Kitty Time

Motherhood, babies, life, celebrities, politics…kitty’s claws come out when she’s in the mood.

Paula & Hillary August 12, 2009

Filed under: Celebrities — Wired_Momma @ 11:22 am

Let’s take a minute to talk about two women in the news for two different and important reasons.

First – Paula Abdul. By now we all know that Paula quit her job with American Idol and it’s apparently over a dispute regarding her salary. If you believe the reports, she was earning $2 million a year to Ryan Seacrest’s $15 million or Simon Cowell’s $38 million. Setting aside how absurd these annual salaries are, can you blame her? Sure, we can understand why Simon Cowell makes more, he is the creator of the show. But why is someone like Ryan Seacrest making so much more than Paula?

This strikes me as another example of women being grossly underpaid against men and this woman is taking a stand. Now, perhaps she was hoping the producers of the show would counter-offer with a more similarly priced salary as say Ryan, and it doesn’t seem that is happening – but still – I think what Paula is doing is important and hopefully inspiring other women to ask for more.

Now, let’s not forget that I am moderately annoyed and beyond surprised that I am blogging about Paula Abdul as a female role-model, but then again, some of my favorite things come from the grocery store, so who am I anymore?

Moving on.


I’m sure you’ve all seen her outburst yesterday in Congo over someone in the audience asking her for her husband’s opinion. Sure, everyone says now that student meant to ask what President Obama thinks. Sure Hillary totally pounced on the dude. But now she is being vilified in the press. It’s like this woman can’t get a break – and I generally don’t even really care for her. Would the media pay an ounce of attention to the press if a man responded this way if he thought someone was asking what his high profile wife thought? I don’t think so. He would seem confident and in command for reprimanding someone and putting them back in their place.

Yet Hillary seems emotional and “tired” from her trip. Some pundits are making excuses for her.

Come on. She reacted. She is human. She is the secretary of state and ought to react if someone is seemingly putting her down. I mean, didn’t the Koreans call her a “funny woman” and a “school girl” just like two weeks ago.  The press coverage of her is incredibly chauvinistic and it’s a shame her reaction is over-shadowing her presence in Congo, a country where over 200,000 women and children have been raped in a few months, the most dangerous place on earth for women. That is the real story here people.


Open Letter to the Networks July 10, 2009

Filed under: Celebrities — Wired_Momma @ 1:34 pm

If I had gobs of money like that strange Texas oilman who is always running energy ads, I would take out an open letter ad in the major papers and run ads on TV – mocking the networks for their “journalism” and pleading with them to stop.

Stop the madness.

Stop the absurd round-the-clock coverage.

MJ is dead. He was not super human. He did not walk on water. He didn’t solve the Middle East crisis or cure cancer.  He hasn’t even really done anything remarkable or noteworthy beyond allegedly being a pedophile in what – like 15 years.

Let it go, people. He was a man. He impacted popular culture, he was a leader in making super cool music videos back in the day, he had some great songs. Then he got weird. And guess what, it’s sad that he died and all – but seriously – seriously. Stop. Stop with the incessant coverage. Stop with the obsession over what will happen to his children. What about all the children who are left without a father every day – and guess what – they aren’t inheriting millions and might not even have big families to take them in? Let’s give them some attention instead of the children of a pop icon.

And how about all the news that is actually news-worthy out there that we aren’t getting because of the obsession with MJ. I keep wondering – is anyone beyond the network news and their web sites – as interested in the story? Is there a story? He died. Let’s move on.


Cruella De Ville May 27, 2009

Filed under: Celebrities,Husbands,Motherhood — Wired_Momma @ 7:32 pm

Is it me, or has Kate, made famous for basically having 8 children and being clever enough to lock-in a reality TV show, being made out to be Cruella De Ville by all the gossip rags? Why do we love to vilify mothers? This whole story fascinates me endlessly even though I’ve only watched that show a handful of times. I don’t need a reality show to convince me that having 8 children, including sextuplets, would be a freaking nightmare.

Now, I’ve watched it enough to know that I get Kate; I like her, I understand how she ticks. I think she can be funny but basically she’s pretty much always teetering on the edge of being grumpy and you can see that her head is the next 10 steps ahead of where everyone else needs to be and she is plotting how they are going to get there. I respect her for that. The woman is organized, opinionated, in control and moderately bossy. She needs to be. If she weren’t, we’d be vilifying her for the same reasons we vilify the octomom.

I’ve also watched the show just enough to see that her husband is pretty lazy and basically takes very little initiative but sure does get annoyed when his wife bosses him.  His wife runs that household like a well-oiled machine and best I can tell – he has very little to do with it. Again, hats off to Kate.

So here we are totally enraptured by the infidelity crisis rocking the family – and what do I see all over the gossip rags – headlines like “From Mom to Monster” with a hideously unflattering picture of Kate shortly after she birthed the sextuplets and then today, the kids are now 5.

OK first – no one looks good after they’ve had a child – let alone 6 – so that is just rude to put the earlier picture on the mags. And second, while Kate has a really butt haircut and someone needs to tell her it’s not 1992 anymore (or whenever that hair might have been acceptable), power to her that she’s totally hot now and got her tummy tuck paid for by TLC.

But again, that is immaterial here – she is being vilified on the cover of magazines when what has landed her on the cover of these mags is her husband’s dumb affair with some even dumber (is that a word?) 23 year old child. I mean, if you are carrying on an affair not just with a married father, but a married father of EIGHT CHILDREN who has a reality TV show, you might be one of the dumbest people in the free world. Why would you want to take that on? He’s not going to leave his wife for you, sweetheart, and even if he did – trust me – you don’t want him. He is responsible for 8 kids.

So back to the issue at hand. Why is Kate being cast under the microscope here? In particular, her mothering skills – because her mothering skills have nothing to do with an alleged affair. And furthermore, if he was driven away because his wife was bossy – well grow up asshole – she doesn’t have an extra second of time to sugar coat the orders she barks at you and she wouldn’t be barking them if you took some initiative and did something helpful without being told. My other favorite is the trashing of her because she doesn’t pay enough attention to her husband.

Umm….can the people writing this hear what they are writing? And have they ever spent even 5 minutes with a small child – let alone 8 of them? Exactly how much time is this woman supposed to have at the end of the day to dote on her husband? And is it 1952 all of a sudden? When is he doting on her? Last time I checked, marriage was a two-way street. I have trouble finding time to “dote” (I just puked in my mouth a little) on my DH and I only have two kids.

So again – we are vilifying Kate – when her husband is the asshole cheating on his wife. Is it because women make up the largest percentage of readers of these gossip rags and we like to read about other women? So it’s more interesting to us to read about Kate and everything that makes her suck – instead of her husband? It’s just like the Jenny Anny-Brad Pitt – Angelina Jolie triangle – the microscope is still on Jenny Anny whenever she makes a move and we love to focus on Angie being the “other woman” – but does anyone remember that Brad is the asshole who cheated on his wife?

My other fav criticisms of her are that she has a nanny that she keeps off-camera. Umm…she damn well ought to have a nanny. DD1’s preschool class consists of 8 children and three adults full time – there’s no way just one teacher could handle 8 kids. Why is a mother expected to be any different? Has anyone considered what Kate would do when 6 of the 8 all have to pee at the same time? Seriously – just think about that for a second and then find yourself wondering why she has only one nanny, instead of ridiculing her for having one. I also love that she was criticized for going tanning on mother’s day…..umm…it’s f’ing mother’s day – isn’t she supposed to take a break and do what she wants?

Anyhoo – I missed the Jon and Kate season premiere but will def DVR it when it repeats because there some odd fascination to the train wreck and raw emotion that comes with this situation – but again – it’s really sad because this is a family we are all talking about. I will also probably continue to devour the gossip rags but know that part of it is because I am addicted to reading about how they are vilifying Kate next and I just remain in disbelief.

For those of you dying for an update on the battle against DD2 and her nightly conversations…I am superstitious and don’t want to jinx myself – so let’s just say that it’s working to my advantage right now and when I feel that we are in the clear – I will give you a full report.

Tune in later this week for “Denied” part two…why my mother of the year application for 2010 will definitely be rejected….


Rants March 18, 2009

Filed under: Celebrities,Motherhood,Politics — Wired_Momma @ 2:31 pm

OK seriously – there is a lot to rant about. Sure, I could wax on about Bernie Madoff, his wife’s $2 million worth of jewels the government wants, or AIG and their bonuses and our populist outrage…but really, aren’t Gloria Allred and Nadya Suleman or Meghan McCain and Laura Ingraham more interesting?

Let’s start with the Octo-Mom. She continues to fascinate me. I loathe her and all the people who have hopped on her gravy-train. I caught a few minutes of the Today Show this morning and of course Gloria “Every Story that captures the nation is a case I must represent” Allred was on with David Gregory. Why does this hideous woman insert herself constantly? She is so media hungry and opportunistic – why do we give her any attention? And speaking of vultures circling her prey, how about Nadya Suleman inviting a blog TV crew into her home to record the homecoming arrival of her two babies released from the hospital?

Yet we’re supposed to believe that everything she does is for her children while she invites a dirty news crew and their cameras into her home for the world to see? Seriously?
Meanwhile we have Gloria A. on national TV asking us to give money to this Angels group that is donating time and care to Nadya because we’re supposed to believe everyone is doing this for the sake of these 8 innocent babies?

Really people?

And why those 8 babies whose mother DELIBERATELY became pregnant when she already couldn’t handle the 6 she has? Why should we give our money to them when there are millions of children in this country who also need help and whose mothers didn’t deliberately pursue another multiples pregnancy to fulfill her own psychotic needs.


And can someone please crack the story of Nadya’s obvious plastic surgery above her lip and how she had the money for that one? She parades herself on TV and invites the cameras in – so she’s inviting the criticism and judgement.

And then there is the cat fight between some GOP women “pundits” – over Meghan McCain and her weight – I was totally in the dark when I caught a few seconds of Meghan McCain yesterday morning telling us how she’s not fat…and guess what…she’s not… I read this piece in Slate mag with real interest:

You have to admit, however, it is fun to see the republicans fighting each other because they are usually so well disciplined and only the dumb Ds expose their internal fights all over the TV. Though I’m not sure fighting over weight and age really counts – but it’s still a good read on Slate.


When You’re Bored…. January 24, 2009

Filed under: Celebrities,Motherhood,Politics — Wired_Momma @ 8:16 pm

“When you’re bored, give me a call back,” my sister said to me last night when I told her I couldn’t talk. She called around 6:45pm, I was trying to wrap up dinner for DD1, a feeding for DD2, wondering where the hell DH was, and my mind was drifting towards the two bath times and bed times I wanted to wrap up by 8:30.

Her words really struck me. “When you’re bored..”


When was the last time I was bored? More importantly, when in the hell will I find myself bored again?

Now, don’t get me wrong. I was probably plenty bored the last time I was at work, toiling away behind my desk, but setting aside painful meetings and generally lame time spent at work – when was the last time I was bored? When was the last time you were bored? Can’t remember? Didn’t think so.

So while I faked like I was giving full attention to dinner, I began to wonder, when will I be bored again? 10 years from now? hell no…both girls will be teens….I’m sure I’ll be plenty of things, but not bored.

15 years from now?


But how old will I be then?

And can my sister wait 15 years for me to call her back?


So here I am, kittens, finally back with you…I know you have missed moi as it’s been over two months…and certainly by now you know that I have a beautiful second red-headed daughter who is 8 weeks tomorrow. Time f’ing flies.

And we know we’re not bored (work time excluded).

I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been asked if it’s twice as much work. With the first child, everyone seemed to want to know how she slept (crappy compared to this one), with the second, everyone wants to know if it’s twice as much work. Well, only those who don’t have two yet ask that question.

I really can’t answer that question because it seems too hard to quantify but I’ve given it loads of thought because lord knows I wondered as much before the 30th of November when DD2 was born.

We all know I think mobility and certainly talking are over-rated – so I reserve the right to weigh in that it is twice, if not four times, as much work down the road. For now, here are my thoughts – I think that there is like zero down time now. I used to think I didn’t really have down time but as it turns out, with one, you actually probably have more down time than you realize – it’s just relative because you have way LESS down time than you did sans enfants. Well, with two, you realize how much down time you had with just one because suddenly that down time is filled with other things – like changing more diapers or doing way  more laundry or nursing or wondering how you haven’t eaten lunch yet at 3pm (yet despite no time for lunch, you still look a few months preggo. Life is cruel).

But at the same time, I love it. I’m definitely not complaining but I am not ready to say it’s double the work yet – it’s just more work. And more fun.

I have way more to say – but this is my precious down time and I’ve got tons of other things to be doing – so more later, kittens. Until then, let’s all just be happy that Bush is finally gone and the beloved Obama family is now occupying 1600 PA Ave. I mean really – did that take long enough or what?

Oh – me and a KT BFF had our picture taken with Ben Affleck and he’s unbelievably hot in person. Holy shit…..and tall. A tall, dark, drink of water….way to go Jenny Garner is what I have to say to her…..



I’m too sexy for my…….. August 13, 2008

Filed under: Celebrities,Motherhood — Wired_Momma @ 2:25 pm

Over the weekend, we were enjoying some leisure time on the beach. As we were leaving that afternoon, DD and myself were walking very slowly (she was most irritated that I refused to carry her) and this afforded me the time to eavesdrop, a favorite past-time of mine, of course.

I happened to be eavesdropping on a conversation amongst some little girls passing me by. My best guess is that they were 7, maybe 8 at the most. They were talking about their BODIES. Each of them was adorable and perfect, and like all women, each had a totally different build, tone, etc. One of the girls who I found to be the most muscular and frankly one of the healthiest looking, was really leading the conversation and lamenting over her size and the best times of day to eat and the ideal foods to eat to keep her weight at a minimum. As they got a bit further from me, the conversation turned to the style of swimsuit that is the most flattering for their figures.


They are babies.

I was dumbfounded.


And horrified. And sad.

I wanted to pull them over immediately and interrupt this conversation and ask them why they weren’t counting their change for the ice cream man. I mean – these are little kids.

And then of course, I had to look down at my sweet DD who still lives and dies for the joy of a Popsicle at the end of a meal – and just hope that she won’t be having this conversation so early in life with her friends. Shouldn’t they be talking about puppies and unicorns still at 7? I mean, come on.

Then a KT BFF sent me a link to this article in US News & World Report titled “Too Sexy Too Soon”:

The author not only shares the same shock and horror I felt over the weekend but examines more closely the sexualization of childhood – and how this applies to both boys and girls. As my DD is inching closer and closer to three, she’s just more aware.  She’ll see something on TV and respond to it – I can’t keep her sheltered in the world of Noggin, apparently. Her most recent discovery is “Sponge Bob Squarepants” and I can’t stand it – I try to really limit it because there is no education in it and I really don’t think she can understand that show just yet. But my point is this – how long can I keep her from Hannah Montana? And those horrible Bratz dolls? And half-shirts? And learning about blow jobs?

It’s scary, kittens.

Kids need to be kids.

My stomach is still churning over hearing that conversation between the little girls en route to an afternoon on the beach.


More on babies having babies July 9, 2008

Filed under: Celebrities,Motherhood — Wired_Momma @ 2:03 pm

So this morning at the gym, I was catching up on the latest In Touch magazine and towards the back, found a small blurb on Jamie Lynn Spears. I know this is really going to shock you all – she’s finding motherhood more difficult than she anticipated. She is used to getting 10-12 hours of sleep and now is having to wake up every three hours (she should be freaking grateful she gets three hour stretches!). So apparently her mom is stepping in to help her but vows to not make her life too easy.

OK. First of all, shouldn’t her FIANCE be stepping in to help her? What exactly is he doing in this scenario because I’m pretty sure he had a hand in bringing this baby into the world.
And secondly – why is this buried in the back of the magazine?

Why must we tout pregnant teen “celebs” on front covers and all over the news when they announce pregnancies and announce the arrival of healthy babies into the world – but when reality sets in and life suddenly isn’t all sunshine and roses – the teen learns babies aren’t just chubby cheeks and dimples – but a shitload of exhausting work – shouldn’t THIS be the front cover story? Shouldn’t THIS be what they are covering on Access Hollywood?

How is burying that towards the back in a small blurb actually helping any teens out there?

It seems to me that if this girl is going to get her old gig back with Disney, and she’s going to be touted ANYWHERE as a celebrity and possible role model for other young girls (I cringe even writing that) then she ought to be forced onto the talk show circuit, and put on covers of teen magazines all over the place, talking about the REALITY of having a baby, how exhausting it is, what it did to her body, how draining never sleeping but a few hours in a row is, and how NOT rewarding it feels at first. This is a baby who had a baby. So let’s put it out there for all the world to learn from. No one should care how she’s getting her body back or what her future TV deals are if we haven’t heard the truth out of her first.

In that vein, if anyone else is following the “Baby Borrowers” show on NBC, know that I am very much looking forward to watching the wrath of the toddlers brought on these dumb teens this week. The thing that has surprised me the most about this show so far, beyond how incredibly painful some of the teenage girls are to watch for even one second, is how mature most of the teen boys are. I cannot believe how quickly they stepped up to the plate and really stood in when their pathetic, whiney, princess, immature girlfriends cried because they didn’t want to wear a pregnancy suit or didn’t like being put in their place by the moms, or didn’t like being disrupted at night. Most of those girls are making me sick. Kudos for the boys for being mature.

And finally – two more celebrity babies, born to ADULTS, arrived this week. So let’s re-start the mocking of celebrity baby names we so love to play. What’s with Nicole Kidman’s daughter’s name? SUNDAY Rose? I mean, come the f on, Nicki Kids. Sunday? Think she went anywhere and introduced herself as “Sunday” to see how that goes over amongst mature adults? So freaking stupid. And then we hear the justifications about all the spiritual reasons behind the name and how it’s part of the name of the islands where they honeymooned, and on and on, and it still seems equally as dumb of a name to me.

 I heard on the radio that Matthew McConaughey’s son is named Levi, which frankly I think is really cute, so I won’t mock that. Plus I am amazed at how incredibly beautiful his Brazilian model girlfriend is, each and every time I see a picture of her, so really – Levi is going to be so hot.

That’s enough ranting for me today.