We also remember life as simpler when we were children because we were too busy playing in the moment to concern ourselves with the threats and change around us as much as our parents did. When I was a child, change meant growing old enough to drive a car, or a new place to explore and play. Politics meant nothing to me, because there was sunshine outside, and cousins to play with. Religion meant nothing to me, because I hadn’t yet learned that we live our lives by absolutes; primarily that we are absolutely right, and everybody different is absolutely wrong.

Nostalgia: white picket fences and children playing baseball, with mothers lovingly creating feasts from their Joy of Cooking cookbooks while wearing pearls and heels. Husbands leave for work after a wonderful family breakfast together, returning home to enjoy those perfect suppers with their families, while the children share the lessons they learned at school or play. Ideally, the father imparts some random piece of wisdom, and the mother smiles serenely over her little kingdom. Mix in some penny candy and a cute floppy-eared dog, and it’s the quintessential example of “what should be.”

It’s also pretty much scripted from a 1957 Leave it to Beaver episode. It’s fiction. And, I’ll venture a guess that it’s never truly existed beyond the television. Because in 1957, the same year that Leave it to Beaver premiered, there were terrorist attacks, nuclear weapons testing, a national battle over desegregation, murders, accidents, and all sorts of things that sound as if they belong in our headlines today.

It’s hard to remember that in the Cleaver’s perfect little world, children were practicing hiding under desks for protection when they were attacked by nuclear bombs. Racism, segregation and the civil rights movement were huge and messy issues of the day. Terrorist still attacked because of religious differences, only at the time it was over whether Catholics or Protestants were right and/or wrong.

Politicians paint a picture of that nostalgia, and promise to take us “back” to that purer, simpler time. But while nostalgia can be pure and simple, reality is never so easy. Nostalgia is pure, but life is messy and complicated. Life is change. Clinging to the past doesn’t stop change, it just prevents you from enjoying each messy moment of life.

Beware of those who want to take us back. The past has it’s own problems. Let’s move forward, because while we’ll find new problems to work through, we’ll also find new joys, new technologies, new friends and most importantly, we’ll create all sorts of new memories. And someday, our grandchildren can talk about us, and our lives, with fond nostalgia…. and hopefully, decide themselves to leave our messes behind them.

Change is life. Life is change. Embrace it, enjoy it, and look forward to the promises of the future.

I spend too much time on Facebook. It’s super easy to do, especially since I have chunks of my day where I’m sitting quietly, nursing Alea or holding her while she sleeps (like now). I’m not sure whether to be thankful that my laptop and ipod are so easily accessible, or whether I should regret the time that could be better spent reading. But that’s a thought for another day.

Recently I saw a group on Facebook petitioning to have the site’s color changed to from blue to camouflage, designed to show support for our troops. As far as petitions go, it’s a mild one, and I don’t see anything to get offended about by it. But I do have to wonder. Most of Facebook’s users are ‘foreign’ (not American). Facebook is a world-wide phenomenon. And troops tend to be very national. So, if we petition to change the color of Facebook to support troops, what troops will we be supporting? The Chinese military? The American military? The French military?

I think that it’s easy to forget that the world is larger than we usually realize. We can only understand the world through the filter of our own experiences and knowledge, so the little corner of the world that we as individuals are familiar with IS the whole world to us. But I think it might be better if Facebook stays blue.

That same thinking shows in many of the political and religious exhortations I see in my news feed. I’m slightly politically active, in that I try to educate myself about what’s going on in the world around me. Slightly because  I try always to remember that there are as many ways to see the world as there are eyes. I have friends who are devout Christians, and who believe that He is the answer to most of their questions. I have friends who are athiest, and who believe that most people are asking the wrong questions. I have friends who find the answers to their questions in places other than either Christianity or atheism. And all of these friends have opinions.

I have my own opinions. I like the saying that opinions are like assholes; everyone has one, because it’s true. And everyone thinks they’re right. I think I’m right, otherwise I’d change my mind to.. whatever I thought was right. It’s human nature: we can only understand the world through the filter of our experiences, and our experiences form our opinions.

My problem isn’t with opinions that differ from mine. The world would be a scary place if everyone agreed, and especially if everyone agreed with me!  But I do wish that more people realized that the world is a vast place, with many different ideas in it, and that there is always more than one way to look at something. Just because I believe something doesn’t mean that it’s what everyone should believe.

I think it’s totally cool to hear people talk about what’s important to them. I think it’s cool when people share their faith, or values, or even just thoughts and ideas. And I think that should be available to everyone.

I was going to follow with the thought that we’d all miss Christmas if we were forced to follow laws put in place by people who don’t believe in that holiday, but I have friends who believe that Christmas is under attack already. I have other friends who believe that Christmas is a pagan holiday and thus it’s evil and should be rejected. It’s like Halloween,.. I have friends who love it best of all, and others who believe it is a wicked thing. Which really, just illustrates my point.

Stay true to yourself, and give others the same consideration.

I’ve come to realize that there are few burdens we carry that are heavier than the weight of expectation from the people around us. And this is a complicated thing to think about. I am, as a woman, as a wife, as a mother, as a sister, as a daughter and granddaughter, and as a friend, always somehow conforming and performing to the expectations of others. It’s inherent in the act of socializing, of belonging to social groups, and of being a part of society.

As I take stock of my life, I realize that so many of my decisions were made, not because they were what I wanted to do, but because they were what I felt was expected of me. And, while there are many examples that I could share here, they’re not the kind I feel like posting on a blog. The one example that is both share-able and on my mind involves my closet – the literal one.

I’ve got this funky taste in clothing. I love plaid, especially red plaid. I love shoes, as long as they’ve got interesting lines. High heels give feet this amazingly beautiful curve, and I love how I feel while wearing them. I love hats, especially Cary Grant-style fedoras. I love the elegant sophistication that comes with wearing a hat like that, and the daring, color-outside-the-lines feel that wearing a hat in a decidedly hat-free culture involves. I love leggings with boots, and I love draped scarves. I tend to go towards extremes in my taste: I’m inspired by the beautiful, timeless elegance of Katherine Hepburn and Cary Grant, but I’m also fascinated with theater and drama, and using the body as a medium to explore, exploit and hide the various aspects that make us,.. us

But I’ve never once worn a fedora. I’ve spent years wearing flat shoes. My staple wardrobe has always been a uniform of sorts,.. modest t-shirts and jeans or skirts during my teenage years, then jeans and sweatshirts in college. I wear the clothes that other people think is appropriate for me, which is usually the same type of clothing they wear themselves. I’ve rarely worn the collection of clothes and high heels I’ve got tucked away in my closet. It’s almost been a form of addiction: I would fall in love with something, and buy it, but then be too ashamed to wear it. And eventually, I just stopped buying new clothes entirely.

I’ve spent most of my life wearing the kind of clothes others expected of me. And while there’s nothing wrong with a comfy pair of jeans and a baggy sweatshirt, there’s nothing wrong with a vintage 80′s inspired tunic paired with leggings either. And there’s absolutely nothing wrong with wearing a fedora, just like the one sitting on my closet shelf.

But, the real question I struggled with has been, did I agree with the founding fathers? Were the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness actually unalienable, or rather, as I had already claimed, were they actually granted by society?

The right to life is the most basic of natural human rights, if such a thing can be said to exist. It is the primal function of a human’s nature. A human being is motivated by self-interest, and the majority of human activities are focused on the preservation and continuation of human life. How much of human culture is based on simple things like eating? How much of human culture focuses on the attraction of a sexual partner and mating? Even in our “evolved” society, the drive for self-preservation is the greatest motivator for human behavior.

The right to life can be argued to be unalienable, in that it is intrinsic to the essence of human existence. We exist because we are alive. We define our existence by our experiences, and we define experiences by events that happen in our lifetime – Descartes said “I think, therefore I am.”

And yet, the right to life can be taken away by society as a punishment for breaking the laws of society. Even now our society punishes law-breaking individuals by penalizing them with death – literally the death penalty. We were founded as an independent national entity on the premise that life is a right given by a Creator, and untouchable by human authority, and yet our own human authority penalizes life.

If our nation was actually founded as a Christian nation, as conservative Christians claim today, then the Bible itself would deny that as a basic human right. In the Old Testament God frequently punished people with death, and the Mosaic laws frequently have death as the penalty for a multitude of actions. One notable instance in the Old Testament involves Achan, who stole from a city which God had commanded to be destroyed in its entirety. God’s punishment for this sin was to tell the Israelites to stone Achan and his entire family to death, thus removing the sin. If the right to life is granted to us by the Creator, and that Creator is the Biblical God, then God himself denied that right. And He could have the authority to do that, being the higher authority, but it diminished that right as an inherent human right, especially since the legal code of the Bible demands death as a punishment.

So, life can be inalienable, in that it is inherent to human existence, but it is not inalienable in that it can also be taken away as a punishment for breaking the laws established by society.

Now, if we consider the right to liberty as a basic human right, then the burden of history truly comes together to debate this right. It can be philosophically argued that liberty is the desire of humanity, and that this inherent human right is ‘written on the hearts of men’. That desire could be argued as having fueled the abolition of slavery, the civil rights movement, the women’s movement, and most of the progression of civil rights in this country alone.

And yet, logic dictates that this right, defined as unalienable by our founding fathers and a main reason for the declaration of independence, is not inalienable at all. Our own national history proves that this is a right given by society, rather than a right that exists naturally in men. Our history is tarnished with the enslavement of an entire race of people, and it took a civil war for those humans to be liberated from slavery. The very founding fathers, who wrote about liberty as an inherent human right, included in their numbers slave-owners.

So, the contradiction remains. Men declared the right to liberty as an inherent human right, granted by a higher authority, while at the same time denying liberty to the human beings they had authority over.

I would like to point out that at the signing of the Declaration of Independence, society did not define slaves as human. Today, society does define African-Americans as human beings. The inherent ‘human-ness’ of African-Americans has not changed, but the way society sees them has. One definition grants them the right to liberty, and one removes that right. I believe this contradiction firmly defends my position that liberty is not truly inalienable, but is actually a right granted by society.

Can rights be truly inalienable when they are given and taken away based on the laws of society? I say no.

The right to the pursuit of happiness has been defined as the right to own property. This is by far the weakest of “human” rights, since even the concept of property is a human-created one. Basic logic denies this as an inalienable right. Humans have the desire to better themselves, but even the desire for ownership is a cultural construct, and does not apply to all humans everywhere. Possession is a selfish concept. It requires that something is given to, or taken by an individual, and the act of possessing it takes it away from another individual. Especially since the very act of possessing something requires scarcity, it cannot be defined as an inherent human right.

I argue that liberty and the right to the pursuit of happiness are not unalienable rights, as the founding fathers claimed, but are logically rights bestowed by society. I will concede that the right to life is unalienable, but still subject to the whims of society. Our Declaration of Independence defines these rights as unalienable, but logic and our own national history repudiate that claim.

Our Constitution and Bill of Rights grant us many individual freedoms. We have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We have the right to say what we want and believe what we want. We have the right to a fair trial. We have the  right to own property* and to have representation in government.

The rights that American citizens are granted have been limited by government for the benefit of society. The right to free speech has been limited so that speech that incites violence is not covered by that right. We can believe what we want, but we are limited from imposing our beliefs on other American citizens. We can pursue happiness, but not when that happiness comes by violating another person’s rights. We have the right to liberty, but not if we commit crimes against individuals or society.

There might be some temptation to see society as a thing, or as an entity completely separate from the individual. It can be argued that Society is, indeed, an entity, but only in that it is a single unit composed of many individuals with a shared cultural identity. We are all Americans, and we are all part of the American society.

Our government is one of our rights. We have, as individuals, elected other individuals to represent our interests, and all these elected individuals come together, in a form of sub-culture, that helps define and direct our society as a whole. I used to think that government was corrupt, and that the only way to “fix” it was to revolt. I’ve changed my mind. Our government is no more corrupt than we are as individuals, since each Senator, each Congressman and Congresswoman, and each President are simply the elected representation of the individuals in society. Every election is a revolution, and every politician in office is there because we chose to put him there. Should we demand a more perfect government? Then we have to demand a more perfect society, and in doing so demand more perfect individuals.

The Tea Party is making those demands. The health care debate has brought into the forefront the demand for individual liberties, and the elimination of societal limits on those liberties. “I’ll decide if and when I’ll give to charity” has become the anthem. They argue that it violates their rights because it requires them to be insured, and because it takes their property (taxes) to pay for health care for those who can’t afford it.

To answer those demands, I first have to explain what the rights society provides. Society is essential to individual liberties. I’ll explain what I mean.

One of the basic functions of society is to provide services for the good of every individual.  Society creates and maintains roads and transit systems. This might be one of the most tangible of the “rights” provided by society, in that there is tremendous freedom in being able to easily and comfortably move from location to location.

Society also provides for the right to own property, the right to life and the right to pursue happiness. Police officers literally are the enforcers of the law, maintaining and protecting each individual’s ability to pursue these rights. They protect individual properties from vandalism and theft, they protect life from assault and murder, and they protect lawful order and peace.

Society protects it’s individuals from unlawful threats to their individual rights, but it also defends it’s citizens from the abridgment of their rights from outside influences through military action.

Thus, society also grants rights and privileges to it’s members. But, as with anything, being a contributing member of society also involves responsibilities.

Society has the responsibility of providing care of the elderly, young, poor, and infirm individuals who are incapable of taking care of themselves. In our past, communities used to care for these people as best they could, although more often than not the poor and downtrodden, the elderly and orphans were neglected and ignored by society, unless they were fortunate enough to have relatives who provided for them. As our society has become less isolated and as technology created a global market for goods and services, this smaller, outdated model is no longer even possible – small communities cannot effectively compete in a global health care and insurance market. Long gone are the days of the local doctor who would make house calls and accept payments in eggs or fresh butter. Since there are, and always will be elderly, poor, young and infirm individuals who are unable to take care of themselves, our larger society, led by the government we elected to represent us, has the responsibility of providing societal benefits to these people.

The very rights that individuals enjoy are dependent on society. Society gave us the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Society enforces the laws of society. What happens when the contraints of society are removed?

During the flooding of New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina, mobs of individuals, unrestrained by the laws of society, looted and pillaged private property, and murdered individuals in the city. In L.A., the race riots over the Rodney King incident led to temporary anarchy. Without society, individual rights no longer exist.

Any individual who breaks the laws of society has his freedoms revoked, often quite literally by revoking his freedom through incarceration. But what of the Tea Party protests? What of American citizens who demand the recognition of their individual freedoms while denying the responsibilities of society?

It is a form of thievery to demand the individual rights and freedoms that being a member of society creates and protects, while refusing to accept the responsibilities of being a member of that society. It is thievery to take the assistance and protection that society provides, while demanding that assistance and protection of the vulnerable in society be an individual choice. It is selfish, unpatriotic, and ultimately self-defeating to attempt to escape the responsibilities that being a member of society entails.

Individual rights are of tremendous importance, and must not be usurped by society. Civil rights, or the rights of sub-groups of society, are equally important, and must not be usurped by either individuals or the larger society. The rights and responsibilities of society as a whole are also of utmost importance, and must not be usurped or destroyed by individuals. To weaken or destroy one is to weaken or destroy all… and America is far too great to allow it to be destroyed because of selfishness and thievery.

* I’m glad to be able to state that I have the right to own property and the right to vote for my representation in government. When the Constitution was first written, women did not have the right to own property. Women did not have the right to vote when every state voted to take away this right in 1777. It wasn’t until 1920 that the 19th Amendment rectified this. The fact that I am now able to own property, and to vote, is a testament to the importance of promoting civil rights for all people.

This bill also prevents an insurance company from dropping people as soon as they get sick and need insurance. We pay our insurance premiums because if someday, God forbid, one of us needs medical intervention, we have that protection. Insurance companies take our monthly payments and, in return, promise to cover our medical needs. They get profit from our payments, and this bill prevents them from backing out of the agreement when they have to keep up their end of the bargain. It expects companies to honor their commitments, which is good, because we already expect this of our citizens. Reform is needed when insurance companies post record profits while dropping people who end up needing the insurance they’ve paid for.

This bill also helps insure adults and children with pre-existing conditions that currently prevent them from getting the health care they need. Right now, 45,000 Americans die each year because they don’t have health insurance, and don’t seek medical care that they can’t afford. Our citizens are honest and hardworking, to the point that they die rather than take something they can’t pay for. It is right and good that we all do what we can to make sure nobody ever has to choose between honor and life just because of insurance.

This bill also helps save money. Right now, millions of uninsured Americans do end up seeking medical aid. They often go only in the most desperate situations, and when they need emergency intervention. If an American can’t afford insurance, they probably can’t afford to pay for preventative health care, and they definitely can’t afford to pay for expensive emergency care. Who ends up paying for this now? We, the tax payer already pay. We pay through higher insurance premiums and through our tax dollars. Health care reform just makes sense, because it does save us all money in the long run.

The problem with criticizing this bill is that there’s no way to do so without being a bit of a hypocrite. If you’re against government involvement in our health care, then you also have to be against Medicare. If you’re against government safety nets, then you have to be against Social Security. If you’re against huge deficits and big government, then you had to be opposed to Bush’s administration. This bill is less “socialist” than Medicare and Social Security. Should we stop those programs too? Some poor fools might say yes. It’s sad that they protest fictitious death panels, but are so willing to pull the financial plug on the elderly.

The Tea Party and Republicans might think they’re acting in the best interest of the whole country, yet they forget the value of human life, and think only of dollars. They might forget that our country is of the people, by the people, and for the people, and the people elected Obama. The Republicans are the minority, because the voters didn’t like the job they’d done, and voted them out. Health care was passed because people supported Obama, who promised it during his Presidential campaign. He is doing what we elected him to do.

I’ve heard Republicans complain about the lack of bi-partisan effort from the Democrats. It’s short-sighted to claim that Republicans were shut out of this health care reform bill’s creation progress. President Obama desperately wanted Republican votes for this bill, going so far as to meet publicly with Republicans to directly answer their questions. The bill itself is similar to Mitt Romney’s health care plan. The Republican Party had plenty of opportunities to negotiate, using their votes, to influence and help further shape this bill, which already uses Republican ideas as its very foundation.

When, in every instance, the Republican response to health care reform was to say no, to obstruct, and to blatantly lie, it’s hard to find much to commend them. Could a compromise have been reached? Could the reform bill have been better because both parties compromised? We can’t ever answer that, because it was never attempted. This didn’t have to be a conservative loss, but it ended up that way, and we as a country are sadder for it.

The US is the only industrialized country that treats health care like a service, not a right. That’s sad. 45,000 Americans die each year because they don’t have insurance. Talk all you want, but if less people die needlessly because of this bill, we all win.

2. Reheating a latte in the microwave is dangerous, because it’s MUCH hotter than you’d expect. Mah tongue ith thore…

3. I find it kind of funny that Tim picked out nail polish for me today that was named “Camouflage”. I wanted something Christmas green-ish, so it worked out perfectly for both of us. What are the odds I’m gonna end up with something in “Blaze Orange” next week

4. I never knew you could get varicose veins in places other than your legs. My world would be a better place if I still didn’t know that…

5. I find it highly amusing that Gabe insists I turn off country music when I try to play it, but loves dance music with a heavy beat. I’m not so amused when he loudly disagrees with my jazz though.

6. Tim and I still haven’t completely agreed on our little girl’s middle name. I’m afraid that she’s going to end up with something totally wacky cause they’ll ask me for her name when I’m just out of surgery and high as a kite.

7. High as a kite really doesn’t work as a metaphor for me… I generally fail at flying kites, and they end up nose-deep in the dirt. I think I’m too afraid of imitating Ben Franklin to really let loose and enjoy myself.

8. I’m very punk at heart. If I was a braver person, I’d cut my hair, dye it blonde, and chunk bright pink through it. Or maybe go goth black with a bunch of bright red streaks.

9. I love outlandish and dramatic displays of weirdness. Sometimes it’s refreshing to realize there are other freaks out there… and sometimes it really is just funny to watch the reactions. If anybody ever asks me who I’m wearing, I truly hope I can say “Kermit”.

10. I think that the point of life is balance. Extreme anything is kind of scary. Photography is all about capturing the beauty of light, shown through the balance of shadows. Isn’t that a beautiful thought? Love is something we celebrate because we know apathy. If evil didn’t exist, could anything be good?

Well, even denial has limits, and eventually Mom reached that point. My brothers had been playing with my hamster (his name was Chuck, if that interests you) and accidentally let him escape. The Great Hamster Hunt didn’t turn up anything, and Chuck wasn’t tempted by all the morsels of food us kids tried to trap him with. Apparently he had decided that the hamster cage with soft bedding and personal water bottle was inferior to his new chosen home…. Mom’s shoe. It’s rather ironic that all of us kids, searching frantically, couldn’t find what Mom’s foot found with such ease. And Mom, for all the blind eyes she’d already turned, couldn’t ignore one furry rodent foot-warmer.

I don’t quite remember what happened to Chuck, other than that I was soon hamster-less. That part isn’t as memorable, I guess. What I do find amusing is that I was so frustrated that Mom was so unfairly anti-rodent. Turns out I’m rather anti-rodent myself, especially when the rodents are illegal aliens stealing their daily bread out of the loaf I’ve got saved for supper!

At this point in our lives, Tim and I have a little home in the country. We’re happy here, and that’s really what’s most important. Gabe loves his home. It’s a special little place. Even the little creaks and quirks that come with it are part of the special-ness that we love. There is a line that I’ve come to draw in the love-fest though. I may love my house, but I do NOT love the annual fall mouse invasion that comes with it. When the wind has a bite to it, and the first snowfall’s on the ground, all the mice around here start thinking about their winter vacation, and my home, with it’s ready supply of kid-dropped food, warmth and cozy quirks,.. well, it’s kinda like Bora Bora, mouse-style.

Last year Shaun was living with us, and his puppy Mia helped evict the mouse invaders. This year Shaun’s in Germany, Mia’s three hours away, and our first line of defense is gone. The mice know this, and for a few weeks now, it’s been a war between me and the mice, with the mice winning. I’d set traps (okay, I’d have Tim set traps, because those wire thingies HURT when they snap on my fingers!) and the mice would eat the peanut butter, and leave the trap. I’d find special mouse turd presents left behind, like little taunting “While you were sleeping” notes just for me. Thoughtful little shits, pun intended!

This weekend I started “Operation Ocelot”. I thought about naming it “Operation Cougar” instead, but I just don’t feel old enough to identify myself as a cougar quite yet. A-hem. Anyway. And, I’m winning! I’ve got this pulse thing that you plug in and it makes it uncomfortable for mice to be in the walls. It appears to work, considering the scare Tim got when a mouse jumped out in front of him last night (2 hours or so after plugging it in). It also seems to scare them right into the traps, which are finally snapping on something other than fingers. And, today I discovered that some sneaky mice had crawled into a storage area we barely ever use. They were lucky to find something to nibble on in there… unluckily, it was mouse poison left over from last year. I call that suicide by gluttony. Between the electronic pulse emitter, traps and unintentional poison access, I can finally say that we have inflicted more casualties than we have received. I am victorious!

Granted, tomorrow is another day. Hopefully one in which I do not have to share my bread. Turns out I’m not very good at sharing. 

We made an unexpected trip home a few weeks ago. We’d gotten the news that Tim’s grandpa was in the hospital, and after I got permission for a trip from my doctor, we decided to visit him. Gabe again got really upset when he couldn’t go home, and was much more upset than before. He loved visiting with his Grandpa and Grandma, but wanted nothing more than to “Go Home!”. Again Tim and I figured that we were a bit more emotional than usual with the concern over Grandpa, and things were unusual, and Gabe was out-of-sorts as a result. We thought it was understandable.

However, Gabe is now more of a homebody than ever. When we run errands, Gabe has a short tolerance, then demands, loudly and insistently, to go home. Today he refused to put his shoes or coat on, was upset to see Tim putting his own coat on and demanded that he take it off, and wouldn’t even be bribed by ice cream (and he’s very partial to soft-serve ice cream cones). He finally decided to go shopping with us when Tim offered to let him drive – Gabe helps Tim steer down the driveway, then we put him in his car seat. One of the reasons we were running today was to pick up the new-ish Thomas the Train movie for Gabe, and the new Shaun the Sheep for me. Once Gabe realized he was getting Thomas, he of course demanded that we go home immediately to watch it. And interspersed through all of our activities today was the familiar, and slightly-irritating-at-this-point refrain demanding to go home.

It’s actually kind of convenient in one way that Gabe is so home-focused lately. I’m pregnant, and doing my best to avoid the H1N1 flu bug that, according to my doctor, is deeply embedded in Platteville right now. Doctor’s advice is to stay away from public areas more now than usual. Today was my first time out and about this week, other than my prenatal appointment. Maybe shopping wasn’t the best way to stay healthy, but I was going a little bit crazy at home so much, and just needed the change of scenery.

What I find most interesting about all this is that Gabe is so attached to the concept of home. When he first wakes up Monday morning, and Tim’s gone to work, Gabe is upset that Daddy isn’t home. When Tim calls to let me know he’s left the office each evening, Gabe always asks if Daddy’s coming home. And when Tim walks in the door, Gabe races over to him screaming “HOME!!!”. Gabe will frequently race over and plow into me during the day, giving me a very rambunctious, little-boy-hug, and comment that we’re home with a big smile. My son loves his home.

What I wonder is why Gabe has such an attachment to home. He’s never been in day-care, never really been separated from me except on rare occasions – and only when Dad, Uncle Shaun, grandparents or Aunt LeeAnn are there with him. He’s never had attachment issues, and is a confident, secure kid. We spend alot of time at home, and Tim and I both have the general attitude that our family is our top priority, so we do things as a family. I’m glad that Gabe feels safe and secure at home; that home is a special place for him. It means that I’ve succeeded, in a way, at being a home-maker. I just worry that his attitude is too-much-of-a-good-thing kind of thing. Then again, he’s three, so it’s probably not anything to worry about just yet. Now, if he’s 18 and refusing to leave the house, then I’ll have a problem!

Actually, I’m always hesitant to use anything like hormonal to describe myself. Frankly, I find it insulting when some idiot suggests that women in general, and me in particular, are somehow lacking in logic or the ability to reason because of our hormones. It would be as short-sighted and limited an argument as if I were to point out that testosterone is also a hormone, and high amounts of testosterone can induce dangerous and life-threatening behavioral changes. Seriously, how did women get the stereotype as mentally unstable due to chemistry? Glass houses, people.

But anyway, enough soapboxing.

My family is completely wonderful and supportive, but we’re also very opinionated people, and we love the chance to share our opinions with each other. There’s definitely some of the “nobody gets to call my brother an idiot but me!” thing going on. And I love it. When I talk to any of my siblings, I know they’re going to always have my back… but they’re going to tell me the truth as they see it too. And I wouldn’t change that for the world.

So when, in the course of a conversation, my sister starts agreeing with everything I’m saying and using her it’s-gonna-be-okay voice… well, I have to acknowledge that just maybe I’m a bit more emotional than is normal for me. Just maybe, pregnancy hormones haven’t passed me by, no matter how much I will them out of my brain.

Between the special migraines I get during pregnancy, the brain-fog-inducing hydrocodone I take to allow me to function despite those migraines, the midnight trips to the bathroom to empty my bladder because the baby’s using it as a pillow/trampoline, and the constant poking and prodding by different doctors,.. I’m starting to look forward to getting cut open and the weeks of recovery from surgery! Even more than that though, I’m looking forward to the moment my sister calls me an idiot again, because then I’ll know everything’s back the way it should be