Thursday, March 26, 2009

Dr. Who?

According to my pregnancy information emails, this is what my doctor thinks my baby looks like this week:

And this is what I think my baby looks like:
The emails I get (from always compare the baby's size to a fruit or vegetable, which I find pretty hilarious. Anyone who has shopped for produce in California and Utah knows that oranges, for example, come in very different sizes.

But the real point here is that the doc and I disagree about when my estimated due date is. I say it's July 19th. He says it's July 31st, based on the size of the baby at my ultrasound. What? My baby is measuring under normal size? Well, take a look at me, Doc. Do I look like a large woman? How about Regis? Not a real big guy, is he? How about Abby? A little on the chunky side, you think? I mean, the fact that my first child was 6 lb. 10 oz. at birth when she was supposedly a week late and is still BELOW the 5th percentile in weight and height doesn't tell you anything?

I know, I know, he's just playing it safe, can't always trust patient's memory, due dates are only an estimate. That doesn't mean I have to like it.

Um, no.

I heard a car commercial on the radio today that included something like this:

"Prices for 2009 models have only gone up about $300! That's like a whole year of driving, FREE!"

Right! In the same way that . . . uh . . . kissing an alligator is like playing drums in a boy band!

Commercials like these make me want to track down the people who wrote them and sharpen my teeth on their faces.

Anyone else have any great comparisons to make?

Sunday, March 22, 2009

Random delights

Try saying "blue-bummed baboon" five times, fast. And thank Regis if you get the giggles.

Saturday, March 21, 2009

Take Note

We're having another girl! Our home is full of sugar and spice and everything nice, with Regis thrown in for variety. :) He's excited. I'm excited. Abby likes her new baby doll and enjoys poking my belly. We hope this baby will be just as charming.

Friday, March 20, 2009

Monday, March 16, 2009

Retro--or Not?

This last weekend, Regis, Abby and I drove up to Logan for his little sister's wedding. We stayed with my in-law's in-laws, who have a lovely home complete with the Little People sets of my childhood! Abby and her cousin Elsie had a great time playing with the house, the construction workers, and all the rest. Regis' sister and I chatted about how great those toys are, and what a bummer it is that they don't make them like that anymore. Imagine, then, my delight when I opened the Sunday paper and saw an advertisement in the Toys 'R Us flyer for--Retro Little People sets! The barn! The school! THE JOY! I rushed to show them to Regis (who, incidentally, was using the facilities and was rather startled when I came bounding in) and insisted firmly that I NEEDED these excellent retro toys. For the children, of course. Regis was, as I mentioned, a bit taken aback, but he readily agreed.

So Abby and I packed up the stroller bright and early this morning, ready to go and find these delightful toys. After a failed attempt to find them on my own, I broke down and asked a customer service person, who directed me straight to a huge disappointment. These "retro" sets are not the toys of my childhood. Sure, the barn set has a sheep and some fence pieces, but they are in the new fat style, and even worse, the "barn" is a commemorative TIN. Like a lunchpail. They basically just took a few pieces from the old sets, replicated them in the fat style (apparently so kids won't choke on them. I never heard of that happening, but I guess the old ones could slide through a toilet paper roll), threw in a crummy printed tin and called it good. My disappointment knows no bounds. Poor Abby will have to wait until we make it back to Grandma and Grandpa's house to revel in true retro style.

Thursday, March 12, 2009

Life's Little Lessons

I made Amish Friendship Bread last night, and after tasting it, decided it was not worth the time and effort.

There's a deeper meaning in there somewhere, but I'm not sure I want to look for it.

Thursday, March 05, 2009


It disturbs me to see shoes that I wore in the 'eighties on sale for $60. Particularly if those shoes are moccasins of a virulent hue. Like these.