A Certain Hell

I remember it well. Because I'm a news junkie, I watched every minute on every channel of the coverage. I was aghast. Things were going from bad to worse, and it was all captured on video and broadcast to every home in the nation. But who was really paying attention?

Katrina hit five years ago. NBC and Brian Williams is doing a kind of retrospect. It brought back a particular memory of something that was disturbing to me. But it didn't just happen to me; it was happening all over the place.

I was sitting at a lunch table in September of 2005, four days after the levees broke. I had been watching the horrors and, as the self-appointed "current event conversationalist," I said to my companions, "have you seen what's happening in New Orleans?"

They both looked at me quizzically. "Well, yeah, we know there was a hurricane..."

"No, I mean the levees," I explained. "They broke, and large parts of the city are under 10 feet of water or more, and people are stranded all over the place, and they don't have food, or water..."

And one of them interrupted, "But FEMA is taking care of them, right?" Because we were used to seeing these big storms and watching FEMA run right in and hand out the food and water and medical supplies and then everything was 'back to normal' within what seemed like minutes.

"No! FEMA is not there, no one is getting supplies to them, and there's looting and people firing at rescuers and half the police force seems to have disappeared and people are dying in the streets and it's horrible! And the government isn't doing anything!"

They both still looked at me, like they were waiting for the punch line. I must be kidding, nothing like that happens here. "It looks like a third world country," I said. Clearly, they couldn't believe me. I understood; I didn't have any video to show them.

And the rest of the country was probably feeling the same thing: confusion. The president was seen slapping ole what's his name on the back and saying, "And Brownie, you're doin' a heck of a job..." Brown was the FEMA director. He lasted about another week or so, then checked out. This whole rescuing thing is a lot harder in person than it is on tv! So he left. He never did do a "heck of a " anything. He's now a radio talk show host in Denver. A job in communication. Sweet.

And Bush, it turned out, was being shown what was happening, but he didn't move his butt, either. No one had a handle on things, as it turned out. But at the time, the government was saying everything was fine and was proceeding as planned and the news was reporting the exact opposite. A cognitive dissonance: something we learned in the Vietnam war. You can be told one thing, and be shown something completely different. Are you going to believe your eyes, or the lie I'm going to tell you?

The news from every major channel was broadcasting the video. The camera found people stranded on rooftops, holding signs with desperate words "help us!" The camera witnessed dead bodies floating in the horrible, oil-stained, sewer-filled wretched water. The camera spotted scared-out-of-their-mind pets, the family member you can't ever seem to take with you. The camera watched rescues of old people, of sick people, of babies, of pets; it captured the thousands of people crying in pain and anguish, some sitting with relatives right where they had dropped dead with no help and no place to move them; it recorded babies crying, wearily, wearing days old, used diapers, or not wearing any diapers at all, with mothers who could barely deal with their baby's misery much less their own and the heartache of fathers unable to do anything to help their family; it saw the huge piles of garbage everywhere as people were forced to live in their own filth and excrement, the facilities, worn out and used up so quickly in this emergency as to be completely useless; it witnessed the death: people who hadn't had the medical attention (or maybe just some water!) to survive what became days and days and days of pure torture. Temperatures reaching 100 degrees, with the typical Gulf Coast humidity, made trying to exist without water literally killer. It was awful to watch. It must have been a certain hell to survive.

And where was the "government"? Stumbling over themselves, accusing each other, delivering mixed messages and receiving bad information, trying to create a soothing aura of calm and control. It seemed that, if you didn't have access to the pictures and the on-the-street reporting, you might be lulled into thinking, as my friends evidently were, that everything was going as planned. But that was a lie. Over and over, the people in charge lied, misled, misdirected, or framed their actions in the context of "we are doing" rather than "we can not or have not." And even the people in the midst of the horror believed them, to their detriment. The victims believed that "help was on the way." The government was a lie.

So five years later, we look at what's been done and what's not been done and we remember what's been forgotten, who's survived and who hasn't, what was said and what wasn't, what the truth really was, and what the truth wasn't. It was terrible to watch all that pain and anguish then. It was terrible to watch it again.

Next time? Will there be a next time? Of course there will be, to someone, somewhere. And the government will have some "truth" to sell to us. And hopefully we'll also have the video. We'll see if they match.

And maybe next time I'll have instant access to the video so I can offer the proof.

My Question Is

I keep finding things to write about, only to read the "definitive" article on it. Hmm. Nothing left to say. Well, that's not so good for the exercising the ole writing muscle. So I'm going to try something else. I have these questions about incidents and events, and I thought I'd just throw them here. So there.

McCrystal Resigns, Obama Accepts
My question is: has anyone asked General McCrystal why he let that article go to print? Was it an easy way out of something he no longer believed in? Did he go mad? Do the comments align with his character? May there be a physical reason for this, like a tumor or something? This isn't the first time McCrystal's been to the woodshed. He knew the consequences. Was this an ego thing? Wasn't there any other way out, other than making this big stink? Why doesn't anyone ask why?

McDonald's May be Forced to Shit-Can the Happy Meal Toy
After how many years of happy meals and toys promoting the latest blockbuster movie, Mickey D's may have to stop putting toys in happy meals. Why? Because they contribute (indirectly) to the weight/health problems of our youth. No, really. Here's where I become a Libertarian.

McDonald's isn't doing anything wrong, and should not be forced to stop making happy meals, or putting toys in them. It isn't their responsibility to educate people about how perfectly awful their "food" is. And it isn't the government's responsibility, either, to enforce a ridiculous edict. I'm all about making them provide nutrition information very public and very available. "Hey, kids! Can you say, 'cholesterol'?"

Of course, the lawsuit is supposed to be all about the toys, and that the free (and serial) toy is what the kids want. Not the food, not the fun on the box, not the "healthy alternatives"-- the toys. How far is it, do you suppose, before it'll be about banning the whole happy meal? Then what will desperate parents do? McDonald's has a clown for a brand, for f**k's sake! Its whole marketing department has been, for years, geared toward getting the kids to beg the parents to stop at McD's! All I'm saying is, marketing to children is evil, and those people have a special place in hell, but why stop at McDonny's? What about Toys R Us? They market toys to kids. Breakfast cereals? IPods? Video games? What happens when the item is both an adult toy and a kid toy?

So my question is: will we ever learn not to blame the mirror for what we find abhorrent in ourselves? C'mon, people. Try find a little personal responsibility.

Salazar Promises Response to Judge's Ruling
In case you've been under the rock of real life, here's a recap: Interior Secretary Ken Salazar imposed a six-month ban on deepwater drilling in the U.S. in response to a BP oil gusher in the Gulf of Mexico. Rig related companies cried foul (HA! That's rich, huh?) citing loss of profit, jobs, etc., and took it to court. The judge, with ties to big oil, sided with the oil companies and voided the moratorium. (Can he do that?) Anyway, Sec Salazar promised to reinstate soon.

My question is: If deepwater drilling has another accident, and people die, to whom will the victims complain? Could they march into that courtroom and lynch that dumb-ass judge? The government would be right if they were to wash their hands of the responsibility with a well-placed "told ya so", but of course, that's what we have a government for, right? To protect us from ourselves, and those who want to do us harm? I can hardly believe this. Have we no ability to learn from our VERY RECENT past?

The judge said something ridiculous like: do we ground all planes when one blows up? (Well, actually, yes, we have done something similar, if it's thought to be a mechanical problem.) Do we take all the cars off the road when there's a deadly crash? (Was he alive during the recent Toyota mechanical mishap?) His examples were ridiculous, because, yes, we do stop doing certain things in response to them blowing up, in order to find the cause. We stopped sending folks into space when the Challenger blew up. Wonder why.... oh yeah! IT BLEW UP. And they didn't want it to happen again! So Judge, that's exactly what we do. We stop and try to figure out why. I find that reasonable, even smart. And President Obama got BP to pony up for those rig workers put on hiatus, exactly as he should. Smart. But you, Judge, with big oil ties, NOT so smart. Certainly not smart enough to recuse himself, much less make such a stupid ruling. But thank you for trying to let us kill ourselves.

That's all we really want, anyway. The freedom to kill ourselves and each other, while making tons of money. And then complain if the government doesn't let us.

Circus Behavior, Klan Intentions?

Tea Party "Protests"

"A staffer for Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.) told reporters that Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.) had been spat on by a protestor. Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), a hero of the civil rights movement, was called a 'ni--er.' And Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) was called a "faggot," as protestors shouted at him with deliberately lisp-y screams."

WHAT?!

"But Clyburn was downright incredulous, saying he had not witnessed such treatment since he was leading civil rights protests in South Carolina in the 1960s. "

40 years ago, these kinds of epithets were spewed at people, in hatred, distrust, and fear. But that's not how we do things today, is it? Is this how we try to talk to our representatives? Is this how we talk to each other? Will this be how we teach our children to talk?

This is deeply troubling to me. Check this out:

Tea Party = Ku Klux Klan

Yes, it's propaganda. Until today, and the news that these wretched words were hurled at our representatives, I thought the analogy went a bit far. Now, I'm not sure. Does the phrase "mob mentality" mean anything? First signs, then words; actions aren't far behind.

If you visit any right-wing website, you'll find more racist, sexist diatribes than you ever thought existed. You won't find this kind of conversation on left-wing sites. Where is civil discourse?

Does anyone remember civil discourse? It is a back-and-forth conversation "that stays within the realm of rational decency. For a discourse to stay within the realm of rational decency, the people involved must follow the requirements of sound rational thinking enough to fit the occasion - even when conforming is inconvenient. Civil discourse is a non-totalitarian approach to mutual problem solving. It is a looser term than 'sound rational thinking' but presupposes enough commitment to sound reasoning to resolve the problem at hand in a cordial manner. Civil discourse can accommodate minor infractions and still be civil. Civil discourse is a moral interaction because it presupposes ethical standards that those involved should follow."
The Roots of Sound Rational Thinking

These people really scare me.

When the Circuses Came to Town

New Left Media, a couple of earnest-looking chaps with cameras and a microphone, wander out among the protesters in front of the Capitol building and take the temperature. Worth checking out:

Two Circuses, complete with two sets of Clowns.

This NEW LEFT MEDIA film was produced and edited by Chase Whiteside (interviewer) and Erick Stoll (camera operator) with additional camera work from Zac Sleeth. Don't you just wish you could've tagged along?

Health Care Reform: Lies and the Truth

Here are some of the lies I've heard:

There is no health care crisis.
The Truth: Roughly 25 million Americans were under-insured in 2007.

The health care system currently works fine.
The Truth: Insurance companies currently cancel policies when their insured customers need treatment.

Health care reform will impose rationing.
The Truth: Insurance companies already ration care.

Health care reform provides for “death panels.”
The Truth: "Death panel" claims have been conclusively discredited—what it does is make end-of-life discussions with doctors be paid for by health insurance.

Under health care reform, you will be denied care, and it will be given to undocumented immigrants instead.
The Truth: The bill stipulates that those "not lawfully present" may not receive subsidies to purchase insurance.

Health care reform will raise your taxes.
The Truth: Not unless you earn over 350,000 a year jointly, or 280,000 as a single filer.

Health care reform would add $1 trillion-plus to deficit.
The Truth: CBO found that House bill would increase the federal budget deficit by $239 billion over 10 years -- not $1 trillion.

House bill would ban private individual insurance.
The Truth: Individual private health insurance plans that do not meet the "grandfather" conditions would still be available for purchase, but only through the exchange and subject to those regulations. The bill does not "outlaw" private individual insurance.

President Obama and the Democrats are pushing "socialized medicine."
The Truth: But as the Urban Institute wrote in an April 2008 analysis, "socialized medicine involves government financing and direct provision of health care services," and therefore, recent progressive health-care reform proposals do not "fit this description." The Veteran Health Administration has a truly “socialized medicine system.”

Government can't be trusted to run a health care program.
The Truth: Medicare costs have risen more slowly than private insurance, and the government, through the Veteran Health Administration, currently provides the "best care anywhere."

The health care reform will put the government between my doctor and me.
The Truth: Insurance companies, entities that make decisions based on cost, not health, are already “between my doctor and me.” There is corruption, incompetency, and greed everywhere, so if the choice is between a for-profit company and a not-for-profit government agency to decide what I need, I think the choice should be obvious.

(Information from Media Matters for America)

Below is a summary of a summary by Mike Kruger, from the following website:

http://edlabor.house.gov/blog/2009/10/affordable-health-care.shtml

The key components of the Affordable health Care for America Act include:

Increasing choice and competition. The bill will protect and improve consumers’ choices.

• If people like their current plans, they will be able to keep them.

• For individuals who aren’t currently covered by their employer, and some small businesses, the proposal will establish a new Health Insurance Exchange where consumers can comparison shop from a menu of affordable, quality health care options that will include private plans, health co-ops, and a new public health insurance option.

• This Exchange will create competition based on quality and price that leads to better coverage and care.

• Patients and doctors will have control over decisions about their health care, instead of insurance companies.

• It will end increases in premiums or denials of care based on pre-existing conditions, race, or gender, and strictly limit age rating.

• The proposal will also eliminate co-pays for preventive care.

• It will cap out-of-pocket expenses to protect every American from bankruptcy.

• Guarantees that every child in America will have health care coverage that includes dental, hearing and vision benefits.

• Provides better preventive and wellness care. Every health care plan offered through the exchange and by employers after a grace period will cover preventive care at no cost to the patient.

• Increases the health care workforce to ensure that more doctors and nurses are available to provide quality care as more Americans get coverage.

• Strengthens Medicare and Medicaid and closes the Medicare Part D ‘donut hole’ so that seniors and low-income Americans receive better quality of care and see lower prescription drug costs and out-of-pocket expenses.

• Employers can continue offering coverage to workers, and those who choose not to offer coverage contribute a fee of eight percent of payroll.

• All individuals will generally be required to get coverage, either through their employer or the exchange, or pay a penalty of 2.5 percent of income, subject to a hardship exemption. Think about car insurance. The more people paying in, the less our premiums go up.

• The federal government will provide affordability credits, available on a sliding scale for low- and middle-income individuals and families to make premiums affordable and reduce cost-sharing.

• Provides transparency in plans in the Health Exchange so that consumers have the clear, complete information, in plain English, needed to select the plan that best meets their needs.

• Establishes consumer advocacy offices as part of the Exchange in order to protect consumers, answer questions, and assist with any problems related to their plans.

• Simplifies paperwork and other administrative burdens. Patients, doctors, nurses, insurance companies, providers, and employers will all encounter a streamlined, less confusing, more consumer friendly system.

• Increases funding of efforts to reduce waste, fraud and abuse; creates enhanced oversight of Medicare and Medicaid programs.

• The legislation will be entirely paid for – it will not add a dime to the deficit.

• It will also put Medicare and Medicaid on the path to a more fiscally sound future, so seniors and low-income Americans can continue to receive the quality health care benefits for years to come.

• Pays for the entire cost of the legislation though a combination of savings achieved by making Medicare and Medicaid more efficient – without cutting seniors’ benefits in any way – and revenue generated from placing a surcharge the top 0.3 percent of all households in the U.S.(married couples with adjusted gross income of over $1,000,000) and other tax measures.

• The Congressional Budget estimates the bill will reduce the deficit by at least $100 billion over ten years.

• Estimates also show the bill will slow the rate of growth of the Medicare program.

It doesn’t include a public option (“socialized”: like the VHA); it doesn’t include a single payer system (like Medicare and Medicaid). It isn’t a simple bill; it tries to do a lot of things. Maybe it will need to be revised almost immediately. But if we don’t do something, this whole country goes down in economic flames, leaving the insurance companies with the pot of gold. Of course, it isn't a good long-term strategy, is it, if eventually no one can afford their policies.

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?

Yet Another Cattle Shoot

I've just received training to use the new, improved time management system that my employer is implementing. It has far more bells, whistles, fields to fill out and buttons to click than the one before, and I can only assume it's a wet dream for those folks in accounting. It probably can create dozens of reports from all kinds of perspectives with all manner of information. Wow. That must be exciting.
For those who don't come from cattle country, a shoot is a device that forces cattle into a less-than-happy single file line. "Doing this allows the rancher, farmer, or vet control each animal for inspection, tagging, etc." But, alas, as one of the cattle facing one more shoot, I can only say this: I am, as a cow, already domesticated, I'm already in a fenced-in pasture, I'm already trained where to go for food, water, shelter. I also have a variety of shoots as it is. I have tax shoots, motor vehicle registration shoots, health and car insurance shoots, employment shoots, flex account shoots, money account shoots, etc etc, and I know I have fewer shoots than the people who have own their own homes, or have their own businesses, or who adopted a child, who enlisted in the military, or invest in the stock market, etc etc.
What I want to know is: what kind of person needs to gather, organize, and spit out all of this information? And why do I have to have them all up in my business? And most importantly, why, oh why, do they always "upgrade" or "improve" their systems and inevitably eliminate the few perks I use?
"Improvements" always means less space. It becomes a smaller shoot, more narrowly defined. It becomes one with more sensors, with less wiggle room. Am I feeling a little claustrophobic? I would not have defined myself as a open space girl: the idea of camping, or living on a farm would normally give me a stomach ache. I would have defined myself as a city girl. But the city has rules; civilization, it seems, comes in forms to fill out, and sign, date, and don't forget to add your branding tag, I mean, your social security number.
Yes, I'm feeling a bit wedged in.
I find myself thinking of a little farm, with chickens and goats, with no clocks or calendars, getting up with the sun (and I am NOT a "morning" person) and eating when I'm hungry, resting when I'm tired, moving when I'm stiff and doing what I want.
I'm pretty good at that last one.
I've been alphabetized and accumulated, categorized and codified, defined and divided, rated, ranked, sorted, sized, labeled and listed, placed and pigeon-holed. Reminds me of Paul Simon's A Simple Desultory Philippic (or How I was Robert McNamera'd into Submission).

I been Ayn Randed, nearly branded
Communist, 'cause I'm left-handed.
That's the hand I use, well, never mind!
,
(I'm left-handed, so this song really spoke to me as a child. Good beginnings...)

I don't really get why it's so important to be branded. I would relish breaking free of my tag. Just cutting it off, like a skin tag.

What I do get is why this makes me dangerous, and why I get that look: "what's your problem? Why can't you get used to one more shoot? It's not like you have to think or anything. It's easy."

Moo, is all I'm sayin'.

A Good Book, A Long Wait, and A New Old Friend

A Good Book. I've always been a fairly avid reader. I have stacks of books in (nearly) every room, stacks near my bed, stacks on my bed, in some eternal, internal plea that I could glean something by just having them near me. I try, surely, to absorb them in my sleep. I'm always searching for the book that will capture my imagination, that will give me the answer, that will fix my life. Clearly, there's a lot of disappointment. But recently, a very close friend, a brilliant writer, and definitely a bibliophile in the contextual sense, gave me a tip on a book she'd read. It's called "Odd Women" by George Gissing. Written in the later part of the 19th century, set in England, it is a valuable reflection of the life and choices women faced just as the women's movement was trying to find its footing. "George" isn't an pseudonym in this case, it was really written by a man. That's part of what makes it incredible, because it seems to me that he had the amazing ability to empathize with both genders' situations, and even to create credible relationships.

It's about five "odd" women. "Odd" in this case means both "unmarried" and "singular" in their thinking; that is, the two main women find themselves in situations with men that are not of their choosing, and they realize the difficulties of a society that only values a woman if she's married. As a happily confirmed single person, I found it quite amazing. A little bit difficult to read because of the heightened language, but the mores of the times are jaw-dropping. How far we've come, how far we have to go, that sort of thing. Anyway, I've just finished, and I miss the characters. A sure sign of a good book.

A Long Wait. We're waiting now, waiting to see the full cast. We're bored, perhaps, with the two stars, Obama and McCain, and we are on the edge of our seats waiting for their announcements of running mates. And the conjecture is thundering. There have been (and will be, until it's over) hundreds of hours pondering the choices, the signs, the possibilities, the reasons, the yada-yada-yada as we wait, a little like young children in the back seat: Are we there yet? How about now? Now? Then when? It's another perfect example of the tail wagging the dog. Stay tuned....

A New Old Friend. Recently, I got talked into creating a Facebook page. Well, fooled into it is a little more accurate. Anyway, I felt pretty silly. I can see why it's so much fun as a teenager, or even a college student, I guess, but I thought to myself, why do I need a page? It felt like filling out a page for my yearbook. A bit juvenile. After all, I, as a so-called grown-up, can connect with anyone I wanted to by picking up the phone. And don't I have everyone in my life that I need? Who needs tons of friends to keep up with? And if people pop up from my past, isn't that, kind of, asking for trouble?

Well, I was wrong. Very wrong. Silly me. (That'll teach me, right? Of course, right!) At first, I reconnected with a couple of college buddies, that's good, people I chose to hang with, so I'm still confident in our connection points. A couple of high school buddies, good, didn't have as much choice in h.s., but as I remember, I found some pretty choice friends there, too.

But then, out of that proverbial clear blue s., along came a friend from elementary school, can you imagine? Now, I had not just remembered her, but we were so tight then that I have often thought of her in the years since. I was an only child at that point, and she was as close to a sister as I could have. She had siblings, but they were much older, so she probably thought of me the same way. I grew up in a very small town where nothing much ever changed. Her family came, and left, rather quickly (to me her departure was wrenching). Maybe that was it. Anyway, up she pops, "are you the same one I grew up with?" and poof. A new, old friend. Not even a friend I grew up with, and yet we have so much in common, I think if we met today, we'd be fast friends in a blink of an eye. Now that's just weird. How does your best friend from like the 3rd grade (in a VERY small town, where the choices are FEW) end up being someone you'd've picked as a grown-up?
I'm still in awe. And, it the very weirdest twist, as we try to catch up with each other's life, I'm realizing something I would NEVER have thought of, when I signed up with Facebook: It works both ways. Yes, you may discover that there was a reason you and the high school buddy grew apart, and that's ever so obvious now, but that you ALSO might connect with someone who liked you before all the angst and pain and depression and heartache that has become so much a part of you, and if there's still a connection, maybe you had some of the good qualities then, before it all got screwed up. Maybe I wasn't quite the blank slate I thought of myself as. Does that makes sense? If we still connect, nearly 40 years later, maybe there really was a connection then, and maybe it was us in our purest selves, and maybe it's without all the gunk that's happened since.

Well, whatever it is, it has made me really quite happy, and more importantly, hopeful, in a way I haven't felt in a long time. Weird, huh?

What I See from Here

Ain't this a kick in the head! My little corner of the world, now complete with its own little mega-microphone. Today's topics: John Edwards, Clinton-fanatics, and Why Can't I Ever Eat on Time.
Mr. Edwards' story seems to be getting hotter, not cooler, as troublemakers like Fox News look around for more people in "the know" to proffer their opinion. As I condemn Edwards' behavior and am deeply saddened and angry that yet another (possibly) decent leader with good ideas is torpedoed by his own ego (and other body parts), I wonder why this continues to happen to our leaders. I wish we could find a way to deal with this that doesn't include plucking the party-girl's posse out of obscurity to probe the part of the story we should not care about: her side. What we should care about is the other woman: you remember, the wife? What was she thinking, supporting this liar? And how on goddess' green earth was she able to stand there, next to him, and lend her abilities and (maybe very little) time to advance a man she knew was lying? And it's always the lying, isn't it? The affair is bad enough, the payoff might make it worse, but it's the LYING. It's always the lying. Do we (they: men) ever learn anything?

Clintonistas: The fantasy, the underdogs, the next Big Move. I am only beginning to hear of this movement, and if you haven't I encourage you to poke around a bit for information about "The Denver Group". It seems they fancy themselves the next purveyors of the Boston Tea Party. The metaphor is a little off, unless they're also asking for a tax break. They're trying to portray themselves as the outcasts, the rebels for their cause, a rebellion of the establishment. But this seems backwards to me. To me, it seems that they WERE the establishment: for 15 years, the Clintons ruled the Democratic Party. What's bucking the trend is the way Obama and his campaign have always taken the high road, never letting the barbs hit the target, always gracious in the face of such ridiculous actions. I don't think The Obama et al, have ever asked for any special treatment, and in fact they have gone out of their way to behave in an inclusive manner. So here are the questions: What, really is the point of these fanatic Clinton supporters? Why are they so poisoned against Obama? If the media didn't treat Hillary fairly (and I, as an AVID news watcher and a feminist, never felt that to be true), why does that make them mad at Obama? What did he do to strike this anger into their hearts? Why aren't they angry at McCain? What is to be gained? What will be lost, if we do not unite in Denver? How is winning this battle going to be judged if we lose the war?

And finally: why can't I eat on time? I should be eating meals with some regularity, for managing blood sugar levels. But I often find I've overdone it. I've tried to do "just one more thing" before eating, and the next thing I know I'm getting a little dizzy or sluggish and that's too late. Argh. Maybe the question should be: why is it so hard to take care of me? I've been around me all my life, and for most of that time, Mom wasn't poking my face with a spoon. I have to do it every day, in some fashion. But I don't plan ahead, I don't keep track, and I don't even manage to keep those little snack-y foods around for this very problem. It's odd to me. If I really have some kind of deep-seated desire to survive, why do I also sabotage myself?

Happy trails -