Yelling at Tornados

Nothing personal, but I'm a girl, and I tend to see things in girl terms. So that's my full disclosure. No other hidden events or agendas. No bad experiences in my past. I just don't want to see things in a gender-neutral manner, when it's clear to me what the problem is. And there's already plenty of that. (Like when you see a high-speed chase on tv, and the anchors are often trying to be gender-neutral when referring to the suspect: c'mon. It's a guy. How many women do you know who would put that many people in danger? Even under the influence? There are whole shows dedicated to exultation of this dangerous male behavior.) I'm gonna rant, and I make no apologies. So that's Caveat 1.

For centuries, this has happened. It will continue to happen, regardless of extreme punishments, public opinions, or societal pressure. So, Caveat 2: I realize I'm yelling into a tornado. I'm going to yell, anyway.

I'm talking about male aggression. And particularly against women. I really don't care if all men maim each other, or rape each other, or kill each other. Really, don't care. They can go ahead. Argument 1: Yes, there are decent males on the planet who don't deserve this, but where are these guys when the bad ones wreak havoc? Hmm? (Unless it's your daughter, are you out looking? Are you speaking out? Are you even squelching the bad locker room jokes about rape and woman-centered hatred? Really?)

What brings this up in me, like vomit, is seeing, time after time, girls and women disappear, only to be found dead in a creek, dead in a ditch, dead in the trash. Argument 2: Sometimes it's a woman perp. Rarely, but sometimes. Come on, though. That is such a low percent as to be a ridiculous argument. It ain't us, girls. It's them. And we get it from them.

So today's headlines include 2 dead little girls, and 1 missing young woman. That's just for today, Oct. 23, 2009, and only what we're hearing about on the national cable channels. There's 7 year-old Somer Thompson, who was walking home after school in Florida, and was found in a landfill. Elizabeth Olten, a 9 year-old girl, who went missing Wednesday on a walk home from a friend's house in St. Martins, Missouri. Her body was found in the woods. Morgan Harrington, a 20 year-old college student, went missing at a concert, and the case is now a criminal investigation. (We haven't heard yet about the sexual abuse the girls may have gone through.) That's just a few of the many girls and women that go missing or are found dead or are put in the hospital every every every minute of every day. All the time.

Finally, I come to the point. I'm calling for this: every male who touches, in anger, any female of any age must face the possibility (or probability, if I was in charge) of chemical castration, surgical castration, or penectomy (surgical removal of the penis). Period. How long would it take, do ya think, for them to take this problem seriously? If you hit a woman, if you rape a girl, if you harm an elderly woman, you would be charged with "violence against the female gender" call it a hate crime, full penalty under the law. Or prison for life, of you prefer. That's it. For any culture, any religion (Are you listening, Afghanistan?), any place on the planet earth. International law. How long? A year? A week? 20 minutes?

And while I'm at it, full reproductive rights for women. Everywhere. So that the killing of baby girls is punishable by death, or maybe we'll just abort the girl-killer's brain. And if the decisions for such things are made by women, always, I think it wouldn't take long for things to change. So here's my plan:

If we just

1. take BACK our reproductive power, making having girls even more socially important than having boys;
   
2. if we put pressure on the violators, from the courts and from society, as mothers and as wives and as judges;
   
3. and if we put the pressure on the good males to use that innate power and desire to "hit, hurt, maim, rape and kill" on their fellow males, we will begin to see real equality in the world.

And dare I say it, maybe we'd even begin to feel real Peace on Earth.

What Do You Want: A World Prize, or a Thrown Shoe?

"Certainly from our standpoint, this [recognition] gives us a sense of momentum — when the United States has accolades tossed its way, rather than shoes."

Quote is from the State Department. Hillary Clinton's State Department. You remember Hillary? She was supposed to be Obama's arch enemy for all time. His nemesis. She sure plays it well, don't you think?

This is the Nobel Peace Prize, remember. PEACE Prize. That's P-E-A-C-E.

So, let's see who threw shoes: The Taliban sent a press release (!) saying, "We condemn the award of the Nobel Peace Prize for Obama."

Yes, the Taliban sends press releases.

Who else?

The Iranian Foreign Minister called the Nobel decision "hasty." Hasty. Hmm.

Let's take a minute, and see a bit of what has he accomplished.

1. Last month he took the issues of nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament to the United Nations, becoming the first US president to preside over a session of the Security Council.
2. Negotiating with Russia in July, he has reduced the number of nuclear warheads over 100%. Yes, down by more that half. Look it up.
3. "Obama's decision to cancel the deeply flawed antimissile systems in Eastern Europe is sound policy... He replaces a system that did not work against a threat that did not exist with weapons that can defend against the real Iranian missile capability. Better still, he NATO-izes the system to strengthen the alliance, not divide it... This is not appeasement; it is the new defense realism, the triumph of pragmatism over ideology." -by Joseph Cirincione of Foreign Policy Magazine
4. Obama's engagement with the Muslim world has been immediate and firm. He said, "American is not at war with Islam." He has single-handedly changed an 8 year trend in the wrong direction, thus changing America's image in not just the Islamic regions but the entire world. That's Kindergarten diplomacy. If you don't hate me, I'll play nice with you. Words, yes. With actions to back it up.
5. Quoted from Obama speech: "In April, we convened the first of what have now been six meetings of the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate here in the United States. In Trinidad, I proposed an Energy and Climate Partnership for the Americas. We've worked through the World Bank to promote renewable energy projects and technologies in the developing world. And we have put climate at the top of our diplomatic agenda when it comes to our relationships with countries from China to Brazil; India to Mexico; Africa to Europe." And he backed up words with action: he signed two executive orders reversing some very damaging Bush policies, thus saying, essentially America is back to a global leadership role on climate change.
   
6. He is closing Guantanemo Bay Detention Center. Can anything else be such a boon to repairing the reputation of the US in the point of view of the world? He said to the world, we don't torture. If you don't understand the importance of that, I can't explain it to you.
   
7. He has been "tightening screws" in Iran, while simultaneously opening communication with them. Interesting juxtaposition. And it was pretty cool when he brought up the underground nuclear facility in public at the G-20 summit. And guess what? With the leaders of Britain and France by our side, China and Russia agreed with us: that "Iran must live up to it's obligations under international rules on nuclear activities." Iran has been served.
   
8. He has restarted the Middle East peace talks. PEACE talks. Remember the past president? He waited until the end of his 2nd term and then it was a half-hearted attempt. Wow, what a surprise it didn't work. But then he cleared brush for a year, a full 365 days of his tenure. A man with that much brush to clear has to make some priorities, duddn't he?

Going back to the shoe-throwers: The Republican Party. The Party of No. NO, we don't want to slow or reverse any man-made damage we have done to the earth. NO, we don't want peace in the Middle East (or anywhere, actually). NO, we don't want to reduce nuclear warheads. NO, we don't want to be a better citizen of the world, and we certainly don't want to share our sand pile or our cookies. NO, we don't want the Olympics. Fer chrissakes! Who's against the Olympics?? The whole point is that's it's non-political. (Or attempts to be, if anything can be considered non-political.)

So, for the people who think he hasn't done anything, see the list (and I'm sure there are more things, but this list was made from scratch. I didn't pull it from anywhere. I watched the news over the last 8+ months and I sought out the stories I remembered, which admittedly could very well be only the hair on the giant.).

For those who just don't see it, I think it's a mighty neat trick to see a World Prize only in the context of the win/lose column of US politics. He hasn't brought about health care reform, so he's an international failure and doesn't deserve this award? That's telling in its shortsightedness.

"...Even though [the] Obama [Administration] is in the early stages, the committee felt his presidency warranted recognition," says Charles Kupchan, an expert in US foreign policy.

For those who just want to yell NO, I want to add a few words to your NO: NO one is listening to you. Thank god.

Call to Action

From Media Matters:
Eleven new companies whose ads were recently seen during Beck's program --
Binder & Binder
Capital One
The Dannon Company
Discover
HSBC
ICAN Benefit Group Insurance
Infiniti
Jelmar (manufacturer of CLR All-Purpose Cleaner)
Jordan McKenna Debt Counseling Network
Mercedes-Benz and Simplex Healthcare (creator of the Diabetes Care Club)

... have pledged to ColorOfChange.org to take steps to ensure that their ads don't run on Beck's show. Fifty-seven companies have now committed not to support Beck's show since ColorOfChange.org launched its campaign four weeks ago after the Fox News Channel host called President Obama a "racist" who "has a deep-seated hatred for white people" during an appearance on Fox & Friends.

"We applaud those companies that have recently pulled their support from Beck," said James Rucker, executive director of ColorOfChange.org. "There are at least 57 companies who will not tolerate Beck's race-baiting comments and we will continue to reach out to those who are still supporting him."

http://mediamatters.org/blog/200909020032

So I'm thinking, let's all send a nice note to each of them saying how important it is to revoke support of a racist. That's all I'm sayin.

Hey, Ms. CrankyPants, it's Grown-Up Time!

I hate being told what to do. This is the part of me that is Libertarian. If I want to kill myself by not wearing a seatbelt, or by ignoring the diabetes, or by eating a big fat marshmellow creampuff that I know has no redeeming value whatsoever, why is that anyone's choice but my own? Okay, I know I drive around other people, so that ought to be good enough for the seatbelt thing. I don't want to be hurt by others, I only want to hurt myself. Nothing personal.

So how come I have to be continually nudged by my health care? They send me these forms for blood tests, they send me reminders about breast exams, they call me: friendly sounding people who only want to know if I've received their damn forms and reminders, and did I want to make an appointment now? Why do they care so much when I don't even care?

Circumstances beyond my control have changed the course of my life recently, and there is only one thing in the world I want to do and that is eat Hagen Daz Chocolate Chocolate Chip ice cream. That's it. That's all I want from the world. And right now, with it being on sale, I'm happy to say the world is supplying it for me at a fairly reasonable price. So why do I need to suffer this mortal coil without it? (Sorry, WS. It really felt like an appropriate moment.)

And now, they're talking about taxing fattening foods and sugary drinks. Besides the fact that many low and lower income people survive on them, which makes it a tax on the poor, how come they don't see that there are reasons why a person gravitates to those foods: they make us feel better. If you want to have a tax on something more equitable, how about a tax on mocha lattes and butter scones and fresh fruit? Things poor people really can't afford? The nation is suffering from a vast economic depression, and when the nation is depressed, its people are depressed, and need as many comfort foods as possible. When we begin to get our jobs back and our loans approved and our futures secured, we will begin to eat better foods. In the meantime, allow me my damn creampuff.

By the way, I don't even like marshmellow creampuffs. But I'd eat one the minute someone tells me I can't. Just you hide and watch.

Just One of Those Things

Let's say that you, who ever you are, because of who you are, cannot, by law, sign a contract. Any kind of contract. You can't buy or sell a house, you can't get a loan, you can't rent a place to live or rent a place to someone else, you can't lease or buy a car, you can't get married, you can't even write a check, you can't do anything that involves your signature and some kind of contractual obligation. How much of your life would be impacted by that law?

Now let's say that you can sign something I will call a "loop-tee-loop". Turns out a loop-tee-loop is EXACTLY the same as a contract. So, you can sign a loop-tee-loop to buy a car or a house, or get married or write a check. It's called a loop-tee-loop, that's all. Same thing. Just don't call it a contract. It MUST be referred to as a loop-tee-loop.

What or how does that make you feel? Do you feel like you're being treated unfairly? Do you feel like this whole thing is ridiculous? Because if there is no difference between a contract and a loop-tee-loop, why not just call everything a contract (or loop-tee-loop, if you prefer). Just seems patently stupid, huh?

So why can't we heterosexuals share the word "marriage"? What is it about the word "marriage" that makes it such a special word that only heterosexual people may use it? Those people, those same-sex people have "civil union", why can't they be satisfied with that? I mean, it's exactly the same thing, right?

Hey, here's an idea. Since it seems that the word "marriage" has some special powers, and it's turning out that my god-given right to a contract called "marriage" will not be happening for me, I won't be needing my own personal right to the word "marriage". So I'd like to go ahead and give my right to the word to a nice same-sex couple who needs it, since they can't have it under any equal protection law. Of course, it would probably be a good thing to write up a loop-tee- loop for it, you know, for everyone's equal protection.

There She Goes...

In other news, Miss California keeps her “job”, thanks to The Donald, but one of his minions quits because she got whacked with the social responsibility stick and thinks that Miss California doesn’t fit the squeaky-clean role model, since photos of her, semi-nude, have surfaced. But wait, there were other issues: one was her answer to Perez Hilton about same sex marriage. (Turns out she prefers “opposite” marriage.) That was the initial bump to the national news stage. Then the photos began to trickle out. And apparently, the fact that there are risqué photos isn’t the issue, it’s that she didn’t disclose them before the pageant. Hmm. But then, she reportedly began to speak to anti-gay marriage people, like focus on the Family, and was not performing her non-political duties. That’s a pretty big deal, comparatively, I’d say; I’d say it’s the best reason to kick her off the stage. Not performing her duties, not remaining politically neutral. “Satan asked me that question, and God told me how to answer.” That’s really what she said. No, really. If that doesn’t point to the looseness of her screws, I don’t know what should.

But no. That wasn’t the issue. The issue was those photos. And the board abdicated their authority, and left the decision to The Donald. Oh wait. There was another little tidbit that came out: The pageant had purchased her boobs for her. And the photos, of course, were all about the boobs. Not sure if they were taken pre-boob job or post. But the fact that there was a boob job, paid for by the pageant, isn’t that a bit of a hypocritical move?

Anyway, The Donald came out and said: I paid for her boobs, I like the photos of her boobs, and I want her boobs to stay in front of the camera.

Remember that this whole thing started with a question about same sex marriage. Which I think she answered quite diplomatically, even if I didn’t agree with the answer. It was supposed to be her opinion, right? She said something like, it’s great that we live in a land where people can do what they want, but for me, I prefer “opposite” marriage. That’s what she said. I’d say that fits the bill: she was politically correct first, and then went ahead and proffered her preference. What the hell’s wrong with that? But Mr. Hilton pushed his way into the national spotlight to savage her. (And then, to call her a bitch, and then to take it back, then to take back the take-back. But he’s really another story.) And while it did get him some attention, it pushed her numbers way up, too; she got way more than her share of fame. Kind of the “opposite” of what a person pushing a certain agenda would want, don’tcha think? Wonder if he has any regrets. I guess it depends on if he gets the irony.

So back to the finale: The Donald rules, the chickie with the new boobs stays, and a woman on the board, one of those people who passed the decision onto The Donald so as to keep from making enemies, either way, has now decided that the Trump decision crosses her personal scruples standard. Shanna Moakler, a former Miss USA , said in a statement issued by her publicist Wednesday that she no longer “believes” in the organization.

Glad someone is responding to the social responsibility stick.

The First 100 Days

Okay, I watch cable news. All day, every day, actually. I'm a cable news junkie. I float from MSNBC to CNN to FoxNews (for only the time it takes me to feel that little throw-up in the back of my throat), to HLN, back to MSNBC. Short stops at CNBC, local news, C-Span, etc. Talk radio news, online news, I check everything. Frequently.

So what's happening now is that everyone on the cable news channels is gearing up for that most random of milestones, the First 100 Days of the Progress of the President. Except that it might fit in someone's idea of a metric measure of time, I can't for the life of me understand this desire to look at exactly 100 days, and then "grade" the President. We as Americans do have a phenomenally short attention span, so I guess I shouldn't mind a little review: "What We Have Learned So Far" about our new president. Okay, whatever. Review away. But "grade" him? Against what? Against who? For what purpose? Or is it just for the pollsters, to keep them busy?

So I'm watching one of these guys who has a truth-o-meter, and he's saying that about half the time, the President is telling the truth, and about half the time he's lying, or some such thing. I wasn't really listening.

That's when I realized I didn't care WHAT the President was saying. I decided that I no longer care. It worked for the Republicans for the last 8 years. They all seemed to accept what Bush and Co. did and said as the Gospel Truth, and never even questioned what kind of b.s. came out of the White House (or out of whatever mole-hole Cheney was hiding in.) And I kept thinking, why? Why, when it's right in front of them do they simply close their own eyes tighter? What kind of freedom-loving, flag-waving, patriot-proving so-called Americans are they, to never question their leader? Isn't that the beginnings of fascism? But that's another topic. Just a thought.

That's when it hit me. (So to speak.) And here it is: I voted for Obama. I trust Obama. I want to continue to trust him. And I realize that the trust the Repubs put in Bush is exactly what I want in Obama. I want him to have all the information, make all the decisions, and do what's best for the country, and leave me out of it. That's right. I want to believe in the person I voted for, and be done with it.

I am not saying, by that way, that I don't care. I care very much. But I don't want to be bothered by all these yahoos running around voting or rating or grading the President after a very short 100 days. What I see is, his polls are good, he's been everywhere, he's pushed on a lot of issues, and he's run the Repubs into the ground. What else is there? What do I care about the minutia, or more specifically, the ginned up 100 Days extravaganza that will be all over the cable airwaves on Wednesday?

I care not. So on Wednesday, I will boycott this pseudo-news.

Unless something really exciting happens.

The Art of Spewing Forth

As I've no doubt said to many of you, I keep thinking I should write something. I get stuck when it comes to subject matter, though, and edit myself right out of the topic. It's too cliche, it's too "done", it's too personal, it's too boring, it's too common. Somebody's already done it, who needs it from you?

But then I remember a line from an song from a musical (because that's the kind of girl I am) and I think, Yeah, its been done, but not done by ME. That's what should make it different/special/worthwhile. I've used that advice on others, and it always seems to work. But what am I bringing to the proverbial table here, really?

Let's look at some options. Some say, write about what you know. Okay, what do I know about? Well, I know some things about art and design, I know some things about theatre and the art of visual communication, I know some things about debt (getting in that pool and getting back out), I know a few things about some health issues, I know something about failed relationships. But looking over my life, I see nothing of (very much) interest. In fact, I see these exciting and dramatic things happening to others, and I say, why can't something interesting happen to me?

Am I asking for trouble? You bet.

How about setting myself up as some kind of expert? I can't even type that without laughing. Well, I could become an Expert, then write about it. Yes, but it seems a person should be interesting in what ever their Topic is, and I can't seem to find a passion for anything. Now that's a problem.

Okay, how about fiction? Yeah, I think I could write some fiction. That comes fairly easily to me. But can I write something some other person would want to read? Probably, but that's not the issue, is it? I oughta be writing it because I can, not because I should. Clearly not a passion there yet, either.

I read other people, and I think, well, if I'm looking at their work and thinking, "I can do that", well then I should DO that. "Well, maybe..." Now even I am getting annoyed at my limitless ability to balk.

So I'll be trying out some different kinds of topics here. If you like something, let me know. If you don't, you could let me know that, too. I'll be taking your collective silence as a Go, though, so you'd better weigh in if you want me to quit. Goddess knows we really don't need one more wishy-washy writer. But if what I'm spewing forth in any way touches you, hit that comment button and spew right back at me. We'll both feel better.

Why is anyone even talking to Cheney?

Why is anyone seeking out the former vice president for his opinion on anything, much less on the new administration? Cheney has made a point of speaking ill of the Obama Administration. Even with the "no comment" rule self-imposed on ex-presidents, Cheney has once again proved that neither the rule of law or rules of courtesy will deny the man his right to act irresponsibly. And after living in the shadows for eight years, now he decides to speak.

Well, it is a free country. A person can choose to ignore what he says. But what I don't understand is why on god's green earth would anyone seek him out and ask him anything, anything! I don't want to know what toothpaste he uses, much less what he thinks about the economy, or the deficit, or the health care crisis, or unemployment, or foreign policy. His response to the fact that the $128 billion surplus was not just lost, but fell to to a $1.3 trillion deficit,was, "Stuff happens!"

How helpful.

Which again, begs the question: why are we talking to this guy? Who the hell is interested in what he has to say? Isn't there anyone else to talk to?

What do you think?