Lumina

You're Not In Disneyland, So Beware the Mickeys

2011-11-21T20:40:00.002-05:00

Today on Facebook a friend of mine posted this:

I wasn't going to share this information but,in concern for all my female friends out there,please,REMEMBER..to NEVER drink a drink you didnt get from the bartender yourself or a trusted friend to go up and grab it for you.I had 3 shots of tequila on Saturday night...Luckily I had a good friend to take me home,when I got out of the car I was fine-and then,blackness-I cant imagine if I had gone out to smoke like Id wanted,alone.please girls,be mindful of who is around you and who is watching..and who so wants to buy you that "drink"I called ER today ..and I do have all the symptoms of the drug.

She states that she feels incredibly traumatized because even though she came to no real harm (aside from ingesting a chemical substance that made her black out) she's haunted by the fact that someone intended her real harm.

I am posting this as a warning to women. This is what evil people do. They slip mickeys, roofies, or anything else you want to call them into a woman's drink when she's not looking. The intent is to make the woman black out or become so disoriented that she is in no condition to protect herself, say no, cry for help, or fight back while being raped.

I had something similar happen to me about nine years ago. I was in a bar, dancing with my friends. I had set my bottle of beer on a table while I danced. I happened to glance over from the dance floor and saw a man sprinkle something or drop something into my beer. I knew immediately what had happened.

Outraged, I confronted the man. He insisted it was a joke and that he had used poor judgment in his choice of jokes. I demanded to know why he would ever think that such a thing was funny. He insisted it was a bad joke and begged me to forgive him. He offered to buy me a new beer.

I countered his offer: I demanded that he satisfy my paranoia and drink the allegedly doctored beer himself. He refused.

'Nuff said.

About five years ago I went to a party with some friends. One of my friends, my best friend, was the designated driver. While the rest of us drank hard she sipped coca colas all night long. Eventually I went home (with another designated driver). The next day I received a hysterical phone call from my best friend. She said that the previous evening, after I left, she was having one more coke before she left the party and the men she was supposed to transport to their homes slipped something into her soda. She didn't know it. She drank the soda. She blacked out. She has vague memories of a handful of men taking turns sexually assaulting her. She woke up in a ditch on the side of the road.

These were people for whom she had, as a good samaritan, agreed to provide safe transportation.

I am not going to waste words discussing the aftermath. That is neither here nor there. The point is, if you are out in public, and you are having something to drink (alcoholic or not), protect it. Guard it. Don't ever assume you're safe. Because chances are, you're not.

Happy Holidays Whether You Like It Or Not

2011-11-18T16:34:00.005-05:00

Another Christmas season is looming around the corner. Thanksgiving hasn't even hit my doorstep and I've already gotten my first Facebook message telling me that accepting anything less than "Merry Christmas" is sacrilegious and anti-American. It is the first war-cry of the season of the Anti- "Happy Holidays" Hypochristians.

Seriously, why are people allowing themselves to get their panties in a bunch over "Happy Holidays"? The term is a positive good-will wish. It is used by people who have thoughtfulness and courtesy for all world religions. It does not exclude people from a wish of good will due to their religion or lack of a specific religion. In fact it is inclusive, giving full acknowledgment to any and all people.

Which leads me to two points:

1. Why would you want to exclude good people from a wish for happiness simply because they do not share your religious views?

2. How does such an exclusion fit within the parameters of your alleged Christianity? Jesus espoused inclusiveness, no matter a person's background (ethnicity, career, history, religion, family, etc). No one was denied his love, even those who rejected his philosophy.

So stop slamming the Happy in the Holidays just because you have a paranoid delusion that the sentiment is part of some insidious war against Christianity. It's not. It's simply an open-minded wish that acknowledges and respects all people of all (and sometimes no) religious faiths.

Now stop your whining and pull that wedgie out of your butt, it looks painful.

Oh, and here's another blogger who concurs, perhaps more succinctly, with me. His argument is irrefutable:

Happy Holidays

I Want to Enroll My Son In Asperger's High

2011-09-30T09:44:00.000-04:00

Some people may accuse me of picking on people with Asperger's. I live with Asperger's. Asperger's is an uninvited guest who shows up for breakfast, lunch, dinner, and all the places in between every day of every year. I know Asperger's intimitely; its trials, its wonders, and its sense of humor. If you can't recognize humor in your life you're missing the point to living.

Dirty Laundry

2011-08-30T09:05:00.007-04:00

Gabe has taken a newfound interest in learning how to take care of himself. He's halfway to seventeen and it's suddenly dawned on him that sooner than later he's going to have to go take on that Big Bad World by himself.

So, in the spirit of independence and maturity, he has taken it upon himself to ask me how to accomplish simple household tasks.

Last week was great. It was "The Week the Boy Wanted to Learn to Cook". And cook he did. Basic things like eggs, grilled cheese sandwiches, and macaroni and cheese.

When Gabe is doing simple day to day activities, such as watching television, feeding the dog, washing dishes, and playing video games, it's easy to forget that he has Asperger's. Then something as simple as the instructions on the mac and cheese box will slam you upside the head, with the brute force of a rubber mallet, to remind you . . . Yes, the Boy has Asperger's! Instructions that seem so simple to me (even a cave man can do it!) become ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics for him. Too many instructions all at once and Gabe's brain starts spinning. It probably didn't help that I, being the control freak that I am, tried to give him more instructions than were on the box: "pour the milk into the measuring cup over the sink because that way, if you spill, you won't pour too much into the pot and you won't make a mess on the counter," "have your strainer ready in the sink while you're waiting for the noodles to boil because that way you won't have to worry about hurrying to do it at the end," "see, the measurements for the butter are posted on the wrapper! Notice how eight tablespoons equal half a cup- but you won't use half a cup today,""be sure to stir the pot occasionally so the noodles don't stick to the bottom." Meanwhile, the Boy was still trying to figure out how to read measuring spoons.

I am still trying to decide if these measuring spoons

will help him or only make him more confused.

All things considered, I am very proud of him for not having a classic Asperger's meltdown in the middle of all this due to over-stimulation.

It's interesting (and amazing) how people with Asperger's can do things like: tell you every detail of every episode of Spongebob Squarepants (but they can't remember where they put their socks), take apart a broken transistor radio and put it back together better than when it was new (but they can't learn how to ride a bike), recite whole acts of Shakespeare (but not understand the plot of a rated PG-13 movie).

But I digress . . .

So this past weekend the Boy asks me to teach him how to do laundry. Wow! I'm on the bonus plan! This is wonderful! What a great kid!

I have him gather all the laundry and show him how to sort it. Sorting things is one of his favorite past-times, and laundry sorting is just as enjoyable for him as is sorting all his video games (according to year of release, favorite to least favorite, maturity ratings, popularity, educational to simply entertaining, color of packaging, etc). Great! So far so good!

Then I have him place all the dark clothes in the laundry basket and follow me into the laundry room. I have him raise the lid on the washing machine, show him how to measure the laundry detergent, and explain to him why and how you set the washing machine for different types of laundry. Then . . . the Big Moment.

I tell him to turn on the washing machine.

Water begins to pour into the tub.

Gabe's eyes grow large.

I chose this image because: (A) Gabe loves owls and can

tell you anything you ever wanted to know about them;

and (B) this is pretty much the expression on his face

when the water began pouring into the washing machine.

"Uh, Mom, is that supposed to happen?"

(I'm thinking to myself, "I have done laundry around this boy for years, I know he can sometimes be oblivious to his environment, but surely this is no revelation to him?!")

(I am wrong.)

"Yes, Gabe. How do you think the clothes get clean?"

"But, Mom, won't the water ruin the clothes?"

Ruin? How?

"No, Gabe. The water washes out all the germs and dirt and stains and makes the clothes clean."

Dramatic pause.

"Okay. If you say so."

Yes, Gabe. I say so. Because I have been washing your clothes for almost seventeen years with water and they always, amazingly, seem to come out clean and . . . non-ruined.

We go back to whatever we were doing before we started the laundry (for me this means reading blog posts in Feministe or Pharyngula . . . or, more apropos for this experience, Moms Who Drink and Swear; for Gabe, this means hand counting the number of pages in the book he's about to read before he begins reading it- including those blank pages they put in the front and back of the book).

Eventually, the washing machine finishes its job and I call Gabe back into the laundry room.

"Now you're going to take all the clothes out of the washing machine and place them in the dryer."

"But, Mom, they're wet!"

I do my typical Asperger's Mom's count-to-ten.

"Yes, Gabe, I understand you have texture issues but you need to get over this. You can't expect other people to do your laundry for you your entire life." (Asperger's people often can't abide certain textures: the feel of paper, cotton balls, seams of clothes, anything damp, or squishy, etc.)

"No, Mom, I don't care that they're wet. I'm just asking . . . um, is it okay to put wet clothes in the dryer?"

Now I do the not-oft employed Asperger's Mom's count-to-twenty (mostly so I don't laugh out loud in front of him).

"Gabe, why wouldn't I put wet clothes in the dryer?"

"Because, um . . . it will break the dryer?"

"Gabe, why do you think this machine is called a 'dryer'?"

He pauses to think.

I do so love these precious moments.

"Oh! That's so cool!"

Then it's on to the discussion about the importance of fabric softener sheets (which turns into a flurry of scientifically based questions regarding static and fabric softness for which I'm hardly qualified to answer). Really, I can't just say, "There are magic static fighting fairies in the fabric softener sheet!" Why not? Because Asperger's kids, though often quite gullible, aren't that gullible.

The rest of the laundry-doing instruction goes quite well. Folding laundry makes him happy. He loves to sort the clothes based on to whom it belongs, largest pieces to smallest, and color schemes. Oh, happy Gabe.

All bets are off on tidiness and

symmetry once it reaches his room.

Did I Do That?

2011-08-04T09:46:00.010-04:00

Do you know what I like about Blogspot? I like that I can go into my stats and see:

How many people are viewing my blog (on a daily, weekly, monthly and all-time basis).
What operating systems my viewers are using.
How people are arriving at my site.
Where these people are located globally.
Which blog posts are being read the most.

And most importantly:

While searching for information, what keywords people are using that lead them to my site.

So imagine my surprise this morning, while reading my stats, when I discovered what keywords are leading readers to click on my post Transformer 3: Michael Bay's Wet Dream for the Male Masses. Let me tell you, looking back on it, I realize my naivete and I am feeling quite sheepish.

Fortunately, no one used "wet dream" as a keyword to find my site. At least not yet. A little surprising, considering I've set myself up for it in my ignorance. Unfortunately, "leaking pussy" is the champion keyword for a lot of people who found my post.

Never in my wildest dreams (none of them "wet") have I considered writing a piece about "leaking pussy". Yet, somehow, a lot of people who are curious about "leaking pussy" have found me. My only consolation is in imagining their surprise when they actually arrived at my blog and saw that my main content emphasizes feminism. Bwahahahahaaaaa!

I'm sure these pervs would like to imagine that I set them up for it on purpose; that I misled them. In my defense, if you actually look at my labels (or keywords) under the post you will see the following list: Transformers, Frances McDormand, Michael Bay, misogyny, Rosie Huntington-Whitely, Shia LeBeouf, Megatron, Decepticon. And I am really doubting there are many people who are searching the internet for Transformers-related media under the search term "leaking pussy" (a term I never once used in my actual post).

So if you're one of the pervs who found my page by accident while perusing the internet for slippery squack I have only one thing to say to you:
I hope you took the time to read through the entire post so that you were able to take in the bit about menstruating robots. Because that's as close as you're going to get to your preferred subject on my blog. Next time be sure, when typing your search words, to include whether or not you're looking for a human vagina as well as what type of fluid discharge you prefer.

Demonizing Daddy and the Alienation Invasion

2011-08-02T16:00:00.008-04:00

Today I'm going to write about something much more personal. It's a lightning rod, so put on your big girl panties and brace yourself.

Before I begin:

Disclaimer: I know that one answer is not always the best, just as I know that not all scenarios are the same. I understand that the issue of which I am about to discuss is multi-faceted and contains many shades of gray. I also understand that a vast number of people have their own story- or side of a story. This is not your story. It's mine. So please do me a favor and don't play devil's advocate. Just . . . listen.

As a long time feminist I have spent a great deal of time and energy snarling at dead-beat dads and demonizing men of divorce-torn families with children as casualties of war in the fight to "win". Yet, simply by existing and living through experience, I have had my eyes opened to my flaws and have learned that not all stories are one-sided, one side can never be always right, and that women can be just as evil as men . . . just as men can be just as innocent as women. Because the truth is, we are all human; flawed, struggling, adapting, and feeling human beings. Gender does not guarantee an ethical standard and stereotypes are dangerous.

That being said, I'm ready to get my gripe on.

I believe I have only mentioned in one previous (and brief) post that I am a stepmother (I am a biological mother as well . . . but that is a different story). My husband dearly loves his children and works hard to make sure they're provided for. We moved to the city in which we now live in order to be closer to his children (we are located within twenty minutes of their home). Yet despite the close proximity we seem to see them less and less every month. Now, three years later, they hardly want to see us at all. They have more important things to do than spend time with daddy.

We have gotten reports from the children that mommy says bad things about daddy, or that when the children say bad things about daddy mommy agrees with them and eggs them on.

We have offered to take care of the children during the summer months while mommy works (during daddy's time off) but they'd rather stay home alone than spend any time with us.

And here's another stinky factor: they think we're boring. Daddy doesn't have a lot of money because he spends a lot of his earnings on child support payments. Not that we're griping. My husband is working 60 hour weeks to make sure his children are provided for and does so gladly . . . But because we can't play SuperDad and take them out shopping, to restaurants, and other entertainment . . . we're boring. We've tried taking them fishing, to free events, making up family entertainment, etc . . . but it's just not the same as it is at Mommy's.

It seems a shame to penalize Daddy for being boring because he's broke when so much of his income goes toward taking care of them. Of course, being children they don't understand that. They just can't make the connection. And trying to explain it to them will only further traumatize minds that are already struggling to come to grips with the reality that Mommy and Daddy are divorced and now who is this crazy lady Daddy married?

So here is the current conundrum: Daddy gets one solid week of summer visitation (as per the Parenting Plan- the Divorced Parent's Bible). The children were busy with camps and other activities from June through July. My husband was promised a wide open August to schedule as he pleased. So we waited. The only thing we pointed out to the biological mother was that our anniversary falls in the middle of August so we wouldn't be available on that particular weekend. The children start school on August 22, which nibbles down the window of opportunity a little.

First of all, at the end of July the mother told us that she'd planned a three day camping trip with the children for the first weekend in August. She offered us a window of opportunity for the one week visitation that fell right in the middle of our anniversary. Okay, I'll play Pollyanna. Maybe she forgot. We were ready to accept a five day visitation so as to avoid squabbling with the kids in the middle. Then, the week before said camping trip, their mother informed us she'd canceled the trip altogether. With great hope, we saw an opportunity to mend the visitation plan and utilize the full seven days promised to my husband. We asked for August 4 through 11. After a week she finally got back to us (but only after we reminded her of our request and that we needed an answer so that we could prepare) and said that would be fine . . . Except that the oldest and youngest child only wanted to stay for three days, not seven.

We tried to be diplomatic, and we wanted to know why only three days. We felt that if they could give us a valid reason then we'd be understanding and supportive. We also asked that the children call their father and discuss it with him. Our motive for this is that we needed to know that this was the children's idea and not their mother's.

So the children called. It turns out that a family friend was supposed to visit the same week and the children didn't want to miss out. Understandable. These things happen. What if Daddy agreed to take you home (on his way to work, at 7a.m.) and leave you there all day so you can visit this family friend and then pick you up on his way home from work (7p.m.)? Would that be a reasonable compromise. Ummmmm..... uhhhhhh..... nooooooo. Oh, and by the way, stepmom is boring.

So this is the dilemma: children don't always know what's best for them. If we didn't MAKE them brush their teeth, do their homework, and go to school most of them wouldn't. Sure, spending time with Daddy may seem boring now but fostering a bond and a relationship is more important than spending a few days with a family friend you only see about once a year. So do we MAKE them stay the whole seven days? Is it REALLY for their own good? Because if they're here and they're sulky and they feel forced into it that sends a negative message. But if we give up any more time than we already have and continue to allow their mother to alienate us with her games and negative comments isn't that also fostering a negative relationship? Do we let them get away with being selfish only to lose quality time with them and perhaps have them think that we only let them do what they want simply because we don't care about them? Do we let their mother get away with continuing to put us in a position where no matter what we do we are always the bad guys or do we put our foot down, which only compounds the children's belief that we're picking on their mommy? I don't know. There is no easy answer.

And to make matters more convoluted: we just found out today that this family friend changed their plans and is, in fact, not coming at all. The children's mother knew this all along. Did she mislead them? Did the children know? Do we call the children on it and ask them if they have changed their minds? Or does doing so only make them feel more pressured? Or do we teach them accountability by encouraging them to be honest about their feelings?

Okay, I'm done whining. I'll put my big girl panties on . . . one leg at a time.

In the meantime, parental alienation is a real and present danger to children caught up in the middle of a divorce and/or the aftermath of divorce. If you are a separated or divorced parent please take a moment to participate in the following quiz to find out if you are an alienator:

Am I a Parental Alienator?

Please answer unconditionally, YES or NO

1. Have I ever criticized or spoken negatively about the other parent or his/her family or friends in front of my child or where the child can hear me?
2.  Have I ever forced my child to choose between loving the other parent and me?
3.  Do I talk about child support, money, or legal issues in front of my child?
4.  Do I ever limit time with the other parent because I feel I am the best parent?
5.  Do I ask the child to keep secrets, lie or hide things from the other parent?
6.  Do I pump my child to get detailed information of where they go and what they do when they are with the other parent?
7.  Do I ever prevent the child from speaking with the other parent by blocking phone messages, not returning phone calls, erasing email messages, not giving them mail or gifts?
8.  Do I interrupt the child’s time with the other parent by calling too much or planning activities during their time together?
9.  Do I deny my child the right to spend the designated time with the other parent?
10.  Have I ever sabotaged any activity that my child is doing with the other parent?
11.  Do I encourage my child to blame the other parent or to choose sides?
12.  Do I use my child as a therapist or my special friend to share my deep and upsetting emotions?
13.  Do I let my child know that I feel badly when he/she has a good time with the other parent?
14.  Do I ask my child to spy for me while with the other parent?
15.  Do I ever instill guilt, pressure, or rejection of the other parent in my child?
16.  Do I make a contest of how much love, care, and attention the child gives to the other parent and his or her family and friends versus how much attention I receive?
17.  Have you ever made false accusations, such as implying drug abuse or inappropriate sexual behavior to the police or Department of Child and Family Services?
18.  Do I stop my child from expressing his/her feelings whether I agree with them or not? (e.g., love, happiness, excitement, anger, fear, sadness)

"If you answered "YES" to any of these questions, you need to evaluate to what extent you are engaging in parental alienation. Children need to be free to love both parents. If you don’t like the other parent or feel that they are inappropriate for your child, you need to solve the problem without resorting to destroying that child’s relationship with this parent. Your child can make up his or her own mind about how much they love or even like the other parent without being unduly influenced by you. Obsessed parent alienators will stop at nothing to damage or even severe a child’s relationship with a parent. This is a serious form of child abuse where a child is not allowed to have loving feelings for his parent, or his or her extended family and friends. These people represent half of the child’s heritage. Most parents "slip up" once in a while, however, parents who really care about their child’s best interest will do all they can to keep their child out of the middle and allow them to love both parents."

To know more about the above quiz and/or other information regarding PAS, please visit the following link: Major Family Services *

Here is another link to an excellent website offering more information about what parental alienation is, how it happens, the motives and "logic" (or lack thereof) of the alienating parent, what to expect from the courts and child support services, and how alienated parents can cope: Parents Who Have Successfully Fought Parental Alienation Syndrome *

* I am in no way marketing or encouraging the purchase of any products that may be offered for sale on the links I have provided. I have provided the links because I feel that they offer some helpful information about Parental Alienation Syndrome.

August 3 update: The oldest child now states that she wants to take a babysitting job that will keep her busy from Monday through Wednesday. The cynical part of me says, "Isn't that convenient now that she doesn't have the 'friend coming to visit' excuse?" The exasperated part of me leans more toward, "Oh hell, if she doesn't want to come then why make her?" Then there's the principled part of me, "I will not give up. We are fighting for our family here."
Sometimes I wonder who is more stuck in the middle of this tug-of-war: me and my husband or the children? A sneaky little voice in the back of my head reminds me, "The children."

Be Careful What You Ask For

2011-08-02T13:29:00.007-04:00

It is a common predicament of mine to be asked, "Why are you a feminist?"

Yes, I said "predicament". No one gets asked why they are female/male, why they breathe, why they brush their teeth, or why they want (and expect) to be treated justly. So it's a predicament because it's a loaded question. No one I've met ever really asks me just because they want to hear my answer. Mostly they already have a retort lined up and are asking the question as a launching pad to hammer me with their own opinion. I suppose it's human nature though. So many of us ask questions not because we seek the truth but because we have an answer of our own that is more important to us than what anyone else has to say.

I dream of a day when people ask questions because they honestly want to stop, listen, and appreciate a good answer.

There used to be a time when I looked forward to being asked this question. I saw it as my opportunity to enlighten people. I saw it as a doorway in which I could open their minds in a way in which I was an invited guest, rather than forcing my ideals and objectives on others; however, I now know better.

"Why are you a feminist?" is a question that does not fill me with hope that my dream will one day come true. Because, truly, most people are not prepared for the answer (whether they really wanted to know, or because they didn't realize the magnitude of what they were asking, or because they're too focused on their own motive to conscientiously listen to my response). Asking, "Why are you a feminist?" is a little like asking, "Why do we exist?"; it's difficult to deliver a short and concise answer that will fit into the typical human attention span. And it's usually conjoined with questions to the effect of, "Why do we still need the feminist movement?"

People ask, thoughtlessly, without realizing what they're asking for. So when my answer passes the three-minute mark, and eyes start glazing over, I become (to their way of thinking) the fanatic ranter, the hysterical femi-nazi.

Thus, I want to burn several CDs of this presentation and just keep oodles of them on hand for random "Why are you a feminist?" encounters. I'll hand people the CD and ask them to watch this presentation at a time that is convenient to them, and they shall have all the answers they require:

Then again, who am I kidding? No one will ever give this presentation a chance as long as re-runs of Jersey Shore are still being aired on cable TV.

Transformers 3: Michael Bay's Wet Dream for the Male Masses

2011-07-23T15:20:00.004-04:00

It's no surprise to anyone that Michael Bay makes misogynistic movies. So I'm not going to waste everyone's time trying to explain why. I'm not his mommy and it's not my job to teach him better (but I wouldn't mind volunteering).

I went to see Transformers 3 with a good friend of mine and her seven year old son. After leaving the theatre I had the strong temptation to sit the boy down and have a long talk with him about women's worth as human beings (rather than as objects of sex, malice and/or disdain). Is it too early to teach him how to spell misogyny? I also wanted to teach him that women do have the power and ability to save themselves and that, while it is always cool to step in and save a woman who has run out of self-saving options, he should never ever assume that a woman doesn't have any ability to save herself if she does indeed require saving. Also, the sharing of weapons with a woman while in the midst of a worldwide take-over by Decepticons is a thoughtful way to let her know that you think she matters.

The first thing I noticed about this movie was that there weren't a lot of women in it. The few women they had sprinkled throughout the early scenes as extras were all hot. One got in trouble for dressing as a hoochie mama at work. Damn her for being sexy and distracting these men from their "very important jobs". Another got in trouble for using a red coffee cup on the yellow floor (each floor of the building was apparently color coded). Upon being chastised for her poor choice of self-expression she fled the room in tears. Apparently Michael Bay doesn't get about much in the real world, where such abuse would have garnered him a red coffee mug imbedded in his skull. Or maybe that's the whole point: Michael Bay is obviously trying to portray a fantasy world where men rule (and drool) and women are either pains in the ass or else just gratuitous juicy ass.

There was a very small handful of women who were allowed to have "pivotal" roles in the film. I'm still trying to figure this part out as it didn't seem to matter if any of these women lived or died- one way or the other the men would still save the world from alien robots sporting themselves as super-charged vehicles made to buck up a man's small-cocked ego.

Only one "pivotal" character was allowed to be hot: Carly Spencer, played by Rosie Huntington-Whitely, who was chosen ~~for her impressive acting experience~~ oops ~~because she's a Victoria's Secret model~~ oops. Let me try again: who was chosen because of her long gams, quarter-bouncing worthy ass, and a mouth that men believe is begging to suck on something (despite the fact that the lips don't actually ever say any such thing). Funny how her employer gives her a $200,000 car and she sees no problem with it. When her boyfriend (that goober LeBeouf) has a fit about it he's just being silly, in her honest opinion. It's obvious what a good employee she is and of course she deserves this car and has earned it honestly. It couldn't have anything to do with the fact that she's a Victoria's Secret model who's wardrobe requires her to vaseline her body before she gets dressed. Besides, we all know lots of people who have been gifted a Mercedes SLS-AMG by their employer simply for doing their job. Right?

So how was Rosie's character pivotal? It's quite simple. The bad guys threatened to disfigure her face. Thus, LeBeouf has no other choice but to compromise the existence of the entire human race just to save that pretty, lip smackin' face.

But I will give Huntington-Whitely kudos for a job well done: it is hard to be a damsel-in-distress, being shot at and falling out of toppling skyscrapers and still manage to keep your make-up, hair, and wardrobe impeccable throughout. Bravo, HW, bravo!

Believe it or not there were two other pivotal females in the film: LeBeouf's mother, who is a post-menopausal nitwit who just doesn't listen and has only two brain cells: one that blinks on and off while the other one runs around it in circles, yapping. I use the term "pivotal" very lightly. I can't see either way why she's important to the plot except that Bay needs to flesh out how sucky LeBeouf's life is because, ya know, having an Autobot as a best friend and a Victoria's Secret model as a girlfriend is just not enough to make a man happy.

The other female is the iconoclastic Frances McDormand, who must have a rather large skeleton in her closet or else Bay kidnapped a cherished loved one in order to blackmail her into being a part of this puke of a film. Her character is obviously pivotal because what would a movie like this be without a battle-ax to add angst? Don't worry, though. She gets hers in the end when she is yanked into a kiss against her will. Hey, it's the closest Bay can come to anything rapey and not get slapped on the wrist. Cuz we all know that battle-axes are just sexually frustrated women who can be fixed simply by forcing sex on them. Thank goddess for men like Bay for recognizing this, otherwise the world would be in much more dire straights than could ever be possible by a mere Decepticon invasion.

The coup de grace? When HW's character basically tells Megatron he's a pussy if he doesn't get up and fight. Oh what crafty female sorcery is this? Hey, wait . . . does this mean that ultimately it was a woman who saved the world?

The only thing the movie really lacked to complete Bay's misogynist fantasy would be a terrifyingly powerful female Decepticon leaking transmission fluid from her undercarriage. And for that I'm truly disappointed.

Does Kotex make a pad for this?

A Different Philosophy

2011-07-20T15:16:00.000-04:00

It's always an interesting ride in Gabe-Land for me.

He sees things differently. He thinks differently. He reacts differently. And he's crazy-smart when he needs to be.

It's the crazy-smart that makes it difficult to teach him morals, personal accountability, and responsibility.

Case in point:

I got a phone call from his school one day saying that he was being difficult and needed to come home. They were suspending him for a day for having skipped a class.

When I got him home I asked him, "Gabe, your teacher said that you refused to report to your 2nd block class. WHY????"

"Mom," He replied, exasperated, "She's lying!"

"Gabe, why would your teacher lie to me?!"

"But, Mom, I didn't refuse to go to class . . . I chose not to go."

It's always difficult to discipline your kid when half your brain wants to paddle blisters into his butt while the other half of your brain is saying, "That's a freaking brilliant kid!"

Women Deserve Better

2011-06-02T09:58:00.000-04:00

Shut Up and Drive

2011-04-05T17:34:00.004-04:00

Danica Patrick: Men cannot seem to discern whether she's a driver or a hood ornament. After doing some research I can't say that I blame them for their confusion. It's hard to take this seriously:

Not that I have anything against women glorifying their feminine aspect, but in some arenas it just causes more trouble than it's worth, especially if that arena is historically a "No Girls Allowed" venue. Besides, photos like this aren't about glorifying the Beauty That is Woman; photos (like this) are about selling your body for acceptance in the Mens' Club. And once you've done that you've nullified any attempt at being taken seriously by men.

That being said, please don't assume that I'm victim blaming. Nothing can be further from the truth. It's just frustrating to see women set themselves up for the label.

The victim blaming I'm alluding to is connected to an incident that happened within the last month where Danica was forced off the track by another (over-zealous) driver. I don't typically watch NASCAR but my husband watches it from time to time and on the morning after the afore-mentioned event he happened to be watching a sports report while I was still asleep. What woke me up was hearing the words (something to the effect of), "That's not ladylike behavior." I perked up instantly. What? What did she do? To my amazement her unladylike gaff was committed when she stood at the side of the track, while all the other drivers blew by, raising her hands in supplication and frustration at the driver who had knocked her off the track. Really? She didn't flip him the bird? She didn't moon him? She didn't scream and yell and toss out curse words with the linguistic dexterity of a sailor? Exhibiting frustration through arms extended is now considered unladylike.

At this point I want to take you back several years to my childhood. Despite what my children will say, we will not go back to when dinosaurs roamed the Earth. The year is 1982 and I am [omitted for my vanity] years old. I am riding around the neighborhood on my brand new ten speed. A group of five teenage boys block my path and start verbally harassing me. I give back as good as I get. Apparently I say something pretty stimulating because all five boys jump me, knock me to the ground, kick me around a bit, and steal my bike. I limp on home in a fit of rage. Immediately my parents ask where my bike has gone. I tell them my story, not withholding my responses to the boys' verbal insults. My parents call the police. Witnesses are able to identify the boys and soon the police arrive at the "lead" boy's house. About forty-five minutes elapse before a police officer returns to our house. He says to my parents, "We have her bike but we're not willing to give it back until she apologizes to those boys. Apparently she used some very unladylike language with them and they say that if she had kept her mouth shut they wouldn't have attacked her and taken her bike." There is more to this story, but it's all peripheral after that, so you get the point. (I would, however, like to use this moment to give an accolade to my mother, who demonstrated to the police officer where I received my education in "unladylike langauge".)

Victim blaming: If I had remained "ladylike" in the face of ungentlemanly behavior I wouldn't have been assaulted and my bike taken from me.

So when Danica Patrick does this:

. . . it's difficult for men to remember that she also does this:

. . . and having proven thus, is justified in her behavior when she does this:

Never mind that Truex admitted he'd screwed up and it was his fault. Never mind that he apologized. None of that matters. Because Danica Patrick is this in the minds of NASCAR fans:

So instead of sympathy she gets this: Danica Patrick Complains Too Much. And no one likes a woman who complains. Ahem.

I found a plethora of articles about male NASCAR drivers who act like complete buffoons. For example: Boys Will Be Boys. Maybe if Danica had done like Busch, and claimed First Amendment Rights, she wouldn't have created such a scandal . . . Okay, who am I kidding?

This whole debacle brings to mind Immanuel Kant (who makes me want to barf at the mere mention of his name):

If vanity is a fault that in a woman much merits excuse, a haughty bearing is not only as reproachable in her as in people in general, but completely disfigures the character of her sex. For this quality is exceedingly stupid and ugly, and is set completely in opposition to her captivating, modest charms.

To Kant's way of thinking, women are meant to be a pretty diversion for men, who require to be distracted from the burden of serious thought and responsibility. If a woman tries to be anything other or more than vacuous and pretty she is haughty and therefore must be rejected. Patrick bought into it by posing like this:

. . . and is now seen as haughty and unbearable. She complains too much. She is not being agreeable or charming. And now she's paying the price by not being taken seriously.

Please remember, I'm not victim blaming. Consider the words of Simone de Beauvoir:

Woman is determined not by her hormones or by mysterious instincts, but by the manner in which her body and her relation to the world are modified through the action of others than herself.

I'm not necessarily suggesting that Patrick was wrong to show off her "assets". She should be allowed to express herself in any way she sees fit. I guess what I'm inferring is that our social system is so damned screwed up that most people just can't look past the bikini to see the complex being that exists within it's teeny-tiny strings.

And to all those men who vilified Patrick as "unladylike", who feel that she has no business in a "man's sport":

No one is more arrogant toward women, more aggressive or scornful, than the man who is anxious about his virility. ~Simone de Beauvoir

God of Gaps

2011-04-05T12:26:00.015-04:00

This morning I went through my usual internet routine:
1. Check e-mail
2. Peek at (with one wary eye) my checking account balance
3. Update my Facebook status (because if I don't the world will implode)
4. Check out the current weather forecast
5. Make myself current on leading local, national and international news
6. (Favorite part of my internet activities) read new posts from my favorite blogs

Number six is the crucial purpose for my blog post today because it is all about Pharyngula's account of the debate between Lawrence Krauss and William Lane Craig. Particularly of interest to me was number THREE of Krauss's refutal of Craig's five arguments, in which Craig asserts " . . . that the existence of absolute morality gives evidence for God." (As an aside, I must ask where evidence of this "absolute morality" exists, as I've seen no proof of it in the history of Humankind.)

Once again, Christians put the cart before the horse. They rely on the old, "what came first, the chicken or the egg" argument in an effort to find proof for God's presumed existence. Hence the title of this blog post, a most apropos term coined by Krauss himself. Where ever Christians find a vacuum in their assertions, theories, and philosophies regarding the existence of God, rather than using logic to recognize that the existence of the vacuum as proof that there are flaws in the afore mentioned arguments and assertions, they instead claim that this vacuum, this absence of empirical data, is proof that God does indeed exist. So, in a nutshell, what cannot be observed or understood, measured, or qualified is God.

And in a strange reversal of logic (perhaps the crux of my argument that Christians don't have any) Christians expect Atheists to prove the non-existence of God by use of empirical data. In other words, we are expected to observe, understand, measure and qualify the absence of the God of Gaps.

Throughout history people have used superstition to explain that which was not understood; however, as humans have begun to understand the scientific mechanisms of nature we have left those superstitions by the wayside. Otherwise, we'd still be burning "witches" at the stake.

But I digress.

The reason I find Craig's "Argument Number Three" of interest is due to his assertion that God is the bastion of "absolute morality". How can that be? I will not get into the circular arguments of:

1. Humans are imperfect in their interpretation of God's will

2. God tests us

3. God puts strife and sorrow and horrors in our path to teach us Important Moral Lessons

4. Etc., ad nauseam [insert circular argument of your choice here]

Instead I will point out a flaw in the argument that God has morals and point out how the Christian belief of God as Moral Compass is another example of Cart-Before-Horse Syndrome.

My argument is grounded in the theory of morality as a product of the evolution of empathy. To understand the nature-and-nurture process of empathy, please watch this cute little video:

One Human Race

According to the New Testament (or at least according to those who claim the New Testament as proof) God is the God of Compassion, Kindness and Love. Yet, how can that be when there is no other like Him? All powerful (omnipotent), all knowing (omniscient), ever-present (omnipresent) (but especially in the gaps). In other words, not-human. The core value of morality is empathy. Empathy is derived from a connectivity between human beings individually, or as an ethnicity, as a gender, as a nation, as a species, etc.. Despite our vast array of differences and all that makes us individually us, we have identifiers that help us to connect and feel compassion for those with whom we relate.

So how does God relate to us in any way? Because he is our Father? God doesn't have a father, so how would He connect with that assertion? Because we are His creation? That's a treacherous slope to slide on, for even children create things (such as sand castles) and then destroy them, simply because it is amusing. Children feel no connection or bond to sand castles; it's simply something to do rather than be bored.

If we are "other" in God's eyes then we are alien to Him (and vice versa!). As human beings we tend to reject that which we do not understand, we reject strangers (those whom we classify as "other"). It is human instinct. It's a safety measure. So even if God created us in His image it doesn't mean a damned thing because we are still different in all the important ways: we are not omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent. We and God are strangers to each other.

Due to His aspect as the Ultimate Cosmic Power, it is in our hands (and in our desire) to connect with Him, not vice versa. That connection offers us comfort because it makes us feel safe in the hands of what could possibly (and probably) be an all-powerful tyrant. After all, why should He be bothered? Creating the myth of Jesus gives humans the ability to feel that connection. It protects us from having to consider the mind-boggling aspect of an U.C.P., cold, distant, different, and unconnected, indifferent to human feeling. Which proves to me that humans created God in Their image, not the other way around. And human beings, flawed as we are, have no concept of "absolute morality" because morality is that which we prescribe depending on with whom we connect.

Apparently I'm a Sadist

2011-03-22T09:22:00.001-04:00

Holy smokes! I have been so good about adhering to my gluten-free diet. It is so refreshing to not be a slave to my colon. (Did I say that out loud?) No more daily gut pains, no more tactically staking out restrooms every time I leave the house. I have dropped my title and duties as the Porcelain Convenience Warmer. Aaaaaaaaaaah! Why, I feel positively normal.

So why did I do it? Why did I cheat? I have so many excuses . . . and that's all they are: excuses. Humans have a funny way of forgetting pain and trauma once they've been far enough removed from it via time. Therefore, it all comes down to this: I was feeling great, we had a lot of upheavals happening all at once (albeit positive upheavals), I slacked on my discipline in exchange for convenience, I caved to wanton desire . . . and for almost an entire week I ate foods that most definitely were NOT classified gluten-free (flour tortillas, pizza, lasagna, cake . . . Oh good grief, I don't want to admit to any more contraband due to an intense feeling of shame and embarrassment.).

And what happened? My gut tightened up. I started having horrible stomach pains. I started visiting the bathroom with ridiculous frequency. I had to get up two or three times a night just to let the toilet know how much I appreciated its existence. I had to cancel a walking date with my poor little doggy because I couldn't be separated from the bathroom for more than five minutes.

I am disgraced. I am ashamed. I am regretful. I am penitent. I am back on the bandwagon. Because I'm tired of squeezing the Charmin'.

I Got a Virus, and Not the Internet Variety

2011-03-20T15:22:00.000-04:00

I'm just making a little post to apologize for the long lapse between posts and the fact that I haven't posted anything under the Gluten-Free Zone or Monday Media Blitz for weeks.

I have spent the good part of three weeks over-coming a virus. Not sure what I had but it was definitely a strain of influenza. I am not a selfish person so I was very successful in sharing it with both my husband and my son. Ugh.

At any rate, I'm all better now, so let the blog roll!

Rock My Monkey Interviews the Dropkick Murphys and Discuss Scott Walker, Unions and the State of Wisconsin

2011-02-24T15:07:00.005-05:00

Mark Carras, of RMM, interview with the Dropkick Murphys:
Rocky my Monkey interview
(Thanks, Mark!)

Download the song and support public service employees of Wisconsin:

Take 'em Down

Faith vs. Reason

2011-02-09T13:13:00.000-05:00

One Human Race

2011-02-01T12:46:00.001-05:00

I was overjoyed to watch this video clip today. Finally, an informative (and dare I say entertaining) illustration of how empathy works.

Having taken countless college-level courses on the subjects of anthropology, sociology, philosophy, biology, and so many other -oligies there wasn't anything in the clip that surprised me. My problem has never been with my understanding of the mechanisms of empathy, rather it has always been in trying to explain to others, in two minutes or less, what took me hundreds of hours of -ologies to learn.

Here is my major frustration when trying to explain empathy: I am an atheist. Compounding this frustration is the fact that I live in the South. Living in the South is like living in the Dark Ages. Southerners, for the most part, are an ignorant bunch. Now I realize this was a strong statement but please hear me out. The high poverty level, deplorable national ranking in education and central location in the Bible Belt combined with a cultural aversion to change has made the South stagnate. They reproduce their own ignorance and, quite frankly, those who hold power in the South (the politicians, the corporations, and fundamental Christian fanatics) like it that way. Those who are under the hold of these powerful bastions of greed are not fed enough daylight with which to see their way out of the darkness. It is sad, really. I have lived all over the world and have never seen so much rampant ignorance in my life.

So I go about my atheist way, minding my own business (for the most part- after all, I'm merely human), and trying to lead by example. Yet I find myself in the same experience time and time again: someone I have known for an extended period of time (a Southerner) comes to the realization that I am an atheist. They recoil in horror.

They say they will pray for me. Then they ask me that magical question which makes me cringe:

But . . . but . . . how do you live without morals?

Really? Religion has a monopoly on morals?

The first few times I was asked this question I was giddy with the opportunity to help enlighten someone else's intellect. I believed I was about to share knowledge. I did not answer defensively, nor did I go on the offense, I merely tried to explain myself as simply as possible in the hopes that I was planting a seed of understanding in the world.

Silly me, I am in the South. After several attempts to explain how empathy is the driving force of my moral character, that I follow the Golden Rule and treat the world as I would like to be treated, I learned to just shut up and walk away. (As a side note, I sometimes have the subversive desire to tell these people that I sacrifice black cats during a full moon and fornicate with my dog; but I realize that is just my rage and frustration talking and I need to leave those feelings behind me or else I become that which these people believe me to be. Sometimes I hate being an empathetic being.)

Back to where I learned to just shut up and walk away. The reason I have learned to jsuawa is that they do not listen. They are stuck on "atheist" and their minds are too busy coping with the fact that I "deceived" them for so long. (All Southerners assume everyone else is Christian too because, you know, Jews and Muslims and Atheists and other -ists are so easy to spot. You know, they have big noses and beady eyes, or wear a burqa, or have the number 666 tattooed on their foreheads.) They are horrified to realize that they have accepted me in their sphere of gospel-y goodness and are frantically trying to figure out how they missed the signs.

It saddens me to hear so many times, from people who proclaim themselves to be devout Christians, that I cannot possibly have morals if I do not believe in God. Explaining that I believe in the Golden Rule has done more damage to my argument than good. They immediately point out that the Golden Rule is basically the Ten Commandments and that if it were not for God I would not have ever been exposed to the Golden Rule. Trying to remind them that there were other world religions long before Christianity ever hit the globe and that the basic tenets of most world religions are comparable does not even make a dent in their gray matter. Trying to explain that empathy is a cultural and biological phenomenon is the same as trying to communicate with them in Swahili.

What saddens me the most, however, are the people who tell me that they behave morally so they can go to Heaven. Do you know why I behave morally (using the term loosely, of course, because morals tend to have a variable culture-to-culture construct)? I behave morally because it is the right thing to do. I behave morally in the hopes of a more peaceful existence on a planet torn apart by hatred, greed, fear and ignorance. I believe in a reward here on Earth. I believe the reward is a gift and the gift is this life. In the eyes of these people though, people who are blinded by their own ignorance, that is not enough. They have been told, and so believe, that the reward is Heaven. In other words, they do not behave morally for the sake of being moral, they do so for a reward. In their minds, and hearts, they honestly believe that without that Heavenly reward, there is no point to having morals. Absolutely tragic.

And what about all the wars waged in the name of religion? What about all those religious leaders who have been exposed as frauds? What about the fractious behavior of a Catholic Church that is rife with pedophilia? What about all those anti-abortion fanatics who murder in the name of stopping "murder"? Why should I believe in any religion when none of the world's religions have offered me anything but hypocrisy?

So maybe, just maybe, whether or not one believes in a higher being (or beings), we can all embrace our Homopathic tendencies and accept each other for what we are: one human race.

This life is a gift. Every day is a gift. My loved ones are gifts. I am not greedy so I will leave Heaven for those who think they need it in order to lead an ethical life.

Peace out.

Gluten-Free and Feeling Fine

2011-02-01T09:34:00.001-05:00

I have been on the gluten-free diet for one week so it's definitely time to report.

Unfortunately, my data has been compromised by an insidious infiltrator into my lab experiment with my body. I came down with the flu on Friday.

Ugh. I never saw it coming. On Thursday I was fine. I woke up Friday morning and felt like I'd been trying to swallow a hot iron in my sleep. However, despite my pathetic state and an intense desire to shoot myself in the head, not only did I survive the flu but I survived it gluten-free.

My arthritis is almost non-existent and I now know what it's like to have a "normal" person's belly. In other words, no more strategizing where the nearest restrooms are every time I leave the house. The numbing and tingling sensations I used to get in my arms and legs is gone. I can't speak for the irritability and fatigue, or the diarrhea and nausea, as those are quite normal responses to having the flu. I hate when a lab experiment gets cross-contaminated! More importantly, I hate feeling like a petri dish.

On the social front being gluten-free has proven to be more of a challenge:

I live in the South. It's like living in another country. There is no Whole Foods or Earthfare. There are virtually no good grocery stores in this area AT ALL. The nearest Whole Foods and Earthfare are about two hours from here. Furthermore, the grocery stores here don't have specialized sections for people with specific needs, like diabetics or those with Celiac Disease. So searching for food has been a bit tough.

I did, however, find this wonderful website where you can find everything you want and need but can't get locally:

They have bread. 'Nuff said.

Despite all my whining about the pathetic condition of grocery stores in this state I happen to work in one. This leads me to my other gluten-free social "challenge". When I'm at work I am constantly reminded of all the things I am not allowed to eat. If it weren't for sites like www.celiac.com I think I would probably go into a fit. Thankfully, sites like celiac.com and the Gluten-Free Mall offer me all kinds of ways to continue to eat my favorite foods (modified, of course), things like pizza and pancakes. Mmmmmm!

My last social challenge of the week of being gluten-free was that on the worst night of my flu my husband decided to order chinese food for dinner. What could I have? A quickie take-out order turned into a half hour search on the internet to answer that question. Due to the limited options and my flu-induced lack of appetite we settled for egg-drop soup. Once again, Mmmmmm!

Being sick has put me behind the eight-ball. I wanted to discover recipes, buy more ingredients, and expand my gluten-free experience but so far all I've got is the typical rice, potatoes and corn diet to go on. I am hoping that this week will be one of much enlightenment, experiments, and experience with an expanded gluten-free universe for me.

I'll let you know next week.

Oh, and if any of you gluten-free aficionados have any advice or recipes you'd like to share then PLEASE DO, BY ALL MEANS! (And thank you.)

Black and White Thinking and the Various Uses for a Corncob

2011-01-30T13:13:00.007-05:00

So it happened again today. I had another one of those bizarre, frustrating and altogether comical interactions with my son.

Let me just play the scene out for you:

Upon going to the bathroom I realize we're out of toilet paper. I announce this to the house.

My husband (do I have to point out to everyone that he was joking?) responds with, "Time to pull out the corncobs!" To which I reply, "I don't think I want to fight the chickens for those!" (Yes, we have chickens, and so should you.)

My Aspy teen looks at me in bewilderment. "Why do you have to fight the chickens for the corncobs? What will you do with the corncobs?"

I take a deep breath, count to five in my head, and then forge into an explanation for him, "Well, honey, in the old days the pioneers didn't have grocery stores, let alone toilet paper, on the frontier. What do you think they used when they had to wipe their butts?"

My son stares at me blankly. Much like a chicken.

"Honey," I say, "they used corncobs."

My son's eyes grow wide. "Really?"

"Yes, dear. Really."

He stares at me for another agonizing second before saying, "I think there are some corncobs on top of the chicken coop."

My husband, working in his office, doesn't hear this whole conversation. The only thing he hears is my adamant response: "GABE, I AM NOT WIPING MY ASS WITH A CORNCOB!!!"

To my husband's amused cackling, my son says, "What?"

And THAT, my friends, is what it's like to live with someone with Asperger's Syndrome.

FAIL!

Prêt-à-Porter?

2011-01-30T12:40:00.000-05:00

What Is the Value of a Human Being? Well, That Depends. Do You Have a Uterus?

2011-01-30T12:13:00.025-05:00

"Tussling Over Jesus" by Nicholas D. Kristof

I could go into a long tirade over why it is WRONG to refuse medical care to a person based on their gender and/or church affiliation.

I could go into a long tirade over why it is WRONG to let Christian dogma trump Christian tradition.

I could go into a long tirade over why it is WRONG to ex-communicate a hospital because it saved a life.

I could go into a long tirade over why it is WRONG to value one human life over another.

But this is just so much easier and I think (sadly) the general public will understand the concept in pictures better than in words:

So when the Catholic Church chooses to denounce a nun, as well as various hospitals, for making the difficult decision to save a mother's life rather than that of her compromised fetus I am left with only one question:

Why is an adult female life of less value than that of a pre-born or new-born child?

After all, she was once pre-born and newborn herself.

Okay, so one MORE question:

When did I lose my right to live simply because I have a uterus?

January 30, 2011 UPDATE:

If we could get our heads out of our asses, turn off Glee, and maybe keep up on current events we'd realize that the "freedoms" the GOP promises are only a promise of freedom from autonomy.

The Two Abortion Wars: A Highly Intrusive Federal Bill

Because they just don't know when to STOP.

February 1, 2011 UPDATE:

I received e-mails today from Feministe and MoveOn.Org regarding the new federal bill we're being threatened with via the GOP. They further describe how detrimental this bill will be to women's rights/HUMAN rights, as well as offer a way that we may each, individually, do our part to thwart the bill. Follow the links:

http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2011/01/31/why-abortion-funding-matters/

http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2011/01/31/dearjohn-standing-up-against-re-defining-rape-and-limits-on-reproductive-rights/

Redefining Rape?

Waiting on Palin to Wag Her Dog

2011-01-30T11:40:00.002-05:00

Palin Doubles Down on 'Sputnik' and 'Spudnut'

Apparently she's standing by her original ignorant statement about how Sputnik affected change in America's race to win the Space War.

Now I'm just waiting for one of her typical bouts of circular logic, a la her claim of being victimized for using the term "blood libel". I am predicting, through crystal ball, tea leaves, tarot cards, and the entrails of a dead chicken, that she will eventually blame Sputnik NOT ONLY FOR THE FALL OF THE SOVIET UNION but also for her further ruin as the best Presidential Candidate of 2012.

The Evil Stepmother Strikes Again

2011-01-30T10:18:00.002-05:00

I am the proud inheritor of three precocious stepdaughters. They are amazing. They are beautiful. They are intelligent. They are daunting. And I love each of them as if they were my own.

Being a stepmother of children who are already half grown up (they range in age from ten to sixteen years) has made me realize an awful truth: I have limited time in which to share my knowledge and wisdom with them in a way that will enhance their adult lives.

I'm not suggesting that they are not already well equipped to tackle the world. They made sure I understood their power right from the beginning. They are strong, and amazing, and intelligent, and daunting . . . Wait, I already said that.

However, I really DO want to help them understand, in a very gentle way, that the world is not all about waiting for Prince Charming, that the Twilight novels are not the Modern Girls' Bible, and that the color pink and small yippy dogs that fit in your purse are not the only accessories a woman needs to prove her status and level of success.

Fortunately for me, all three girls are readers. So I was happy this morning to discover this really cool website:

100 Young Adult Books for Feminist Readers

I'm a smart cookie myself; I'm not going to ram a feminist agenda down their throats (only further corroborating their theory that I'm the crazy wicked stepmother), thus creating the opposite of that which I am attempting to foster. I am simply going to buy them these books, one by one, and let their own brilliant minds fill in the gaps for themselves.

Like the old saying goes, I plan to quietly plant the seed and walk away. Cuz that's how we wicked stepmothers roll.

Illuminati: Frenchy DeSoto

2011-01-28T10:10:00.004-05:00

Illuminati is a memorial page celebrating the lives of extraordinary people who have passed. It is dedicated to those enlightened souls who are a rare beacon of hope in an imperfect world. We are grateful for their efforts, their sacrifices, their passion and their accomplishments. Though they are gone they will always be an inspiration to us. Their selflessness, bravery, tenacity, and compassion are all examples of the human spirit, examples we can live by, thus allowing those listed within the Illuminati to shine on forever.

Adelaide Keanuenueokalaninuiamamao
"Frenchy" DeSoto,
Hawaiian Rights Activist

This first dedication is made in honor of a woman who's grandson is a friend of mine. I only met her once, very briefly, and wish I could have known her more.

From KITV4 News

Tough OHA Activist Had a Heart of Gold

One of her grandsons, describing her as a "compassionate warrior", shared these words with me:

My grandmother Frenchy DeSoto was my buddy, my mentor, and my source of inspiration. It hurt me to lose my mother to cancer 10 years ago and it hurts me to lose my grandmother now. To many she was a political icon but to me she was just someone who protected me, loved me, helped me think, motivated me to go to college, and made me laugh. She always gave to the homeless even when she had so little and she couldn’t bear to see the maltreatment of child or elderly person. Thanks to those of you who are paying your respects and condolences. I've been cutting and pasting your kind words as I am putting together a scrap book for myself and my family . . . Like the rest of my family I am grieving but grateful to my grandmother and I am proud.

“That's metaphysics, my dear fellow. It's forbidden me by my doctor, my stomach won't take it.” ~Boris L. Pasternak

2011-01-26T14:07:00.006-05:00

Ain't that the truth!

It's time to get real, which means I'm going to talk about poop. Everyone in my family knows this about me: I talk about poop. I try not to but it just always seems to happen anyway. I suppose it is a part of me that I should just stop denying. On a psychological level it does make one wonder what the hell is going on in my subconscious?!?! Frankly, I refuse to go there.

So the whole point of this post is that I wish to keep a journal about my foray into the world of the gluten-free diet. The reason for this foray has everything to do with my bowels, which have been in an increasing revolt over many years.

For as long as I can remember I have suffered from IBS. Most of my life I have simply ignored it . . . Until about two years ago when I woke up in the grip of such extraordinary pain I found myself going to the one place I do not ever want to go: a hospital emergency room.

Many pokes and prods and laboratory tests later it was surmised that I suffered from colitis, an inflammation of the colon. Why couldn't I have some graceful or glamorous disease? Why can't I simply tell people I "have the consumption". Maaaaan! Colitis? Really? People don't mind talking about arthritis or benign tumors or diabetes but NO ONE wants to hear about an inflamed colon, not even me!

I was supposed to see a gastroenterologist but quickly put the nix on that when I was told they wanted to perform a colonoscopy. How much degradation could I possibly take? I'm sorry, but getting a tube shoved up my butt has the immediate effect of making me run in the opposite direction. Sorry, man, that's an exit-only orifice. My mother hates when I refer to it as the tube-up-the-ass. She insists I call it a "colonoscopy" and recognize it as a medical procedure. Sorry, mom, you spent way too many years telling me to respect my body and treat it like a temple. There isn't a dinner and flowers out there expensive enough to convince me to let anyone violate my most unholy of holies.

For the past two years I have dealt with the colitis pretty well. Except for a few small incidents I have been pretty much functioning "normally"; however, about three weeks ago I went into a colitis fit badly enough to actually consider returning to the dreaded E.R.. Instead of giving in to this consideration I did what any practical American would do in a time of crisis: I started researching my ailment on the internet.

Here's what I discovered: colitis is not the disease, it is the symptom. Which leads to the all-important question: symptom of what? Half of what I read would have convinced me that I'm going to die. Fortunately for me I am a natural skeptic. Besides, I have already come to grips with the fact that sooner or later we're all gonna die. So I let that crap (ahem!) go. Eventually I found a disease that matched all my symptoms, including ones that I never realized could be colitis related: anemia, fatigue, weakness, IBS, colitis, arthritis, unexplained infertility, diarrhea, abdominal pain, bloating, irritability (wouldn't you be irritable too if you suffered from all this stuff?), neuropathy, pallor, vertigo and voracious appetite.

The sites I covered suggested that one see a gastroenterologist and have the tube-up-the-ass treatment and a colon biopsy to ascertain (I made an ass pun!) whether or not one indeed suffers from Celiac Disease. If one has been positively diagnosed with Celiac Disease then one is immediately put on the gluten-free diet (as the disease is connected to an allergy to most major forms of wheat and whole grains). Upon streamlining one's diet on the gluten-free regimen one should cease and desist having any and all symptoms associated with the disease.

Which lead me to wonder: why would one condone the tube-up-the-ass treatment to find out they have the disease when one could simply start the gluten-free diet to see if any and all symptoms cease and desist? Oh yeah, the medical industry wants to make money.

To hell with that, on top of the tube-up-the-ass (I can hear my mother's voice in my head, "it's a colonoscopy, for Christ's sake!"), I'm supposed to take an enormous medical bill up the ass as well? Like I said before, it's exit-only, baby.

So on Monday (after a weekend of researching what it means to be gluten-free) I started the gluten-free diet. At first I thought it would be tricky. Actually it's pretty easy! On Monday I enjoyed grits with butter, milk, brown sugar, cinnamon and nutmeg for breakfast, complimented with a cup of coffee which contained my typical amount of milk. During the day I also ate a spring-mix salad with cheese sprinkles and a gluten-free dressing, corn tortilla chips with salsa and cheese, porkchops cooked in garlic and topped with sauteed mushrooms in a butter sauce, gluten-free greek yogurt, a banana, and salted peanuts. For dessert I was delighted to find out that my Breyer's All-Natural icecream was indeed gluten-free!

Yesterday was much the same, except we had baked chicken breast for dinner with parsley potatoes and mixed-veggie-broccoli for the sides.

Hey, this isn't so tough at all!

As for my health, I am already beginning to see a change. As of yesterday afternoon all my stomach pain has dissipated. Also, I am back to one b.m. a day (better than the ten I suffered through on Saturday!). Ive also noticed that my arthritis flare-up has gone away and I am now only suffering a slight stiffness and soreness, rather than the category 5 hurricane of pain with which I typically try to cope.

The fatigue is still there, but I have noticed the vertigo is disappearing. My appetite is still voracious and I'm still pallid. I will have to ask the hubby about the irritability, as I know my own opinion is biased.

I am also going to start a vitamin regimen. Hey, it can't hurt (unless someone tries to shove them up my ass, which I would not recommend trying).

So it's only day two but I am seeing results. It will be an interesting journey and I'm looking forward to seeing how much different I feel after a month of this. It definitely beats being anally violated, that's for certain!

My only gripe: I am now required to avoid whiskey and beer. Dude, that is just wrong!

Dealings With an Asperger's Teen

2011-01-26T13:20:00.005-05:00

My son has Asperger's Syndrome. Sometimes it's a challenge, sometimes it makes me sad. Sometimes it's a struggle. It's always illuminating and sometimes it's just plain funny.

Here is a recent conversation with my Aspy-teen:

Gabe, do me a favor, please. Go out and see if there are any eggs in the [chicken] coop.

Okay, mom.

(A few minutes elapse before Gabe comes back into the house.)

So, how many eggs are there?

Two.

Where are they, Gabe?

In the coop.

Why didn't you bring them in?

You said to see how many there were, you never said I should bring them in!

D'oh!

It is fascinating to me how Aspy's take everything quite literally. I have had to retrain myself in how I say everything and anything when I talk to him. It is also the distinct reason I have learned never to say to him, "One of these days I'm going to unscrew your head and hand it to you." The one time I said it (a family tradition of the mothers in my family) I immediately regretted my poor judgment. Oops.

Combine Asperger's with typical teen quirkiness and it's always a day at the carnival.

My son has helped me to grow in so many ways. He has opened my eyes to facets of the universe I would have otherwise never known existed. For this I thank him. For himself, I will always love him with all my heart.

Stupid Girl

2011-01-25T11:48:00.001-05:00

I Want to Be a Good Person But I Only Know How to Be a Gadfly

2011-01-24T09:21:00.000-05:00

Because It Was Earned, Not Given

2011-01-21T11:20:00.001-05:00

Pharyngula: Make Don Mcleroy a Star

Donate:

Because it is wrong to rewrite Civil Rights history as a means to celebrate the "majority" for "giving the minority their rights". Because people fought, sacrificed and risked it all to win the rights to which they were naturally entitled, and for this they should be celebrated. Because history teaches us how not to repeat the same mistakes of the past.

Because every scientific accomplishment was achieved through a rigorous process, not because a burning bush or a large rock "told me so".

Because dinosaurs were not on the freakin' Ark (except the one in Kentucky) and teaching our children this drivel in school is not just stupid, it is irresponsible.

Because Texas makes the largest order for public school text books in the United States which means that all text books in the USA will be fashioned to meet the demands of the Texas Board of Education.

Because this is not a small matter; it affects every child in our country as well as our future as an influential nation in the global theater.

The Tea Party Message

2011-01-19T12:53:00.001-05:00

Tea Baggers keep griping about how they're oppressed. Oppressed from WHAT? After having examined their agenda I can only come to this conclusion:

How dare people oppress our [the Tea Party's] ability, dare we say our RIGHT, to oppress them!

'Nuff said.

Update: apparently Jon Stewart has the same view:
Petty Woman

‎"There must be a word for complaining vociferously about a wrong being done to you, whilst casually committing said wrong yourself with no awareness.
If it's not a word, let's come up with one.
Let's call it an Anchorage Steamer." ~Jon Stewart

What HAS America Become?

2011-01-17T10:41:00.017-05:00

www.examiner.com/christianity-culture-in-fort-worth/what-has-america-become-by-ken-huber-of-tawas-city

I am so damned tired of having this editorial shoved in my face. I have had four different people enthusiastically e-mail it to me and I have seen it pop up on Facebook half a dozen times, at least. Why? The people who post it to me know my political/ethical leanings and yet they still send it to me. Do they read it and, in their soft-brained way, think to themselves, "Yeah! That says it all! I'm gonna send it to Judi, cuz she won't possibly be able to argue against this cuz it's SO STRONG!" Idiots.

This kind of crap scares me because most people who read it don't think. It is just so easy to eat it up, to let it feed their hate and their lack of understanding and consciousness. And it's crap. They're eating crap. And they like it. Did I say idiots? Because I mean IDIOTS. The general response (and I hate to say it . . . the typical response) by most Americans who read Ken Huber's editorial is full proof that the major problem with America is not any one of the issues Mr. Huber raised, rather it is a problem with Americans having lazy brains.

So here's my response:

I don't see anyone tolerating lies from Congress or any other branch of the government . . . except those who choose to remain willfully ignorant. Our government is still under the scrutiny of the people, as evidenced by our constant posts on sites like Facebook, personal blogs, news media, etc.

Disliking anybody solely on the basis of their ethnicity is ignorant and hateful.

The government, while still lacking in perfection, does have a legal system and law enforcement system that spends millions (if not billions) of dollars a year in an effort to apprehend criminals and provide justice for victims. If this weren't so we wouldn't be the country with the most criminals behind bars than almost any other country in the world.

A public school is run through public taxes. Therefore there is no room for God in public school unless it is taught academically as a form of religious study (and counterbalanced by a study of other comparable world religions). If you want your children to learn about God then do it on your own personal time. Is that not why they invented churches? Is that not why churches have bible studies and bible schools? School is a place to learn academics so that one may be able to sustain one's self in life as an adult. Teaching about (sexual orientation) tolerance is not a bad thing. It doesn't promote homosexuality, rather it's aim is to teach people not to be hateful and violent against that which they don't understand.

Abortion is a personal issue and should be left to the person who's body and life it affects. If the fetus you save is that of a welfare mother's you can't rightly complain about those on welfare anymore. If the fetus you save is gay will you still fight for it's rights? Abortion is a moral issue, not a legal issue. Leave the issue alone. It's none of your business if it doesn't affect you personally. Don't believe in abortions? Then don't have one. For more information on my opinion regarding human beings versus zygotes, please check out the following link: pharyngula

As for the execution of criminals: it is not necessarily a bad idea in theory; however, our criminal justice system is set up in such a way that it ends up costing tax payers more to execute a criminal than it does to keep the offender in prison for life. If one wanted to further the argument, one has to wonder how two wrongs ever make something right and how killing someone (who is already permanently behind bars) is going to teach them a lesson?

Labeling progressives as communists and/or socialists is nothing more than Tea Bagger propaganda aimed at getting people's panties bunched up in a modern "Red Scare". If one seriously takes the time to learn what it means to be progressive one can plainly see that there is no communism involved. Progressives are interested in the betterment of the country as a whole, not turning us into Borg. Furthermore, as I said before, it is a Tea Bagger agenda who's aim is nothing more than to raise fear in ignorant people of anything that is not like them. It is exclusionary fear-mongering, rather than inclusionary encouragement. A nation divided is a nation no more. Think about that.

Protesting against the President is always allowed. It is part of the American process. Burning the flag is always wrong. President Bush defiled our Constitution ("Stop throwing the Constitution in my face. It's just a goddamned piece of paper."), ripped Habeus Corpus from us, and removed more freedoms through the excuse of national security than have been won in the history of this nation all together. I believe our founding fathers would be horrified at the way the Bush administration abused and negated our Constitutional rights.

Pornography, whether one supports it or not, is something people can choose to ignore, choose not to purchase, choose not to watch on an internet site. It is not "in your face". A public park is public space provided for the good of all Americans, not just Christian Americans. Thus, if you love a nativity scene, set one up in your yard or enjoy the one provided by your local church (of which there are plenty). No one is saying that nativity scenes are wrong, or that they should be outlawed. Simply present them in an appropriate space. (In other words, just as pornography is not appropriate on PBS, please keep your nativity scene off our public parks.)

Human fetuses are not used for medical research unless they were already terminated through miscarriage or some other unplanned mishap; thus, deceased. These medical uses help us to find cures for diseases and other illnesses that end up saving more lives and in no way torture or cause distress to the fetus, as it is already dead. Animal testing, which is performed on live animals, simply to see if a shampoo will really make one's hair more glossy, or to see if Viagra will really keep a man's penis erect for four hours, is completely unnecessary and solves none of the world's problems.

Though there are those who take advantage of government subsidies (welfare, food stamps, unemployment, etc), it cannot be ignored that we are currently in a national economic crisis that has created a huge loss of jobs and suffering for many. Thank goodness for these subsidies, which keep food in our children's bellies and roofs over their heads. Thank goodness we live in a country that has a system set up in which we can be sure we are providing for our children, our future generation. Thank goodness we are not some third world country that allows our women and children to die on the streets, or in the desert, or in the mud.

Yes we have freedom of speech and everyone is entitled to their opinion. But you must agree that there is a problem with our system when it allows groups such as the Westboro Baptist Church to protest at the funerals of our fallen soldiers.

This editorial (by Huber) suggests that people should have their personal rights but complains that parents aren't parenting properly. While I agree that video games and ritalin are not the answers, would the government control of parenting make you any happier? I doubt it.

The Land of Opportunity has been raped by the corporations, which have bought out our lobbyists, our politicians, our jobs and our rights. The impact by those who accept government "handouts" is pennies in the bucket compared to the billions of dollars stolen from us every year by corporations. Research that before you blame the welfare mom (who you encouraged to HAVE THAT BABY!).

After having read my blog post do you not see the many contradictions in Huber's complaint/argument? Did he at any time mention the economy and the corporate attack on America? Did he at any time mention the environment? Did he at any time suggest anything that would have reflected his claim to Christianity and good morals in the way of inclusiveness and tolerance? No, he did not.

Maybe the government wouldn't spend so much time with committees and would spend more time getting stuff done if people were more vigilant and did their due diligence as regards information. You can write a piece like Huber's, which is full of misinformation, allegations, slander, and hate (really nothing more than an empty complaint), or you can actually do something. Gain knowledge, do your homework, and make an effort for real change. Stop whining like a little prima-donna; after all, one Paris Hilton in this world is enough.

It's easy to read this guy's article and agree with him. We all feel like victims these days and we are all looking for someone to blame. He offers us democrats, liberals and progressives on a platter. An easy feast. What he seeks to destroy in us are additives that we don't readily see but all require: tolerance, understanding, care, ethics, and social and personal responsibility. Like a MacDonald's Big Mac, it takes a lot of mental and emotional effort to step away from that food tray and choose a healthy meal instead. That Big Mac smells yummy but it's full of crap that isn't good for your mind, body, or soul. We have become a fast food nation and we demand everything instantly with very little effort involved for our gratification. Just add water and stir up the masses.

"Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, so must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood." ~Martin Luther King Junior, from "A Letter From a Birmingham Jail"

X Marks the Christmas Hot Spot

2010-11-30T13:04:00.003-05:00

The holiday season has arrived and with it comes all the hyperbole, anxiety, angst, vitriol, propaganda, politics and melodrama over what it's about, who it's about, who's Christian religion is the best, secular vs. religious, and [insert deity of your choice here]-forbid... WHY WE ARE ALL GOING TO HELL IF SOMEONE SPELLS CHRISTMAS WITH AN 'X'!!!!!

My siren of suspicion is clanging violently in my head. It's warning me that these are [this is where I generously give the human race the benefit of the doubt] probably the same people who text so many messages that their every day speak has become:

omg dis blog post s so lamo

we shd ll jstgiv r hartz 2 Gsus n evry1 Ls cn go 2Hell.

Ive 2 go shpg W my bff now. tlk2ul8r!

Or (and?) they are the same people who obviously didn't pay attention in school because they can't tell the difference between their, they're, there and a hole in the ground.

So they are [I omitted the contraction in an effort to avoid confusing certain people] yelling at us because we do not spell Christmas the way they like it and I am yelling at them because I wish to hell everyone could understand basic concepts such as, "this apostrophe goes here, but not here."

Why can't we all just get along? Really. It never ceases to amaze me just how many people out there have nothing better to do with their lives than to chase after the nefarious X. Don't they see what happens when they crucify it? They will have turned an honest X into a 't'. That, in my humble opinion, is the real sacrilege here.

Oh, and if this post flustrates anyone I would like to apologize. . . As soon as I figure out what you mean.

For more information read here:

http://www.crivoice.org/symbols/xmasorigin.html

Happy Holidays to You!

2010-11-20T13:57:00.002-05:00

I've never understood the big deal about saying "Happy Holidays!" rather than "Merry Christmas!". The only people who DO seem to have their panties in a bunch over the issue are the devout fundie-nutberger Hypochristians that seem to be trying to mandate all social, political, educational, environmental, economic and spiritual aspects of public American life.

I, as a self-affirmed atheist, prefer Happy Holidays. And not just because I'm an atheist. I have enough empathy and outer-awareness to realize that there are many people in the world who do not believe in Jesus, or who celebrate other religious holidays that just happen to coincide with the Christian holiday of Christmas. In conscious acknowledgment of these people, and with deepest respect for them, I will gladly wish people a "Happy Holiday".

If someone should wish me a Merry Christmas I tend to be okay with that because I realize that they probably just don't understand the vast array of human religions that occupy the same time frame on the calendar as Christmas. Furthermore, the wish was made from good intentions, so no harm no foul. I can excuse people their ignorance (to a degree!) if they at least meant well.

What bothers me deeply, however, are those fundie-nutbergers I referred to previously. For all their defense of Jesus they just refuse to share the arena with anyone who doesn't believe what they believe. They don't say, "Merry Christmas" because they don't know any better. They say it because it's a defiant in-your-face to everybody who is not like them. But they don't stop there. No, not those rabid Palin-Knows-Best hypocrites. They go one step further: they are furiously insulted if someone wishes them a "Happy Holiday", or even worse, if a business or any other establishment espouses "Happy Holidays" rather than "Merry Christmas". They have no regard for other people's beliefs and somehow think they hold a monopoly on December... a month in which Jesus was never even really born.

And yet, they don't realize and/or care that there are people of other faiths out there who may be offended by their narrow-minded Christmas wish of happiness.

After all, it's not a blessing they are trying to bestow on others, it's a mandate.

Intolerance of others was not something Jesus ever espoused (okay, except for maybe the money-changers) yet these Christo-fanatics are in fact behaving in a very Un-christian like fashion. Thusly, they have disqualified themselves as true Christians, i.e., a religious FAIL.

And in despair I bowed my head
“There is no peace on earth,” I said,
“For hate is strong and mocks the song
Of peace on earth, good will to men.”

Take the poll and let the world know where you stand:

http://www.idahopress.com/opinion/poll_feb86b70-f1df-11df-abef-001cc4c002e0.html

Peace on Earth, good will to ALL... even if you believe in Flying Spaghetti Monsters (maybe even especially).

Being a Bully is Bullshit

2010-11-20T13:25:00.004-05:00

Myrtle Beach area teen suspect's parents: 'If we'd only known'

Read more: http://www.thesunnews.com/2010/11/20/1823443/teen-suspects-parents-if-wed-only.html#ixzz15pat2MtP

Bullying IS a form of terrorism. It is soul-destroying. It is dehumanizing. The motivations for being a bully are no less than those of a psychopath.

The victim of terrorism is emotionally abused to the point of being incapable of rational thought. If the victim is an inexperienced teenager, the outcome is even more debilitating.

The boys that bullied Christian Helms should be charged with acts of terrorism themselves. As well as harassment and assault.

Period.

Laws Are Great... When They Actually Work

2010-11-13T08:53:00.007-05:00

"How Do Domestic Violence Laws Encourage False Allegations?"

http://www.saveservices.org/falsely-accused/how-do-domestic-violence-laws-encourage-false-allegations/

During my divorce, my ex-husband removed all the money from our joint accounts and put them into an account at another bank in his name only. This left me financially destitute (I was a homemaker of 17 years who had, at the time, been a full time college student).

I had no money at all and no family to support me. I was told that I needed to take him to court and the judge would make my ex make the funds available to me (according to the law). The only catch? I couldn't afford an attorney to do just so (because I had NO MONEY)! I tried to call for legal aid but under the following guidelines I was not allowed free aid: we have children together, we share ownership of a residential property, he never physically abused me.

I had several people encourage me to lie and CLAIM he beat me so that I could qualify for the legal aid. I absolutely could not do it, simply on principle (and, to be honest, because of fear of being caught committing perjury) but I could see where so many women would be desperate enough to do so. It was humiliating and terrifying to be indigent, especially KNOWING that some of that money was mine but that I had no avenue with which to exercise my rights in order to obtain it.

As an afternote, when we went to court for our final divorce proceedings HE had an attorney (and I didn't) and I wasn't awarded anywhere near what I was owed (according to state law) simply because I couldn't afford an attorney to represent my own interests.

No Jobs is Good News... If You Believe the GOP

2010-11-11T08:25:00.003-05:00

I just read a blog post by Griper Blade this morning: GOP = No Jobs

We have this problem right here in South Carolina. Sanford refused to take the stimulus money because the feds wouldn't allow him to spend it on what he wanted (he wanted to pay back the big name developers who'd already abandoned the state).

Now the government is saying they don't want to put a much needed interstate into Myrtle Beach, which would go all the way to Ohio (where our biggest source of tourists are from). Not only is this going to hurt our tourist industry, it will nullify the opportunity for thousands of jobs in this state.

On another front, Charleston has one of the best harbors on the eastern seaboard for large ships- container ships and cruise ships. Only thing is, the harbor has been neglected and requires dredging if we are to continue to function as an international harbor. Thousands of jobs hang in the balance. Charleston tourist industry hangs in the balance. Thousands of potential jobs needed to perform the dredging operation hang in the balance.... But our government tells us it's fiscally irresponsible to spend this money on these projects right now with the economy being so tight.

Say again?

Ok, so paying for unemployment, SNAP services, etc, is BETTER for us? Watching our tourism industry (a major supporter of state economics) shrivel and die is GOOD for us?

I guess I just need to leave it in the hands of our sweet lord Jesus, dye my hair blonde and put it in a bouffant, and focus on my soap operas. It's just EASIER that way.... Or so they keep telling me.

By the way, what's happening in YOUR state?

Random Conversations From the Jungle Out There

2010-09-17T11:45:00.001-04:00

www.xtranormal.com/watch/7162091/

Think You Know Your World Religions? Let's Find Out

2010-09-15T08:52:00.007-04:00

A great article which reveals some fallacies with people's general knowledge of religions other than their own.

September 14, 2010, 9:00 PM

The Meaning of the Koran

By ROBERT WRIGHT

Robert Wright on culture, politics and world affairs.

TAGS:

JIHAD, SACRED TEXTS, THE KORAN

Test your religious literacy:

Which sacred text says that Jesus is the “word” of God? a) the Gospel of John; b) the Book of Isaiah; c) the Koran.

The correct answer is the Koran. But if you guessed the Gospel of John you get partial credit because its opening passage — “In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God” — is an implicit reference to Jesus. In fact, when Muhammad described Jesus as God’s word, he was no doubt aware that he was affirming Christian teaching.

Extra-credit question: Which sacred text has this to say about the Hebrews: God, in his “prescience,” chose “the children of Israel … above all peoples”? I won’t bother to list the choices, since you’ve probably caught onto my game by now; that line, too, is in the Koran.

I highlight these passages in part for the sake of any self-appointed guardians of Judeo-Christian civilization who might still harbor plans to burn the Koran. I want them to be aware of everything that would go up in smoke.

But I should concede that I haven’t told the whole story. Even while calling Jesus the word of God — and “the Messiah” — the Koran denies that he was the son of God or was himself divine. And, though the Koran does call the Jews God’s chosen people, and sings the praises of Moses, and says that Jews and Muslims worship the same God, it also has anti-Jewish, and for that matter anti-Christian, passages.

The regrettable parts of the Koran — the regrettable parts of any religious scripture — don’t have to matter.

This darker side of the Koran, presumably, has already come to the attention of would-be Koran burners and, more broadly, to many of the anti-Muslim Americans whom cynical politicians like Newt Gingrich are trying to harness and multiply. The other side of the Koran — the part that stresses interfaith harmony — is better known in liberal circles.

As for people who are familiar with both sides of the Koran — people who know the whole story — well, there may not be many of them. It’s characteristic of contemporary political discourse that the whole story doesn’t come to the attention of many people.

Thus, there are liberals who say that “jihad” refers to a person’s internal struggle to do what is right. And that’s true. There are conservatives who say “jihad” refers to military struggle. That’s true, too. But few people get the whole picture, which, actually, can be summarized pretty concisely:

Bay Ismoyo/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesReading the scripture.

The Koran’s exhortations to jihad in the military sense are sometimes brutal in tone but are so hedged by qualifiers that Muhammad clearly doesn’t espouse perpetual war against unbelievers, and is open to peace with them. (Here, for example, is my exegesis of the “sword verse,” the most famous jihadist passage in the Koran.) The formal doctrine of military jihad — which isn’t found in the Koran, and evolved only after Muhammad’s death — does seem to have initially been about endless conquest, but was then subject to so much amendment and re-interpretation as to render it compatible with world peace. Meanwhile, in the hadith — the non-Koranic sayings of the Prophet — the tradition arose that Muhammad had called holy war the “lesser jihad” and said that the “greater jihad” was the struggle against animal impulses within each Muslim’s soul.

Why do people tend to hear only one side of the story? A common explanation is that the digital age makes it easy to wall yourself off from inconvenient data, to spend your time in ideological “cocoons,” to hang out at blogs where you are part of a choir that gets preached to.

Makes sense to me. But, however big a role the Internet plays, it’s just amplifying something human: a tendency to latch onto evidence consistent with your worldview and ignore or downplay contrary evidence.

This side of human nature is generally labeled a bad thing, and it’s true that it sponsors a lot of bigotry, strife and war. But it actually has its upside. It means that the regrettable parts of the Koran — the regrettable parts of any religious scripture — don’t have to matter.

After all, the adherents of a given religion, like everyone else, focus on things that confirm their attitudes and ignore things that don’t. And they carry that tunnel vision into their own scripture; if there is hatred in their hearts, they’ll fasten onto the hateful parts of scripture, but if there’s not, they won’t. That’s why American Muslims of good will can describe Islam simply as a religion of love. They see the good parts of scripture, and either don’t see the bad or have ways of minimizing it.

So too with people who see in the Bible a loving and infinitely good God. They can maintain that view only by ignoring or downplaying parts of their scripture.

For example, there are those passages where God hands out the death sentence to infidels. In Deuteronomy, the Israelites are told to commit genocide — to destroy nearby peoples who worship the wrong Gods, and to make sure to kill all men, women and children. (“You must not let anything that breathes remain alive.”)

As for the New Testament, there’s that moment when Jesus calls a woman and her daughter “dogs” because they aren’t from Israel. In a way that’s the opposite of anti-Semitism — but not in a good way. And speaking of anti-Semitism, the New Testament, like the Koran, has some unflattering things to say about Jews.

Devoted Bible readers who aren’t hateful ignore or downplay all these passages rather than take them as guidance. They put to good use the tunnel vision that is part of human nature.

All the Abrahamic scriptures have all kinds of meanings — good and bad — and the question is which meanings will be activated and which will be inert. It all depends on what attitude believers bring to the text. So whenever we do things that influence the attitudes of believers, we shape the living meaning of their scriptures. In this sense, it’s actually within the power of non-Muslim Americans to help determine the meaning of the Koran. If we want its meaning to be as benign as possible, I recommend that we not talk about burning it. And if we want imams to fill mosques with messages of brotherly love, I recommend that we not tell them where they can and can’t build their mosques.

Of course, the street runs both ways. Muslims can influence the attitudes of Christians and Jews and hence the meanings of their texts. The less threatening that Muslims seem, the more welcoming Christians and Jews will be, and the more benign Christianity and Judaism will be. (A good first step would be to bring more Americans into contact with some of the overwhelming majority of Muslims who are in fact not threatening.)

You can even imagine a kind of virtuous circle: the less menacing each side seems, the less menacing the other side becomes — which in turn makes the first side less menacing still, and so on; the meaning of the Abrahamic scriptures would, in a real sense, get better and better and better.

Lately, it seems, things have been moving in the opposite direction; the circle has been getting vicious. And it’s in the nature of vicious circles that they’re hard to stop, much less reverse. On the other hand, if, through the concerted effort of people of good will, you do reverse a vicious circle, the very momentum that sustained it can build in the other direction — and at that point the force will be with you.

Postscript: The quotations of the Koran come from Sura 4:171 (where Jesus is called God’s word), and Sura 44:32 (where the “children of Israel” are lauded). I’ve used the Rodwell translation, but the only place the choice of translator matters is the part that says God presciently placed the children of Israel above all others. Other translations say “purposefully,” or “knowingly.” By the way, if you’re curious as to the reason for the Koran’s seeming ambivalence toward Christians and Jews:

By my reading, the Koran is to a large extent the record of Muhammad’s attempt to bring all the area’s Christians, Jews and Arab polytheists into his Abrahamic flock, and it reflects, in turns, both his bitter disappointment at failing to do so and the many theological and ritual overtures he had made along the way. (For a time Muslims celebrated Yom Kippur, and they initially prayed toward Jerusalem, not Mecca.) That the suras aren’t ordered chronologically obscures this underlying logic.

A Waste of Oxygen

2010-09-04T07:46:00.002-04:00

It never fails to amaze me the abundance of people out there who are chomping at the bit to insult another person's opinion with no motive other than simply to be a screaming fuckstick. I can understand if a person disagrees and takes the time and intelligence required to propose their opinion, or the flaw with mine. However, there are so many humans out there that lack not just time but intelligence, and their response to intelligent discourse is to resort to the playground antics of name-calling.

I find it amusing. It's proof that Darwinism works. Those with a modicum of intellect evolve to absorb higher levels of understanding of the world around them, sharing it with others and allowing free thought to expand and flourish, thus making a better quality of life for everyone they've touched. Those with miniscule brain matter spin their wheels and waste their energy attempting to cause their narrow view of the world to become smaller and smaller until there's nothing left but a pinprick hole of light blocked by their large and vacuous heads. This makes them happy because it relieves them of the threat of anyone else having valid opinions that may rock their unstable little boat and force them to admit that they may, in fact, be pretty damned ignorant. It doesn't work, however. The more they spin the less they accomplish.

So here is a cheer to those who are not afraid to speak their opinion, those who are not afraid to back it with valid fact, unimpeachable logic, and the decorum of respect. These are the people who strive for a better world. These are the people who sow the seeds of enlightenment.

And here's a jeer to the name-callers, the haters, those who never crawled out of the primordial ooze, those who are still on the playground getting off on being bullies (because it relieves the stress of knowing that they are fuck-ups who don't have enough grey matter to figure out how to be anything else): your hatred of the world is an outward reflection of your hatred for yourself. You know it's true because if you attempt to deny it you're just lending it truth. How I pity you for the gift of life you've squandered in exchange for the ability to get off on a few dirty words. Silly boy, some of us graduated elementary school and went on with the rest of our lives. So get off the playground and go back to class. Fail.

A Trojan Horse in the House of the Crescent Moon

2010-09-03T10:04:00.002-04:00

South Carolina is currently lauding the possibility of Nikki Haley “making history” if she should win the race for governor of the state. Her outstanding contribution to that history would be the fact that she’s female. Many may view this potential win as an accomplishment and advancement in women’s rights; however, they fail to see the forest for the trees.

Simply being something does not necessarily suggest that one supports ideas and/or beliefs regarding the needs and/or rights of her/his existence. An excellent example of this concept exists in the form of Sarah Palin (incidentally or not, a strong supporter of Haley), the ultimate Trojan horse of the feminist movement. Yes, Sarah Palin is female. No, she is not a feminist. The ill-informed logic that being female immediately qualifies one as a feminist is equivalent to the belief of battered women who believe that they deserve their abuse, and/or that it is their place in the world to be used, abused, neglected, molested, and mistreated. It is the same logic of emotionally traumatized children who, in an effort to make sense of what has happened to them, blame themselves for having been molested by a family member, a family friend, a priest, a pastor, a teacher, or any other such role model.

I repeat, Sarah Palin is not a feminist. She supports, maintains and nurtures a patriarchal political structure that impedes women’s quality of life and maintains the status quo. She is not pro-life, she is anti-choice. Her history as governor of Alaska, as well as statements made during her run as McCain’s presidential running mate (a position in which she played mascot to what constitutes ‘progress’ in conservative politics) and her romp as the spearhead of the Tea Party movement are proof positive of her duplicity.

Feminism is not about usurping men and ruling the world. Feminism is about allowing women to have a choice, a voice, and a right to their own bodies and their own lives. Undoubtedly, there are many splinters of feminism. Some have used this fact to suggest that the movement is fractured, flawed. Yet I perceive it as an illustration of the complexity of feminism. The point is not whether or not we all agree on every issue, the point is that we are a consortium of various views and beliefs that come together under a multifaceted web in which we are unified in our belief that, in order to thrive, women deserve and require equal voice and equal movement in this world.

Thus, Sarah Palin is not a feminist.

A feminist does not encourage, romanticize, or glorify a narrow view that every woman would be happy if she could just stay home, nurture children and support her husband. A feminist believes that every woman should have that particular right if she so chooses, but that she should have the freedom to exercise her right to other lifestyle choices as well.

A feminist does not try to restrict a woman’s right to make choices about her own body, choices that affect the rest of her life, indeed her quality of life. A feminist believes that there should be no laws impeding a woman’s control of her own body. A feminist believes in a woman’s right to privacy as concerns her body. Feminists may not agree on the issue of abortion; however, they almost all agree on this: if you don’t believe in abortion, don’t get one.

A feminist does not establish laws that further persecute rape victims by mandating that they should pay for their own rape kits. Enforcing such a law subliminally suggests that women who are raped did something to encourage and/or deserve their having being sexually assaulted. It maintains the concept that most women are liars, devious, not to be trusted. It also prohibits women on a limited income to pursue a rape charge, thus allowing sex offenders to further victimize more women. In no way does such a law protect women.

A feminist does not support programs that are ideologically based but realistic failures, especially when her/his own child is walking poster-child for said program’s flaws, especially when substantial analytical information proves that the program does not work. Indeed, such programs maintain the subjugation of women to their bodies via the laws that bind them. These programs perpetuate the notion of many people that women are bad because they could not live up to an impractical ideology. In its extreme, this notion is shared by the women who themselves fail at the ideology, an insidious infiltration of a woman’s psyche reminiscent of the Trojan horse.

Having explored the duplicity of Palin’s ‘brand’ of feminism, let’s return to the subject of Nikki Haley: what makes her prospective win as the first female governor of South Carolina so remarkable? A quick search on my crystal ball (in other words, the internet) reveals that the first female to be sworn in to the office of governor in the United States was Nellie Tayloe Ross of Wyoming. Incidentally, she was only technically the first as she was sworn in on the fifth of January in 1925. A few days later the second woman to be voted into the office of governor was sworn in, Miriam A. Ferguson of Texas.

Eighty-six years and thirty-two women later, we are supposed to get our collective panties in a bunch over another woman taking gubernatorial office. This stinks of an offering from the Tea Party to me, and it’s not chamomile in our cups.

Have Americans become so myopic in their world-view that they greedily accept whatever’s given them with no contemplation or awareness of the world outside of the two-foot radius around their persons? Other than being female, what does Nikki Haley have to offer South Carolinians?

The success of women in South Carolina politics is not a celebration of women’s accomplishments so much as it is testimony of the pre-historic condition of the state’s view of a woman’s competence. Nikki Haley, as Palin’s acolyte, is merely another wind-up vagina that goes chirping along as long as there’s a man behind her to wind her key. She supports and promises to continue Sanford’s policies, which benefit corporations instead of people and the environment, and which persistently endeavor to limit and even eradicate women’s rights. This is not a step forward in the progress of women in the state of South Carolina, it is plainly a canter to the Right, and anyone could see it if they’d simply open their eyes and look that Trojan gift horse in the mouth.

Choose One: Adulterer #1 or Adulterer #2

2009-08-09T13:10:00.004-04:00

The Good the Bad and the Ugly

"It seems to me there are at least two types of adulteries and we misleadingly lump them together. There is the one-night-stand sort of adultery — the guy who wanders off with a series of youngish women so he can feel like a dashing playboy. Then there is the deeply-in-love sort of adultery."

I wonder if Mr. Brooks is suggesting that there are actually FOUR types of adultery:
the two he defines here and, of course, another two types that would be defined for women instead of "the guy who wanders off... so he can feel like a dashing playboy." I presume the the other two unspoken forms of adultery (the female variety) would be committed by some ungrateful trampish sort of woman.

"Both types represent a betrayal of the family, of course. Sanford wasn’t just cheating on his wife. He was cheating on his children. But I confess I think less harshly of people who commit adultery No. 2 than adultery No. 1. At least they are in search of something transcendent. They are in the grip of an addiction-like behavior."

I assume this means, according to Mr. Brooks, that if you are screwing a series of women rather than one repeatedly, you needn't worry about whether or not you have an addiction.

"Therein lies the paradox, though. People who commit sleazy adultery can probably go on with their lives and marriage. They may be shallow and selfish, but they can probably keep their affairs compartmentalized. People who commit true-love adultery actually do more damage to their families and to their entire lives. The betrayal is more tinged with profound feeling but also more complete."

Well, I'm glad we have a definition to help us out here, as well as some parameters:
SLEAZY ADULTERY: acceptable due to its ability to be compartmentalized (unless you get caught)
TRUE-LOVE ADULTERY: unacceptable due to the fact that it involves actual emotion.
Just so we understand....

April 8, 2011 Update:
I have new information that more clearly defines the two types of adultery and why it's worse when it's a woman committing either of the two types. Furthermore, unless a man is committing adultery for love (but don't worry, there are loopholes for men in that category as well), men cannot be held at fault for the "one-night-stand type of adultery" since he just can't control himself with so many floozies running loose in the world. Thanks, Jill, for this wonderfully eye-opening piece in Feministe: Female infidelity: "It's different"

Sarah Palin Babbles and the Lemmings Eat It Up (Excerpt From the 2008 Presidential Debates)

2009-08-09T13:08:00.004-04:00

Governor Palin:
"I know education you are passionate about with your wife being a teacher for 30 years, and god bless her. Her reward is in heaven, right? I say, too, with education, America needs to be putting a lot more focus on that and our schools have got to be really ramped up in terms of the funding that they are deserving. Teachers needed to be paid more. I come from a house full of school teachers. My grandma was, my dad who is in the audience today, he's a schoolteacher, had been for many years. My brother, who I think is the best schoolteacher in the year, and here's a shout-out to all those third graders at Gladys Wood Elementary School, you get extra credit for watching the debate.

Education credit in American has been in some sense in some of our states just accepted to be a little bit lax and we have got to increase the standards. No Child Left Behind was implemented. It's not doing the job though. We need flexibility in No Child Left Behind. We need to put more of an emphasis on the profession of teaching. We need to make sure that education in either one of our agendas, I think, absolute top of the line. My kids as public school participants right now, it's near and dear to my heart. I'm very, very concerned about where we're going with education and we have got to ramp it up and put more attention in that arena."

Question: did George Bush write this script for her? I'm waiting for her to add, "It's hard to put food on your family."

Liar Liar Pants On FIRE!

2009-08-09T13:03:00.001-04:00

For all you dunderheads who suggested that it was none of our business if Sanford had an affair as long as he did his job as governor, you'd better read this article and get wise FAST. I told you, I told you, I told you: a man who lies to his wife has NO PROBLEM lying to his constituents. Now, are you going to give him God's grace for THIS or are you going to demand your $$$,$$$+ back? After all, there are about 13,000 homeless people in this state (about 7500 of those are children). Our state ranks 3 in infant mortality, #1 in violent crime, #4 in unemployment, #12 in persons below poverty level, and 49th in education. This is a governor who made people use both sides of a post-it note, but didn't bat an eyelash at spending thousands of OUR taxpayer dollars for an airplane ride that would have cost him $30-$50 in gas.

Oh, and for the record: South Carolina Ethics Committee? Now THERE is an oxymoron! Those people need to be F-I-R-E-D!!!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap /20090809/ap_on_re_us/us_s c_governor_state_plane;_yl t=AnnROgjYfmssvm_YB.vJZlas 0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTFlNzY5Mjkw BHBvcwM3MARzZWMDYWNjb3JkaW 9uX3Vfc19uZXdzBHNsawNhcGlu dmVzdGlnYXQ-

AP INVESTIGATION: SC gov's plane use questioned

Buzzed!SendSharePrint
By JIM DAVENPORT, Associated Press Writer – 32 mins ago
COLUMBIA, S.C. – South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford used state aircraft for personal and political trips, often bringing along his wife and children — contrary to state law regarding official use, an Associated Press investigation has found.
According to state budget law, "Any and all aircraft owned or operated by agencies of the State Government shall be used only for official business."
Records reviewed by the AP show that since he took office in 2003, the two-term Republican has taken trips on state aircraft to locations of his children's sporting events, hair and dentist appointments, political party gatherings and a birthday party for a campaign donor.
On March 10, 2006, a state plane was sent to pick up Sanford in Myrtle Beach and return him to Columbia, the state capital, at a cost of $1,265 — when his calendar showed his only appointment in Columbia was "personal time" at his favorite discount hair salon. He had flown to Myrtle Beach on a private plane and attended a county GOP event.
The trip home on the state aircraft took off at 1:50 p.m. and arrived in Columbia at 2:35, enabling the governor to keep his plans for a 3 p.m. haircut across town. There were no other appointments on his official schedule that afternoon; the trip back to Columbia would have taken about three hours by car.
Also, on five of the last six Thanksgiving weekends, Sanford used a state plane to fly himself, his wife and their four sons from the family's plantation in Beaufort County to Columbia for the state Christmas tree lighting. The cost for those flights alone: $5,536, including $2,869 for flying the plane empty to pick them up.
Sanford, 49, has been under increased scrutiny since he admitted in June to having a mistress in Argentina. He's vowed to stay in office and says he is trying to reconcile with his wife, though she moved out of the governor's official residence on Friday with their sons and plans to spend the school year at the family's beach house.
The governor has made a political career out of being outwardly thrifty — known to demand that state employees use both sides of Post-It notes. He has frequently railed against government spending, and attempted for months to block federal stimulus money for South Carolina schools.
Last month, the AP revealed how Sanford had flown first class and business class on commercial airlines at taxpayer expense, despite a law requiring lowest-cost travel.
On many occasions, records show, the governor mingled his non-official travels with official business.
For example, on March 23, 2005, Sanford flew on a state plane from Columbia to Mount Pleasant, near the beach house, where the governor was scheduled for a 5 p.m. appointment with a dentist. Later that day, he had a TV interview before speaking at a Republican Party event for Charleston, Berkeley and Dorchester counties along with U.S. Sens. Lindsey Graham and Jim DeMint.
Such mingling also is problematic under South Carolina regulations.
Aeronautics Division rules say that "under no circumstances shall aircraft owned and operated by" the division "be used for personal or politically partisan purposes." But there's no clear enforcement mechanism for such violations; the division says it simply lets citizens know that statements attesting to official use of the planes are open to public inspection.
Still, misuse of state resources arguably could subject Sanford to civil or criminal penalties under the state's ethics laws, which are enforced by the South Carolina Ethics Commission. Any public official found to have used state property for personal financial gain is subject to as much as a $5,000 fine and five years in prison. Only incidental use that does not result in additional public expense is exempt.
On April 29, 2006, a state plane flew Sanford from Greenville, not far from where one of his sons was in a soccer tournament, to Charleston, so the governor could attend a National Republican Senatorial Committee meeting on Kiawah Island.
"That's personal use and political use. That's not what the state plane is for," said former Gov. Jim Hodges, a Democrat who said he occasionally mingled official state business with political and public events while using state aircraft, but only if the main purpose of the trip was official business.
Peggy Kerns, ethics director for the National Conference of State Legislatures, said she knows of no state that allows its property to be used for personal or campaign purposes. "It's like a no-brainer," she said.
Government watchdogs said federal officials have to repay the cost of flying government planes for personal or campaign events and said they didn't know of a state that permitted planes to be used for such trips.
The AP review also raises questions about how South Carolina polices the use of its aircraft and reveals a system rife with shoddy record keeping and violations of laws that require the public be able to see documents.
In South Carolina, governors are able to use aircraft run by different agencies: a King Air twin turboprop run by the Aeronautics Division that can seat nine passengers, and smaller, slower propeller-driven planes managed by the Department of Natural Resources.
As governor, Sanford has flown 353 hours aboard the larger plane and an additional 73 hours on the smaller, propeller planes — a total cost of nearly $373,000, according to Sanford's office and other state records.
Sanford's children spent more time on the bigger state plane than the children of the past two governors, records show. At least one of Sanford's sons was aboard 43 flights during his first term alone. That compared with 11 during Hodges' single term and 12 during David Beasley's one term.
Overall, flights that included his children cost taxpayers more than $50,000, or about 14 percent of his total travel on state planes.
"If it was somewhere the governor was going, sometimes the kids tagged along. There is no additional cost to the taxpayers for the kids to be on the plane if it's somewhere the governor is headed anyway," said Sanford spokesman Joel Sawyer, who stepped down Aug. 5.
Additional matches of flight documents and Sanford's schedule show:
• An Oct. 14, 2004 pickup in Bishopville, where his schedule shows his son Marshall's private school football team was playing. Afterward, the plane took him to Charlotte, N.C., for a commercial flight to Dallas, where his schedule placed the governor at a lake house in Texas for a gathering of Republican donors.
• A Nov. 14, 2006 flight to Mount Pleasant, where he attended a book signing. He then flew to Aiken for the 65th birthday party for a business owner who had donated more than $12,000 to his campaign.
• A July 8, 2005 use of the state's turboprop to fly from Charleston to Greenville, where Sanford lists the official use of the King Air for a round-table discussion with business leaders, interviews and "Greenville County Bronze Elephant Dinner," a county GOP event.
Sawyer said the governor had fewer hours on Aeronautics Division planes in his first term than his two predecessors: 229 hours, compared with Beasley's 303 hours and Hodges' 310 hours. Sawyer characterized the review of Sanford's flight schedule as "continued cherry picking," a term he used when the AP examined the commercial flights.
"Every time the governor used the plane it was for an official state purpose and that state purpose was documented," Sawyer said.
He also said Sanford's schedule doesn't chronicle all his official activities. "The governor's schedule is not reflective of everything he's doing that day," he said.
Former state Rep. Margaret Gamble, a watchdog on political travel issues, said Sanford should get the benefit of the doubt on a case-by-case basis. For instance, one of Sanford's flights took him from Anderson to Marion County for a soldier's funeral and then to Greenwood so he could get to a McCormick County GOP fundraiser. "Maybe he had a prior commitment," she said, but needed to go to the funeral, too, and the plane was the only way to keep his promise."
Other governors have faced questions about aircraft use, including Beasley for using a state helicopter to get to a speech and then back for a golf game. John Crangle, state director for government watchdog group Common Cause, said governors "have been given almost unlimited latitude to do as they please, to come and go as they please or when they want to and to use the state's resources for travel when they want."
He said the AP research indicates Sanford repeatedly made mistakes.
"This was the Wild West for the governor's travel when basically anything was permitted or done and accepted as normal," Crangle said.
In fact, state law requires the Aeronautics Division to collect and keep sworn statements from aircraft users certifying flights were for official business within 48 hours of flights. Sanford's office routinely filed that paperwork days or weeks late and the division destroys documents more than three years old.
"They're actually destroying data that the Legislature gave them no permission to destroy. That's like destroying evidence," said state Sen. David Thomas, a Republican congressional candidate who has begun holding legislative hearings into Sanford's use of state funds.
The same law requires the agency to post those records on its Web site. That was done briefly earlier this month, but the Aeronautics Division pulled the link to the records as the commission that oversees its operation reviews the law. Until July 1, the agency reported to Sanford's cabinet.
And the law required the natural resources agency to keep official statements on flights, which it never has. Governors appoint the entire board overseeing the agency.
"The situation is one that's dramatically out of control and needs to be completely overhauled," Crangle said.
Added Thomas: "It's an overwhelming ethical issue here. To me, this is clear misuse of state property."

The Hypocracy Only Goes So Far

2009-01-25T11:21:00.001-05:00

This article disheartens me in that it teaches me just how sick our country has become. It makes me realize that even a force as powerful, inspiring, and positive as Barack Obama may not be enough to change the tide of prejudice, hatred, intolerance, and ignorance that is so rife in this country.

I have this to say to African Americans who would suggest that atheists ("non-believers") are not represented in this country and are not a part of the fabric of this culture: Martin Luther King would be very disappointed in you. He worked so very hard to usher in a world of tolerance, compassion, and unity. As a population of people who have fought so very hard for your civil rights, who have come so far, who share a sorrowful history of abuse, mistreatment, misunderstanding, I would think that you would be more sensitive than most about the importance of accepting people, embracing the differences, and treating others as you would be treated. I extend this same message to the Christian community who is also so sadly intolerant of anyone who is not like themselves (in direct opposition to the teachings of Jesus), and to any other person or community who shares these same practices of intolerance and hypocracy. In the end, love is really all you need. Love of yourself, your family, and your global community. We all share in common that we are all feeling human beings. Love is tolerant, kind, charitable, and forgiving; love IS all we need.

The president is a representative of the people of this great nation. ALL the people, not just a select few. To suggest that some people are superior to others due to their moral code (as dictated by a specific religion) and/or their skin color is completely ludicrous and defies common sense. What matter is it at all if we have different spiritual believe systems (or labels, as it were), as long as we all share a very similar and complimentary ethical code, as well as a spirit of support and patriotism for our country?

http://news.aol.com/main/obama-presidency/article/obamas-nonbeliever-nod-unsettles-some/316339

Who Am I? Who Are YOU?

2008-05-01T10:07:00.007-04:00

Writing assignment based on pages 269-279 of Darrell Fasching's "Comparative Religious Ethics"

The Feminist Challenge...
As you can probably guess, this particular reading assignment had a major impact on me. Furthermore, the timing couldn’t have been better as I struggled with my own sense of self and an ethic of care regarding my own family and friends. In this vein I will try to convey what I learned from the text in relation to my own personal experience.
First of all, I found it very enlightening (even as a refresher) to read about how the rise of patriarchy has affected not only women’s place in society, but also their sense of identity and how they reason ethically. It is interesting that women are expected to develop a sense of self, but in having done so are expected to abandon it to accommodate the needs of the people in their lives. This paradox sets a standard for women as they try to live up to male dominated ideals for happiness and success while struggling to balance a subconscious sense of inferiority and duty based on their gender.
I can say that I completely understand this conundrum from a personal perspective. As a mother and housewife for the past seventeen years I have tried to understand why and how I was living the “American Dream” and yet was so dissatisfied with my life. For seventeen years I have struggled to do what was expected of me, to fulfill my role in my family as well as in society. No matter how well I succeeded, at the end of the day I was always left with a feeling of deep dissatisfaction and unhappiness. When I confronted people with these feelings I was made to feel ungrateful, selfish. The irony, I now realize, is that before I was married I had had a sense of self, a personal identity that wasn’t associated with those to whom I was related but was defined by my own thoughts, achievements and beliefs. After marriage and children I found myself lacking a sense of self and could define myself only in terms of my relationship to others; and this was the point at which people accused me of being selfish!
How can one be selfish when one has no sense of self, no identity? How alarming is the notion that “a virtuous woman was a woman who sacrificed herself for others” (p. 274). This dangerous notion leaves many women in the same position I have been in, indeed the position you recognize as having once been in yourself. We have sacrificed, but when we are not personally gratified by the sacrifice we are labeled as deviant, selfish, ungrateful and un-virtuous. This is an important argument for why women must not only develop and define their sense of self, but also must find a voice with which to express it.
On page 276 it is suggested that men “…approach ethical problems as a matter of rational calculus… [While] the young female tends to see the ethical problem as having to do with how to sustain relationships and the responsibilities they entail…” This concept rings true of my own very recent personal experience. For many years I have struggled with my unhappiness and dreamed of ways to be free of it, but couldn’t see how to achieve my freedom without affecting the lives and relationships of the people in my life. This was a major factor in my choosing to have stayed in my marriage as long as I have. Conversely, when I finally did announce to my husband my desire to end the marriage his main concerns were monetary issues, care of the children and other material matters.

To learn more about this piece of literature and/or to purchase the book please follow this link:

Claim You're A Victim and Suddenly You're A Bitch

2008-02-13T19:58:00.002-05:00

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/13/opinion/13dowd.html

OP-ED COLUMNIST
A Flawed Feminist Test

By MAUREEN DOWD
Published: February 13, 2008
WASHINGTON

Russell Berman, a young reporter for The New York Sun, trailed Bill Clinton around Maryland all day Sunday. The former president was on his best behavior, irritating the smattering of press.

After Bill’s last speech at Leisure World retirement community in Silver Spring, Berman interviewed two women in the audience.

Elaine Sirkis, 77, an Obama supporter, confided that she just isn’t sure she’s ready for a woman president. Betty Conway, 83, a Hillary supporter, confided that she just isn’t sure she’s ready for a black president.

As Conway walked away, Sirkis smiled sheepishly. “I’m sorry,” she told Berman sweetly about her friend. “She’s a bigot.”

We’re not just in the most vertiginous election of our lives. We’re in another national seminar on gender and race that is teaching us about who we are as we figure out what we want America to be.

It’s not yet clear which prejudice will infect the presidential contest more — misogyny or racism.

Many women I talk to, even those who aren’t particularly fond of Hillary, feel empathy for her, knowing that any woman in a world dominated by men has to walk a tightrope between femininity and masculinity, strength and vulnerability.

They see double standards they hate — when male reporters described Hillary’s laugh as “a cackle” or her voice as “grating,” when Rush Limbaugh goes off on her wrinkles or when male pundits seem gleeful to write her political obituary. Several women I know, who argue with their husbands about Hillary, refer with a shudder to the “Kill the Witch” syndrome.

In a webcast, prestidigitator Penn Jillette talks about a joke he has begun telling in his show. He thinks the thunderous reaction it gets from audiences shows that Hillary no longer has a shot.

The joke goes: “Obama is just creaming Hillary. You know, all these primaries, you know. And Hillary says it’s not fair, because they’re being held in February, and February is Black History Month. And unfortunately for Hillary, there’s no White Bitch Month.”

Of course, jokes like that — even Jillette admits it’s offensive — are exactly what may give Hillary a shot. When the usually invulnerable Hillary seems vulnerable, many women, even ones who don’t want her to win, cringe at the idea of seeing her publicly humiliated — again.

And since women — and some men — tend to be more protective when she is down, it is impossible to rule out a rally, especially if voters start to see Obama, after his eight-contest rout, as that maddening archetypal figure: the glib golden boy who slides through on charm and a smile.

Those close to Hillary say she’s feeling blue. It’s an unbearable twist of fate to spend all those years in the shadow of one Secretariat, only to have another gallop past while you’re plodding toward the finish line.

I know that the attacks against powerful women can be harsh and personal and unfair, enough to make anyone cry.

But Hillary is not the best test case for women. We’ll never know how much of the backlash is because she’s a woman or because she’s this woman or because of the ick factor of returning to the old Clinton dysfunction.

While Obama aims to transcend race, Hillary often aims to use gender to her advantage, or to excuse mistakes. In 1994, after her intransigence and secrecy-doomed health care plan, she told The Wall Street Journal that she was “a gender Rorschach test.”

“If somebody has a female boss for the first time, and they’ve never experienced that,” she said, “well, maybe they can’t take out their hostility against her so they turn it on me.”

As a possible first Madame President, Hillary is a flawed science experiment because you can’t take Bill out of the equation. Her story is wrapped up in her marriage, and her marriage is wrapped up in a series of unappetizing compromises, arrangements and dependencies.

Instead of carving out a separate identity for herself, she has become more entwined with Bill. She is running bolstered by his record and his muscle. She touts her experience as first lady, even though her judgment during those years on issue after issue was poor. She says she’s learned from her mistakes, but that’s not a compelling pitch.

As a senator, she was not a leading voice on important issues, and her Iraq vote was about her political viability.

She told New York magazine’s John Heilemann that before Iowa taught her that she had to show her soft side, “I really believed I had to prove in this race from the very beginning that a woman could be president and a woman could be commander in chief. I thought that was my primary mission.”

If Hillary fails, it will be her failure, not ours.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MY RESPONSE:

Ms. Dowd,

First of all, the title of your article misleads the
naive reader into believing that if one supports
Hillary Clinton then one is NOT a feminist. Don't you
find that ethically unconscionable? Or do you justify
your behavior because it's an "opinion" piece?

Furthermore, I particularly found this portion of your
article to be alarming:

"While Obama aims to transcend race, Hillary often
aims to use gender to her advantage, or to excuse
mistakes. In 1994, after her intransigence and
secrecy-doomed health care plan, she told The Wall
Street Journal that she was “a gender Rorschach test.
If somebody has a female boss for the first time, and
they’ve never experienced that,” she said, “well,
maybe they can’t take out their hostility against her
so they turn it on me.”

In essence, what you have suggested is that when
Hillary points out mysogeny she's using her gender to
her advantage. That's like saying that a rape victim
is using the fact of her rape to bring her sympathy.
It's classic "blame the victim" mentality.

Lastly, if you are seriously conveying that Hillary is
less of a feminist because she did not choose to
divorce Bill after the Lewinsky scandal then I beg you
to reconsider. It takes a strong, confident woman with
sincere values to stay with her husband after such an
incident and repair her marriage. It is easier, and
thus the action of a weaker person, to walk away. Then
again, if she HAD divorced Bill, you'd probably skewer
her for that, too.

So if Hillary cries mysogeny she cries it righteously,
not selfishly, and it would be wise for all women of
this nation to pay attention and re-evaluate our
flawed cultural and political system. By bringing
awareness to these flaws, Hillary brings hope to the
future daughters of this country, a hope for change
and justice.

Apple Juice

2008-02-10T14:07:00.001-05:00

"The title is the impetus to write this blog.... That's right, apple juice. Of all the juices, in all the joints, in all the world, I had to choose apple. I just now happened to glance the back label of a bottle of apple juice I bought today and saw it contains concentrate from the U.S.A, Argentina, Austria, Chile, China, Germany, and Turkey. Sure, you might say, just a part of globalization that - but 7 different countries?! That's apples from 4 different continents, people!!! WTF?! Why not go for all 7? It is just me, or does that seem a little odd to you?" ~Jennifer Saunders-Johnson

This was actually a post on my friend's blog, but I found it so fascinating I wanted to share it. Such a simple thing really, but it DOES make one ponder... I must say that my original take on it was, "That is disgusting that they are preparing apple juice with apples from 4 different continents!" But then I saw Jennifer's take on it and it blew my mind in a wholly different direction (a more positive one). I am referring to when she says (I'm paraphrasing), "Why not all 7 continents?" I wish we could all be so positively minded towards peace and unity.

Thanks, Jennifer!

Edit:
It has been brought to my attention that I seemed to have missed Jennifer's point, which is that it is "odd" for juice to be made from fruit originating in 7 various countries. This made me realize that I haven't done a very good job of explaining my thought processes. Yes, I am aware that Jennifer was pointing out the irony and ridiculousness of juice being manufactured in such a way. The point I was trying to make, however, was that the way she stated it made me see things from a different angle. "What you see depends on where you stand." Hmmm! So maybe it was my seeing things from a another angle that made me interpret differently what she was stating. Ha! ALSO: when she stated, "Why not all 7 continents?" (paraphrasing again) it brought to my mind the concept of the subconscious. Maybe Jennifer made her statement as a show of sarcasm, but deep down inside one has to wonder if she REALLY meant it, and from a symbolic standpoint at that.

So once again, here's to peace and unity; ONE humankind and, as Jennifer put it, "Unity Juice."

Religious Spin and the American History of Slavery (Favorite Essays, Part 3)

2008-01-13T11:57:00.006-05:00

The Contradictory Religion of a Slave Girl
The transformation of the Jesus Movement into the Christian Movement has been the source of much strife and confusion throughout the history of Christianity. Translated to mirror and support a more hierarchic societal structure, the words of Jesus lost the spirit of their meaning and became more literal and patriarchal in the form of the Christian Movement. One result of this confusion is the ability of a dominating group to take advantage of marginal and/or disenfranchised groups for their own personal gain. Simply put, the Christian Movement supports prejudice. Examples of the horrors of this theology can be found in the Nazi concentration camps of World War II and the enslavement of millions of Africans and their descendants in the American South through the nineteenth century. Proof of the contrasting natures of the Jesus and Christian Movements, as well as the confusion these contrasts cause, can be found in the story, Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl by Harriet Jacobs.
Jacobs’ account enables one to understand why she and other slaves adhered to the patterns of the Jesus Movement, which evoke inclusiveness (despite status) and ethicality (through justice and compassion). The teachings of Jesus were very inspirational to slaves who sought freedom from oppression and equality in their community. On page eleven, Jacobs states, “My mistress had taught me the precepts of God’s Word: ‘Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.’ ‘Whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, do ye even so unto them.’” Time and again she shows a belief in such words even as she witnesses a lack of reciprocity from slaveholders who consider them selves to be Christians. This paradoxical situation was the source of much confusion for Jacobs, as she witnessed the contradictions between her own Christian beliefs and the Christian beliefs of slaveholders.
Christianity had been taught to the slaves as a means of keeping them subservient. An example of this can be found in Jacobs account of a sermon given by the Reverend Pike after a well known slave insurrection, in which Mr. Pike delivers the following message: “…You are rebellious sinners…‘Tis the devil who tempts you. God is angry with you, and will surely punish you, if you don’t forsake your wicked ways… Instead of serving your masters faithfully, which is pleasing in the sight of your heavenly Master…You must forsake your sinful ways, and be faithful servants. Obey your old master and your young master- your old mistress and your young mistress. If you disobey your earthly master, you offend your heavenly Master”(60). Fear of the denial of their souls into heaven has long been a powerful tool in the Christian Movement with which to convince subordinates to ignore their earthly troubles. Moreover, slaveholders convinced themselves of their right of superiority through their religion. Jacobs asserts that her father’s act of teaching his children “that they were human beings” is “…blasphemous doctrine for a slave to teach…” (12), and goes on to recount conversations with her master, Mr. Flint, in which she states, “…he told me that I was made for his use, made to obey his command in every thing; that I was nothing but a slave, whose will must and should surrender to his…” (18), “He told me I was his property; that I must be subject to his will in all things” (27). She also states the sentiments of her mistress, “…my mistress, like many others, seemed to think that slaves had no right to any family ties of their own; that they were created merely to wait upon the family of the mistress” (34). Finally, Jacobs says, “They seem to satisfy their consciences with the doctrine that God created the Africans to be slaves”(40).Despite these mandates Jacobs continued to believe that slaves were indeed human beings and were as eligible for their rights as were their slaveholders.
Discrepancies between the way slaves were supposed to behave and the so-called Christian behavior of slaveholders fortified Jacobs’ moral standing. The hypocrisy of how the slaveholders expected her and other slaves to behave (supposedly through the mandate of religion), as opposed to how the slaveholders themselves behaved was clear evidence to Jacobs that her convictions were accurate and that she should defend her morals at all costs; however, her gender made her situation more complex and thus the cost of her morals was a high one.
The duality of the Christian religion, which expected women to be chaste and pure, and yet expected women of slavery to yield to their masters in all things, and which also denied these same women the right to a lawful marriage, was a source of much torment and confusion for Jacobs. If she yielded to her master then she could no longer be chaste and pure; however, if she did not yield to her master then she was, through this disobedience, defying what was perceived as God’s will. Since she could not legally marry she was also considered dishonored if she took a lover. This situation pushed her into making a moral decision that was more or less based on the idea of free will, an idea which governed her belief in human rights as well; Jacobs chose to take on a lover who was a white slaveholder. She justified it by stating, “There may be sophistry in all this; but the condition of a slave confuses all principles of morality, and, in fact, renders the practice of them impossible” (48). Even though she had made the decision based on belief that it was better to choose one’s lover than to be raped, she still suffered much guilt from the act. Guilt was bestowed on her by her grandmother, who reacted to the news by saying, “I had rather see you dead than to see you as you now are. You are a disgrace to your dead mother…Go away! ...and never come to my house, again” (50). She was also chastised by her master, who claimed that she was a “disgrace” and “had sinned against [her] master” (51). In a cruel irony, her master even proposed that he could “make a lady” of her (46). In the midst of all these contradictions it was impossible for a woman in slavery to achieve the societal demands of what is considered a proper lady. Jacobs sums this situation up sorrowfully when she states, “…do not judge the poor desolate slave girl too severely! If slavery had been abolished, I, also, could have married the man of my choice; I could have had a home shielded by the laws…but all my prospects had been blighted by slavery. I wanted to keep myself pure; and, under the most adverse circumstances, I tried hard to preserve my self-respect; but I was struggling alone in the powerful grasp of the demon Slavery; and the monster proved too strong for me. I felt as if I was forsaken by God and man…” (48).
These were not the only contradictions presented by Christianity to the slaves. Although religion offered slaves comfort and strength, it also raised many misgivings. When slaves were put through particularly hard times they resorted to the reasoning that it was God’s wish. Typical themes from Jacobs’ story include the view that God was the reason for a person’s strength, and/or that God was testing a person through strife; however, the dominant theme that can be found in the story is the wish for God to kill a person, or let them die. This was seen as a mercy by slaves who didn’t want to see their loved ones go through the agonies of a life of slavery, or who didn’t want to go through any more such trials themselves. Again and again, throughout Jacobs’ story, one can find evidence of this wish. Where murder and suicide were considered an abomination, a natural death by God’s mercy was seen as acceptable and fortunate. On the other hand, there are times when Jacobs’ describes moments where she pleads with God to let someone she loves live. How can a person be of sound mind when they concurrently praise their God for their fortunes, question their God for their misery, beg their God for a merciful end to suffering through death, and plead with their God to let a loved one live?
Through all of these theological inconsistencies Jacobs finally finds the way to freedom for her children and for herself. The triumph is bittersweet, however, as it comes at the cost of her principle, which is that a human being- a creature of body, mind, and spirit- cannot be bought and cannot belong as property to another human being. On hearing of her emancipation, Jacobs writes, “…I despise the miscreant who demanded payment for what never rightfully belonged to him or his” (163). Amy Post appends Jacobs’ story by stating, “…through anxiety, turmoil, and despair, the freedom of Linda [Harriet Jacobs] and her children was finally secured, by the exertions of a generous friend. She was grateful for the boon; but the idea of having been bought was always galling to a spirit that could never acknowledge itself to be a chattel. She wrote to us thus, soon after the event: ‘I thank you for your kind expressions in regard to my freedom; but the freedom I had before the money was paid was dearer to me. God gave me that freedom; but man put God’s image in the scales with the paltry sum of three hundred dollars. I served for my liberty as faithfully as Jacob served for Rachel. At the end, he had large possessions; but I was robbed of my victory; I was obliged to resign my crown, to rid myself of a tyrant.’” (166). In these final words can be seen the biggest contradiction of all, which is that a woman cannot rejoice in her freedom through the simple fact that her freedom had to be purchased.

Works Cited
Jacobs, Harriet. Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications, Inc., 2001.

To learn more about this piece of literature and/or to purchase the book, please follow this link:

Oh The Thinks He Could Think! (Favorite essays, Part 2)

2008-01-13T11:56:00.010-05:00

Oh the Thinks He Could Think!

I swung ‘round the corner

And dashed through the gate,

I ran up the steps

And I felt simply GREAT!

FOR I HAD A STORY THAT NO ONE COULD BEAT!

AND TO THINK THAT I SAW IT ON MULBERRY STREET!

~Theodor Geisel

Theodor Geisel, otherwise known as the illustrious Dr. Seuss, is one of the most innovative and celebrated authors of children’s books. Fifteen years after his death his distinctive and exhilarating style continues to capture the imaginations of millions of children. His ability to do so has played a large part in turning these children into avid readers. His themes, which typically carry an unobtrusive message, expand children’s minds by introducing them to the concepts of morals and social responsibility. His technique has revolutionized the way children’s stories are written as well as the way children (and adults) receive them. For over sixty-nine years, his stories are still enthusiastically read and are circulated across the globe. They are treasured by people of all ages and status. Most people already realize these things about the legendary Dr. Seuss, so the real question is: how does the unassuming Mr. Geisel accomplish it?
One way in which he achieves his success is through his famous writing style. Dr. Seuss stories are exciting because of the unique way in which they are written. Geisel characteristically writes his stories in anapestic tetrameter, which employs a simple limerick-like cadence. Thomas Fensch, in Of Sneetches and Whos and the Good Dr. Seuss, describes it this way:
An anapest is a metric foot consisting of two short unstressed syllables followed by a stressed syllable. In The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Literary Terms, editor Chris Baldick writes that this form was originally a Greek marching beat. Tetrameter is four metric feet to a line.
A perfect example [comes] from McElligot’s Pool:
‘Cause you never can tell
What goes on below!
This pool might be bigger
Than you or I know!
Fensch goes on to describe it as:
. . . a rhythm that pulls readers through the text. (Critics have suggested this is one reason children love the Seuss books.) Even more importantly, with the stress toward the end of the lines, the rhythm gallops. Children repeat it- they chant it, they sing the words.
Another writer, Jonathon Cott, expresses the power of Geisel’s style by saying, “. . . the anapest line embodies movement and swiftness. . .” Herein lies Geisel’s genius, for it is this quick pace with its teasing rhythm and the satisfying rhyme sequences that enchant young readers. Renthal states, “They delight in his rollicking rhythms, his unexpected rhymes, in sounds they can feel and taste on their tongues, in hearing his whip crack over the galloping syllables.” In other words, readers become mesmerized, hypnotized, and even energized.
Geisel deliberately uses anapests in a way that compels the reader to turn the page. According to Nel:
It’s fun to be carried along by the rhythm of the language, a characteristic which Seuss exploits when he completes an end rhyme on the following page. Seuss introduced this page-turning strategy in Horton Hatches the Egg, at the moment when Mayzie confronts Horton, demanding the return of her egg: “Poor Horton backed down, / With a sad, heavy heart. . .” The page ends. Turn it, and the rhyme completes: “But at that very instant the egg burst apart!”
As well as using this little trick of anapest-as-page-turner, Geisel also lures children into reading by offering them the delightful challenge of the tongue-twister. Reading his stories aloud not only develops strong readers, it also helps readers to develop strong tongues! Consider this:
First, we’re greeted by Drummers who drum as they come.
And next come the Strummers who strum as they come.
And the Drummers who drum and Strummers who strum
Are followed by Zummers who come as they zum.
Just look at those Zummers! They’re sort of like Plumbers.
They come along humming, with heads in their plumbing
And that makes the music that Zummers call zumming!
And all of this beautiful zumming and humming
And plumbing and strumming and drumming and coming. . .
In this way, Geisel encourages children to read for fun. They become so wrapped up in the game that they forget they are actually learning. What is more, they seek out his stories again and again. Thus, they become enthusiastic readers and in the process learn some important life-lessons along the way.
These life-lessons are another important facet of Dr. Seuss’s success. His stories are a platform on which he tackles important human issues which include but are not limited to: morals, politics, ethnicity, religion, and environmental responsibility. His stories, which are playful and seem silly, tend to prove that the real silliness lies in the behaviors of closed-minded people.

This concept is reflected in The Butter Battle Book. This story is about two societies who despise each other simply because one, the Yooks, chooses to butter its bread on the top and the other, the Zooks, chooses to butter the bottom:
“It’s high time that you knew
of the terribly horrible thing that Zooks do.
In every Zook house and in every Zook town
every Zook eats his bread
with the butter side down!
“But we Yooks, as you know,
when we breakfast or sup,
spread our bread,” Grandpa said,
“with the butter side up.
That’s the right, honest way!”
Their stubborn determination to prove each other wrong leads them into an escalating rivalry for the perfect weapon. Ultimately they each end up with one so perfect that it will not only end the war once and for all, it will also end civilization as well! This book was meant as an anthem against nuclear arms. In American Icon Nel states that Geisel “. . . knew that the arms race between the U.S. and U.S.S.R. was dangerous. As Coretta Scott King said of The Butter Battle Book, ‘May the wisdom of this book help parents double their efforts for world peace, and may its wit help children forgive us our foolish antagonisms’ (Butter Battle press release).”
Another story with a similar purpose is the well-renowned How the Grinch Stole Christmas. Though many people interpret this story as an anthem for the spirit of Christmas, it is actually a secular statement about the bitterness that is cultivated by exclusion:
The thing that [the Grinch] specifically likes least of all is the Who-Christmas-Sing. He hates the sense of community among the Whos- . . . More than a treatise against rampant consumerism, the book promotes inclusiveness- a common theme in Ted’s stories, which often taught children tolerance. The real message of the book involves the true spirit of community, which has been lost.
What makes the story work is not just the message that “. . . Christmas. . . doesn’t come from a store,” but the fact that despite the Grinch’s dastardly behavior he is embraced by the community and given the gift of social inclusion:
“And what happened then. . .?
Well. . . in Who-ville they say
That the Grinch’s small heart
Grew three sizes that day!
And the minute his heart didn’t feel quite so tight,
He whizzed with his load through the bright morning light
And he brought back the toys! And the food for the feast!
And he. . .
. . .HE HIMSELF. . .!
The Grinch carved the roast beast!

Stories like How the Grinch Stole Christmas, The Butter Battle Book and many others by Geisel teach children a lesson about the folly of bigotry and stereotyping. They teach children to embrace diversity and to celebrate individuality.

Another of Geisel’s celebrated stories with a moral lesson is The Lorax. In this book, the Once-ler tells a little boy the story of the Lorax, and of how the world became so polluted. This story involves economics, environmental pollution, and material greed. “As an icon of environmental conservation, The Lorax’s activist message endures: Unless people act upon their concerns, nothing will get better.”

In the end the Once-ler gives the boy the last Truffula Tree seed and confers on him the hope for a better future. “UNLESS someone like you cares a whole awful lot/ nothing is going to get better/it’s not.”
Just as the Once-ler hands the boy the Truffula Tree seed, Geisel hands the hope for the future to children through his books. The clever rhyming and comedy of his stories captures the attention of young and impressionable minds. Cott states, “It is interesting to note that a child’s favorite books are often consciously the models for, or the most important influence on, his or her later beliefs and ways of living.” According to Nel, “In granting children the license to think freely, Seuss shows them that the world is what they make it. Children and adults, Seuss suggests, should use this ability to think creatively, participating in the world, learning from it, and when necessary doing what they can to make it better.” West concurs with Nel when she states:
If students can learn how to examine their world critically, forming theories and testing theories and applying theories, they will be better equipped to respond to problems and issues that arise in their everyday lives. They will have an invaluable tool to organize and analyze their lives and to develop more effective solutions to difficulties they may encounter. After all, this is what defines a true education.
Through his writings Geisel educates young readers by endowing them with a sense of social consciousness and personal responsibility for the condition of the world. This awareness gives them the power to think independently and to make comprehensive decisions about the way in which they conduct their lives. Consequently, their choices influence the world in which they live.
Geisel’s writings are not just a vehicle for this philosophy; they are also an example of it. His stories are proof that he believed in practicing what he preached. In 1955 he wrote what was for him an unusually serious poem. Called “Prayer for a Child”, it pleads for peace while suggesting a sense of duty for both God and himself:
From here on earth,
From my small place
I ask of You
Way out in space:
Please tell all men
In every land
What You and I
Both understand. . .
Please tell all men
That Peace is Good.
That’s all
That need be understood.
In every world
In Your great sky.
(We understand,
Both You and I.)
In his own frolicsome fashion, Theodor Geisel will continue to spread this message of peace, as well as ideas about tolerance, inclusiveness, and civic duty. He has had as much, if not more, impact on society as many of the great leaders throughout history; and because his stories are timeless, he will continue to do so for generations of children to come.

. . . You have brains in your head.
You have feet in your shoes.
You can steer yourself
any direction you choose. . .
. . . And when things start to happen,
don’t worry. Don’t stew.
Just go right along.
You’ll start happening too.
OH! THE PLACES YOU’LL GO!

Annotated Bibliography
Cohen, Charles D. “The True Spirit of the Grinch”. Your Favorite Seuss. Comps. Schulman,
Janet and Goldsmith, Cathy. New York: Random House Inc., 2004.
This source is an introduction to the story, How the Grinch Stole Christmas! The author also wrote The Seuss, the Whole Seuss, and Nothing but the Seuss which gives him the knowledge and expertise to write about Geisel. This introduction gives an excellent interpretation of the message in The Grinch and how the story continues to affect society.
Cott, Jonathon. Introduction. Pipers at the Gates of Dawn. New York: Random House Inc., 1983.
This source is a book about the importance of literature for children. It covers some of the most important children’s authors, including Theodor Geisel, and explains why and how the author’s works are important.
Fensch, Thomas. Introduction. Of Sneetches and Whos and the Good Dr. Seuss Essays on the
Writings and Life of Theodor Geisel. Jefferson: McFarland & Company Inc., 1997. 3.
This source is an introduction to a collection of essays by various authors about Theodor Geisel and his stories. Fensch uses the introduction to explain the significance of Theodor Geisel’s works and how to interpret them; he also includes an explanation of Geisel’s rhyming style and why it is crucial.
Geisel, Theodor. “And To Think That I Saw It On Mulberry Street”. Your Favorite Seuss. 22.
This source is a story by Theodor Geisel about the cultivation of a boy’s imagination. In this paper it is used to reflect Geisel’s own unique imagination in story-telling.
Geisel, Theodor. The Butter Battle Book. New York: Random House. 1984. 5-6.

Annotated Bibliography Continued
This source is a children’s book. It tells the story of two societies who are at war with each other over the manner in which they butter their bread. Under the surface, however, it is a commentary on stereotyping, bigotry, and the futility of war.
Geisel, Theodor. “Happy Birthday to You!” Your Favorite Seuss. 226.
This source is a fantastical story about a birthday wish. It is also a good example of Geisel’s tongue-twisting rhyming style.
Geisel, Theodor. “How the Grinch Stole Christmas”. Your Favorite Seuss. 186-188.
This source is a story in which a bitter character, the Grinch, learns the true meaning of Christmas still exists. It is an effort by Geisel to emphasize the importance of social acceptance and belonging.
Geisel, Theodor. “The Lorax”. Your Favorite Seuss. 335.
This source is a story about the destruction of the environment. It chronicles the story of society’s greed and their disinclination to pay heed to the Lorax, a creature who represents a healthy ecology. Their unwillingness to listen to the Lorax results in the devastation of their
world. It emphasizes the importance of every citizen to do their part in being responsible for the world in which they live.
Geisel, Theodor. “Oh the Places You’ll Go!” Your Favorite Seuss. 341-345.
This source is an inspirational message from Geisel about the limitless potential of a person in their life. It chronicles the ups and downs in the journey of life and offers a promise of personal success. In this paper it is used to prophecy the potential of Geisel’s impact on future generations.

Annotated Bibliography Continued
Geisel, Theodor. “Prayer for a Child.” Dr. Seuss: American Icon. New York: The Continuum
International Publishing Group Inc., 2004. 196.
This source is an uncommonly serious poem by Geisel. It expresses his wish of peace for the world and an answer to human suffering. It reflects the purpose behind all his story-writing.
Nel, Philip. Dr. Seuss: American Icon.
This source is a book which concentrates not only on the biography of Theodor Geisel, but also on the meaning of his stories and his personal objectives in writing them. The book also encompasses how Geisel’s stories have affected American culture and why they continue to be successful and significant in contemporary society.
Renthal, Helen. “25 Years of Working Wonder with Words”. Of Sneetches and Whos and The
Good Dr. Seuss. 38.
This source is an essay that emphasizes how Theodor Geisel revolutionizes children’s books. It describes the unique qualities of Geisel’s writing style and why he is so well received by his readers.
West, Angela D. “Horton the Elephant is a Criminal: Using Dr. Seuss to Teach Social Process,
Conflict, and Labeling Theory.” Journal of Criminal Justice Education. 16.2 (October 2005): 355.
This source is a scholarly journal that is an instructional tool for educators. It outlines an exercise that teaches students how to analyze theories and their connected facets. It incorporates the use of Theodor Geisel’s history and writings, specifically Horton Hears a Who, to help students create and nurture the ability to think in an integrative manner.

Faulkner Gives Us Emily (Favorite Essays, Part 1)

2008-01-13T10:34:00.008-05:00

I wrote several essays for a college English course. I am posting a few of them here for preservation purposes and my own amusement, so be gentle.

The Ruin of Emily and the Fall of the Old South

William Faulkner writes a wicked story in classic Gothic style about a small Southern town's relationship with one of its iconic inhabitants. On the surface, this story's shocking ending is the result of the dysfunctional relationship between the town of Jefferson and a woman named Emily Grierson; however, closer examination reveals the hidden story within. Emily Grierson, along with a handful of other supporting characters and symbols, represents the Old South amid a constant and overwhelming theme of death and decay. Could it be that "A Rose for Emily" embodies the end of an era in Southern history and culture?

This theory is spelled out by means of symbolization as well as by the consequences of events that occur throughout the story. One of the major symbols of the Old South is represented by Miss Emily. Her story is a reflection of how the traditions and values of the Old South were decimated in the aftermath of the Civil War. In her youth she is described as "a slender figure in white". The color white represents purity, truth, conservativeness, and innocence, concepts which reflect ideals of what the South was like before the war. This impression is also given through the description of Miss Emily's house, which is depicted as having been white at one time but is now in a state of deterioration. Further symbolization of Miss Emily is given by references to her being slender and her skeleton being "small and spare". This description supports the Old Southern notion of women as being helpless and weak. These combind images support a romanticized vision of what the South was like before the Civil War. However, a description of Miss Emily in her later years is more disturbing:

A small, fat woman in black. . . Her skeleton was small and spare;

perhaps that was why what would have been merely plumpness in another was obesity in her.

She looked bloated, like a body long submerged in motionless water, and of that pallid hue.

Her eyes, lost in the fatty ridges of her face, looked like two small pieces of coal

pressed into a lump of dough...

It is no accident that she is compared to a dead body. These images bring to mind deterioration and neglect, two words which have been strongly linked with the condition of the South after the Civil War. Her clothing, which was once white, is now black, a color associated with death and mourning, darkness and hostility. The disparity of the descriptions of Miss Emily in youth and in old age is symbolic and representative of the idealized condition of the South before and after the Civil War.

Further proof of the parallels of Miss Emily's life and the decline of the Old South are plentiful in this story. Once piece of evidence can be found in the way the townspeople liken Miss Emily to a "fallen monument", a "tradition", and an "idol". On this basis, they insist on continuing to treat her in an antiquated manner: Colonel Sartoris develops a noble excuse for remitting her taxes, the Board of Aldermen remain standing in her presence and are unable to argue with her, Judge Stevens declares, "will you accuse a lady to her face of smelling bad?", older members of the community comment that, "...a real lady [could not] forget nobless oblige...", and some of the old men wear "their brushed Confederate uniforms" to her funeral. These behaviors demonstrate a reverence on the part of the townspeople. They treat her uniquely because she represents their ideal of the Old South.

Another confirmation of Miss Emily's life mirroring the violation of the Old South is evidenced by her relationship with Homer Barron. His entrance to the story is in the company of change and progress after the war. His character is representative of the North, for he is introduced as a Yankee. He is described as, "a big, dark, ready man, with a big voice and eyes lighter than his face". "Ready man" alludes to a person who is quick to seize an opportunity, such as a carpetbagger. Many Southerners consider Northerners to be loud and brash, thus the mention of his "big voice". A big voice indicates a sense of strength, and a big voice will drown out one that is weaker, which indicates the fact that the Old South had no say in how it was governed post-war. Portrayal of Homer Barron as "dark [with] eyes lighter than his face" is a subtle suggestion that his blood line may have been tainted with African blood. The contamination of Caucasian blood with that of the Africans' is representative of a Southern taboo as well as a defilement of the purity of the Old South.

Homer goes on to represent the carpetbagger, or defiler of the Old South, in other ways. The townspeople's disdain for him is evidenced in behaviors that are both obvious and obscure. They refer to him in derogatory terms, as a "day laborer", a Yankee, "not a marrying man". About Homer's relationship with Miss Emily, the ladies of the town say, "it was a disgrace to the town and a bad example to the young people." Faulkner carefully insinuates a more obscure depiction of Homer Barron's character in a scene where Judge Stevens suggests that a mysterious smell is the result of Miss Emily's manservant killing a snake or a rat. Snakes and rats are often equated with being devious, filthy, and treacherous, which was a popular view of Yankees by Southerners before, during, and after the war. So there is no real surprise when the smell is eventually revealed as Homer Barron's rotting corpse. This creates a subconscious suggestion on Faulkner's part of a snake in the Garden of Eden, with Homer Barron representing the snake and the Old South symbolizing that fabled Garden of purity and innocence.

Using this theory as a foundation it can be said that Miss Emily plays Eve to Homer Barron's satanic snake. Her relationship with Homer, a man the townspeople obviously disapprove of, results in their believing she is a fallen woman. Though the word "fallen" is considered antiquated and outmoded, it does not just allude to the loss of Miss Emily's reputation as a proper Southern lady; it also refers to political collapse, defeat in war, and is a description for people who are killed in war. Therefore, Miss Emily embodies the Old South and Homer Barron the North. Her sullied reputation not only signifies the defeat of the South, but also the defilement of Old Southern traditions and values through the encroachment of Northern influences.

Miss Emily's death and the town's reaction to it serve as another link to the fall of the Old South. Two significant events occur at her funeral which contribute to this theory. Firstly, the "Negro" manservant who has attended her for many years walks out and is never seen again. This is a clear representation of the abolition of slavery at the end of the war. He does not need to request permission or offer excuses; rather, emancipated by Miss Emily's death, he simply walks away. Secondly, the body of Homer Barron is discovered and a strand of what is unmistakably Miss Emily's hair is found on the pillow next to him. This demonstrates that despite the gruesome consequences of the war, the North and South are together one nation and that the South is dependent on the North more than ever.

"A Rose for Emily" is an anthem to these consequences as well as to the death throes of Old South. Miss Emily's death is viewed by the townspeople of Jefferson as the end of an era, for she is regarded with the "respectful affection for a fallen monument". The narrator tells us that "the very old men... in their brushed Confederate uniforms" reminisce about Miss Emily, even going so far as to believe they each had romantic social interactions with her in their youth. Wearing their defunct uniforms and dreaming of things which never happened enables these men to express an idealized memory of the past, one in which the negative memories are forgotten and the positive memories are magnified. An example of this type of thinking is manifested in the way many people tend to remember the Civil War; despite the loss of thousands of lives in a horrendous battle that pitted a nation against itself, the Civil War is often glorified by Southerners. The discovery of Homer Barron's body destroys the townspeople's flawed perception of Miss Emily as an icon and forces them to see the brutal reality. In conclusion, Faulkner uses "A Rose for Emily" as a parable which reveals the reluctant truth about the death of the Old South.

To learn more about this piece of literature, or to purchase the book, please follow the link:

Advocatus Diaboli

2008-01-08T06:03:00.000-05:00

I am the other side of the coin.
I am the lesser of two evils.
I am the calm at the eye of the storm.
I am the justification and the excuse.
I am the Devil's advocate.

I drip like honey and burn like fire.

Unleashing the Demon

2008-01-03T12:17:00.003-05:00

There's a reason I keep my halo close by. I keep it safely tucked away, but always within reach. Sometimes it's heavy, sometimes it's oppressive, but it keeps me safe. It keeps me sane (I think).

It also makes people see me in a way that I know I am not. It doesn't reflect my true identity. It projects, reflects and refracts the image of a person I know I will never be. I am not intentionally deceiving people with this image, they are merely seeing what they wish to see. I'm the reluctant magician. It is my curse.

My halo keeps me safe. Safety is good unless it stifles you and imprisons you.

Sometimes the devil comes to call and I am tempted to set my halo down. Let go of the burden, free myself, free my mind. So I step away from the halo, and I revel in the glories of sin. What is sin but a social construct? What is sin but a mandate by an antiquated and out-moded religion? So I play with the devil. I dance with the devil.

When the sun comes up though, I know the truth. It's not about sin, it's about conscience.

I reflect on my actions. I see that in trying to define myself all I have done is acted out in defiance.

I peer at my halo, sitting dusty on the floor. It still has a little glimmer. It still looks heavy. So I pick it up and hold it in the palm of my hand. It is warm and solid and vibrates with a little electric hum. It glows softly and pulsates gently. It has an inner light that shines like the morning sunrise and it whispers to me softly to be true to myself, to be the best person I can.

So I set it down again and ponder the consequences of playing with the devil or of carrying the halo.

What have I decided? I don't know. I like to be safe, but I don't like to be bound. I like to play with the devil, but only so much. Somewhere in between there is a place where the two merge and co-exist in harmony.

In that harmonious place is my identity, one in which I can be true to myself and shine from within. A place where I can also put on my dancing shoes and Salsa with the Devil with gleeful abandon, but still go home in the morning and let the sun shine on my delighted face.

So let the light shine on, but not too brightly.

In Saving Our Hope

2007-12-30T13:50:00.004-05:00

On November 30, 2007 Pope Benedict issued a new encyclical entitled "Spe Salvi"; "SPE SALVI facti sumus—in hope we were saved." I have been reading through the encyclical with fascination, especially after having taken a college course entitled "Women and Religion". This course ended up being a great spiritual gift for me. On the last day of class our instructor asked us to share anything we may have gained from taking the course. My personal response was that before I'd taken the class I had known things instinctively, but didn't know WHY. After having taken the course, I now understood the logic behind my instincts and felt stronger for having solid fact to back up my opinions and beliefs.

As a recanted Roman Catholic I have no trouble viewing the edicts of the Church with a critical eye. In fact, I think I was born for it. I come from a long line of almost fanatical catholics and as the darling of the family (first grandchild/great grandchild!) I was expected to reflect that religious zeal and be a shining example to my siblings and cousins. For some reason it never worked. I remember questioning everything from a very early age. I know that every child is famous for going through a "why" phase, but I seem to have been born asking, "why?" Furthermore, unlike other children, it is a habit I have never outgrown.

So here I am, reading the Spe Salvi, and every sentence therein I want to debate! I have only read a portion of it, but here are my thoughts thus far:

On "Introduction" 1 and 2:
Pope Benedict supports, recycles and glorifies the same old Christian message, which is that the promise of salvation, which is our goal (I use "our" loosely), transcends the physical reality of the present. He states that faith equals hope and that if you don't have one then you can't have the other. In other words, unless you believe in the Christian God you cannot know the concept of hope. WHY not? WHY can't you know hope without God? WHY can't you hope for a better world with peace and love and understanding? By making such a statement, the Pope creates a monopoly on hope, turning it into an exclusive right rather than an inclusive offering.

Furthermore, he calls Christian faith a "trustworthy hope". Which leads me to ask, "WHY would you trust a God who is historically (and I use the word "historically" quite liberally), particularly in the Old Testament, jealous, wrathful, and in so many other ways akin to a petulant, spoiled child?"

He goes on to discuss Paul's experience with the Ephesians. The Pope does a little magic trick here. He uses wording that leads the reader into unconscious notions that aren't supported by fact. (Is this an example of why we must have faith?) He states that the Ephesians "...had had gods... had had a religion..." as if the facts were past tense and the Ephesians were without religion when Paul met them. Now I realize this is semantics, but is it necessary? Certainly for the Pope's agenda it is! But I must ask, WHY? WHY did he have to state it that way? What was his motive?

Here's where the Pope becomes the pot and calls the kettle black: he states about the Ephesians that "their god had proved questionable, and no hope emerged from their contradictory myths." Here I am at semantics again! If they "had had gods... had had a religion" (PAST TENSE) then how could they be struggling with the concept of a questionable god and contradictory myths? I know I'm being nit-picky here, but I just can't let it go. Yet here is my main point: since when has the Christian god not proven questionable (why, he's questioned several times in the Old Testament alone, nevermind the questioning he receives in broad scope in our modern world!), and since when have the Christian myths not been contradictory in their own right? Consider the Ten Commandments, then go through the Bible and count how many times they are disregarded through some loophole or other. Then again, maybe I'm completely wrong to question this issue. After all, maybe all the Pope is suggesting is that it is okay to worship a questionable God and believe in contradictory myths as long as the religion offers hope. So WHY is it okay?

Sheesh. I'm already tired of this now. I have more to write, but I'll add it later. In the meantime you can ponder my "why" questions and maybe even offer some informative answers. Just do me a favor: if you have a response please offer it respectfully. If you can't be Christ-like then don't call yourself a Christian and don't patronize me with your contradictory nature. Save the contradictions for God and the Pope.

Three Lefts Make Me Right, and the Self-Righteous One is Wrong

2007-12-28T13:11:00.000-05:00

An update about "Small Change":

In the past week I have talked to my marriage counselor AND my youngest son's psychologist (he-my son- has a learning disability- one day I'll write more about this). They both agree with me about making the children more responsible and the benefits of this for the family and to the children's futures. The psychologist even helped me to put together a game-plan with which to ease the children into the change with minimal stress and trauma.

How strange and maddening it is to harbor doubts about your convictions, to wonder if you're just being a bitch. It's so rewarding to hear from professionals on the subject that you are NOT. It's certainly a relief, but it also causes me to wonder:
Do I worry about being a bitch because of my personal background, because of my interaction with my husband, or because of the way our society portrays women who stand up for themselves? I'm suspecting it's a combination of all three... And possibly some other factors that I'm just not illuminated enough to have realized. Yet.

I Got Scared Because I Was Happy

2007-12-28T12:10:00.003-05:00

I ordered "War of the Roses" on-demand the other day. I remember watching it when it first came out (my God, I was nineteen!) and thinking that it was a funny dark-comedy. Supposedly, the story is about a married couple who fall out of love after (about) twenty years of marriage. The wife asks for a divorce, and from there on the two spouses become petty and begin an escalating war of vengeance upon each other that culminates in their deaths. With my new perspective (critical analyzation and feminist perspective), I viewed the movie with an eye for detail. I took note of the deeper messages and symbology and the only incriminating evidence I could find toward the wife's "bad" behavior was that she refused to give up the house! She was honest with her husband in her feelings and in return he was cruel and petty to her. All of the rotten things she did to him were in retaliation to the rotten things he pulled on her first. In fact, he was quite emotionally abusive to her. I think she should have let the house go, but considering her history I could see why she'd have an unreasonable attachment to it- it had become a part of her identity.

I wrote down one quote from the movie to discuss with my husband. It was from the scene where she explains why she didn't go to the hospital when he had a heart attack. She explains that she started thinking about life without him, a life on her own, and she got scared. He pats her on the leg and says, "Oh, honey, it's okay, I'm here now and I'm okay." (I'm paraphrasing.) Then she says, (and this is what I wrote down), "I got scared because I was happy." Sooooo Kate Chopin a la "The Story of An Hour"!!! I wanted to discuss this perspective with my husband. I thought it would make for great intellectual discourse, the importance of women developing their own independent identity aside from being wives and mothers. Yet, when I broached the subject he became very defensive and couldn't seem to grasp the concept. Somehow, he took an intellectual conversation and turned it into something personaI. This really surprised me, since I think I've always tried very hard to openly declare myself as an individual beyond and aside from being a mother and a wife. Which leads me to wonder, is he just too sensitive? Is he insecure? Is he incapable of critical analyzation and symbolic interpretation? Or is he, deep in his heart, just another patriarchally brain-washed person?

Because I can't say it any better myself ponder this:
"Those who define themselves forever in terms of mother or wife? Those whose sense of self-worth is defined only in terms of their relation to others (or more exactly, in terms of other’s relation to them) and not in a sense of their own personhood? You know them. They are the women who become bitter and nasty and envious or play the martyr. I asked my students that day, when I so clumsily attempted to describe non-being, if they had read Kate Chopin's The Awakening. Have you read it? Then I told them that the end of that story is about non-being. The character has come to the realization that she is a non-being and the despair she feels is only matched by the inability to even begin to know how to create one.

I fear that I have just risked being enormously misunderstood. How DARE I debunk the myth and mystique of motherhood by suggesting that it alone is not enough for any woman? How dare I demythologize the fabled “happily ever after” that is promised with the kiss of the Prince? I do so only in the firmest conviction, grounded in experience, that no one; no child and/or no man can “make” another happy or fulfilled. These are only to be found within a free human being who seeks after them for herself." ~ Louise Doire (Doire Musings)

Anyway, I wrote Barbara Rose's quote ("I got scared...") on a sticky-note and stuck it to a cabinet in the kitchen. My husband asked, "WHY?" and I replied, "To remind myself to take care of my identity." It's possible that I'm displaying a form of passive-aggression in retaliation to my perception of his emotional abuse, but we won't know for sure until you find us both dead in the chandelier.

See the movie for yourself:

Small Change

2007-12-24T18:00:00.000-05:00

Today I realized that I am annoyed by so many little things in my life that if you summed them all up it would be one big issue. I analyzed these annoyances just enough to understand that they are almost all the cause of the same thing: wrong behavior. As a college student with two teenage children, one husband, three cats, a puppy, and a home to care for, I must economize my time if I am to have any quality in my life. The annoyances are mostly related to things other people in my home do... or DON'T do, as the case may be. I shouldn't have to turn off lights all the time, sort laundry (or even put it IN the basket which I already provided!), pick up dirty dishes, clean up messes, put the computer on hibernate, clean the entire house, etc, etc, etc. (I am getting tired just writing this!) Not only should the people who create these messes and issues clean up after themselves, they should do more around the house toward contributing to the better living environment of the entire family. Thirteen year old boys should be able to take out the garbage without being asked. Fifteen year old boys should be able to mow the lawn. Forty-four year old men should be able to vacuum properly, to INCLUDE the stairs.

I brought this issue up with my husband, expecting to discuss it and come up with a game plan for improvement. The conversation, naturally, did not go in the direction I desired. Somehow, in my addressing the situation, it has been brought to my attention that if things bother me then they are MY problem and no one else's. Hmmmm! Let's see how they like it after they run out of underwear! He also informed me that I expect too much (I'm sorry, but I think my grandfather's generation would be terribly disgusted in us!) from my children, and that I would do better to be like him- resolved to the way things are. Well, certainly the path of least resistance is less... resistant, but shouldn't we BE the change we'd like to see in the world? Aaaah! Here I am again, at resistance. Do I sense a theme? Ha!

I look at my husband and I see a man resolved to never enjoy the things in life he already has. I see a man resolved to believe that the world is generally evil and that there is nothing we can do about it. I see a man resolved to putter through his days with no great lust for life, no Joie de vive. If that is resolve then I'll have none of it, thank you very much. My family may resist me, and there is only so much you can do to re-train a forty-four year old man, but I intend to make my children a lot more autonomous and definitely a lot more helpful from now on. I believe that in doing so they will not become so overwhelmed in the future nor feel so helpless to enjoy life to it's fullest. They will know how to care for themselves, they will not be afraid of hard work, and they will have the motivation to be the change they wish to see in the world.

I told you resistance wasn't futile!

Note About Resistence

2007-12-16T13:00:00.001-05:00

Just in case anyone gets silly notions about my last post:

This is NOT Star Trek.

There is no Borg.

Resistence is NEVER futile.

: D

Resistence

2007-12-16T10:52:00.002-05:00

Last night I went running.

For the past three to five years I've been very sick. Before that I was a physical dynamo. I was always energetic, always optimistic, always looking for a challenge, always ready to break barriers. I played inter-mural volleyball on my college team. Don't laugh. I could spike that ball with violent intent. I wasn't afraid to dive to my knees if it meant being victorious. I had (and still have!) a wicked serve for which I am famous... or is that infamous? I rode my bicycle everywhere. Everywhere. I lifted weights, I took aerobics classes, I went mountain hiking, I went dancing every Friday night until the sun came up Saturday morning.

Then about four years ago I started getting twinges in my right hip. I didn't realize how bad these "twinges" had become until one day I became aware that going up and down stairs filled me with dread, getting in and out of my car was a miserable event, and even walking two blocks down the street seemed like an impossibility. By this time I had fallen off my physical activities. I became a tortured lump that lived on my sofa. By this time the pain had travelled to my right shoulder, my right elbow, my right wrist, my right knee, my right ankle. It was as if everything that was right about me was in indeed WRONG.

When this had gone on for about a year I realized I wasn't going to heal on my own, so I limped my way in to my family practitioner. She found my condition perplexing. She said that there is no reason that I should suffer pain on only one side of my body. She ran a battery of tests and took much of my blood. The tests revealed that my immune system was compromised, but not by any virus or bacteria or genetic disorder that could be detected. She sent me to a rheumatologist, who poked, prodded, and took more blood. He poked and prodded in places that made me scream in agony. His response to my protests of pain was, "Don't be a baby. Everybody suffers some sort of pain. I have eighty year old clients who don't even whimper." So I tried not to whimper, but as I laid there in agony it occurred to me that I didn't give a flying fuck how the eighty year old people dealt with their pain. Pain is not measurable, pain shouldn't have to be justified. And my pain shouldn't be quantified, qualified, compared, or related to anyone else's pain. So the next time he prodded me in a particularly sore spot I slapped him. Apparently slapping him was the thing to do, for at this point he said, "Now I really believe you MUST be in a lot of pain. Let's do some more tests." If you're ever in such desparation that you are unconcerned about the risk of a lawsuit or a restraining order I highly recommend you slap your doctor to get his attention.

Further testing revealed that I had inflamed joints. Arthritis at thirty-five years of age! And arthritis on only one side of my body at that. This is the part the doctors still found perplexing. Finally it was revealed that the source of my arthritis was a faulty immune system that wants to attack innocent body parts for shits and giggles. It's not Lupus, but it's Lupus-like. The cause of all this pain? Eighteen years of suffering. Eighteen years of sustained flight-or-fight stimulation has effected my body, probably permanently. Oh, I am an anomaly for sure! I grew up in a violent household, an opera of grotesque and majestic proportions. I am an anomaly because only ten percent of children who grow up in such a household end up leading (mentally) healthy lives. The other ninety percent either turn out like their abusive parent(s), turn in to prostitutes, die of drug overdoses/addictions, and/or any combination of these things.

Ten percent. If I had known those odds as a child, or even as a young adult, I may have just thrown in the towel and lit up my crack pipe (or whatever it is you do with a crack pipe). But I didn't know. And somewhere deep inside I always instinctively knew that I deserved equality, safety, dignity, and hope. Instinctively I was a fighter. So I fought, I grew, and every day that I survived I became a little bit stronger. I imagined myself as my very own freedom fighter, my own little patriot, my own little rebel force. For a little girl, there was nothing little about these attitudes. I never gave in, I never gave up, I never waivered. I stood, I stayed, and when I could leave I left.

Nearly fifteen years later I have learned that despite my psychological health (O that great Anomaly!), it is my physical health that has been compromised. Eighteen years of flight-or-fight stimulation causes irreparable changes to the brain. This translates into odd symptoms of the body, like an auto-immune disorder that causes your own body to attack itself. Which means that despite being an anomaly, I still ended up being a statistic.

For the past three years I have experimented with several different medications to alleviate the pain. I've been on muscle relaxers, relafin, celebrex, ibuprofin, sleeping pills, and prescribed narcotics. I've had cortisone injections (I'd rather shoot myself in the leg than do that again!). I've taken vitamins galore. But here's what really helped: a change of attitude. I put my armor back on (a clothing style I hadn't used since I moved out of my parents' house), donned my weapons, and "girded my loins". Ha ha. Only this time, instead of battling people who's intent it is to destroy me physically, psychologically, and spiritually, I was ready to battle my own demons. I stopped making excuses. I accepted that the pain was there (by God, if an eighty year old person doesn't whimper then I want to be an eighty year old woman!). I decided to take command of my body and make it work for me rather than against me. First I started walking. That was a year ago. Now I am running. First I could barely walk a mile. Now I run 1.5 miles and I walk 1.5 miles. My goal is to run 3 miles non-stop (after that, there will be new goals). First I dreaded walking/running. The pain was immense, the effort exhausting, and I felt like I was pulling myself uphill by a tenuous rope. Now I live for running. I love the endorphin rush; there is no pain, and I finally feel as if I am being pushed from behind rather than pulling myself along. I feel strong, happy, healthy, and alive. The pain is still there, but I ignore it. I think of it as a remnant of my parents' cruelty which I refuse to acknowledge in any way. To do so is to give it power, and they will not have that power over me anymore.

I went running last night. As I bulletted through the rain I began thinking of my children. I thought of them when they were little. I remembered how I would take one in each hand and walk with them. They always pulled against me. I was like the bow of a boat, plowing through resistent water while my kids were the waves, split and curling on each side of me. They dragged behind me and I pulled them along. One day I realized I was weary of always leaning forward, pulling my kids along. So I let go of their hands and to my surprise they didn't fall away, they stayed right behind me, flanking me at each side. Which made me wonder: what does it take to recognize resistence, our own and/or that of others against us? At what point should we stop resisting? What does it take for us to let go and move WITH life, rather than against it? I thought of this as I ran blissfully through the rain.

Beginning

2007-12-15T12:59:00.000-05:00

Something amazing has happened to me in the past year. I am waking up. I started school about a year and a half ago. (Was it that long ago? Seems like yesterday!) Since then I have come to understand so much about myself that wasn’t readily apparent in the past. Let me rephrase that: it was readily apparent; I just didn’t have the tools or the will to see it.
I am excited to be waking up, excited to realize all that I have been previously ignorant to. Yet the experience is taking me into dangerous territory, the territory of Change. Change is always a good thing if it helps you to realize your full potential, to fully be whom and what you are meant to be; but Change can destroy all the constructs of the past, the comfort of what you thought you knew, the false comfort of familiarity.

Last night I was watching television with my husband. We were watching a news report that was covering a “pay-it-forward” phenomenon in which a person at a Starbucks drive-through had paid for the coffee of the person in line behind him. This action caused an unintended trend that continued all day, in which each customer who found out their drink had already been paid for was inspired to pay for the drink of the customer behind them. When the man who instigated the movement was interviewed he said he didn’t do it as a “pay-it-forward” gesture. He did it because the man in line behind him had been hurling insults and honking his horn impatiently. He said he’d made the gesture because he was trying to be Zen-like, to balance the negativity around him with goodness, and to bring awareness to the impatient man behind him. I thought this was noble and selfless and stated my sentiments to my husband. He just snickered. I told him that this news piece was ironic for me because earlier that same day I’d been researching “Zen” on the Internet and thought I’d like to know more about it. In response to this, my husband started cracking jokes about tea. I asked him to stop, I let him know he was hurting my feelings, but he pretended to be oblivious and kept cracking jokes about tea. I put up my hand, shook my head, and walked out of the room while saying, “I can’t talk to you about this.” He acted perplexed and amused at my “hotheadedness”.
I have thought about this exchange, and in retrospect I realize he was NOT oblivious to my feeling insulted, and that he was blaming the victim (me) by suggesting that the only thing wrong with our interaction was my “hotheadedness”. I didn’t even get an apology! Instead, I’m to believe I’m too sensitive and that the problem lies within ME.
Coincidentally enough, this is certainly a situation that calls for Zen-like introspection.

So the Change has begun. I am beginning to see behavior patterns that are unhealthy in my relationships and in myself. I am beginning to see how I truly wish- no, I demand- to be treated. I am beginning to realize that it’s okay not to feel guilt over a lack of willingness to self-sacrifice anymore. I am beginning to realize that self-development was denied to me, but it’s not too late to begin.

I am beginning.