Just in case you were missing the craziness that is the Spud, he has been moved to:
http://lifeaccordingtospud.blogspot.com/
Check it out!
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Saturday, February 5, 2011
Dreaming again
I was messing around on Yahoo's travel site today and came to an amazing realization. For only $2000, I could fly from Seattle to Ljubljana, Slovenia (and no, please don't ask me to pronounce that), stay at a hotel just outside town that has a shuttle bus to take you around and English speaking employees, and then fly back 7 days later.
Of course, first I would need a passport.
And $2000, plus food and spending money.
And some time off from work.
And of course, that is $2000 per person, so I would either need to go alone, or come up with an additional $4000 for the rest of the family.
And then 13 hours on a plane with a 4 year old (but there is a 13 hour layover in London...).
Hmm, perhaps this dream needs to wait a little while longer. That last one is definitely a deal breaker.
Of course, first I would need a passport.
And $2000, plus food and spending money.
And some time off from work.
And of course, that is $2000 per person, so I would either need to go alone, or come up with an additional $4000 for the rest of the family.
And then 13 hours on a plane with a 4 year old (but there is a 13 hour layover in London...).
Hmm, perhaps this dream needs to wait a little while longer. That last one is definitely a deal breaker.
Expecting...or not
Yesterday afternoon I put the following status up on Facebook:
"We're EXPECTING AGAIN! I know, I know, it's crazy isn't it? I can't believe it myself. Yup, it's official. We are expecting rain today and AGAIN tomorrow. **re-post if you have a sense of humor. LOL"
It fooled many people. I had warned my mom and Scott, just to make sure I didn't give anyone heart attacks. Part of the reason I put it up is to see how closely people actually read those status messages. The other reason is that I desperately want to post a real "We're expecting" post, but it is not going to happen.
You have got to love marriage. You agree to go through life together at an early age (24 and 27 for us) and to work through whatever issues that may arise. Over the years, people change and grow, and the marriage changes and grows along with it, or there are problems.
Scott and I are NOT having problems. We are having a bit of a difference of opinion when it comes to offspring. When we got married, we were convinced that we would only have one child. Scott is an only. His mom is an only. My dad is an only (or was, until he found all his biological siblings, but that is another story entirely). There are many onlies in our family, and we figured that this would be the best way to give our child everything we wanted to.
However, I am about to turn 31, and my opinion has changed a bit in the last 7 years. I now want a second child. Scott still does not. Every year Spud turns a bit older, and I see my chances of having another kid dwindle as we get farther and farther from diapers and late night feedings and all those things that come from having a baby in the house.
His main concern is money, and I agree that it is an issue. At this point in our lives, Scott is not medically insured because we can not afford to have that much taken out of my paycheck every month. Obviously that came back to bite us when he ended up in the hospital a few months ago, but we're slowly working through that. With him being unemployed, it probably is not the right time to have another kid. I know this logically.
However, it seems my hormones are very illogical. They want what they want and I can't seem to tell them to STFU. Maybe (hopefully!) Scott will get a job around here this fall, I will be able to stay on with my company, and things will fall in to place for us to have another. Of course, I think convincing him of that will be difficult, but there is always hope. If, instead, we go in to year three with him having no work (which is possible considering the state of education here in WA), well, I guess I may have to give up hope.
Scott knows all this. None of this would be a surprise to him if he read it. We talk about it a lot. His answer to "Can we have more kids once you get a job?" is always "maybe". He's so diplomatic. LOL
To sum it up: No, I am not expecting. Do not expect that for a long time, if ever. But if I can ever improve my skills in the art of persuasion, than maybe someday we will have another baby Spud2 running around (or Spec if said child is not as gifted in the weight department as Spud was as an infant).
"We're EXPECTING AGAIN! I know, I know, it's crazy isn't it? I can't believe it myself. Yup, it's official. We are expecting rain today and AGAIN tomorrow. **re-post if you have a sense of humor. LOL"
It fooled many people. I had warned my mom and Scott, just to make sure I didn't give anyone heart attacks. Part of the reason I put it up is to see how closely people actually read those status messages. The other reason is that I desperately want to post a real "We're expecting" post, but it is not going to happen.
You have got to love marriage. You agree to go through life together at an early age (24 and 27 for us) and to work through whatever issues that may arise. Over the years, people change and grow, and the marriage changes and grows along with it, or there are problems.
Scott and I are NOT having problems. We are having a bit of a difference of opinion when it comes to offspring. When we got married, we were convinced that we would only have one child. Scott is an only. His mom is an only. My dad is an only (or was, until he found all his biological siblings, but that is another story entirely). There are many onlies in our family, and we figured that this would be the best way to give our child everything we wanted to.
However, I am about to turn 31, and my opinion has changed a bit in the last 7 years. I now want a second child. Scott still does not. Every year Spud turns a bit older, and I see my chances of having another kid dwindle as we get farther and farther from diapers and late night feedings and all those things that come from having a baby in the house.
His main concern is money, and I agree that it is an issue. At this point in our lives, Scott is not medically insured because we can not afford to have that much taken out of my paycheck every month. Obviously that came back to bite us when he ended up in the hospital a few months ago, but we're slowly working through that. With him being unemployed, it probably is not the right time to have another kid. I know this logically.
However, it seems my hormones are very illogical. They want what they want and I can't seem to tell them to STFU. Maybe (hopefully!) Scott will get a job around here this fall, I will be able to stay on with my company, and things will fall in to place for us to have another. Of course, I think convincing him of that will be difficult, but there is always hope. If, instead, we go in to year three with him having no work (which is possible considering the state of education here in WA), well, I guess I may have to give up hope.
Scott knows all this. None of this would be a surprise to him if he read it. We talk about it a lot. His answer to "Can we have more kids once you get a job?" is always "maybe". He's so diplomatic. LOL
To sum it up: No, I am not expecting. Do not expect that for a long time, if ever. But if I can ever improve my skills in the art of persuasion, than maybe someday we will have another baby Spud2 running around (or Spec if said child is not as gifted in the weight department as Spud was as an infant).
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Little Women
I am 6 books in to my New Year's resolution to read 45 books in 2011. (Be sure to check out my 2011 book page if you are interested in keeping tabs on me). Book number 6 was the classic Little Women by Louisa May Alcott.
I loved this book as a kid, but hadn't read it in many years, at least since high school. After finishing the book last night, I was amazed at my different reaction to it this time. I still loved it, don't get me wrong, but kid-me and adult-me took two totally different messages away from the book. (Spoilers ahead, just in case you haven't read the book. Can there be spoilers for a 150 year old book? And if you haven't read it, you need to go get it!)
When I was young, I loved the idea of having sisters who would always be there for you. My brother and I have a tumultuous relationship, to put it lightly, and while we do love each other, I never saw it as anything like what the March sisters had. I also loved the romance of it, how each of the three surviving girls found their soul mate and seemed to live happily ever after, at least until the end of the book. I cried deeply the first time I read it when Beth died. The book has held a sentimental place in my head ever since, and I always assumed that my reaction would be the same if I reread it.
Fast forward 15 years or so, and I am reading it again. I did not cry this time when Beth died, probably because I knew it was coming. This time I was more focused on what a bad wife I would have been back in the Civil War era. Every time I looked up from the book I shuddered thinking what the characters would say if they ever saw our house. I found it a bit preachy in parts, but I may have focused on that more because Christianity and I parted ways a while ago. Then, Meg had her twins. And all of the sudden, I saw myself in the book. The struggles she had putting her children before her husband. The little boy who would not stay in bed, and was way to smart for his own good. It was my life, seen through an 1840s lens. And I fell in love all over again.
Have you ever read a book as a child only to go back as an adult and find new meaning in it?
I loved this book as a kid, but hadn't read it in many years, at least since high school. After finishing the book last night, I was amazed at my different reaction to it this time. I still loved it, don't get me wrong, but kid-me and adult-me took two totally different messages away from the book. (Spoilers ahead, just in case you haven't read the book. Can there be spoilers for a 150 year old book? And if you haven't read it, you need to go get it!)
When I was young, I loved the idea of having sisters who would always be there for you. My brother and I have a tumultuous relationship, to put it lightly, and while we do love each other, I never saw it as anything like what the March sisters had. I also loved the romance of it, how each of the three surviving girls found their soul mate and seemed to live happily ever after, at least until the end of the book. I cried deeply the first time I read it when Beth died. The book has held a sentimental place in my head ever since, and I always assumed that my reaction would be the same if I reread it.
Fast forward 15 years or so, and I am reading it again. I did not cry this time when Beth died, probably because I knew it was coming. This time I was more focused on what a bad wife I would have been back in the Civil War era. Every time I looked up from the book I shuddered thinking what the characters would say if they ever saw our house. I found it a bit preachy in parts, but I may have focused on that more because Christianity and I parted ways a while ago. Then, Meg had her twins. And all of the sudden, I saw myself in the book. The struggles she had putting her children before her husband. The little boy who would not stay in bed, and was way to smart for his own good. It was my life, seen through an 1840s lens. And I fell in love all over again.
Have you ever read a book as a child only to go back as an adult and find new meaning in it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)