Friday, September 16, 2011

So...when is the next baby due?

So...when is the next baby due?

Yah, I have the same reaction as you.

WHAT??  Do I look fat?

The answer is no, but people assume that since Baby L is 1.5 I should be having another soon.

Well, that is not the plan.  We are not even trying til at least January, maybe later.

"But why?  Ralphie is so cute and beautiful!"  We get asked...generally by those with two or more kids all under the age of 3 or 4.

Let me start by saying, that is great that that works for you (which in my opinion sometimes it doesn't but people do it anyway) but it isn't for us.

Unless of course it's an accident, but so far we haven't run into those.

"But why not?"

Well, let me explain once and for all.

First of all, I strongly believe in each child getting their own "baby time".  I think it is so important to development.  If you have a 1 year old and another baby is born...well, there goes that first child's baby time. And as far as I am concerned the first part of the toddler years still counts and "baby time".  My mother did this.  We were all far enough apart that we got out baby time, but were still close enough to play and be friends.  That is what Charming and I want.

Second of all, to be the best mom I can be which is constantly my goal, I know myself well enough to know that I could not handle my kids if they were less that 2.5 years apart.  Too much crying, lol.

We also want Ralphie potty trained or at least almost potty trained by the time the next one comes.  Two kids in diapers is too many diapers!  Both financially and physically haha!

So...we want out kids to be 2.5-3 years apart.  Now, who is to say that there won't be an accident, or an incident of twins (it's not in our family (unless you go back like 3 generations or so, but you never know), or that it will take us a long time to get pregnant and then they are too far apart.  There really is no telling, but we can try out best to plan for whats best for us and our kids.

And so I hope that answers everyone's constant question.   So to that end...remember to vote for us!

Wednesday, August 3, 2011

Buffy, Stop Slaying My Dreams

Seriously...I get way, way, way, way, way, WAY too into shows and characters.  To an unhealthy point.

I felt like someone had died after watching the finale of "Everybody Loves Raymond" and that was a comedy!

The most recent one effects my mood, dreams, and health..."Buffy the Vampire Slayer".

[Image Source]

I know, you are thinking, what?  That cheesy 90s show? Seriously?

Actually, it does have its cheesy moments, but it's a pretty darn awesome show--with fabulous and hilarious characters and one of those love, romance dramas that people so love.

However, I am pretty sure each episode that Buffy's heart or Angel's heart breaks, mine breaks right along with it.  No joke.

And I knew this would happen--at least the basic idea...Angel's in the show only 3 seasons before he goes to that spin-off show aptly named "Angel". I knew that...then we started watching it and as I do I get way into a point (and this may come from me being an actress and having that desire to be in a movie or show some day myself (which will obviously never happen, but my soul still longs for) or maybe it comes from being heartbroken myself before, or maybe I just got off on a whole other line of thought) anyway, I get so into it and the characters to a point that I kind of live through the characters in the show...I see things the way they do...

So when the Buffy and Angel drama really starts--especially when he turns back to his demon, vampire form...I started freaking out and so, I figure, ok...I'll prepare myself by reading a show and character summary so I know exactly what happens.  So I do...and I think surely this will help.

[Image Source]

Well, it doesn't.  I get way too into it the point that after watching the episode we just watched I am pretty sure my little heart broke right along with Buffy's and Angel's!  I mean I adore each of them--and lets face it Angel (David Boreanaz)--(Also known as Booth from "Bones") is super duper hot and has those fabulous puppy eyes that when he is sad it just kills me!  And then I have nightmares about it...and I get sick to my stomach for at least hours after watching an episode sometimes days...this really isn't healthy...but...

[Image Source]
It's the way I am...I guess I am empathetic...even when they are fictional characters.  Anyone else like this?  Or is it just weird little me?

But, seriously, guys...what is with Hollywood?? Do they have to ruin every great romance??  Honestly!  I mean they could have made this work...this is how:

Go ahead, drag on the Angel and Buffy thing...they really didn't drag it on to its full potential (obviously they just wanted to make more money by having the spin off).  They could have dragged it on for a while and then had it work out...well, then you just introduce a new couple and Xander and Willow or something.  I mean come on!  They just gotta kill it so there is always sexual tension...just transfer the tension to another couple!  I mean come on!  "The Office" pulled it off and they are still making seasons and having fans.  Gosh!  It just makes me so mad!  And sick to my tummy as I mentioned before...

Anyway, I am going to go to bed now, heartbroken for Angel and Buffy...and probably to dream sad dreams about things not working out for them.  Lame.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Tuesday, April 26, 2011

Movie Review: "Romance on the High Seas"

A little intro:

I have always loved Doris Day...ever since I first watched "Calamity Jane". I love her voice and just think she is too cute and adorable! Wish I could sing and act just like her! Anyway, during high school I discovered a fun little song by her from a movie I had never seen. The song was called "Put 'em in a Box, Tie it With a Ribbon". I loved it. It had attitude and although an "anti" romance song (obviously she got broken hearted or something) I loved it! It had awesome lyrics!
Below you will find the lyrics and a video with the song. I still to this day want to sing it for something.

You can take the moon
Gather up the stars
And the robins that sing merrily
Put 'em in a box
Tie it with a ribbon
Throw 'em in the deep blue sea

You can take the flowers
Down in lovers lane
And that sentimental poetry
Put 'em in a box
Tie it with a ribbon
Throw 'em in the deep blue sea

Not for me, all that stuff
The dreams that ruin your sleep
Not for me, had enough
Love is one thing you can keep

You can take the plans
And the wedding bells
And whoever sings "Oh Promise Me"
Put 'em in a box
Tie it with a ribbon
Throw 'em in the deep blue sea
'Cause love and I we don't agree


Hansoms through the park
Kisses in the dark
All the promises made faithfully
Put 'em in a box
Tie it with a ribbon
Throw 'em in the deep blue sea

And you won't go wrong
If you take a song
Sung by Frankie Boy or Mr. C
Put 'em in a box
Tie it with a ribbon
Throw 'em in the deep blue sea

Not for me, all that stuff
Not for me, had enough

You know what to do
With good old "Tea for Two"
And the girl for you, the boy for me
Put 'em in a box
Tie it with a ribbon
Throw 'em in the deep blue sea
'Cause love and I we don't agree

Now onto the review.

File:Doris Day - Romance on the High Seas.jpg

So finally the other day I spotted that the movie that this song was from was going to play on TMC. Do I DVRed it and it took me about a month to watch it, but while recovering from my surgery I did. So as always here is a brief synopsis from wikipedia:

"Elvira Kent (Janis Paige) and her husband Michael (Don DeFore) suspect each other of cheating. For a wedding anniversary, Elvira books an ocean cruise to Rio de Janeiro. When her husband claims that unexpected business will prevent him from going, Elvira pretends to take the trip alone, sending in her place singer Georgia Garrett (Doris Day), a woman she had met at the travel agency. This will give her the opportunity to find out if Michael is indeed sneaking around behind her back. Meanwhile, Michael hires private detective Peter Virgil (Jack Carson) to check up on her.
As part of his job, Peter becomes acquainted with Georgia (believing her to be Elvira). They gradually fall in love, which makes reporting to Michael very uncomfortable for Peter. By chance, Georgia's boyfriend, Oscar Farrar (Oscar Levant), is also aboard. When Peter spots them together, he thinks he has discovered the identity of Elvira's lover."

And it only gets more dramatic! For a movie that only got 2.5 stars from Dish Network's rating system, I totally thought it deserved more! The songs were fantastic and I thought it was so cute and hilarious! There was some fantastic one liners and moments! I really do recommend this one! It is super enjoyable! Doris Day really cracked me! She has to pretend to be a social elite, but she really is just an average girl so she is just stinking hilarious! She does a fantastic job! Her former boy friend Oscar also his hilarious! I loved almost every line out of the guy's mouth! And then the new man, Peter Virgil was also funny and played the part fantastically! I seriously am not the best movie reviewer, cause all I can ever say is I loved them or something--but it's true!

One more note...I also just read this was her first big part in a movie! Wow! She did great!

A favorite line:
Georgia Garrett: Oscar! Aren't you going to kiss me?
Oscar Farrar: I don't know how. Will you show me?
[she kisses his cheek]
Oscar Farrar: You don't know how either!

Saturday, April 23, 2011

Movie Review: "Gaslight"

1944's "Gaslight"
Starring: Ingrid Bergman, Charles Boyer, Joseph Cotton (and Angela Lansbury)

"The film opens just after world-famous opera singer Alice Alquist has been murdered. The perpetrator bolted, without the jewels he sought, after being interrupted by Paula, Alice's niece, who was raised by her aunt following her mother's death.
"Paula is sent to Italy so that she can train to be an opera star, with the same teacher who once trained Alice. She studies with him for years, all the while trying to forget that terrible night at Number 9 on Thornton Square in London.
"Paula meets Gregory Anton and soon falls in love with him. She eventually ends her long tutelage to marry him. He persuades her they should live in the long-vacant London townhouse her aunt bequeathed her and, to help calm her anxieties, suggests they store all of Alice's furnishings away in the attic. Before they do, Paula discovers a letter addressed to her aunt by a man named Sergius Bauer, dated only two days before the murder, tucked away in a music book. Gregory's reaction is swift and violent, but he quickly composes himself, explaining his outburst as one of frustration at the bad memories his bride is experiencing.
"After Alice's things are packed away in the attic and the door blocked, things take a turn for the bizarre. At theTower of London, Paula loses a brooch that Gregory had given her, despite its having been stored safely in her handbag. Pictures disappear from the walls of the house, footsteps are heard in the sealed attic, and the gaslights dim and brighten for no apparent reason. Gregory insinuates that Paula is responsible, but she professes no recollection of doing such things.
"Gregory does everything in his power to isolate his wife from other people, allowing her neither to go out nor have visitors. On the one occasion when he does take her out to a musical gathering at a friend's house, he shows Paula his watch chain, from which his watch has mysteriously disappeared. When he finds it in her handbag, she becomes hysterical, and Gregory takes her home." (Wikipedia)
Eventually we realized that Gregory is making Paula think she is losing her mind...and a young detective eventually finds out why.
Now for my review...I LOVED this movie! (Just a note...those who know and love Angela Lansbury, should know this is her first big screen debut. Neat!) Super creepy and a it's funny...I actually started it one night and had to finish it another day. That night I had insane dreams about it and why Gregory was doing what he was doing to Paula and what not! Super crazy! But anyway, it was an awesome movie! I loved it and I definitely recommend it! It was a definite thriller and the acting is superb. That Gregory dude is creepy! It also had fabulous cinematography! Anyway, if you like old thrillers this is definitely one you should see!

Tuesday, March 8, 2011

Movie Review: "Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?"

Movie Review
"Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?"
Starring: Bette Davis & Joan Crawford

I would like to start out this review by stating I am not the best reviewer in the world. But I thought it would be a fun thing to do occasionally on my blog anyway!

So I had seen a part of this movie as a preteen or teen (not sure when exactly) while my mom was watching it once. And ever since then I had this desire to watch it! It seemed so creepy and interesting and I just wanted to know what was the actual storyline. I thought about having The Hubby watch it with me because he is really into the Dish Network 1-4 stars rating system and this had 3.5 stars. But I figured as it was an old movie about women he wouldn't care much to see it. So one night after I bathed Baby L and The Hubby was putting him to bed, I started it. I had not idea it was so creepy and intense! I was freaking out the whole time wondering what was going to happen!

The basic storyline is (borrowed from Wikipedia):

"Baby Jane Hudson is a vaudevillian child star. She performs to adoring crowds, and there’s even a–rather expensive–“Baby Jane” doll. Jane is also a spoiled brat, and her doting stage father gives in to her every whim. Her jealous sister Blanche watches from the wings.
"The movie then jumps to 1935, and the sisters' roles are now reversed. Both are movie stars, but Blanche is the successful and glamorous one, while Jane’s films have flopped. Unable to establish her talent as an adult actress, Jane has taken to drinking. One night after a party, one of them is at the gate of her mansion while the other one, in her car, steps on the gas and smashes into the gate. It is unclear to the viewer which sister is driving at this point.
"In the present (1960s), both Blanche (Joan Crawford) and Jane (Bette Davis) are now retired from their acting careers and living in their decrepit old mansion. Blanche is crippled from the automobile accident and is usually holed up in her bedroom watching her old movies on television. Jane is a shadow of her former self, still drinking and wearing caked on make-up. She is abusive towards her sister, who now depends on her. There are not many visitors at the house, except for their cleaning woman Elvira. Elvira fears for Blanche’s safety because of Jane’s erratic behaviour. She even tells Blanche that her sister has been opening her mail and dumping it in the trash. Later, when Jane finds out that Blanche intends to sell the house and put her in a sanatorium, she responds by increasing her abuse."

So it starts getting intense with this increased abuse towards Blanche. Jane ends up taking away Blanche's phone and since she is in a room upstairs and in a wheel chair she has no hope of escape! So whenever Jane left Blanche would have to attempt to get help! it was crazy intense!

A super creepy movie that I loved! It was awesome! Charming joined me at one point and was like totally creeped out (I think that is why he left, haha!) He came back in time to see the super creepy ending and then afterwards he took the remote from me and said, "now we have to watch something happy before bed." How cute is that? So we watchd something happy and then another funny The Hubby moment is we went to bed and when we woke up and the first thing he starts talking about is the" creepy, crazy lady" (Bette Davis) on "that movie last night". What a cutie!
Anyway, I think it is an awesomely thrilling creepy movie! Watch it if you dare! ;-)

Saturday, February 5, 2011

I love the history channel!

So yesterday I watched the most intriguing and interesting history channel documentary called "The Real Face of Jesus?" on the Shroud of Turin. I had actually never known what it was supposed to be before, so I learned a lot of information about it. The Shroud of Turin is believe to be the burial cloth that wrapped Jesus Christ after he was crucified. It not only has blood on it but also a face imprinted on the cloth. There is some quite compelling SCIENTIFIC information out that that says otherwise. I just wanted to share a few things I learned and how incredible it is.

A. The Catholic church allowed some renowned scientists to study the cloth for 5 days (I think) around the clock in the 70s. They took tons of tests and samples. One of the things they discovered is that the face is not painted or drawn on or anything like that. There was no median found at all--and the imprint only goes microfibers deep in the cloth, which isn't really possible for an artist to do. The blood on the cloth is in fact human blood. The blood stains and wounds are consistent with those of a crucified man and one who also was scourged and beaten. Specific details match those details in the Bible in fact. They also found a unique pollen embedded deep in the fibers of the cloth. One that is unique to Israel and better yet, unique to Jerusalem. Those are the things I specifically remember but there was much more. Basically they couldn't scientifically prove it was a fake but most of the evidence proved otherwise.

B. In the 80s a carbon dating test was done. They took a corner of the cloth and tested it. It came back that it was made between about 1260-1390 or something like that. Ok, so a fake right? However, (and I quote an article) "In March 2010, researchers unveiled a revolutionary radiocarbon dating method that could allow scientists to safely establish accurate ages for precious artifacts like the Shroud of Turin. Unlike traditional carbon dating, the new process does not require samples; instead, the entire object is exposed to an electrically charged gas that gently oxidizes its surface without causing damage. This means that, someday soon, the world may have a more precise estimate of the Shroud of Turin’s real age." ( are not sure the original test was accurate because the piece they used is a part of the cloth that has been handled many many times throughout the centuries and there are pictures and paintings to support that. So in fact the results could be incorrect because the piece may have been contaminated. So even that scientific has basically been proven wrong.

C. They can prove that it dates back to at least the medivel times with historical documentation. However, they have quite impressive evidence that suggests it dates back at least to 300ish AD. One of these being that there is some kind of religious document found that has an illustrated part about the burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ that has a picture after the resurrection that has a design on the cloth that is the exact, unique weave of the cloth and in fact there is are "L" shaped dots on it also...that match perfectly the "L" shaped burn marks on the Shroud. And dates back a few hundred years before it is historically and officially recorded. They also have a story of a king in Turkey I believe who was sick and was brought a cloth that bared the image of Christ on it and after ten days with it he was healed. That was only about 200-300 AD. Obviously this can't be proven, but it is all very intriguing.

D. In the late 1800s a man photographed the Shroud and found that the negative held even more detail than before because of the fact that the lights and darks on the cloth are opposites of what they should a negative is. So a negative of the cloth showed that the face should truly look like! Crazy! Another way that it would be crazy that someone in the 1200s could have created it let alone decided to go opposite of what it should be.

E. They found in the 70s that ere was 3D information in the 2D cloth be using a machine that is used to take pictures of the moon and figures out elevations and craters etc. They took a picture of the face from the cloth and used it and found that there was in fact 3D info in the cloth! Seriously! How crazy is that???

F. One of the most crazy and compelling parts, I think, was that they have come to scientifically decide that the only way the image on the cloth could have been made is my radiation or bright light. And of the two ways light travels it is neither one. Light traveling in a straight line like a laser would have only made a silhouette. Light spreading out would have created a messy blur. After the expert scientists created a 3D face from the cloth they tested it to see if they could get the same face...the only way they could even create an imprint? A scanner. Seriously. Because it is "slices" of light moving across the object. And in fact they made the exact face. So it would have had to have been created by a sliver of light moving across the face and body. So even the scientists and religious alike were forced to consider the resurrection as the source of the light that embedded the face on the cloth! They were talking about how this is the one artifact that will probably bring both scientists and religious people alike the closest together they will ever be! I just thought that was amazing!

G. They took all that information and the man who created a 3D image of Abraham Lincoln from photos and death masks created an accurate face of the man behind the shroud. Whether that is Christ or not, we don't know obviously. Because it will never be proven if it is or isn't, but that is probably the closest we will ever be to seeing his true face. And it is the face behind the shroud...then did reverse tests to see if they could recreate shroud from the 3D sculptor of this face and they did! Amazing!

Here are two videos that I think you might enjoy.

All in all, I'm inclined to believe the Shroud is in fact the burial cloth of Christ and that is his face embedded in the cloth. Really. It totally makes sense. Everything matches including the fact that some sort of light embedded that image in the cloth--resurrection light makes total sense to me. I totally got chills and it really made me feel warm and fuzzy.

Whether or not it is, I love that it is one of the few things that science cannot prove is a fake. and that can lead people to renew their faith. I love to wonder about things and then I get excited for the next life when I get to know all the answers to all these questions. Hope you found this interesting too!

Friday, January 7, 2011

A Lonely Little Petunia

When I was little my grandmother and my mom used to sing me this little song that goes something like this:

I'm a lonely little petunia in an onion patch,
An onion patch,
An onion patch.
I'm a lonely little petunia in an onion patch,
Oh, won't you come and play with me

Boo hoo,
boo hoo,
The airs so strong it takes my breath away

I'm a lonely little petunia in an onion patch,
An onion patch,
An onion patch.
I'm a lonely little petunia in an onion patch,
Oh, won't you come and play with me.

And when I was little I knew what petunia's were of course. My mom planted them frequently in a little spot by a spruce tree in our front yard. Not much else grows in New Mexico. Anyway, I used to imagine this little fushia colored petunia alone in the field of plant--as a child I imagined a potato field because I don't think I knew what an onion was. When I got older, no one sang the song to me and I forgot about it.

Untill today....

When I was driving through town and I started singing it to Ralphie. As I got to the part: "the air's so strong it takes my breath away", I had to pause and go, "oooooooh!" Because for the first time in my entire life--all almost 24 years--I had never understood what it meant or why the air was strong and taking its breath away.

So there you have it. It's funny how things you didn't understand as a child and don't think about for years don't make sense to you until you are an adult!

(Check out that picture! It really IS a lonely petunia in an onion patch!)