursed like Rahm Emanuel, and finally he had to let go. I ran from the exam room, pausing in the outer office to make my next appointment but the receptionist looked a lot like Barack Obama and so I kept on moving. Hitting the street, I jumped a cab. "The Washington Post," I said, "and step on it."
"You got it, buddy," the driver said -- and turned around. It was Barack Obama. "Let me tell you something," he said. "The public option is not what it sounds like. It’s not socialism. This is what I tried to explain on "Meet the Press," "Face the Nation," "State of the Union," "This Week With George Stephanopoulos," Jorge Ramos on Univision and, I think, "Sesame Street," although I may not have done that one yet.”
The cab stopped for a light and I opened the door and ran. I did the couple of blocks to my office in record time, and when I got there I switched on my favorite public affairs show, "The View.” I couldn’t believe my eyes. ...I grabbed for the remote control and desperately searched for something else.
I flipped past Barack Obama standing hip high in water doing a stand-up for the Weather Channel, and then someone named Cesar Obama who was whispering to a Mexican Chihuahua about single-payer programs, and then I saw -- I swear I did -- Barack Obama in the arms of Tom DeLay on “Dancing With the Stars," and he was singing a soft song about the uninsured.
Fast forward to 2012. Seemingly not content with overexposing himself in the present, the Campaigner in Chief has discovered a mysteriously underserved venue that has yet to be permeated by Obama Everywhere...
...the past:
I’m sometimes amazed at the depth of the narcissism this President suffers under, but this particular example has to take the cake:The Heritage Foundation’s Rory Cooper tweeted that Obama had casually dropped his own name into Ronald Reagan’s official biography on www.whitehouse.gov, claiming credit for taking up the mantle of Reagan’s tax reform advocacy with his “Buffett Rule” gimmick. My first thought was, he must be joking. But he wasn’t—it turns out Obama has added bullet points bragging about his own accomplishments to the biographical sketches of every single U.S. president since Calvin Coolidge (except, for some reason, Gerald Ford).
This might seem a bit... oh, I don't know... excessive? Until you recall that we're talking about a guy who wrote not one but two autobiographies during his twenties, before he had actually done anything worth writing about.
The first female/black/gay/Hispanic President is now the first President in history to go back in time and insert himself into the records of his predecessors. It truly *is* all about 'Bam.
Posted by Cassandra at 03:03 PM | Comments (5) |TrackBack (0) |
May 14, 2012
Zut Alors!!! Again With Ze Conspiracies Most Dire!
Mes amis... once again the Editorial Staff have proved prophetique! Way back in 2005 we warned the assembled villainry of a plot so vile, so sinister and twisted, that it haunts our dreams to this day:
Alert readers will no doubt recall that just a few short months ago, Jeff Rosen was madly flogging the Constitution-in-Exile Conspiracy.The fiendish members of this plot took the backward view that judges ought to try reading the actual verbiage penned by our Founding Fathers instead of haring off to nations like, say... France in search of a hand-rolled Gauloise and a Derrida primer (the better to deconstruct the Commerce Clause whilst staving off that annoying sense of anomie that comes from eating one too many confits).
Membership in this clandestine Brotherhood must have been an awfully well-kept secret, for the arcane and conspiratorial nature of the plot was such that the rank and file apparently went about their business for decades, blissfully unaware they were engaged in a desperate struggle to overthrow the Republic. But Evil will brook no delay. The Cause marched on. Sans soldiers, sans leader, even...until Gonzalez v. Raich reared its ugly head:
The most radical dissenting opinion was written by Thomas. Thomas has proved to be the most reliable ally of the movement to resurrect what some conservatives call the Constitution in Exile, referring to limitations on federal power that have been dormant since the New Deal. In his dissent, Thomas said that courts should take it upon themselves to decide whether congressional regulations are "appropriate" and "plainly adapted" to executing powers explicitly listed in Constitution. Thomas's logic would uproot more than a century of Supreme Court cases, including the 1942 wheat case, [Ed. Note: 'SWounds!... not the wheat case!] and could paralyze the government's effort to enforce myriad regulations, including environmental and labor laws. As Stevens pointed out, Thomas's reasoning would also call into question Congress's power to regulate the possession and use of pot for recreational purposes, an activity that all states now prohibit.Thomas. Mein Gott Im Himmel, who would have guessed it! That pudgy, avuncular-looking little man, suddenly rising up in his black robes like the Lord of the Nazgul. Stooping to pick at the flesh of a Woman's Right To Choose and grabbing welfare dollars from the hands of baby-Daddies all over this great nation! Sure, he may look like a teddy bear, but he's [[[shudder]]] worse than Scalia!
Via the highly suspect Walter Olsen, we learn that Justice Thomas is joined in his perfidy by none other than perennial VC fave Judge Janice Rogers Brown and one Michael Greve, Person of Pallor. But perhaps more importantly for those of you who long fervently for that glorious day when the Berobed Nine once more scrutinize the Constitution and discover a wondrous new set of rights lurking beneath a penumbra, the intrepid Jeff Rosen has unmasked the final impediments to our beautiful and natural right to seize and redistribute our neighbour's wife, cabana boy/girl, ox, or ass for the common good:
Jeff Rosen has also found out and now named my recently acquired co-conspirators. Randy Barnett, for example. Rosen’s indictment contravenes the Yale conference’s consensus, reported here, that Randy Barnett does not actually exist but was invented by the New York Times. I can and should clear this up: besides the Times’s made-up Georgetown Law Barnett, there is the real Exile Barnett, who sells mortgage insurance in Dale City, VA and resents Obamacare’s discriminatory mandate for health but not housing (Motto: “Everyone needs a mortgage some day.”).The other named conspirators are judges Janice Rogers Brown, David Sentelle, and Thomas Griffith, all of the D.C. Circuit. In an April 13 decision, a panel consisting of those judges unanimously, and easily, upheld a New Deal-era scheme that raises the price of milk for consumers.
.... As for Judge Brown, she and I have occasionally met in dark corners of Washington steakhouses. Usually, to avoid detection, we dress as Lillian Hellman and Yosemite Sam respectively. However, the judge has been awful at disguises:
Janice Rogers Brown has long been sympathetic to these [Constitution in Exile] goals. A daughter of sharecroppers, she denounced the New Deal in a series of speeches before her confirmation to the D.C. Circuit in 2005. She called 1937—the year the Supreme Court began to uphold the New Deal—“the triumph of our own socialist revolution.” In the same speech, she argued that “protection of property was a major casualty of the revolution of 1937.”She somehow escaped detection by the Senate Judiciary Committee; but
Then, in her April 13 [2012] opinion, she dramatically unmasked herself.And so did I, in that Yale talk a few days later. It’s over.
Perhaps we shall finally be able to sleep at night, secure in the knowledge that we will soon awake to a new America - one in which women are finally free of oppressive gender stereotypes and men are invisible.
Posted by Cassandra at 08:24 AM | Comments (10) |TrackBack (0) |
May 11, 2012
The Perfect Man List (UK Version)
I was looking for something deeply unserious, suitable for a Friday afternoon and the Daily Mail did not disappoint. For your consideration: a list of 30 qualities possessed by the ideal man:
Most women would agree that there’s no such thing as the perfect man, and that true love is all about chemistry and the art of compromise. But there are some things nearly all of us desire in a man — that’s if a survey of 2,000 British women is to be believed. So what actually constitutes Mr Perfect?According to the research by clothing store Austin Reed, there are 30 boxes a man must tick to be a modern-day Prince Charming. The 2,000 women questioned agreed Mr Right eats meat, drives an Audi and earns around £48,000 a year. He’s also 6ft tall, has short, dark hair, brown eyes and stylish dress sense. He is clean-shaven and has a smooth, hair-free chest.
Mr Perfect also has a deeply sensitive side — he rings his mother regularly, tells you he loves you only when he means it, and will admit it when he eyes up other women.
Are there actually women out there who think this way? Below the fold, I ticked off the items on their list that seem desireable to me and then created my own list.
What struck me most was how superficial most of the items were. Who cares how long it takes a man to get ready to go out, or what kind of car he drives, or how big his paycheck is? And while I will admit that I'm more attracted to some physical types than others, the specificity of some of these things is just nuts. And some things (requiring a smooth chest, for instance, or wanting him to confess when he checks out other women) strike me as just downright weird.
More and more these days I feel like I'm completely out of touch with the world. The fact that people in committed relationships are still attracted to other people seems so obvious to me as to not require further comment. Everything else is just good manners.
I've always thought I had pretty high standards, but my list is a *lot* shorter!
Continue reading "The Perfect Man List (UK Version)"
Posted by Cassandra at 12:11 PM | Comments (51) |TrackBack (0) |
Mitt Romney: Homeopathic* Hair Bandit from Heck
Imagine our deep unsurprise this morning to find Memeorandum lit up like the 4th of July over the bombshell revelation that what young Mitt Romney really wanted to be when he grew up was Vidal Sassoon. We know this because the WaPo, deeply concerned at the possibility of having overlooked some vast, untapped motherlode of journalistic irrelevance, has offered up this Pulitzer-worthy feat of investigative reportage:
Mitt Romney returned from a three-week spring break in 1965 to resume his studies as a high school senior at the prestigious Cranbrook School. Back on the handsome campus, studded with Tudor brick buildings and manicured fields, he spotted something he thought did not belong at a school where the boys wore ties and carried briefcases. John Lauber, a soft-spoken new student one year behind Romney, was perpetually teased for his nonconformity and presumed homosexuality. Now he was walking around the all-boys school with bleached-blond hair that draped over one eye, and Romney wasn’t having it.“He can’t look like that. That’s wrong. Just look at him!” an incensed Romney told Matthew Friedemann, his close friend in the Stevens Hall dorm, according to Friedemann’s recollection. Mitt, the teenage son of Michigan Gov. George Romney, kept complaining about Lauber’s look, Friedemann recalled.
The solution was obvious. Young Romney, showing early signs of the sociopathic tendencies breezy leadership style that would one day shower him with undeserved race, gender, and class privileges, grabbed a pair of scissors, rounded up a few classmates, and...did Lauber's hair. Sadly, this was not to be Young Mitt's last foray into the wild and woolly world of non-consensual makeovers, though the obvious connection to Barack Obama's startling evolution on gay marriage may require a bit of explaining:
It turns out Mitt Romney probably wasn’t discriminating against John Lauber for being gay when he cut his hair off in high school. Romney says he doesn’t remember the incident but it looks like cutting hair was just something he liked to do. Almost like a sick hobby.From a Washington Post story published in April:
As a kid in Michigan, Sidney Barthwell Jr., a high school classmate, recalled Romney as a prankster driving doughnuts in snowy parking lots. At Stanford, he lured rival University of California students into a trap in which his buddies “shaved their heads and painted them red,” according to a 1970 speech at Brigham Young University by his father, George Romney.
What are we to make of this sudden metamorphosis from socially awkward, goody two-shoes/humorless automaton to seething, homophobic gang leader? To put it mildly, there seems to be a bit of a dispute about which narrative we're to believe this week. Is Romney more like Melanie Wilkes or Scarlett O'Hara? Wendy, or Peter Pan? Dr. Jekyll or Mr. Hyde?
A more appropriate question might be, why do we feel the need to oversimplify news stories to the point of absurdity; to shoehorn them into a one size fits all mold that explains everything from a candidate's Weltanschauung to where he comes down on the all important boxers-vs-briefs debate?
Continue reading "Mitt Romney: Homeopathic* Hair Bandit from Heck"
Posted by Cassandra at 06:29 AM | Comments (10) |TrackBack (0) |
May 09, 2012
Obama Still Doesn't Get the Military He Commands
Jennifer Rubin notes an interesting double standard from both the Left and Right when it comes to criticizing the Commander in Chief:
It’s not an easy task for a presidential candidate to decide when and how to criticize the incumbent on national security matters. No candidate wants to cede ground to the president, especially one with as troubling a record as this one. But neither should a challenger be excessive in ripping the commander in chief or refuse to acknowledge success.Now some just want the president’s rival to shut up. President Obama rapped critics of his Iran policy for purportedly engaging in “loose war talk.” Last week, to the shock of some foreign policy hawks, Bill Kristol harshly scolded Mitt Romney for criticizing Obama’s handling of the Chen Guangcheng situation, which Romney had done in terms similar to most every conservative foreign policy guru who has spoken or written on the issue. (Dan Senor, the most prominent foreign policy surrogate, was also dispatched to critique the president’s performance.) Interestingly, on Friday, Chen’s lawyer remarked on the efficacy of public criticism of the president, “I knew Obama would sooner or later have to say something. How was he going to fight a campaign and respond to attacks by Romney? By sitting in silence?”
So what is a candidate like Romney to do?
We know what Candidate "Do as I say, not as I did" behaved when he was in the same situation
It's hard to make sense of President Obama's super secret trip to Afghanistan today without looking back to the 2008 election when President Bush was trying to negotiate a similar agreement with the government of Iraq. Back then, Candidate Obama did everything within his power to undermine the Strategic Framework agreement - up to and including personally interfering with ongoing negotiations between the Bush administration and the Iraqis and then bragging about it...
We also know what President Obama did once elected: continue the very policies he once furiously denounced as morally bankrupt and shameful. It is nothing short of bizarre to see this President claiming credit for having doubled down on Bush-era policy decisions:
President Obama campaigned on a scorched earth critique of the foreign policy he inherited from President Bush. He promised to undo all of it. Some of those promises (withdrawing all combat troops from Iraq in 16 months) barely survived the first few days, while others (unconditional talks with Ahmadinejad or closing Gitmo) were only jettisoned after months of failed efforts. The correlation is almost perfect: the longer Obama hewed to his campaign critique, the less well it has gone in foreign-policy. And, by the way, the supposedly hyper-partisan Republican opposition actually has chalked up a record that compares very favorably with the recent past: where Obama has pursued a genuinely bipartisan policy, he has enjoyed strong bipartisan support.
But when it comes to this President and his performance as Commander in Chief, grading on a steep curve seems to be the new normal. In a stunning display of post hoc apologetics, David Ignatius inadvertently highlights Obama's incoherent and oddly passive performance as Commander in Chief:
President Obama finally seemed to reach his comfort level as commander in chief during his visit to Kabul yesterday — and it probably wasn’t a coincidence that he was signing an Obamesque document that at once mandates the withdrawal of most U.S. combat troops — and also allows the continued presence of a counterterrorism force to kill al-Qaeda terrorists.This is the outcome that Obama probably wanted all along, which was favored back in 2009 by Vice President Biden and other political advisers. The president let himself be talked into a more ambitious counterinsurgency strategy, and a surge of 30,000 troops, but he never seemed happy with it. Indeed, he undercut the surge strategy from the outset by announcing that he would begin withdrawing the surge troops in July 2011 — practically inviting the Taliban to wait him out.
Obama has sometimes seemed a distant, passionless commander, much more comfortable making decisions in secret about covert action than in the flag-waving public role of leading the troops. But that didn’t seem true yesterday, especially during his unscripted, shirt-sleeve speech to troops at Bagram Air Base. He sounded like the military’s advocate and leader, looking fit and youthful as he strode striding the stage. Surely this comfort level was a reflection of the fact that he was outlining a strategy he finally believes in.
Here the Editorial Staff will pause to allow the assembled villainry to pick their jaws up off the floor. Let's walk through what Ignatius just told us:
1. Obama "allowed himself to be talked into" sending 30,000 young men and women into a battle he didn't believe in?
2. Having stepped up the war effort against his better judgment, our Commander in Chief proceeded to support the men and women he had sent into harm's way by "undercut[ting] the surge strategy from the outset"?
Stop and think about that one for just a moment. Think about the American lives - and American families - who paid the price for a change their leader didn't believe in:
Of course, David Ignatius isn't the only Obama admirer whose moral compass points in all directions at once. In an even more inexplicable column, another David (Maraniss, this time) proudly trumpets "Obama's Military Connection":
Obama is the first president to whom Vietnam is ancient history. He carries none of the psychological baggage of that war, for better or worse. Every young man in the baby-boom generation of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush had to deal with Vietnam somehow, but by the time Obama came of age, the war and the draft were over. His liberal mother felt at home in the peace movement, and he took many characteristics from her, but he also chafed at her idealistic naivete, which he viewed as a relic of the ’60s. From an early age he wanted to be harder and cooler than his mother, less Pollyannaish, more pragmatic. His use of the military option in his foreign policy reflects that dual sensibility. Clinton grew up wanting to be JFK, but Obama thinks more like him.It was no accident that, during his surprise visit to Afghanistan a few days ago, the president referred to the military men and women there as the new “greatest generation,” skipping over Vietnam again. Obama feels more affinity toward his grandfather’s generation (Stan Dunham fought in Europe during World War II) than to his mother’s, or he at least finds it more culturally appealing. He is an avid viewer of the television show “Mad Men” and told me that some of the characters remind him of his grandparents, with whom he lived as a teenager.
The cultural geography of those formative years also shaped his perspective. Obama was in Honolulu then, surrounded by military installations. Hickam Air Force Base, Schofield Barracks, Fort Shafter, Pearl Harbor Naval Station and Hawaii Marine Corps Base were all part of his adolescent environment. He grew up comfortable with the military culture, not alienated from it. Some friends came from military families. One of his buddies dated an admiral’s daughter, and they would borrow the old man’s car to tool around the island.
"Some of his best friends were military". Now where have we heard that one before? During the Bush years, serving in the National Guard was viewed as insufficient experience for a Commander in Chief. Fast forward to 2012 and a man who may have known some military juniors in high school - who couldn't find the time to meet with his senior commander in Afghanistan - is being lauded for his deep understanding and comfort level with all things military. Of course to him, Vietnam is ancient history. Tens of thousands of Americans died there, but that need not be mentioned (much less remembered). Certainly not praised.
Back in 2009 when her husband was serving in Afghanistan, this Marine wife argued that Obama doesn't get the military he commands:
...where was our Commander in Chief when his top commander in Afghanistan was being viciously attacked? Did he step in and defend his subordinate for doing the job he was ordered to do? Of course he didn't. Harry Truman was obviously no community organizer: the brouhaha over McChrystal ensured that the buck wouldn't stop in the Oval Office this time. The McChrystal leak was followed by the revelation that our stalwart Commander in Chief had only met with his top commander in Afghanistan once. Stung by the implication that his "war of necessity" was very much on the back burner, Obama scrambled to find a mere 20 minutes to spare as he idled on a runway in northern Europe. He spent more time than that conducting a beer summit.Now the Army's largest base has suffered a devastating attack by a deranged Islamist. And how does our Commander in Chief respond? He gives a "shout out" to Joe Medicine Crow, that noted Congressional Medal of Honor winner.
Tell me something: in a moment of national tragedy is it really too much to expect the President of the United States to forego the "shout outs"? Is it too much ask that he learn the difference between the Medal of Freedom and the Congressional Medal of Honor? What we require from our leaders at times like this is not much, really. No one expects them to actually care. What we want is precisely the kind of thing that comes so effortlessly to Barack Obama: honeyed words and a reassuring show of compassion from a man who thinks that quality is the most important attribute a Supreme Court judge can possess. A public acknowledgment that something grave has happened. But for some reason, asking the Commander in Chief of our armed forces to give even the appearance of empathy was a bridge too far.
We lost one of our own in the attack on Fort Hood: Lieutenant Colonel Juanita Warman. That connection can never be severed. The sense of loss can never be forgotten.
I wish I were convinced that our Commander in Chief - or even pundits like David Ignatius - understood one tenth of the pride military families feel in our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines. How can anyone praise the "Commander in Chief" for sending 30,000 of America's finest to war for a cause he not only doesn't support but actively tries to sabotage?
Easy. They are, after all, expendable to him (if not to us). They should not be.
Posted by Cassandra at 08:56 AM | Comments (20) |TrackBack (0) |
May 08, 2012
Medical Receptionists are Crushing My Soul
I will be back tomorrow or Thursday morning. Sleepy, and typing is still difficult.
On the positive side, I now know why John Milton wrote Paradise Lost (and why I was forced to read it 4 times in HS and college).
I am sure he was trying to get an ortho appointment in Fredneck... Abandon hope, all ye who enter here.
D'oh! That's Dante. Another ortho patient from the People's Republic of Maryland, presumably.
Posted by Cassandra at 02:00 PM | Comments (14) |TrackBack (0) |
May 07, 2012
The Blog Princess is a Giant Dork
Sorry for the lack of bloviation. The Princess had an exciting weekend.
Saturday morning, the Spousal Unit Princess bagged a bat (!) in the grille of her black Subaru WRX.
The Batmobile
Later that day the Spousal Unit and I were enjoying a glass of wine on the patio when the birds started going crazy. We looked over in our neighbor's yard and there was a 4 foot black snake shimmying (or whatever it is that tree climbing snakes do) up a tree trunk.
I have pictures but need to get them off the camera.
But the grand finale was Sunday morning, when the Dorkitorial Staff somehow managed to take a nasty fall and break her collar bone and ankle.
So now you all know that my real name is definitely not "Grace". Not sure how much posting there will be this week. Am taking a few days off from work for dr.'s appts, etc. We'll see how it goes.
So.... what did you all do this weekend?
Posted by Cassandra at 10:36 AM | Comments (34) |TrackBack (0) |
