It is a subject on which I frequently dilate and have confidence in so doing, but the thought of being on camera mortifies me- can you say extremely nervous? Yesterday I attempted to watch the show and my stomach got queasy just thinking about being up there.

I have set up some security safety nets for the identity protection of my family. E jokingly told me this was her vicarious "big chance" and that I just needed to take along a glossy 8x10 of her, look right into the camera, and give her contact info and theatre history. In serious thought about doing this, I came to several conclusions: 1) There is a paradigm that when a woman opts to care for the child(ren) that she conceived, delivered, and is ultimately responsible for "full-time" (i.e. no other "care giver"), that she must lose her identity in doing so. Why do we think this way and what has contributed to this archetype? I am certainly not the beau ideal, but I think that we need to look for the windows and doors in a room instead of seeing the walls. 2) The thought also prevails that the women who choose to be home full-time have wealthy husbands that provide the measure needed to be there. I don't deny that can be true in many circumstances, but I have found it to be the exception, not the standard. Many women give-up the pursuit of driving new cars, having custom built homes, new furniture, designer clothes, name brand grocery/household products, power lunches, reward trips to Hawaii or Cancun. R and I made the decision and then acted. The principle decided the action. We could wait for those things, but felt that instilling our values and world view, taking the most malleable time of our children's lives, could not wait; would not be put off or allowed a paltry three to four hours a day, plus weekends.

Why not take my wonderful, unique self and instead of pouring it into a company whose ultimate goal is to be profitable for the shareholders, or if a private company, one person/family, and disembogue my greatest energies into the souls of four permanent human beings? When I choose to "stay-at-home" I sacrifice my potential career, and at what cost? Delayed monetary gain? When a woman chooses a career, what is she choosing to sacrifice for it? And at what cost?

I am not saying that a woman cannot be a good mother should she decide to pursue a career while she has young children. But, your children only have one mother. You only have this opportunity to be with them. Is it hard? You bet. Exhausting? Absolutely. Regrettable? Momentarily. Redoable? Sorry, no.

Opportunity passed along from Jo, via Nathan. Thanks....I think?

« Hide the rest of The Big News

I'm glad you were able to make contact and get on the show. I hope it works out well.

...why they don't care about homeschooling fathers is beyond me...[grumble, grumble, moan, complain]

Congrats Rae. Cheryl and I had this discussion so often. We have done it both ways, and despite the media's efforts to equivocate between working moms and stay-at-home moms, there really is no comparison. Cheryl often said she was thankful for her disease, because it made it easier for her to stay at home and be with her child(ren), and for us as a team to support it.

Kewl!

Wow Rae congrats!!!! I hope you do well, Ahh what am I saying, you will do great! You have always liked a good debate and I will surely tune in when it airs. Congrats again. Love ya, Sally

I know you will do GREAT!

That's outstanding!

And to think we knew ya when. . . ;)

Wow! You will be fantastic! I know you say that your tounge gets you into trouble sometimes, but you have a gift of being able to speak your mind and argue well. I on the other hand have a difficult time trying to figure out how I feel much less communicating it to someone.

Aren't you even going to mention that by "participate in the Larry Elder Show" you're actually in seat 10 of row G in the audience? ;-)

I'm so happy someone is going to bat for staying home and bringing up kids - like traditional mother's once did - like my mom did for me. I wrote about this same thing in my blog.

http://underdogpov.blogspot.com/2005/02/women-of-greatest-generation.html

I also write about working hard to be like the greatest generation - the people who survived the depression and won WWII.

But I lost readership because no one wants to read about working hard, or being responsible.

I'm just so glad I happened upon this website today. It restored my faith!

Thank you and good luck in L.A. Wish I could join you! I fear you may be alone in your opinion. But my prayers are with you.

This is just too cool! Just remember deep breathing exercises before you go on. Helps a lot. Once on and talking, focus on talking to the host as if you were having a conversation in your living room. Remember to try and smile. People not use to being on camera tend to have a what looks like a dour face. You can even deep breathe onstage, just make it subtle so people can't tell. And be ready to have your answers as consice and brief as possible. TV time goes by very fast.

Be sure to really "tell them!" Have a great time and "then" be sure to tell us when it's televised! :)

Rae: Great news ! hope you have a great time at the show.

Thank you all :D

And thanks RWS for the tv tips. I was just trying not to give-in to wretch from nervousness.

It is strange to think that she is doing this. Please pray for her safety and effectiveness in the message. These talk shows can be brutal.

Im suppose to be on the show Friday...deciding tomorrow..Ive been on Donahue and a few others years ago and swore Id never go on again..Never say never....any tips..hardly watch the show....Don't know him well...whats the audience like....hopefully not like Springer..or I won't show..let me know ...on both please..I got very nervous too on Donahue but it was a good high!
Thank You So Much...sorry it was about all me!!!!!
Mark Anthony

1) I can trust my drop-dead-gorgeous daughters to be in the same room with him. Men who can be trusted when away from their wives can be trusted not to remarry a wealthy divorceé with a wicked tongue when the wife dies; live off of tax-payers money and deny them the privilege of investing for their own retirement while parasitically living off of it themselves; or to lose their spine when fearful of how their answer will be received by whomever is listening.

2) I really couldn't care less about Vietnam service. I think it's a tactic used by the John-John's to detract from Kerry's more important record of service (or rather, lack thereof) to this country: his voting record while in the Senate and participating on Senate committees. Attempting to skip the country to avoid serving wasn't why I didn't vote for Bill Clinton, in either election. And John Kerry's attempt at deferment; denial of it; the refuge he sought in the Navy; or the eight weeks of in-country service rendered; nor the wounds he received will be what makes me not vote for him.

3) George W. Bush going into the National Guard (forged document supporters read this) is just as honorable as John Kerry going into the Navy. So what if H.W. asked a friend to speak to a friend to get him in and keep him away from Vietnam? Isn't that what Bill Clinton did? And isn't it what numerous other Democrats did? It isn't limited to partisan politics, so stop making it seem like it is. (Hello? What were the responses in the '92 election when this very subject was brought up by Republicans to Clinton?)

4) Let me just say this now: if someone comes onto my property, sets fire to my home, kills my children and my husband, I don't want to have a "sensitive talk" with said person(s). I want swift justice. What? The evidence shows that Iraq wasn't involved? O.K. Let me say this then: if my neighbor is beating the crap out of his wife and children; cutting off their fingers and limbs; killing the pets; I won't watch, wring my hands, and think it to be "none of my business. " M'kay?

5) George W. is the man to get the job done, here and abroad. He did what he said he would do in his last campaign (Clinton even acknowledged it). He met our enemies full force. He made the valiant decision to attempt to liberate a people crushed under the very one to whom they should have been able to look to for protection and thus showed that the United States is committed to the welfare of more than our own backs. He has remained faithful to his wife and because of that demonstration of honor, I believe he will be to me, my daughters and grand-daughters (men, too, but this one is for the uber-fems). I don't care who you are, if you can't be faithful to one woman (repeatedly), how can you be to a nation of them? He can laugh at himself. If you can't laugh at yourself, you can't really be laughing at anything or anyone else.

6) Last thing: I can't stand the sound of John Kerry's voice. "W" may stumble, but he at least has inflection and doesn't drone. Just to make it understood that this isn't a partisan thing, while I didn't personally care for President Clinton's politics, I cannot deny he was a true orator and powerfully persuasive speaker. Sorry, the same just can't be said for Mr. Kerry.

7) Finally, I am voting for Mr. Bush because, even if he doesn't win, I will be able to live with myself knowing that I voted my conscience, not my political association. Let it be known; however, that should Kerry-Edwards win, I will be respectful and pray no less for their presidency than I am now of our current administration. The office and responsibility must be supported and respected whether I disagree or dislike the politics or the politician.

« Hide the rest of For the Record

Thanks! Nice post..

I trust W!

I do not trust Kerry.

It's that simple for me, which is why I will vote for Bush.

I'm ashamed to say, while I do pray for Bush regularly, if Kerry wins the election and becomes president, I will feel convicted to pray even harder!

'George W. is the man to get the job done, here and abroad. '

I dont see how this can be supported. Since Bush's infamous 'bring them on' comment of last year, 812 American soldiers have died and over 6000 have been wounded, according to the Pentagon. Insurgency in Iraq is on the rise, and Bush has no plan whatsoever to pull out of Iraq. He has created a lot of International disrespect for the United States, which is a great shame, considering the world were united behind the US after 9/11.

The domestic record isnt much better. Hes spending huge sums of taxpayer money in Iraq, much more than initially planned. Hundreds of billions of dollars. As nailed by Professor William Nordhas of Yale University:

'Like a teenager who gets further in debt on a credit card, the Bush administration is racking up costs that will have to be paid in the future in higher taxes or lower government programs. '

On the home front, Bush has also run up the biggest deficit EVER, and in correlation to him coming into power, job losses have increased annually. This is just the tip of the ice berg here.

Im sorry for dissent, im not playing devils advocate.......it just puzzles me when people say Bush is the man for the job, when he has made such a mess of things at both home and abroad.

Well, hello, FC!

Hmm, well, in comparison with John Kerry, who claims to be able to know how to run the country when he couldn't even keep his commitment to show up and/or vote on issues that affect the American people and the military, and can't maintain a constant, I maintain my statement: Bush is the man to get the job done, here and abroad.

War costs money and lives. The men and women of the military know that when they sign the contract they are making a binding agreement to put their lives in danger with the possibility of losing life or limb. I do not say this lightly. My husband served in the USMC during Desert Storm. I did fear for his life, but he was ready to do what he had been trained to do; was ready to give his life or lose an arm for the purpose of liberating the Kuwaiti people from Sadaam. I know what it is like to live with the thought of never seeing someone whom you love to the marrow and soul of your being. I would have mourned his death, but never blamed the government. He knew what he was doing and was ready to do it.

I think it easy for liberals (which truthfully, FC, while not an American citizen, this is what you would be if you were one) to criticize war (is there one that they have actually supported?) while living generously from the benefits of it.

Anyway, I know your stance, you know mine....:)

I can see some reasons WHY people are backing Bush in '04, mostly his tough stance etc....but it baffles me when people say hes the man to get the job done, when he has failed to do so in Iraq, and at home.

Out of the 2 candidates, at least one isnt in denial over the state of Iraq, and we all know who that is. Bush maintains Iraq is going his way, when the Pentagon states that it isnt.

'War costs money and lives. The men and women of the military know that when they sign the contract they are making a binding agreement to put their lives in danger with the possibility of losing life or limb.'

What im saying is, after arrogantly saying 'Bring them on,' thousands of service men and women have died or been injured. A lot of the reasons behind this war have been debunked, mostly notably the whole 'Iraq was a threat' thing. He rushed into this war, and now who knows when hes going to get out? He hasnt outlined any plans. The insurgency at best will stay at its current level, or at worst get even more advanced and plunge Iraq into total disarray.

'I think it easy for liberals (which truthfully, FC, while not an American citizen, this is what you would be if you were one)'

I take no offense to being called a liberal.

'(is there one that they have actually supported?) '

Im not a pacifist. I support war when it is necessary. I feel it wasnt. Dont forget my country is in on this mess also. What it boils down to is........the war is not being won. Innocent Iraqi's, coalition soldiers, and western contractors are dying everyday. Bush's pretty picture of a war totally under control is an illusion. Its also an illusion to say the war has anything to do with US interests (aside from oil contracts maybe?)

'while living generously from the benefits of it. '

How is this so? I certainly dont see any benefit from the war in Iraq.

FC, I didn't imply that to be a liberal is bad; not at all. I was trying to delineate that if a citizen of this country you would definitely fall into that "category" so to speak.

Also, another clarification: it is known that most of those who call themselves liberal will back a president of their party if he decides to bomb or agrees to have our troops participate in U.N. peacekeeping missions, or heck, if he wanted to engage in all-out war, they would find a reason to support him (I supported Clinton in Bosnia, btw, something not many of my conservative colleagues did). I meant that while decrying all the terrible things of war, it seems they refuse to acknowledge that death, pain, dismemberment, suffering, etc are part of a war for the liberators and the liberated. Why is the focus solely on the casualities of this war and not on the many more thousands who died on Sadaam's regime? Why are those Iraqis who support this war, not taken seriously or listened to? Why not admit that perhaps, at the cost of American lives, but far less than average Iraqi citizens over the past 25 years, some good has been done?

Those who decry war as bad and point out death as the reason forget the deaths that occured to secure the very freedom they themselves enjoy: freedom to peaceable assembly; the right to bear arms; the right to petition; to a jury of peers; innocent until proven guilty; freedom of speech; the right to persue the religion of one's conscience. The early years of this country were bloody, devasting, difficult. Why can't that be recognized? Why aren't the parallels seen? In the establishment of any country seeking freedom from oppression, lives are lost. Mayhem, death, insurgents exist. This is not unique to Iraq. The history of your country and my own exemplifies how the fight for freedom is fraught with mistakes, death, dissent.

I have conceeded numerous times that there are other countries in which I think the U.S. should also be involved (Sudan, Zimbabwe, etc) where the people have no strength from which to draw; nowhere to turn for help or relief. NO ONE was attempting to help Iraq. NO ONE!

I think there are times when you make the best decision possible with the information you have at the moment. There are some decisions that by nature require immediacy in action. This was one of those.

Yes, you are right. Death is happening, but the number of deaths in a war does not connotate victory. If that were accurate, we could easily say the Civil War World War's I and II were lost.

Have you read my post on Robert Kaplan's Five Days in Fallujah? How about Lt. Col. Bellon's letters-- the man is there.

'Also, another clarification: it is known that most of those who call themselves liberal will back a president of their party if he decides to bomb or agrees to have our troops participate in U.N. peacekeeping missions'

Ironically, Iraq's breaking of US resolutions was one of America's reasons for going to war. The US broke the law by invading Iraq, and broke the treaty signed by Harry Truman. Kofi Annan has explicitly stated this invasion was illegal. It is known most of those who call themselves conservative are against UN humanitarian missions, but all for wars with nothing to do with national security.

' I meant that while decrying all the terrible things of war, it seems they refuse to acknowledge that death, pain, dismemberment, suffering, etc are part of a war for the liberators and the liberated.'

The point is, Bush claims the war is going his way. It isnt. He said 'bring it on,' and thats exactly what the insurgents did. The insurgency is rising, and shows no sign of going away. The coalition is barely in control of Baghdad and Basra, let alone Fallujah. Im not sure if you are aware, but an American was beheaded today. Another American and a Brit captured at the same time are next. Terrorist groups like this capture western contractors virtually at will.

'Why is the focus solely on the casualities of this war and not on the many more thousands who died on Sadaam's regime?'

I never condoned Saddam's regime. Just because Saddam was a nasty piece of work, doesnt mean im going to condone nearly 15,000 innocent deaths in Iraq, and tens of thousands injured. This isnt liberation. Would you feel liberated if your kids were blown up, then called 'terrorists' by the 'liberators?' Just last week a residential area was hit in Fallujah. The military claimed to have killed 60 foreign fighters, despite the fact that 17 killed were kids, and 8 were women. A dozen or more homes were destroyed out right.

'but far less than average Iraqi citizens over the past 25 years, some good has been done?'

I dont call the current situation 'good.' The majority of Iraqi's despised Saddam. This doesnt mean they welcome the coalition.

'The early years of this country were bloody, devasting, difficult. Why can't that be recognized?'

I recognize this. What i dont recognize is ANY parralels with this unjust war.

'I think there are times when you make the best decision possible with the information you have at the moment. There are some decisions that by nature require immediacy in action. '

This situation did not require immediate action. Saddam's regime was not a threat, and this has been proven. Saddam had nothing to do with Al Qaeda or 9/11. After this invasion, how many angry young men do you think have been driven into the arms of terrorists? This invasion has ESCALATED international terrorism.

'Yes, you are right. Death is happening, but the number of deaths in a war does not connotate victory.'

True, it doesnt connotate victory. But what it does connotate is a situation out of control. In July last year, Bush was THAT confident he said 'bring them on' to the insurgents. 'Bring them on' to the terrorists. Now we are still stuck in Iraq with no plan to get out, and deaths on every side amounting. I wont be surprised if i see a newsflash tommorrow informing me the British contractor Kenneth Bigley has been executed, in the wake of Eugene Armstrong's death today. This is a terrible, terrible thing....and its not getting better....

'How about Lt. Col. Bellon's letters-- the man is there. '

I have read a couple with interest.

FC, did I not say that I supported President Clinton's actions in Bosnia? Did I also not say that I think that we should be actively involved in doing something in Sudan and Zimbabwe and several other places?

And the whole "Kofi Annan declares the war illegal" thing? I like Jeff's thoughts.

'And the whole "Kofi Annan declares the war illegal" thing?'

You dont have to take Kofi Annan's word for it. Brisk over the UN charter that the US voluntarily signed up for. The invasion of Iraq was illegal on an international level. Kofi Annan never denied the fact Iraq was also breaking UN resolutions, but he advocated weapons inspections, which had a free run over Iraq right till the invasion. And now after, WMD's have failed to be found Israel has broken/ignored literally hundreds of UN resolutions. Should the coalition invade them? As for Jeff's comments, i didnt see the US intervening in Rwanda, it isnt intervening in Sudan either. As for the UN, members states all sent troops to Bosnia, not just America. NATO peacekeepers are now there, and also in Kosovo. Using Jeff's logic, he thinks the UN should put a finger in every pie in the world, so to speak.....when the US itself is actually quite selective in its intervention. The world doesnt work this way.