Socialism? Still?

I cannot believe that people are saying that the president is trying to turn children into socialists by asking that they watch an address he is making to them while they are in school.

First: socialism? How can anybody actually be worried about that in 2009? Kids, socialism became the policy of the Republican party when they took over the banks last year, remember that? And the automobile industries? That's not history, it's current events.

Second: I was looking for information on the speech earlier today, and I came up with lots of hits for mommy-bloggers concerned about their children being forced to watch this in school, and how many of them were keeping their children home. WTF? Who's anti-government now, hmmm? Here's the thing: he's not campaigning anymore. HE IS THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. He has only one agenda at this point, and it's us, all of us. If that's what the anti-Obamans wanted us to believe when Bush was president, why isn't it still good now that the shoe is on the other foot?

Third: Read the text of the speech. It's very sweet, and it's just what you would want someone to say to your kids. Work hard because it's worth it. Your country needs you. It's not political at all. It's lovely.

Fourth: I know that the speech is aimed at all schoolchildren, and I hope that there are those first and second graders who hear it and listen and for whom it becomes the motivation to succeed. I know that in my high school, it will be on everywhere (and I know that many teachers will complain about it taking away from class time, the curmudgeons), but I just don't know how much impact it will have on teenagers. Or should I say, how many teenagers will be impacted by it. I hope they all are. It's a universal message: work hard and have pride in yourself and it will save America.

Not socialist to me.




watching THE GOLDEN GIRLS :: ENTRY #2117
READING: The Labyrinth by Rick Riordan

Everybody Gots Feet

I haven't ranted in a while, and this isn't much of a rant, but trust me, you'll enjoy it more than an account of my visit to the urologist today.

I wear sneakers, generally. Or crocs, or things of that nature. I never wear pumps, or any kind of shoes with heels. I wear princess heels if I'm going to a wedding, maybe. That's it.

Aside from the comfort factor, which is the big thing for me, of course, I wear shoes that make no noise. I became aware of this when I was walking through the school hallway on my way to lunch and I realized that the Land's End sneakers I got on Monday were really squeaky. It wasn't the shoes, because they weren't squeaky at home, or in the carpeted library, but they sure were on the hallway floors. I don't know what this substance is called; it's what you've seen on the floor of every school, police station, courtroom, and public building you've ever been in. Hold on, I'll look it up. Talk amongst yourselves.

It's terrazzo. Back to feet.

So I'm squeaking my way from the library into the math section of the school, where I have lunch, and behind me I hear clonk.clonk.clonk.clonk.clonk. The sound of heels walking on terrazzo.

OMG, I cannot stand that sound. Why is it that women in heels feel that everyone in the whole damn world should have to hear them coming? Or going? Or in this case, shadowing, since whoever this was -- I didn't turn around -- was three feet behind me, matching my stride. There are plenty of women in my school who have turned this clonking of their heels on the floor into a kind of choreography, a kind of showing off, or at least it seems to me. It makes me want to scream, YES I KNOW YOU HAVE FEET! EVERYBODY GOTS FEET! NOW SHUT UP!

(When my kids were little, there was an ad on TV for a toy that was a piano keyboard you put down on the floor and danced on to play music, the home version of that giant keyboard Tom Hanks danced on in Big. At the end of the commercial, a serious male voice intoned "If you've got feet, you can play whatever it was." And K, who was about two, turned to us and lookied puzzled, or maybe annoyed at the announcer's stupidity, and declared, because she knew this for sure: "Everybody gots feet.")

Here are my pictures. I'm guessing you can click on them to see them bigger, but I really don't know. I got this iPhone app that lets you take panoramas. The first picture -- Before -- is basically what the view was from where my desk used to be in the library. The second one -- After -- is the view from where I sit now. The second one looks like it's kind of cut in half in the middle, but it's only the edge of a pillar.









FRIENDS :: ENTRY #2006
READING: The Story of Edgar Sawtelle by Davbid Wroblewski

Paging Senator McCarthy

I am sick and tired of self-righteous assholes telling me that I am not a "real" American. I am as real as it gets, as real as you, although we may be different in many ways. Liberals are certainly "real", they just disagree with you, morons. I would like to see one of these people tell me face to face exactly why I am less "real" an American than they think they are. Because I had immigrant grandparents? (Everybody had an immigrant somebody.) Because I live on the East Coast? (Look at the census figures. A lot of people live on the East Coast.) Because I'm a liberal? (Haven't we had liberal presidents in the past, too?) Because I'm ... oh. Right. I know what I am. Sooner or later, that's what it comes down to; it always has and it always does. Did I say paging Senator McCarthy? Maybe we should be paging Heinrich Himmler instead.


WATCHING WIFESWAP :: ENTRY #1887
READING: Don't Know Much About History by Kenneth C. Davis

Explained

It's not so much politics that I was raised on, but ethics. I've said before, I was possibly four years old when I was first told that Franklin Roosevelt was the savior of the United States of America. My father spoke out against McCarthy and his witch hunt, and telegraphed Edward R. Murrow his support when Murrow exposed that most un-American of senators. I was passionately against the Vietnam War, even when my father, a veteran, maintained his stand that it is right to support your country, no matter what, until he saw enough of the war on TV to realize that this is not always the case. He remembered Nixon and his dirty politics going back to his 1948 run for Congress, and I knew about that, too. He liked Gerald Ford, whom he felt was a good man, but he never trusted Ronald Reagan. ("Always remember," Jack cautioned us, "that he is an actor first.") I have recently talked about my parents' feelings about the racial divide in this country, so I won't go into that again.

That was at home. Talking about politics in public can be dangerous, like talking about religion. (Although for some reason, there are plenty of people these days who have no trouble talking about their religion, and putting it into public policy. Huh.) Talking about politics in public can cause hurt feelings, and more, and so was impolite. Nevertheless, it doesn't stop me, although it does hold me back. Sometimes I hold back here in my diary, too, although there's really no reason to do that because, as so many others before me have pointed out, you don't like what you read, that's what the little x in the box is for. (Or the little red circle, if you're on a Mac.)

I also hold back sometimes because I am extremely passionate about these things, and letting myself run free can get me very charged up. Is that good or bad? I don't know. I do feel that I've made my feelings here pretty clear, but earlier today, I wrote an entry with the title Glass Houses, Stones, and Double Standards, and I didn't explain it. So here we go.

First, I am willing to admit that my own candidate is not perfect, although at the moment, I have no specific example of that. He seems like a stand-up guy. I think some of the charges that the other side throws at him are simply absurd. For example, the idea that either Obama or Biden is an "elitist", whatever that's supposed to be. Let us remember that both McCain and Palin were raised in far more affluent circumstances than either Obama or Biden, and Palin's parents were just middle-class school teachers. Is it "elite" to be accepted into a fine university? I don't think so; isn't that what we would want our children to aspire to? And didn't McCain go to a fine university, at government expense, I might add? Who is the wealthy one in the foursome? We all know that answer, so let it go.

Here's what we need to remember: McCain's campaign is using, or trying to use, a tactic that is time-honored in the Republican party, at least going back to 2000. If they raise enough stupid and pointless issues about the other candidate, they hope it will distract voters from the real issues that are important. It's called swift-boating, remember that? Like when you claim a decorated war hero really wasn't a hero, because you don't want people to think about, oh, THE ILLEGAL WAR IN IRAQ. Right. Imagine what Nixon could have done to Kennedy with this strategy?

Anyway, glass houses. This new attack on Obama, that he hates America because he "pals around" with known terrorists could not be more insane. The known terrorist in this case is a 1960s radical who now is a professor of education in Chicago and who lives in Obama's neighborhood. As Obama has pointed out, when this individual was involved in the acts for which he was criticized, Obama was 8 years old. (And lived in Hawaii, I might add.) What reason could there be for raising such a ridiculous issue if not to distract voters from the mess of the economy -- and McCain's foolish role in it last week -- and the war?

And by the way, glass houses? Stones? What I'd like to know more about is Palin's involvement with the secessionist group in Alaska; that is, the group that wants Alaska to secede from the union. Her husband was a member, and she spoke to the group, "courted" them, said the last article I read. Led by an individual who, to this day, maintains his hatred for the United States and curses the flag. (Not that I don't think "cursing the flag" is an absurd charge against anyone, but you know, if anyone Obama ever knew did it, Palin would be all over him.) So Governor Palin, please, check your own glass walls before you start throwing your stones. You might want to think twice.

Double standard. Or maybe more than double, but this one really gets me, and it's something Bill Maher said on his show Friday night, which I shall paraphrase. Still wondering how much racism has to do with this election? Do you still think Palin is okay, but Obama "doesn't have enough experience" or is "elitist"? Well. First -- this didn't come from Bill Maher -- calling Obama "elitist" is just another way of saying that he is "uppity." It is. If you don't think so, think again.

But this was the eye-opener for me.

You may have seen that video clip of Palin in her church, a minister from Africa praying over her to drive out witches. (I couldn't find a short clip of it on Youtube, but you can find a long one.) Yes. He prayed over her -- she was right there with him -- to make sure she was free of the influence of witches. And people are okay with that. Now, let's imagine for a moment that we had a video clip of the same minister, exact same scene, but he was praying over Barack Obama to cast out witches. Would it look the same to you? (If your answer is Yes, it would have looked incredibly stupid no matter who was in the video, go to the head of the class.) But if you think that it's okay for Palin, but would have looked wrong with Obama, then guess what? That, my friends, is racism. Okay for the nice white lady, a little too jungle fever for the black man? Yes. That's what racism is, the double standard that says okay for white people, not okay for black people.

Please. Do not be distracted by race; be a better American than that. Do not be distracted by lies and half-truths; be smarter than that. If you look at any issue, look at health care. Under McCain's plan, huge numbers of Americans will lose the health care they have now, and if you get your health care from your employer, you will probably be one of them. Read about what his plan is. Look for the explanations from economists as to why it will not work, and will only make insurance companies richer and Americans poorer, or in poorer health, or both. McCain has no interest whatsoever in the average American, and Palin doesn't understand enough about anything to do anything for anybody, unless, of course, you've got a witch problem.

Please. Be thoughtful with your vote. Vote for our future. McCain and Palin are telling you that America is a leader in the world and we can do anything, but our own eyes are telling us that this is no longer true. Obama is the one who wants to restore America to its leadership role, to its true values. Someone needs to put us back on the path that Bush has taken us off of, and McCain is not the man to do it, and neither is Palin. Obama is the man. I see hope in him. Could I be wrong, of course. But I see two choices, and only one of them is a choice I can make. McCain/Palin would only continue this country down its path of disaster. I want a president who believes in the same America I do. And that president is Barack Obama.

(Thanks, Karen. You gave me the strength I needed to write this. XOXO)


WATCHING KING OF THE HILL :: ENTRY #1872
READING: Dear Senator by Essie Mae Washington-Williams

And Another Thing

If you are a person who buys into the God thing -- and it's pretty clear by now that I'm on the fence -- then you know what else is really cool? That he made people with spare parts. And interchangeable parts! I mean, imagine the moment when the first doctor realized he could take an artery from a person's leg and use it to repair a damaged heart artery! Or when they did the first donor-to-recipient organ transplant. God is somewhere watching this and thinking "YES! They finally figured it out!"

And if you buy that, then it's pretty clear that God has given us the mental capacity to ultimately cure what's wrong with us, or at least a lot of it. Who's to say that the whole stem cell thing isn't his idea, because, you know, if everything comes from God, well, so do all the scientists' ideas and discoveries, too. Who are any of us to say that some of these things are okay with God and some aren't? None of us actually knows. So if you're taking stuff on faith, why not that?

I'm done now.

Ahem, moving on. The SCM is out again today, what a surprise. Not at all, actually, because I knew in advance, so, whatever. I got a lot done this morning of one kind or another, but this is a crazy week, no school for the next two days, so you kind of feel you don't want to get too involved in anything. I only had one class in today, but I set up the schedule for freshman orientation in a few weeks.

My other possible choice for the SCM's replacement emailed me this morning -- K had left her a message on Facebook -- and I emailed her back, but I haven't heard yet. I'm sure this is because she sent me her personal email address and she's at work all day, which was the right address to use if she's at work, because using your work email to talk about a new job is tacky. I'm sure she guessed right away why I wanted to hear from her. I'll check my work mail from home tomorrow and see if she's answered.

We all got the annual statements of our sick days today, so that we can check them and see if they're correct. I found a mistake on mine last year, and every day potentially counts for me, so I checked carefully. Turns out they did make one mistake, but so did I in my own record-keeping, so it all came out the same. I am carrying over 23 sick days, which is what's left of the ... um, counting ... roughly 411 I've been given over the years. Sheesh, not a great track record. Add to that this year's 10 plus this year's 3 personal days, and I've got 36 to work with, the equivalent of about seven weeks of school. I also have some extended leave days and some sick days less substitute pay that they haven't given in years, but they can't take away from oldtimers like me who got them under a previous contract. Anyway, let's all hope the word "surgery" doesn't come up at the gynecologist's office tomorrow. Why do I think it might? Have you met me?

New grammatical pet peeve: myself. Okay, it's not new, but it's been driving me batty lately. Even well-spoken people who should know better cannot figure out how to use this word. Or maybe it's that they can't figure out how to use the word "me" correctly, so they use "myself" instead. (That really is the problem.) Case in point. Last week, I heard the SCM, who is nothing if not pretentious in his use of language, explain to a student that when she was done with something she could "give it to myself or Mrs. Chai." Wait a minute ... no. No no no. This is how I hear myself most mis-used, when people are afraid to say "Report that to Mr. Jones and me" because they think "me" sounds stupid, so they say "Report that to Mr. Jones and myself," or worse, "to myself and Mr. Jones." Want to get it right? Take Mr. Jones out of the sentence for a minute. What sounds better? "Report that to myself" or "Report that to me." Me is a good word, people, but it's gotten a bad rap. Okay, we do not say "Me and you are going to the movies" because it's not correct. But when the "me" in question is the recipient of the action object in the sentence -- which we call the indirect object of the sentence -- me is the correct word to use, and if there are two indirect objects, the "me" comes second. Are we good?

(So what is "myself" for? It's a reflexive pronoun used for emphasis. "Whoever painted your house did a really good job." "I, myself, painted my house!" or "I did it myself!" You could just say "I painted my house" or "I did it", but the "myself" adds the emphasis.)

(I haven't particularly noticed this in diaries, btw, so it's not aimed at any of you out there. I keep hearing it in person and on TV. From lots and lots of people who really should know better.)

And as long as I'm rambling, let me add this: Can we please initiate a world-wide boycott of all food and medicine made in China until they get their shit together? Did we not create food safety laws in this country for a reason? Can we just decide that we're only importing food and drugs from countries with laws at least as strict as ours? Come on, guys! We do we go through all the trials and testing for new drugs if they're just going to made in China out of rat feces and poisonous chemicals?

WATCHING GILMORE GIRLS :: ENTRY #1866
READING: Welcome to the World, Baby Girl! by Fannie Flagg

Here We Go

I'm going to have to start with this, because I just read two articles in the last five minutes on more or less the same thing -- they're listed in my shared headlines box over there on the right if you're reading this entry today or tomorrow -- and I have to get it out.

There is religion and there is science. They are two separate things, but they are not incompatible. However, claiming that your religious belief -- whatever it is -- is science is not smart. It is ignorance, in the sense that you are ignoring something. Listen:

I worked with a man for several years who taught Anatomy and Advanced Placement Biology. He was an incredibly good teacher. I also knew him to be a very devout and faithful Catholic person, and I asked him once how he kept his religion and his science from contradicting each other. He smiled. He said that all the evidence of evolution was clear, and that scientists could study it and see it happening every day. There was no question about evolution or the age of the earth: these were scientific, proven facts. However, he continued, evolution is such a complex and beautiful process that it could only have come from the mind of God. How could anything else explain how evolution came to be? As for the story of creation in the Bible, he thought it was a beautiful story, and explained -- using terms that an earlier, unsophisticated society could understand -- exactly what had happened. Did God create the world in seven days? He smiled again. The word "day", he believed, was used in the story because it would have been difficult for people then to comprehend the amount of time that was really involved, and there were no words to explain it then. "Day", he felt, was a metaphor for what really happened, which was evolution as science describes it, and all because of God.

Makes sense to me.


Okay, on to life. Turns out I will only be working two days this week -- Monday and Thursday -- because we have Tuesday and Wednesday off, and I'm taking off Friday to take R for a medical test. (Not a big one -- I've had it twice this year -- but requires a driver, and perhaps a mommy to hover.) She's feeling much better, actually, and has a new theory, which I won't mention until we hear from the doctor, since all former theories have been WRONG.

I haven't spoken to my sister for a few days because she was away at a parents' weekend or something for Little K, and although I think she's home now, I tried a little while ago and there was no answer. But sometimes she just doesn't answer. On the other hand, I believe the bride and groom are due home from their honeymoon today, so she could be over there, too. Anyway, I'll try her again shortly.

So that's my story, folks. I slept much better so far this weekend, so I don't feel like I'm totally dragging. Always a nice thing.


WATCHING DOC HOLLYWOOD :: ENTRY #1865
READING: Welcome to the World, Baby Girl! by Fannie Flagg

Still Crazy After ...

I changed my career today. You'll never believe what I did.

I spent the whole day being a *gasp* librarian.

I catalogued stuff. I checked out books. I helped kids with computer issues. I worked on the new signs that finally came in. I even fixed the damn laminating machine.

In other words, three weeks into the school year, I actually got to start doing the work I was hired to do, the work I'm paid for.

I really have to see if I can unload this I.D. card thing for next year. I'm working on it.



In other news, let's see. I'm having a fairly political day again, and I'd like to share something with you, but with some comments on it as well. R never forwards me Internet stuff, but today she sent me this article. Go ahead and read it. I'll wait.

la di da di da la di da di da ... what's the name of that song?

Okay, now, the odds are you are having some sort of response to this, and that's what I want to talk about. When I read this, I wrote back to her "When did I write this?" because bingo, she was the kid who went to Europe and South America with the Scouts, not to mention taking her own trip to Australia as an adult and going to graduate school in Wales, and yes, she performed in plays -- Shakespeare -- when she was stage manager of the drama club, and yes, she has seen her own plays produced. She works for a very large non-profit that is educational in nature. She happens also to be a beautiful girl -- so others have told me -- and we have done our best to raise her to have many experiences. (She has also done extensive camping and hiking, and I don't mean with tents and latrines, I mean with a sleeping bag, a backpack, and a little shovel. She did the longest trail at Philmont; if there are Boy Scouts among you, you know what that is.)

All right, so that was my reaction, and I wasn't naive enough to think it would be everybody's, but when I read the comments, I was blown away. Many comments were supportive, as mine would have been, but some were just mean and vicious. Here's one (#15, excerpted):

You should have bought her a shotgun and gone out shooting with her. It would have broadened her cultural horizons, taught her some cultural tolerance, and rounded her out enough to understand how the other half lives.

Ya know, maybe a good moose hunt, and getting her hands bloody actually processing the meat rather than buying it pre-packaged in the store, would have taught her to be a little less pretentious and self-righteous.

Tell me, why does this thought follow the first? Why must it be that "getting her hands bloody" is necessarily good for her? How would this "broaden her cultural horizons" and "understand how the other half lives" unless the other half is the just-killed animal? I'm not saying hunting is wrong for people who do it, or teach their children to do it; it's just another one of the possible choices people make for their lives. Where in the original "letter" did it indicate that the daughter was pretentious or self-righteous? I must have missed that part. Here's another one (#29, also excerpted, because it rambles like hell, although I left some of it in):

it seems you have trained her to live off the donations of others, seeking attention and self esteem, while sneering down at the "common people." good show.

many kids do not have the sort of spoiling parents she was blessed with-some actually have to get jobs.

but that sort of thing often interferes with a path of suckering others into believing up is down, and left is right.

when my kids were small, they used to demand to go up gold mining in the sierra. they got out of the city, and they could partake in the magic of gold flakes, never before seen by man, appearing in their pans. they also learned how much worthless sand and gravel one had to shovel through to find those few tiny nuggets, and that stood them in good stead later in life.

they learned about buzz worms, poison oak, berries off the vine, how chinese coins could wind up on a hillside in the foothills, fossils, geology, earth history, people history, weather predicting, cooking over an open fire, etc.

even barbecueing fresh rattlesnake they skinned and cleaned on their own.

and these are the stories their own children demand in return. my 6 year old grandson gets wide eyed. "wow, mom! you did that when you were my age? i wanna go do that, too!"

so far, he has not expressed any interest in being a faceless member of the mob that makes up mass movements. he learns personal responsibility instead, and paying for one's own mistakes. he likes the poetry of robert service.

my kids missed the dark musty museums with a thousand flavors of dead christs, and monuments to inbred, intolerant rulers with hereditary blood diseases. they missed out on the dogma that the common folk are just worthless peasants to be directed by their betters, the stringpullers and their media lackies.

they suffer under the delusion that one can pull oneself up by their own bootstraps, working harder and smarter to create, rather than working dad's network of connections(which their dad never saw the point of assembling).

but they did learn to appease their own curiousity, with libraries, and a hunger for knowledge and books, and the refusal to accept the pat statements of others, without checking it out for themselves..

they're not real big on tv, either. so sorry.

they often miss tuning in for their programming as well, being too busy living life, instead of watching others fake it.

So do we all agree, at least, that this guy is nuts?

I think his whole panning-for-gold thing is charming, and a lovely experience and set of memories for his children. (Except for the rattlesnake thing, but that's just me.) We happened to choose to give our children a different set of experiences that they will never forget. (We were once trapped in the Lincoln Memorial during an unbelievable storm, and if you think sitting in a marble cave with Abraham Lincoln and his wonderful words for an hour with lightning every few minutes is something you can forget, think again.) I don't understand at all what's wrong with museums; can someone explain that to me? And I happen to enjoy Robert W. Service and Shakespeare; they're hardly mutually exclusive. And my kids worked plenty, from an early age.

Here's the upshot: I'm not criticizing any of Palin's life or family choices; she has hers and I have mine. I definitely do not like the polarization in the country that seems to be occurring because of this. But the bottom line is that her life choices, fine as they are, do not qualify her to be president of the freaking United States of America. She happens to be lacking the particular qualifications for this.

Is she just a regular old Joe (so to speak), just like common folk, and didn't go to some high-falutin' Harvard or Yale? Yeah, she is. Forgive me. I want my president to have gone to Harvard or Yale, if that's an option; there's a reason that they're considered two of the top universities in the world. Having a president who is proud of her ignorance and just-plain-folkiness is not an asset, it's a liability. Even that idiot Bush went to Yale, if you recall, and Annapolis isn't exactly a joke school, either. Damn. Don't we want our president to be the best he or she can possibly be? How stupid would we all have to be if we didn't? Isn't this how Warren G. Harding got elected? Look how that turned out. (Not well.) Who are we going to elect next time, Carrot Top?

And now, to quote one of my favorite all time just-plain-folk, "Ah has spoken." (Be sure to let me know in my comments if you know who was known for saying that!)


WATCHING TWO AND A HALF MEN :: ENTRY #1859
READING: The Professor and the Madman by ??

And ...

Interesting comments on yesterday's entry. One in particular gave me some thinking to do, the one about Jehovah's Witnesses not pledging or standing. I admire a greal deal about Jehovah's Witnesses, and I knew their beliefs prohibited them from pledging, which I have no problems with, of course, as I said yesterday. I still don't get the no standing thing, though.

Here's the ultimate question: when one religious belief conflicts with others, and the people are trying to co-exist, how do you decide which one gets precedence; in effect, which person gets to offend the other person? Now, I realize in this case, the pledge is not a religious thing, but it is an important part of many people's belief system. If they are offended by someone not standing in their midst, again, who gets to have the dominant beliefs?

I'll give you a different hypothetical, one that is a big issue for lots of people: abortion. In my spiritual view -- and this is spiritual, not political -- a fetus is not a human life in the sense that a living person is. Abortion is a personal decision, as far as I'm concerned, and people who choose to have them, I think, do not think of fetuses as human beings. There are many others whose religious beliefs are different, and who believe that fetuses are human being from conception, and therefore abortion is wrong. I support their right to have these beliefs, of course, and these people should not have abortions. Should one set of beliefs dominate over the other? I don't know, I'm asking, not answering. And this is a much more serious issue than standing or sitting for the pledge of allegiance.

Here's another one. Certain religions forbid eating certain foods. If a member of one of these groups is living as a minority of one among people of different religions, should that one person be forced to eat the food the others are eating, even it violates their beliefs? What if there are no other foods available?

Again, these are questions, not answers. I'm reading an interesting book at the moment -- see below -- that addresses a variety of questions raised by religious faith. So I'm more off the wall than usual.

I got my hair cut today, and saw a doctor to get meds for a sinus infection. It was my doctor's day off, so I got to meet the other internist in the group, who was very nice. Tomorrow, essentially my last day of vacation *sob*, I'm getting some blood work done and then going to the nutritionist. So there ya go.

WATCHING MSNBC :: ENTRY #1844
SUMMER BOOK #8: The Year of Living Biblically by A.J. Jacobs

Getting My Rant On

(But first, Rosie, I think I may have read that book years and years and years ago. I seem to recall that one summer up there, we were taking turns with it, but it may have been something else.)

Okay, the rant. I'm responding to something in Dear Abby yesterday that irritated me, but it's a pain to write in to her, so here you are.

The letter writer says that she does not say the Pledge of Allegiance for religious reasons, and does not stand because that would be participating. Abby supported her right not to say the Pledge and not to stand, and had harsh words for those who mistreat the woman because of it. (Which was the reason she wrote in the first place; people are mean to her because she doesn't say it or stand.)

Well. And, well.

I would guess that this is not an issue for most people who are not children, because really, how often are you called upon to recite the Pledge of Allegiance? (Or is that part of a sobriety test?) Unless you're a teacher, and then you're called upon to say it every day. So let's figure some stuff out here ...

I was a student for 13 years, times roughly 180 days, that's 2340.

I've been a teacher for 31 and a half years, let's say 31, times 180 days, that's 5580.

I was a Girl Scout leader, often with two troops that met weekly, for about ten years, so let's say that would be in the general area of 600.

So in theory, I could have said the Pledge of Allegiance 8520 times in my life. Now, let's look at that li'l ol' Pledge again:

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the country for which it stands: one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

It's a promise, yes, a commitment? What earthly point is there in anyone ever having to say it more than once? You said it, you meant it, case closed.

Which occurred to me somewhere during my junior year of high school, when I stopped saying it. This irritated Jack, but I explained that it wasn't an issue of patriotism; I love my country and am as loyal an American as you can find. But the Pledge is stupid. The schoolchildren who recite it by rote every day don't even know what they're saying; it's become a meaningless piece of singsong drivel to them. (And don't get me started on pledging my loyalty to a piece of cloth.)

Okay, I don't pledge (unless the mood strikes me, and I do, I did at the Girl Scout meetings), which Dear Abby said was okey-dokey. But she said that her letter writer didn't have to stand. Ohhhh. No. Wrong, Dear Abby. I think she does. It doesn't imply participation. It implies respect for a custom that means something to the people around her. She's made it clear by not reciting it that it isn't her thing, fine. But it is very, very rude to show contempt for a national or religious custom that others around you are honoring.

Would I, a woman, enter a Mosque with my head uncovered because I'm not a Muslim? I would not. If I were in France and the French flag were carried in front of me, I would certainly stand to show my respect for the people of the country I'm in (and probably save my life, because I think they are damn serious about that in France.) It is the custom of that place or those people, and I should show my respect to it, that's all. It's not participation, it's good manners.

In my school, the Pledge is recited over the loudspeaker each morning for the whole school to follow along (and always has been, even when I was a student there.) You can be sure that if there are students in the library, I make sure that they stand, as I do. I do not speak or put my hand over my heart because, as I've said, been there, done that. If anyone is in the hallway and the Pledge comes on, we stop and stand respectfully until it's over (even if "I pledge .. " is accompanied by a teacher's robust "STOP!" to get running kids to hold on for a minute.) Especially in a school like mine, where there are so many foreign-born children, it's especially important to make sure that they understand this American custom.

So there. Dear Abby, you are wrong, but you'll have to read my diary to find out.


WATCHING THE GOLDEN GIRLS :: ENTRY #1843
SUMMER BOOK #8: The Year of Living Biblically by A.J. Jacobs

Just a Brief Rant

I've added another quotation to my page header, courtesy of John at ... and no cheese. Because I think it's really important for people to read, I'm going to put it here as well, including the itty bit I took out for space reasons and its full context. I bolded the notable part.

“Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”

Hermann Goering, for those of you who haven't taken high school history yet, was Hitler's right-hand man. For anyone who still thinks there's nothing weird going on in this country, let this article jog your memory.

Okay, I'm done.

My sister took me to the eye doctor today; my eyes were dilated about 12:30 and as of now -- a few minutes past six -- my pupils are still so big that barely a sliver of eye color is showing. I'm afraid to go outside until it's dark. I always react like this, as K did when she had her eyes examined the other night. It looks pretty creepy.

After that we went to Panera for lunch and then the Sibs wanted to pick up a gift card at the Apple Store, but there was a dress store literally in between Panera and Apple and we loitered there for god knows how long, but she got a dress to wear to her son's wedding in September. I still have nothing; I really must start looking next week.

We came back to my house and I helped her set up a bunch of things on her new Mac, including Google Reader, which I think she still doesn't get, but she will. The new Mac OS is very nice, but I'm not sorry I didn't upgrade to it; I don't think it's really that different.

My tummy is so strange today, I can't really say bad, just strange. But I am tired. And tomorrow I have to get up with the alarm (!) because I have an appointment at 9:15, and I've mostly been sleeping until eight or so all summer, which is delightful, but I don't think it would get me out of the house in time.

WATCHING FAMILY GUY :: ENTRY #1819
SUMMER BOOK #3: The Yiddish Policemen's Union by Michael Chabon

As Usual?

I'm taking a moment out of my busy and exciting life for a political rant, but it's not on behalf -- or against, for that matter -- any candidate.

Have you seen this abomination?

Still, after all this time, are we Americans no better than this? Are we still a petty, stupid, ignorant people? I understand that there are those to whom race matters; I'm not arguing with that. Each of us has a right to our feelings on any particular subject. But that there are groups of people who would make this election not about issues or policies or even the candidates' characters, instead focusing on childish taunts and slogans they should have been embarrassed to use a hundred years ago -- I am ashamed. I am ashamed that the world sees things like this and thinks that it represents Americans, and therefore, me. I am ashamed that countrymen of mine are so low as to think this is funny, or in any way appropriate.

I know that there are plenty of people who will not vote for Obama for one reason only, and that reason is that he is "black." Although I don't agree with that (and anyway, he's as much "white" as "black," maybe more, considering who raised him), I understand that this is a legitimate belief for some people. Just as there are people whose spiritual beliefs are not my own, I have to let this go. However.

Race must not be an issue in this campaign. Let us each have our own beliefs, and let us act upon them, but let no groups or individuals who publicly support McCain make Obama's African father one of the issues on which we base or decision in November. If McCain allows it, it only reduces his credibility further. (And I am not in any way saying that McCain is involved in this; I think he is a much, much better man than that. But I will be disappointed if this goes on and he does not speak against it.)

We have very important issues that distinguish our two candidates from each other. Not their wives, not their ages, and certainly not their ancestry. Let's everyone decide based on what's important to us and what we agree with, whichever choice we make. be true to ourselves, and not petty or hateful for their own sake.

That's all.

WATCHING TWO AND A HALF MEN :: ENTRY #1783

Here's a question:

Since when do people get to vote on whether other people, or groups of them, should or shouldn't have the same rights as everyone else?

The question is really backwards, because what has happened in the history of this country is that sometimes people have gotten to vote on giving other people rights (not taking them away), like women getting the right to vote, or in another well-known case, when states used their laws to deny basic rights to certain groups of people, the federal governement has attacked them with weapons (the Civil War), defended them with armed guards (think school desegregation), or simply said "This is the way it is from now on" (enforcing voting rights in the south.) So how does it happen that the people of California (or anywhere else) get to decide if gay people can marry?

There are marriage laws, judges interpret the laws. They saw the laws have got to apply the same to everyone, then case closed, no? We actually vote now on whether some people should be treated, as a class, differently than some other people? When the hell did the put that in the Constitution? (I never said I wouldn't rant about other stuff, just about the election.)

I've said it before: gay marriage doesn't hurt a single person. (I'm not talking about pedophilia, which is perpetrated mostly by men who consider themselves straight.) Not a single married person, not a single child, not anyone. People who think that if children see gay people happy it will entice them into that "glamorous" life, I'm sorry, have got their heads up their asses, or else, for some reason, they are people to whom gay life seems glamorous. It's not glamorous, it's just life. Taking out the trash and helping kids with homework is no more intrinsically interesting for gay people than it is for anyone else, and no one is going to be enticed into being gay if s/he isn't going to be anyway. This is not like changing political parties where you study the issues and make a conscious decision. Switching sides in the homosexuality debate is all about the ick factor, as in "Ick! I'm not doing that!" and it works both ways, whether you're a gay kid someone's trying to "turn straight" or a straight kid succumbing to the fabulous attraction of a gay life, including all the legal penalties and potential hate crimes. I'm reading these stories about people thinking that maybe, maybe they can finally have the legal commitment with their partners that they deserve to, but now wait, everyone else gets to chime on on who you can sleep with. It's disrespectful and degrading, for all concerned.


WATCHING L/O:SVU :: ENTRY #1775

Open Up! Grammar Police!

Now, listen. I am not a horrible person when it comes to correcting people's grammar. (Although I thought this was funny.) I don't do it in person. I don't care about things that are written informally, like diaries. I know that my grammar is not perfect in my diary entries. I'm a nice person.

What I cannot abide is grammar mistakes in websites that should know better. Take for instance, this, from CNN:

U.S. deserter faces deportation from Canada

(CNN) -- A U.S. soldier who deserted to Canada will not face persecution if he returns to the United States, Canada's refugee agency ruled Wednesday.

Really? He won't face persecution? You mean his neighbors won't shun him, or mock him, or throw eggs at his house? Hmm. Could they have meant that he won't face prosecution, as in, there will be no legal penalty levied against him? I wonder. I also wonder why CNN has no editors who know better.

I had another one, but I don't know where I bookmarked.(It was an article from the Associated Press.) But as long as I'm ranting about general idiocy and kids -- didn't someone mention kids? -- there's this one. I have a new hero.

Yesterday, after school, a girl came to my desk to ask me for help with something, and while I was explaining to her, her cell phone rang and she she answered it. I didn't say anything, just turned to the next kid waiting for me, but I can tell you that it will be a long time before I will answer a question or provide assistance to this child. We'll see if she figures it out.

And then, my big project is due today and I have previewed several for the kids who've asked me. They fall into two categories. One is for the kids who are incredibly hyper about everything and whose projects are perfect but they're worried that they didn't get it right. The other is for the -- excuse me -- IDIOTS who sat in class and listened to my directions, and read over the printed directions I gave them, and especially followed along with me step by step as I did it on the big screen and they did it on their own computers and who have been asking me ALL DAY LONG how to do it. Yes, it's due today. So then they ask me if they will lose points if they hand it in late. Uh ... yup. One girl was trying to negotiate the rubric with me earlier today; what if she leaves out this or that, will I take off points? Well yes, dear, that is how rubrics work. You do the work, you get the points. The opposite is also true. I asked her if she remembered that a big part of this project is following the directions, and she said she did. But here's my favorite.

There is one boy who falls into the hyper-but-probably-getting-it-wrong sub-group. He is nervous, he is annoying. He must confirm every single possible detail with me before he makes a move, even though he knows the right answer, because at this point, when he asks me a question, I look at him and then he answers it himself. I understand that he is hesitant, nervous, meshuggeh. But then he got on my last nerve.

One of the more foolish directions I gave them, just to see if they'll follow it, is that they must spell the name of our town correctly. (They are not required to use the name of the town in the project, but many of them do.) The name of our town is two words, two separate words, each of them capitalized. It is on every street sign. It is on every school building. It is on every sweatshirt, t-shirt, athletic bag or whatever that 65% of the kids in the school are wearing or carrying every single day. Now, two-word town names being not the norm (I guess), outsiders will often misspell it as one word, no separation, no caps on the beginning of the second word. This looks ridiculous. Imagine that you worked at the Container Store, and people kept sending you mail at Containerstore. It looks stupid. So I told the little dears -- emphatically, with circles and arrows and shouting and yelling -- that they must spell the town name correctly, and if they spell it wrong, they will receive an F on the project, case closed. Why? Because I'm quirky, and this is what I told them and this is what they have to do. It's not difficult. It's intelligent. Everyone, really, by the time they're in high school should know the name of the town in which they live, yes?

So neurotic boy comes over today and asks "Do we spell it with one word or two? Which is right?" I look at him. "One word is wrong, right? If we spell it as one word, we fail, right?" Yes. Right.

And let me point out that this young fellow's father, a former student of mine, is a town police officer. So not only is the town name spelled correctly on the boy's own football jersey and class sweatshirt, it's spelled correctly on every item of clothing his father wears every single day.

And you wonder why the kids are giving me fits today. Some of them are behaving very stupidly. I have had to explain the same simple procedure (which I taught in class, gave handouts, demonstrated, checked for understanding, etc. ad infinitum) to maybe 20 kids between yesterday and today. And some of them still got it wrong. Oy.

And yet ... tomorrow begins a four day weekend, aka bliss. Maybe a little sleeping later, maybe a little of this, a little of that. Y'know, bliss.


WATCHING FRIENDS :: ENTRY #1760

A Rose is a Rose is a Rose

I am contemplating, without drawing a conclusion just yet, the way that people assign significance and meaning to things that otherwise do not intrinsically have any.

Most especially, I keep thinking about what we have done to the date "September 11th." It is only a date on the calendar, you know. September 11th doesn't know that it's different in any way from the 10th or the 12th. This is not to diminish in any way the significance of the event we associate with that day. I'm not talking about the event. I'm talking about a random name -- or in this case, date -- that happens to be associated with it.

In the faculty room last week, someone expressed surprise and ... disdain? that our Back to School Night had been scheduled for the 11th. I asked her what she would have us do: all sit home that night in contemplation? Shall we drop this date from our calendar, never allowing any event to take place on it? I asked her how she would feel if, one day, a grandchild should be born on September 11th. Wouldn't she be happy? Wouldn't she celebrate that date?

I dropped the conversation at that point, but I continue to think. Shall we tell all people with that birthday to mourn, and never feel happy on that day again? Surely, then, the terrorists have won. Anytime we succumb to changing who we are as Americans and human beings based on what they have done to us, then they win. That's what they were going for, after all. To make us weak and frightened, and to make us change who we are.

How many mothers today weep when they give birth on December 7th, that "date which will live in infamy"? How many of us stay home, scheduling no activities, lest we forget to mourn the lives lost at Pearl Harbor, and that attack on American soil? The answer, of course, is none. Pearl Harbor was a horrible disaster, and then we moved on. Not to do so would have conceded defeat.

Let us never forget what was done to us on this day, not just to America, but to the western world at large, including our allies abroad. But let us move on.

WATCHING BEAUTY AND THE GEEK :: ENTRY #1577

Getting My Rant On

and then, back to my regularly scheduled life. But first, a word of thanks to the many kind folk who left me lovely comments on yesterday's entry on the loss of my friend. Knowing that I have you as my friends too is very comforting.

So, the rant. I promised to talk about "the Chinese Poison Train, aka, How the American Economy Fucked Itself." They are very closely related, if not, in fact, the same thing.

It was Calvin Coolidge who said, as president in the 1920s, that "the business of American is business." In other words, what's good for our big corporate entities is what's good for the everyday working man. This has been part of the philosophy of American capitalism for quite some time. However, in the era just before Coolidge's, the average working man had achieved a great many advantages through the protection of the American government. First and foremost, labor unions had developed to protect him. He had to be paid a decent wage, work decent hours, and in time, receive decent benefits. Legislation had been passed so that he knew that he and his family were consuming safe food and drugs. It was all tied in together. The cost of consumer goods was passed along to the buying public, and the cost reflected labor and the safeguards required by the government. And so it was for some time. All we had to worry about, we were told for years and years, was the dreaded red menace: Communism! If communists succeeded in their goal of world domination, capitalism as we know it would cease to exist, and we would all drown in a sea of socialized farms, factories, and *gasp* medical care.

So where are we now? Let's see. This whole "global economy" thing has been an absolute disaster for this country. It means that anything than can be more cheaply done or produced in another country is outsourced. One of the reasons that Wal-Mart does this is so they can sell goods more and more cheaply, which undercuts the ability of anyone else to produce the same goods, thereby giving WM a complete monopoly over that item. Once they have that, they can charge whatever they want. But as long as they have any competition at all, their goal has to be to lower their prices. How do they do that? By having goods manufactured in other countries, where

there are no labor unions
there are lax safety regulations, if any at all.

(Wal-Mart, of course, is not the only offender here, but they are the entity most famous for doing this to drop their prices and undercut the competition. All the other companies do it primarily to increase their corporate profit, which of course, WM gets also.)

We all know how terrible it is that goods used in America come from foreign sweat-shops, child labor, and so forth. What we tend to forget is that these are all jobs that used to be done by Americans, in American factories. Those jobs are gone, mostly. It's a lot cheaper to pay an Indonesian child 50 cents a day with no health insurance or pension than it is to pay a full-grown American adult what he or she would demand for the same job.

What about China? China, of course, is a Communist country which is now the biggest driving force in the global capitalist economy. Funny, eh? They can get away with a lot because their people have no recourse because they live in dictatorship. (Hey, why didn't we think of that? Ooh, coming back to that one.) This Poison Train thing is just a little bit too ironic, I think, and would even be funny if it weren't so serious.

(But I have to say, I am getting a real perverse satisfaction watching what's happening to Mattel. Because once they're finished with all the recalls and all the lawsuits, I bet they're going to find out that it would have been cheaper to make their Barbie dolls in the good ol' USA after all.)

Either China is collapsing under its own weight, or they won. It would seem that the Communists somehow have won control of the American economy, they just did it by remote control, by appealing to the greed of corporate America and the opportunities allowed them by the "global economy." And America? Soon it won't matter how cheap the goods are that our corporate giants are producing, because there won't be Americans who can afford to buy them anyway, because they won't have jobs. Ah, they forgot about that. Gotta have consumers if you want your shit consumed.

And the good old American work ethic? It's still there, I think, but it's getting harder and harder to practice it. If you have to work like a dog and end up with fewer benefits and less money than if you were on welfare, well, why would you? The presidents of Wal-Mart and Mattel can even do that math. So who on earth is going to do that stuff?

Well, the only people who will are the people for whom it's still a step up. The people who would make less doing the same work in their home countries. But for some reason, we don't want to let them in (although we want them to work for us when they're here, because they work cheap -- no unions -- and we don't have to pay any benefits for them.) I believe that for the most part, Americans will not do the the jobs that Mexicans, for example, are eager to do, and do well. These are people with a work ethic, let me tell you.

I have no answers. I believe that the cause of all this, really, is the belief not among ordinary Americans but among corporate America that "the business of America is business." Corporate America believes that as long as they are in charge and they are getting rich, nothing else matters. It will, though, sooner or later.

By the by, I have read many articles recently -- I can find the links, but can't get them now -- about a very quiet movement that took place in the 1930s in the hearts and minds and boardrooms of corporate America to support the kind of changes that were taking place in German and Italy and to try to bring about those same changes here. In other words, they were hoping to stage a quiet Fascist coup that would take over the United States. I am not making this up. Many large corporations, including, I think, Proctor and Gamble, were in this group. They thought things would just go better in the U.S. if they were in charge. They even had support from some members of government, including, notably, the senator from Connecticut, who was ... drumroll, please ... Senator Prescott Bush, whose son and grandson went on to ... well, you know.

This is deep and this is bad. But because I am the eternal optimist, and I just added a quotation from Barbara Jordan to my title header the other day, I think it will be okay in time. We have just got the best damn Constitution, and I think the people of America are essentially good. Not too smart all the time, but good. I think we'll be okay.

But this sure stinks, doesn't it?

WATCHING ROSEANNE :: ENTRY #1563

Pretty Day

It was actually a beautiful day today, no humidity, lovely breezes, not terribly hot. K and I went for a walk in one of the county parks nearby. We didn't walk for very long, given my stamina limitations, but if I want to build myself up, I have to do it in increments. Anyway, I wanted to show her a particular part of the park that she's seen from the road but never close up, and it was closed for renovations anyway. So we'll catch it another time.

Other than that, we made some returns at the mall and stuff like that, but then we watched a movie that we rented last week but had forgotten to watch. Stranger Than Fiction. Anyone seen it? It was really a most unusual movie, and very much worth seeing. K said she thinks it's the best movie she's seen this year. I recommend it highly.

And in other news -- no other news. Before I start my next book, which is The Founding Brothers, I decided I needed a little background. Wait. This is what made me feel the need for a little background:

GOP Bigotry Rears Its Ugly Head

I was particularly irritated by Congressman Sali's statement that

[Those] ... changes ... are not what was envisioned by the Founding Fathers.

and that

Sali says America was built on Christian principles that were derived from scripture.

I do not believe this to be true, but I'm working my way through Common Sense by Thomas Paine and The Federalist Papers to see. The fact is that the guiding principal of our founding fathers was primarily capitalism. As for religious principles, Thomas Paine was the philosopher of the Revolution and Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, and neither of these men considered himself a Christian. They both declared themselves to be Deists, which means they acknowledged belief in God and went no further. I think this was not uncommon among the learned men of the time, which includes, of course, those known as our "founding fathers." Benjamin Franklin could not have been a Christian unless he was the greatest hypocrite in the world. The one I need to find out about is James Madison, since he was the primary author of the Constitution. (And of The Federalist Papers, which is why I'm starting there.)

Most of the early settlers of this country were adventurers or capitalists, pure and simple, and came here to make money. The Puritans who settled Massachusetts only wanted religious freedom for themselves, not for anyone else. However, religious tolerance was indeed a founding principle in the states of Pennsylvania and Rhode Island, and were always common in New York and New Jersey, although those states weren't particularly founded for that reason, although the Dutch who settled these areas were generally tolerant of all religions, even at home. They just discovered early that letting everyone take part meant good business.

History lesson over. I'm boring tonight, but that article got me very angry. There's a lot going on in our so-called government now that makes me angry, but I'm trying to keep it in check. I'll just sign off for tonight with this from School House Rock's "Fireworks":

Like Thomas Paine once wrote:
It's only common sense (only common sense)
That if a government won't give you your basic rights
You'd better get another government.

WATCHING A LEAGUE OF THEIR OWN :: ENTRY #1550

Let's Talk

about atheism.

Last night's debate prompted me to think about what I would ask if I submitted a question for the Republican debate in September. I worked it out to be about the influence of religion on today's politics, as well as the alienation of those who do not share mainstream religious beliefs.

Only recently did I become aware of something that was said by former President Bush, and this was back in 1987. Here's part of the interview:

Interviewer: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?

Bush: No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.

I can't tell you how angry this made me. Am I an atheist? Probably not. I would be better described as an agnostic, but most certainly, I am someone who does not belong to or take part in any organized religion, and someone to whom faith and/or spirituality are personal and have nothing to do with anyone else. I think that the Constitution protects my right to be that way, if that's what I want. But I know atheists, and have known atheists, and I'm going to tell you about some of them.

The goofiest atheist I know, and you won't be surprised, is the SCM. He is smug and superior in his atheism. He thinks that taking part in any religion is a waste of time, and that people who do so are saps. When I ask him if he supports their right to do so, he agrees, in principle, but believes that on the whole, belief in a higher power is evidence of lesser intelligence. I am not kidding. He is just as self-righteous as any religious-right-wing fundamentalist, but he doesn't see the comparison because, after all, he's right.

My husband, who was raised Catholic, simply does not believe in the existence of a higher power. He believes in science, and does not see the two as compatible, and he's seen no evidence of a higher power to convince him otherwise. He fully supports any individual believing whatever it is he or she wants to believe, and practice. His parents are regular church-goers, and that's fine with him, as long as he doesn't have to go himself. (He doesn't.) It would never occur to him to belittle anyone else's faith, or to share his own beliefs with anyone, unless asked, and even then, he wouldn't go into detail at all.

My father, when asked, would say he was an agnostic. I heard him say that most of my life. He was raised by immigrant parents who were very, very Jewish in their language, their food, their daily lives, but who were not observant of the Jewish religion in any way. He did attend Hebrew school, but was allowed to choose for himself whether or not he would be Bar Mitzvahed, and take the role of an adult member of the synagogue's congregation. He chose No, as his own father had chosen at 13.

There were no discussions about god in my house as I grew up, unless we specifically asked Jack "So, do you believe in god?" and he would usually say "I'm what's called an agnostic. That means I haven't decided yet." Sometimes he would say that it meant he wasn't sure. The last time I asked him -- this was after my mother had died -- he kind of rolled his eyes and made a sort of dismissive "shhh!" sound and said that no, of course he didn't. "So you're an atheist," I asked, "not an agnostic?" He answered that there was no need to put a name on it, he saw no reason to believe that there was a god and that was that. That he'd always felt that way. I asked, was it the war that made you feel that? He thought, and said Maybe, but that he was probably this way before the war. (I should remind former President Bush that Jack, atheism and all, was decorated for bravery for his service to his country during World War II.)

Jack would not discuss his beliefs with us as children, because he didn't want to influence us. He wanted us to decide for ourselves. He deeply respected people with sincere religious beliefs. He loved my Grandpa Sam, his father-in-law, who was the most devout person I have ever known personally. Jack was a big fan of Billy Graham, whom he thought did very good work in the world.

My own beliefs are my own. If I believe in the written tenets of anything, it would be the Constitution of the United States. I'm a very big fan.

WATCHING DR. PHIL :: ENTRY #1532

I'm Still Here

Didn't write yesterday. No reason, just didn't.

So it's Friday. My back is still bothering me, which seems like too long. I'm actually motivated to start my summer cleaning, but I can't do it yet. Bummer.

K and I went out to lunch today with the Sibs and Wonderful Niece, which was delightful. Other than that, there is just not a whole lot going on. It's a beautiful day today, not too hot and not really humid at all, although there's a thunderstorm watch on for later.

I've been contemplating something along the lines of a political entry, but you know, all the news is just so horrific that I probably wouldn't know where to begin. And any little rant I post here is just a grain of sand on the beach. I'm finding something ironic about going to, of all places, Gettysburg next week. There are those who will say that the Battle of Gettysburg is the single most significant event in the history of the United States. The Civil War was our most important social/political development, and Gettysburg was the turning point in that war. Think about it. It was the occasion of the Battle of Gettysburg that led to these words:

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation, so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate—we can not consecrate—we can not hallow—this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

The great task still remains before us, more now than even it did then. Yet it is still true that we must resolve that those dead shall not have died in vain, and that our essential purpose -- our mission statement as Americans, as it were -- is to ensure that government of, by and for the people shall not perish from the earth. I would like to believe that those dying on behalf of our government every day are not dying in vain, but I cannot believe that. Australian officials -- and Australia is one of our strongest and most important allies, in general and certainly in Iraq -- have said that it's true that we are there to protect our oil interests. Didn't we know that all along? Did we -- did anyone -- ever believe that we were there because terrorists "hate our freedom", as that monkey in the White House has said repeatedly? They hate Americans, certainly, and they have good reason to, considering what we're doing to them. Hate our "freedom"? Who thinks that abstractly?

So I'm going to Gettysburg, commemorative of a lie of a different kind: it was a war fought "to free the slaves", but in fact, it was a war fought to maintain the union, to keep the United States intact as a country, and to prove that the federal government was stronger than the individual states', and was dominant. Hell, even the truth in that one sound noble.

Okay, so I ranted a bit. More to come, I'm sure, as I haven't even gotten started on Cheney and impeachment and all of that. If I could vote today, I probably would vote for Dennis Kucinich. I think he's a man with the courage of his convictions. The others are too busy trying to be elected for us to find out if they have it or not.


WATCHING DR. PHIL :: ENTRY #1516

Among Other Things

[copied from dland]

I think we're all agreed that despite whatever wonderful charitable things he's done in recent years, Imus is essentially an asshole. I doubt that he's a racist, and I'm sure he never gave a thought to the things he was saying because he's said nasty things about people for years, and there is this very peculiar double standard in our society that makes it okay for certain words to be used in some contexts by selected people, but those same words become cause for job loss, among other things, when used in the wrong mouths.

That aside, he said something stupid and actions have consequences and that's the way it is.

Racism/sexism/religion-ism/sexual preference-ism/obese-ism and all of that stuff is everywhere. We are much more conscious of it than we once were, and perhaps it has tapered off, at least in public, but it is not gone. I watched this PBS show that was on the other night called FAT: What no one is telling you, and it was quite interesting, and among other things, a variety of people who have one obesity issue or another were featured. One was a woman comedian who has lost a great deal of weight and struggles to keep herself "just chubby", but who once performed at a much bigger size. She said that it was not uncommon for strangers on the street to say to her "You're fat!" Did they think she didn't know? Did they think she was not actually a living human being with feelings like they had? What actually is the point of saying that to someone?

And Bill Maher, whom I adore, was bugging the shit out of me on this week's show. He was arguing with Al Sharpton, which, hey, go for it, although he too was against the words that Imus used. Yet in the course of his monologue he made two crude anti-gay jokes, and later on, he referred to Hilary Clinton as a bitch. HEY! No more calling any woman a ho or a bitch! It's not right!

But what really got me was this one. You know, if you want to see if something is really racist (we'll use that as the general term), what you do is take out the word in the phrase or remark that means one race (or group) and substitute another, and see how it sounds. I read this article in People on Friday: Dr. Ian Smith, who used to be so sweet on the local news and then sold himself out to Celebrity Fit Club is sponsoring a huge weight loss project. For African Americans. Look here.

Here's a quotation from the website:

The 50 Million Pound Challenge is an historic opportunity for African Americans to come together against a growing health crisis. Our challenge is to collectively lose 50 million pounds and reduce the very real risks that being overweight poses to our community.

Now imagine for a moment that it's an opportunity for white Americans of European descent to come together against a growing health crisis. Al Sharpton would be on that in a minute. Why is the program only for white people? Are white people somehow better than un-white people? Why should they get all the breaks, like attention from a celebrity doctor? Ad nauseum.

There's nothing wrong, of course, with trying to improve the health of anyone, or of any group, for that matter, and I applaud the actual sentiment behind Dr. Smith's program. But it's still racist. It is. Do the math.


watching The Tudors :: entry #1431

In the Kingdom of the Blind

[copied from dland]

Or to paraphrase, the kingdom of the deaf, the one-eared librarian is ... confused?

First, a few days ago, I was doing something or other on my iPod and I stopped because I heard a strange noise. Finally, I got it, and I said to K, When you press the buttons on your iPod, do they click? Uh huh. Okay, so just now I was in the car -- alone -- and singing along; the song was Baby Driver by Paul Simon, a catchy tune, and I came into the house and was feeding the cats and still singing, and you know what? I could hear myself. I could hear myself sing.

It wasn't pretty.

So the hearing aids are pretty good when they work, although I still need to reach my final comfort level with the volume controls, but it's hard to do that at this point since they stop working randomly. But otherwise, I think I'm happy with them.

I had a weird day at school, and tomorrow is a full-day in-service, so, if you would, shoot me now. I routinely do not attend a lot of the in-service days, but I go to this full day one in the spring every year. I hope I don't regret it. Tomorrow, the district's librarians are meeting at the middle school, which is down the street from my house. Even so. Please, Mr. Custer. I don't wanna go.

I had dinner with the Sibs just now, which was fun. We are planning to get together for brunch this Sunday with our various children, so I'm looking forward to that too, although not to the nor'easter which is supposed to be inundating us with wind-driven rain that day. We'll see.

In the meantime, the same middle school down the street, as well as the elementary school that adjoins its property, have flown their flags at half staff since December 26, when the period of mourning for President Ford was announced. Once in a while, they fly at full staff, but mostly half. This is driving me crazy. Last week, I called the elementary school one day and asked why they were doing that. The secretary told me that each week or thereabouts, they get an email that tells them the name of a soldier who died in the war and they should lower the flag to honor him/her.

I said, bewildered, You mean, a soldier from Bizarro Town?

No, I don't think so. No.

A soldier from New Jersey?

[pause] Maybe sometimes. But no, not from New Jersey.

Someone emails you and gives you the name of a soldier and you lower the flag?

Yes. I think we get the email from the superintendent's office. [Talking in the background.] No? No, then, it's not from the superintendent's office. It's just an email that we get.

Oh. Okay, thanks.

Uh, okay. So somebody spams them with this allegedly patriotic email, and they just do it. This is who is educating our children. At the high school, we follow the rules of flag etiquette, and may I say, our flag is flying at full staff. Because, even though I am all in full support of doing whatever we can for our service-people -- bringing them home would be the best plan -- we do not, in this country, lower the flag for war casualties, and doing so, I think, is a political statement more than anything, and a political statement that is not in support of our current government. If we declare that as a country we are in mourning for every lost soldier, we are making as strong an anti-war statement as we possibly can. When protesters march in Washington carrying the names and images of our war dead, it is a strong statement of mourning. It is not a show of support for anything, except for ending the war. Which I certainly favor, of course, but it is not at all appropriate for a public school to do this. (There's another school in town, the one I attended as a child, that proclaims in large letters on its signboard: GOD BLESS AMERICA! Oy. I bite my tongue as I drive by and remind myself that I don't live in that neighborhood and I don't go there often so I just need to ... let ... it ... go. But 't'ain't right, McGee.)

I am all about the obscure references today.

News Flash: What have I told you about the Garden State Parkway? And here's the proof. I just heard a new bulletin that about an hour ago, our governor was injured in a car accident on the Parkway and was med-evaced to somewhere -- Camden, I think; God help him -- with at least a broken leg, and one of his state troopers was possibly injured more severely. Now I read that he rarely wears a seatbelt. Way to be a role model, gov.

So I got me some time here tonight, as the Hubs is teaching (and hopefully not travelling home on the Parkway) and K is working until 8.30. I'm going to clean up a bit and make my lunch for tomorrow and take out my clothes. The morning will be very strange, as I am usually at work before seven, but tomorrow I don't have to be there until 8.30 so I don't have to wake up until seven. Can't imagine sleeping that late, but it'll be nice to try. The last time we had an in-service at the middle school, I had time to take a very long walk before I went over there, but dang, it was actually spring then, and a beautiful morning. Not only has the in-service been pushed back from May to April (along with the senior prom, which is tonight), it's still freaking winter-time out there. I don't want to walk from the house to the car, let alone a couple of miles around town before work. Although I was planning to walk to the school tomorrow and then home for lunch and back, but it turns out I have to be at the high school for lunch, so I actually need to drive my car around the block and park so that I can get to and from the high school without using up any of my hour and walking to and from my house to get the car. Now that I think of it, why didn't I call in sick?

Dishes. Clothes. Lunch.


watching The Simpsons :: entry #1428