A woman and a baby were in the doctor's examining room, waiting for the doctor to come in for the baby's first exam. The doctor arrived, and examined the baby, checked his weight, and being a little concerned,asked if the baby was breast-fed or bottle-fed. "Breast-fed," she replied.
"Well, strip down to your waist," the doctor ordered. She did. He pinched her nipples, pressed, kneaded, and rubbed both breasts for a while in a very professional and detailed examination. Motioning to her to get dressed, the doctor said,
"No wonder this baby is underweight. You don't have any milk."
"I know," she said, "I'm his Grandma, but I'm glad I came."
Would you believe me if I said that I made this one up? I didn't think so. It's from the usual source. Today is silly Friday, you know.
Friday, April 25, 2008
Not To Be Outdone
Elizabeth Kaeton, at Telling Secrets, is defending her dissertation today and could use a few prayers of support, if you can spare them. Nevertheless, I could not allow myself to be outdone by her in posting contributions from Doug. I chose different cartoons, but all of hers are in color.
As Doug says, "Gas humor - Sad, but too true!" As to the bottom cartoon, I'm old enough to remember gas at 29 cents a gallon.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
A Story Of A Skirt
Some years ago, when I was driving to New Orleans for a luncheon with the members of the Jane Austen Society, my skirt felt tight around my waist, so I unbuttoned it to feel comfortable until I got to where I was going. It was an unpressed pleated skirt, kind of full, fastened with only two buttons, one on an extension tab and the other at the end of the waist opening, with no zipper. When I arrived at my destination, I got out of the car, and almost immediately, my skirt was around my ankles. I looked to see who was around to witness this excruciating moment, and I saw only a middle-aged man looking my way. His eyes widened, and he quickly looked away. I pulled up my skirt and buttoned it, thankful that only one person had witnessed my humiliation and more thankful that I was wearing a slip. I had a story to tell my friends, once I was inside the restaurant.
Grandpère and my daughter and I talked about the incident while we were having lunch this week, and we had another good laugh about one of my more embarrassing moments as an inadvertent stripper.
Grandpère and my daughter and I talked about the incident while we were having lunch this week, and we had another good laugh about one of my more embarrassing moments as an inadvertent stripper.
Who You Gonna Believe?
From USA Today:
A day after returning from the Mideast, former Democratic president Jimmy Carter on Wednesday defended his meetings with leaders of the militant Palestinian movement Hamas, and said his visit doesn't lend the group credence.
....
"Hamas was not legitimized by my visit," Carter said. "They were legitimized by the fact that their people voted for them to be the ruling party in their parliament."
Where Rice "gets this repetitive claim that I was warned and advised not to go and urged not to go — she's completely mistaken," he said. "I think she's being misinformed. I don't think Condoleezza is deliberately lying, but the statement she's making is false."
....
Carter said he spoke with David Welch, Rice's deputy.
"He never said anything about 'Don't go to the Mideast. Don't meet with Hamas. Don't meet with Syria.' He never said anything like that," Carter said. "That was the only person in the government with whom I've discussed it."
Knowing what you know about Condoleezza Rice and her history of "misspeaking", who do think is telling the truth, Carter or Rice? Perhaps, Welch misinformed Condi about what he said to cover his rear. Perhaps Condi misspoke about what Welch told her. Who knows? She does not have a reputation as a truth-teller. Actually, I find this delicious, Carter calling them on their "misspeaking" and the press actually covering the story.
A day after returning from the Mideast, former Democratic president Jimmy Carter on Wednesday defended his meetings with leaders of the militant Palestinian movement Hamas, and said his visit doesn't lend the group credence.
....
"Hamas was not legitimized by my visit," Carter said. "They were legitimized by the fact that their people voted for them to be the ruling party in their parliament."
Where Rice "gets this repetitive claim that I was warned and advised not to go and urged not to go — she's completely mistaken," he said. "I think she's being misinformed. I don't think Condoleezza is deliberately lying, but the statement she's making is false."
....
Carter said he spoke with David Welch, Rice's deputy.
"He never said anything about 'Don't go to the Mideast. Don't meet with Hamas. Don't meet with Syria.' He never said anything like that," Carter said. "That was the only person in the government with whom I've discussed it."
Knowing what you know about Condoleezza Rice and her history of "misspeaking", who do think is telling the truth, Carter or Rice? Perhaps, Welch misinformed Condi about what he said to cover his rear. Perhaps Condi misspoke about what Welch told her. Who knows? She does not have a reputation as a truth-teller. Actually, I find this delicious, Carter calling them on their "misspeaking" and the press actually covering the story.
Please Stop!
From the Associated Press via Yahoo News:
The US military on Tuesday announced the deaths of five troops in a series of bombings as blasts in Baghdad killed 10 people and a female suicide bomber slaughtered six Iraqis north of the capital.
Further news from the Associated Press:
A top American general urged radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr on Wednesday to rein in his fighters as a U.S. soldier was killed during a gunbattle in a militia stronghold in Baghdad.
....
The American military said 21 suspected gunmen were killed in the two neighborhoods late Tuesday. Iraqi officials said 15 civilians were among the dead, including two women.
The American general believes that al-Sadr could stop the attacks, if he would. The general wants him to "choose the road of peace and responsibility". Perhaps al-Sadr could stop the fighters, or perhaps not. They may be beyond his control.
What about the discrepancy in the count of the number of gunmen v. civilians who were killed? Whom are we to believe?
Is the surge working? We still have 160,000 troops in Iraq putting great strain on our military. The present troop numbers are unsustainable.
Note: I believe that the soldier mentioned in the second article is included in the five who were mentioned in the first. The total number of troops killed in the 24 days of this month is 38, the highest number since September 2007.
That's not counting the number of Iraqis killed.
Lord, have mercy.
The US military on Tuesday announced the deaths of five troops in a series of bombings as blasts in Baghdad killed 10 people and a female suicide bomber slaughtered six Iraqis north of the capital.
Further news from the Associated Press:
A top American general urged radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr on Wednesday to rein in his fighters as a U.S. soldier was killed during a gunbattle in a militia stronghold in Baghdad.
....
The American military said 21 suspected gunmen were killed in the two neighborhoods late Tuesday. Iraqi officials said 15 civilians were among the dead, including two women.
The American general believes that al-Sadr could stop the attacks, if he would. The general wants him to "choose the road of peace and responsibility". Perhaps al-Sadr could stop the fighters, or perhaps not. They may be beyond his control.
What about the discrepancy in the count of the number of gunmen v. civilians who were killed? Whom are we to believe?
Is the surge working? We still have 160,000 troops in Iraq putting great strain on our military. The present troop numbers are unsustainable.
Note: I believe that the soldier mentioned in the second article is included in the five who were mentioned in the first. The total number of troops killed in the 24 days of this month is 38, the highest number since September 2007.
That's not counting the number of Iraqis killed.
Lord, have mercy.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Multiculturalism At Work
A Jewish man was buying some items in a supermarket when he saw a black woman trying to get her young child to put down a candy bar he had picked off the shelf.
'Latrell,' she addressed him firmly. 'You put that down right now! It's not kosher!'
Intrigued, the young man decided to investigate. 'Excuse me, ma'am, are you Jewish?'
'No,' replied the black woman .
'So why did you say that?' he asked.
'Why? I'll tell you why. Because I see all the Jewish mothers saying that to their kids -- and it works, so I decided to try it.'
A clean one from Doug.
'Latrell,' she addressed him firmly. 'You put that down right now! It's not kosher!'
Intrigued, the young man decided to investigate. 'Excuse me, ma'am, are you Jewish?'
'No,' replied the black woman .
'So why did you say that?' he asked.
'Why? I'll tell you why. Because I see all the Jewish mothers saying that to their kids -- and it works, so I decided to try it.'
A clean one from Doug.
For Better Or For Worse
From Mark Harris at Preludium:
Most of my friends find it curious and just a bit appalling that Anglicans are spending so much time in solemn and serious infighting concerning moral (read sexual) issues. They wonder for our sanity. They mostly do not pay much attention to the details of the arguments.
I do pay attention. I have tried to listen to the voices that say again and again that sex between persons of the same sex is evil and I have heard their argument from scriptural restrictions. I am and remain unconvinced.
I was recently asked just exactly where I stand regarding the morality of homosexual sex, aka "homosexual behavior." So here is a response. No surprise, I am sure.
At the last, after all the arguments to the contrary, I still believe that sexual expression between persons of the same sex is no more evil or good than is sexual expression between men and women. And the Church's statement from General Convention 1990 that "physical sexual expression is appropriate only within the lifelong monogamous union of husband and wife" is totally inadequate. Sexual intercourse encompasses such a wide variety of "physical sexual expression" that no opinion about the moral value of such intercourse or expression, based on the anatomical characteristics of the participants or the purpose of sex as procreative, can hold as sufficient.
As to marriage, I am convinced that holiness of marriage is not in marriage, but in God's blessing on people committed to life long companionship. I see no reason to suppose that God does not, or can not, bless such commitments when they are other than between a man and a woman. The Church ought do no less.
....
I believe Christians are ill equipped to condemn persons of the same sex who are in love with one another for acting on that love in physical ways or for seeking ways to establish and maintain commitment to one another and for seeking blessing from God and the community. Moreover, given the realities of past Christian willingness to condone a wide variety of moral behavior that we would now consider reprehensible and the tendency to resist change from that behavior, the Church carries a beam in its own eye and has no business demanding that others remove the speck (if there is one) in their own.
....
The Word of God is our constant companion. That Word is a comfort, always with us, but is also uncomfortable in its provocative call to live not for ourselves but for others. But that Word is not the writings on the page itself, rather the Scripture is a gateway into the Word. (Emphasis mine)
Oh that I could have written those words! But - alas! - I rely on Mark's words, because I lack his eloquence and deep spirituality. He states my position far better than I ever could. Several years ago, in my own bumbling, stumbling, labyrinthine way, I arrived at the same conclusions as Mark and many others far more learned and schooled than I, mostly without input from folks like Mark, but simply by reading the Scriptures prayerfully, with special emphasis on the Gospels.
Most of my friends find it curious and just a bit appalling that Anglicans are spending so much time in solemn and serious infighting concerning moral (read sexual) issues. They wonder for our sanity. They mostly do not pay much attention to the details of the arguments.
I do pay attention. I have tried to listen to the voices that say again and again that sex between persons of the same sex is evil and I have heard their argument from scriptural restrictions. I am and remain unconvinced.
I was recently asked just exactly where I stand regarding the morality of homosexual sex, aka "homosexual behavior." So here is a response. No surprise, I am sure.
At the last, after all the arguments to the contrary, I still believe that sexual expression between persons of the same sex is no more evil or good than is sexual expression between men and women. And the Church's statement from General Convention 1990 that "physical sexual expression is appropriate only within the lifelong monogamous union of husband and wife" is totally inadequate. Sexual intercourse encompasses such a wide variety of "physical sexual expression" that no opinion about the moral value of such intercourse or expression, based on the anatomical characteristics of the participants or the purpose of sex as procreative, can hold as sufficient.
As to marriage, I am convinced that holiness of marriage is not in marriage, but in God's blessing on people committed to life long companionship. I see no reason to suppose that God does not, or can not, bless such commitments when they are other than between a man and a woman. The Church ought do no less.
....
I believe Christians are ill equipped to condemn persons of the same sex who are in love with one another for acting on that love in physical ways or for seeking ways to establish and maintain commitment to one another and for seeking blessing from God and the community. Moreover, given the realities of past Christian willingness to condone a wide variety of moral behavior that we would now consider reprehensible and the tendency to resist change from that behavior, the Church carries a beam in its own eye and has no business demanding that others remove the speck (if there is one) in their own.
....
The Word of God is our constant companion. That Word is a comfort, always with us, but is also uncomfortable in its provocative call to live not for ourselves but for others. But that Word is not the writings on the page itself, rather the Scripture is a gateway into the Word. (Emphasis mine)
Oh that I could have written those words! But - alas! - I rely on Mark's words, because I lack his eloquence and deep spirituality. He states my position far better than I ever could. Several years ago, in my own bumbling, stumbling, labyrinthine way, I arrived at the same conclusions as Mark and many others far more learned and schooled than I, mostly without input from folks like Mark, but simply by reading the Scriptures prayerfully, with special emphasis on the Gospels.
The Swollen Mississippi River
The photo above is taken from the top of the levee at the Rivertown pier in Kenner, Louisiana, a suburb west of New Orleans. The trees in the water are on the bank of the river in normal times, but the river is high now because of heavy rains and snow north of us. The Bonnet Carré Spillway, west of New Orleans has been opened to divert water from the river to Lake Pontchartrain, north of New Orleans, to relieve pressure on the levees at New Orleans and below the city.
Below is a pile of debris deposited next to the pier at Rivertown.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
"Small Town Blues"
On our way to New Orleans, we listened to "Small Town Blues" by Ruthie Foster from her CD, "Runaway Soul". I'd almost think that the song was written for me. These words from the song resonate strongly.
I've got the low-dirty-livin-in-a smalltown blues
And I'm runnin' out of things to do
I don't need no pity, just drop me in a city
I've got to feel the rhythm runnin' down in my shoes
My town is a perfectly nice town. There's not a whole lot I'd say against it, except that it's not a city, especially, it's not that one special city that I still miss so much. That's it. I'm a city "girl". Now that I'm no longer a girl, I'm probably much better off living in my town with a population of 17,000 people, rather than a city, but how can I be sure? And I never run out of things to do. And I thank God that I am never ever bored. But I am a city person, pretty much a one-special-city person.
Goodbye Mom
Hope this touches you the way it touched me!
GOODBYE MOM
A young man shopping in a supermarket noticed a little old lady following him around. If he stopped, she stopped. Furthermore she kept staring at him.
She finally overtook him at the checkout, And she turned to him and said, 'I hope I haven't made you feel ill at ease; it's just that you look so much like my late son.'
He answered, 'That's okay.'
'I know it's silly, but if you'd call out 'Good bye, Mom' as I leave the store, It would make me feel so happy.'
She then went through the checkout, And as she was on her way out of the store, The man called out, 'Goodbye, Mom.'
The little old lady waved, and smiled back at him.
Pleased that he had brought a little sunshine Into someone's day, he went to pay for his Groceries.
'That comes to $121.85,' said the clerk.
'How come so much . I only bought 5 items..'
The clerk replied, 'Yeah, but your Mother said You'd be paying for her things, too.'
Don't trust little Old Ladies!!!
GOTCHA!
From Doug. He's a good man.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)