My Prophet

Okay, so I'm not religious. I call myself agnostic because it is a quick way to say who I am. I'm not sure what/who is out there and I'll never be sure. I'm not taken in by charismatic people who seem to know what they're talking about. (It's important to note that I am not saying most religious people are taken in by just anyone. I'm simply making the point that it is a big deal for me to think so highly of one person based on his beliefs and actions - not on first-hand knowledge.)

This is why, if I had to choose someone to respect and admire unabashedly; someone who, if I were ever to see him, I would probably detect some sort of gold-ish haze around him, it would be Utah Phillips. The link connects to a wikipedia article about him, which, if you're interested will give you the details on the man I might actually call my hero.

I've never been one for heroes. I don't like words that I can't define. What is a hero? Is it someone we admire? There are many people I admire. That can't be it. There has to be more. Let's look at examples of heroes. Phillips speaks about the fact that children today have heroes who are made-up people. Spider-Man, Barbie (kill me now). Whatever happened, he asks, to grandparents, Babe Ruth, actual people?

Okay, so Utah is guiding me through the hero conundrum. Should heroes be people we aspire to be? People we respect and admire so much that we model our lives on that person? I think I may have just answered my own question. Thanks Utah.

Here's another shard of glass. I don't have heroes because I don't model myself after anyone. I have always tried to be my own person (often to an extreme extent). I don't wear crazy outfits or die my hair different colors, but I always try to be the most honest version of myself. As I've grown I've realized this isn't always possible. But in any given situation, I can shift to the most honest version that particular situation can hold. I'm malleable. Yay me.

At least that's what I aim for. Okay, sorry about the tangent. So I wouldn't call Utah a hero. I don't aspire to be a labor reformer. I don't want to get people riled up and make a scene. I don't like to embarrass people. But I admire people who do.

Utah does it in my favorite way. He is an unassuming activist. He is modest and thoughtful. He is joyful and likes to laugh. He sees the beauty in the world and in people. He is brimming with stories and music. He has unthinkable amounts to share with this world.

I'm going to include the two quotes that led to this post. I hope you'll go buy some of his stuff.

"Following the path of least resistance is what makes the river crooked."

And, the one that calmed me after a rough day:

"Little kids are . . . assholes. But they're their own assholes. When you grow up, you're someone else's asshole . . ."

Check out UtahPhillips.org

This Could Shock (and Awe) You

If the 2008 election was upon us and McCain was running against Hillary, I would vote for John McCain. Please, hold your gasps.

But wait! She's a "feminist," you say. She should jump at the chance for a woman president! First of all, that's ridiculous. If a qualified minority ran for president (like Shirley Chisolm), I would expect him or her to get a fair shot at office. But she or he should never be judged on the basis of their minority status (positively or negatively).

So let's look at Hillary and John. She's a "Democrat," he's a "Republican."
Both voted to invade Iraq in 2003.

Both support different kinds of guest worker programs for illegal immigrants (though Hillary's position is a little wobbly).

BOTH are self-proclaimed "anti-abortionists." Hillary believes that criminalizing the process would not abolish abortions, McCain has said he would have signed the South Dakota legislation banning all abortions but, unlike South Dakota's law, McCain believes pregnancies resulting from rape or incest should be legal. As for Hillary, she is again wobbly: "Research shows that the primary reason that teenage girls abstain is because of their religious and moral values. We should embrace this — and support programs that reinforce the idea that abstinence at a young age is not just the smart thing to do, it is the right thing to do. But we should also recognize what works and what doesn't work, and to be fair, the jury is still out on the effectiveness of abstinence-only programs. I don't think this debate should be about ideology, it should be about facts..." Yes. Ultimately she admits there may be a problem with abstinence-only education. But to give it any credit at all is criminal in my eyes.

Both expressed opposition to the Federal Marriage Amendment. Hillary, however, does not believe in (?) same-sex marriages. She supports civil unions but also supports the Defense of Marriage Act.

Hillary supports making flag burning illegal *without* an actual amendment.

She PROPOSED the Family Entertainment Protection Act, a bill that would prohibit the sale of violent video games to anyone under 18. She has called Grand Theft Auto a "major threat" to morality. More on that in another post.

Do I feel betrayed by Clinton? A little. Okay, a lot. Maybe she's justdesperatee to get elected. But I don't think so. I think she's finally showing her true colors. And I would take a "Republican" over a "Democrat" any day. At least McCain journeys over to the light. Hillary is being dragged over to the dark side. It's taking over. I don't want to see her in office. I think she would disappoint a lot of people.

In Response

...to Jason's comment on the last post. First of all, yes, I mis-wrote about the exfoliated cells. Thanks for clarifying.

The other comment though (about the conservatives' outrage over embryo destruction) deserves a second look.

Many stem cells go to research because there is a surplus of embryos from the new and "exciting" ways to get pregnant. Some women donate their eggs for science, some use them for themselves (in vitro fertilization). The point is, this surplus either sit in a freezer (those poor, cold non-things!) or they are thrown away. A donation center cannot keep the embryos forever. When women begin the process of trying to get pregnant this way/donating eggs, they have a lot of paperwork to fill out. One of the questions invlolves the use of her surplus eggs. They can choose to throw them away, donate them, or freeze them "indefinitely." Wow! Look at that freedom of choice!

The irony (and I'm not using it the way Bush did. What do we think he meant? Irony= the weird thing is...?) is that Bush has two daughters who were created through "unnatural" means. Laura took fertility drugs. Though Laura did not have to go through the petri-dish process, would she have? Does Bush believe that playing god is okay when it comes to creating babies?

I wish Bush would address this discrepancy. How can you be outraged about donations of eggs for science (which may cure some diseases that affect actual children), but not even address donations for fertilization? These donations are creating the surplus. It's the fertility clinics that are running out of space. They are the ones that need to throw the eggs away.

Thus, it seems to me that Bush would rather throw away "potential life" than use it for research.

Another clarification: the bill would have increased government funding of stem cell research, which may not seem like that big a deal (private funding, right?). The truth is, however, that no lab can do this kind of research without assistance from the government.

Just Say No

We should be so proud. Our little president just vetoed his first bill! Though the number of vetoes varies with each new president (Cleveland had 414, Adams and Jefferson, none), for a two-term president in modern-day America, Bush's record is ridiculous. It's reasonable, however, when you look at the House and the Senate.

Anyway, this is not my point. The bill the president vetoed? It was a bill expanding stem cell research. I know. He thinks they are all little babies, even though you can't see them without a microscope. They're potential humans. But so are the cells that come off in the shower. Should we remain unclean to suit Bush's ideal? Should Bush's beliefs keep the US from advancing science? I wonder if he's thought of the competition angle. China's got no problem with using stem cells. They'll clone first! They'll cure countless diseases first! Oh no! Doesn't Bush love the US? Maybe we should argue nationalistically.

The best point here is that these stem cells are not human. They will never become human. The majority of them, due to the fact that they can be used for NOTHING will be destroyed. Who benefits from that? A non-life is now in the trash. We're back to zero.

So congrats, Mr. Prez. You took a baby step. You stood up to your back-scratching yes-men in Congress. Wow. You're such a big boy. But what happens when you get Alzheimer's?

Oh, and if you ever touch the German Chancellor again, she'll use the other moves she learned in rape prevention class. Why don't you stick to massaging Tony Blair? Oh, sorry. Probably too gay for you.

Too Much

Is it something in the weather? People all over the world are angry, nothing new there. This week, they decided to do something about it. Iraq, Pakistan, Israel, Lebanon. You'd think they planned ahead.

I'm not trying to make this all into cotton candy, though the texture of the events is the same. I'm simply baffled.

On the homefront, some interesting stories I've read this week:

• Republicans in Congress are, indeed, trying to find a way around the Supreme Court ruling on prisoners in Guantanamo Bay. They are interpreting the decision in a way that forces Bush to get approval from Congress before he unfairly tries the inmates. Others claim the decision means that Bush must give the inmates a fair trial. Let's hope the latter wins this one. If we're out there spreading democracy, what gives us the right to act like a military state? Just another thing to add to the ever-growing list of American hypocrisy.

• Valerie Plame is suing Cheney and Rove for ruining her career. Finally. I'm not optimistic that she'll win, but anything is possible.

• The Senate voted against a minimum wage increase (it's still $5.15/hr). (They voted to give themselves a wage increase. Surprised?) Though this happened awhile ago, I was just indignant until I heard a recent Slate podcast called The Gabfest. They talked economics which, admittedly, is not my forte. Apparently, the reason it's stayed so low for so long is, ostensibly, a fear that job opportunities will decrease, especially for young people. If minimum wage goes up, it devalues the people making higher wage and will even (gasp) manage to poke the rich. Though this may be true, it is also true that inflation provides for at least some sort of increase. Though, as Emily Basilon on The Gabfest mentioned, minimum wage is meant to give less educated, younger people a place to start their careers (McDonald's, here I come), it's also a fact that many, many (a majority?) of minimum wage earners are 30 and above. You cannot live on $5.15 an hour.

• The House Appropriations Committee did not recommend a funding increase for abstinence-only education. Yeehaw! The fact that we're even wasting money on this worthless and harmful program is ridiculous. Kids are going to do it. Let's teach them to be safe and smart. I'm trying not to even get into American sex education overseas. It's too horrid and naive to fit into a bullet point.

• From AlterNet.org: Women soldiers are being raped by their co-workers in Iraq. No solution has been found. Once women are raped, if they come forward, they are seen by doctors without Plan B or appropriate tools to test for disease. Then, (if they're lucky) they're taken to a different location. Women are being raped out of combat. We've come so very far.

• In local news, here in Tampa, Veterans for Peace were finally granted access to public schools. Army recruiters have been allowed the lunchroom and other key places in schools for years now. After appeals to the fair and balanced, both points of view, claims of the school board were denied, Veterans for Peace chose a different tactic. They claimed they would provide alternate career opportunities for kids. The school board couldn't pass that one up, but made V for P promise they would not distribute and/or talk to kids negatively about the war or the military (they have to "steer the conversation" the "correct" way). For the past few years, V for P have set up outside of schools, to reach kids as they exited schools. A spokesman for the organization said that they would simply continue on the outside, even as they gained access to the inside. In this way, students will finally get both sides of the story. Ain't Florida grand?

• And, finally, Ted Stevens is an idiot. Not really news, but... in an effort to promote a hierarchy of internet speed, Stevens called the internet "a series of tubes." The Daily Show quoted this and other ridiculous parts of Stevens' speech in front of the Senate beside a picture of Grampa Simpson. Wow.

Those were just a few things that caught me this week. There's so much going on, it would be impossible to bullet everything.

Oh, and another note on my previous post. My ultimate issue is not with the show, but with Salon's article. My pain was augmented by the fact that the commercial I was forced to watch was for Project Runway. My question is: how do those commercials work? Was that commercial targeted to readers of Broadsheet? That would be the ultimate irony: on my way to read a (choppy) article complaining about another article stereotyping feminists as closet Project Runway fans, I watched an ad for Project Runway, which was targeted toward the feminist readers of Broadsheet.

Oh, Salon

You have failed me for the first time. In a half-hearted article on Broadsheet,"Women Rabid Over 'Runway?'" Salon.com indulged in a little wit. Maybe not wit, maybe it was a little foreplay, or even a simple accident. I'm not sure what it was. I went to the site, using a link to the article which, I assumed, was about the ridiculous nature of Project Runway. I was prompted (of course) to watch an advertisement to enter Salon (their way of generating revenue). I was shocked and a bit amused to note that the ad was for . . . what else? Project Runway. The article turned out to be a childish reaction to an article from Columbia Daily Tribune columnist Pete Bland, "Stay Away From Women and their Runway." Bland's article talked about all his 'feminist' friends who were obsessed with the show. Rebecca Traister's article on Broadsheet quoted heavily from the article and wrapped it up with this: "Put succinctly: this column was dumb." I was thoroughly disappointed and confused (if amused) at the coincidental (?) marketing ploy.

I think the show is ridiculous, though I have friends that watch it. I'm not sure what people get out of other people being catty and stupid. I find it embarrassing. But my hope would be that Broadsheet could dig a little deeper into the appeal. I don't understand why they think a simple dismissal is enough.

Dead Man's Plot

I saw Pirates of the Caribbean 2 last night. The action sequences were incredibly creative and original, the overall tone was whimsical and fun, but the plot was stilted and convoluted. In a 2 hr and 30 minute movie, there were too many things left unexplained and too many unnecessary scenes. There are four writers credited on IMDB, and I'm sure there were more who worked on it. It felt slapped together and cut up and edited. As I sat there, jolted from one scene to the next, I spent most of my time trying to catch up. I finally just sat back and released the plot from my brain, knowing it was no use.

Ah, trying to wax poetic. I'll stop. I enjoyed the movie, but I wouldn't see it again. I feel cheated by the ending and, really, by the movie in general. The action sequences were enough to keep me going, though, and that's saying a lot. I hate action sequences.

No doubt some will disagree with this pseudo-review. Sorry I'm not more specific, but I don't want to ruin it for those who haven't seen it. I guess I'll wrap it up with this pretentious, ugly bow: the writers wrapped the plot in a very pretty box, then cut the bottom out of the box. There were still pieces, glimmers, of story, but it was drowned in voodoo and superfluous "mis-haps."

But Orlando Bloom is still ridiculously gorgeous.

Working . . . With Children

Why do interviews with working mothers usually involve questions about their children?

A particularly annoying, self-aggrandizing Slate podcast brought this to my attention. The new Washington Post radio station (really? do we need this?), did an hour-long program about Slate writers, featuring interviews with several columnists and editors (the Washington Post owns Slate). After an interview with a male writer, who is also a father, in which his children were not mentioned, a female writer was questioned repeatedly about being a working mother. How does she do it? What happens to her kids when she works? The bulk of the interview was about the trials and tribulations of balancing motherhood and work. To be fair, my aggravation was augmented by the fact that the interviewer was ridiculously energetic and a horrible speaker. She mis-pronounced names and mixed up facts on more than several occasions.

Alright, so one interview. Annoying, but no big deal. But the next day, I listened to another interview with a female writer. Almost half of the interview was about her children and (yet again) the "balance" required. Both interviewers were women as well.

I know mothers and fathers have different roles in their childrens' lives, but this is ridiculous. Though some people still do not accept that women can work with kids at home just as well as ment can, it has been a fact of life for more than three decades. I wonder if, during World War II (when the government wanted and needed women to work, thank you Rosie), there was such a big fascination with a working mother. Sure, it was a novelty at first, but women were expected to work, to serve their country. Now, it comes across as a choice.

Though it may come from admiration, by asking these accomplished women about their children and the "balance," these interviewers are perpetuating the idea that this working mother thing is still a novelty. It's been going on for awhile now. I think they know what they're doing. It is a decision, but it's a decision fathers make as well.

Maybe even more importantly, the answers these women give to questions like, "What's it like being a working mother? How do you balance your work and your family?" are pretty boring. There's nothing interesting about a regular, modern woman doing her job and loving her family. Just as there's nothing interesting about a regular, modern man doing his job and loving his family.

The Little Guy Plays With the Big Boys

I just read a short synopsis of today's papers on Slate. A story on the New York Times front page caught my eye.

Apparently, schools, fire departments, and other public entities are "hiring lobbyists to make funding appeals to Congress on their behalf."

They are reportedly seeing a return on the tax money spent on this venture, and it is proving to be a lucrative process.

I am all for this. We need to learn to play their game, so we can reap the benefits. I think we should all hire lobbyists. Hell, we should all become lobbyists. Maybe we'll force a change in the system.

I know a lobbyist who is tremendously influential in Florida law (he's even written some of them). Lobbyists are becoming the ghost writers, the Karl Rove's. They are the ones who get things done. Let's all take a page out of the "Florida town," which gets 285.83 dollars for every dollar spent in taxes. Can you imagine what we could do with that kind of money?

I think it is a very good use of our taxes. If this is how the system is going to work, we need to learn to play along. Of course, it gets a lot more depressing when you think about the money it takes to hire a lobbyist to fight for you. LOBBYISTS: teach free classes, set up a pro-bono system like lawyers (is there one?), help this cause!

Of course, that will never happen. Lobbyists are hired to fight for causes. How many ideals can these people have? (My friend and his recent actions are excluded from that nasty comment.)

One Vote?

I don't know why it's so hard for me to believe. The people in the Senate have repeatedly proven themselves to be idiots. I'm just having trouble with the fact only one vote kept the Flag Desecration Amendment from passing. I know, I should just be happy it didn't pass. But I would've expected something akin to the Defense of Marriage bullshit. A Senatorial version of throwing tomatoes. But no. We were one vote away from having our rights curtailed by the constitution. I'm not going out and burning flags. But I should be able to, if I want to. As should any American. Freedom. It's a good word. Maybe some of those senators should go look it up.

In other news, the Supreme Court voted against Rumsfeld. Here's an excerpt from an e-mail I received from People for the American Way:

Today brought a major victory for the rule of law –and a stunning defeat for the Bush Administration. Ruling 5-3 in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the Supreme Court overturned an appeals court’s determination that military detainees are not entitled to fundamental due process rights including the right to be present at their trials and the right to confront witnesses against them. The hallmark of American justice and that of most civilized nations is that everyone is entitled to a fair trial, and today’s ruling sends a strong signal to the president that his administration cannot continue to ignore the rule of law.

At least something's working. However, I heard a report on All Things Considered this morning about the legislation changes this is going to require. Our right-wing government will surely find a way to do what it wants.

Well, I feel manipulated, scared, and depressed. Have a good day!

Here We Go

Prompted by this article (excerpted here):

--------------------------------------------------
NASHVILLE, Tenn. -- Tennessee's embattled anti-abortion license plates could hit the streets within three months.The U.S. Supreme Court this week declined to consider an appeal challenging such plates.

• Copyright 2006 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

As well as a vague memory of a great 88.5 report on the Florida license plates sporting the same slogan, I looked up a little more about the issue. Here's a great article from Slate, titled Poetic Licenses:

--------------------------------------------------

"The legal issue isn't complicated, and it helps to separate it from your feelings about abortion. It's a free speech question: Can state governments endorse speech representing only one side of an issue as controversial as abortion? Has the state, by opening up license plates as a forum for private speech, incurred a constitutional obligation to allow speakers of every viewpoint equal access to that forum?"

"Most of the courts that have considered the issue have wussed out on the First Amendment question altogether, finding the plaintiffs in those cases lacked legal "standing" to file suit, since they had never endeavored to sponsor "Choose Abortion" or "Choose Choice" license plates themselves. Another court decided last month that the "Choose Life" plates in South Carolina were unconstitutional, in that the state was promoting only one side in the debate. Immediately, a South Carolina legislator introduced a "Choose Death" license plate, which he insists fairly expresses the other side in the debate. Newspapers recently noted that the "Choose Death" plate may still prove popular with death-penalty enthusiasts (and perhaps with hunters, werewolves, and NRA members as well). Less clear is whether it will satisfy the plaintiffs from Planned Parenthood.
License plates became a constitutional issue in 1977 when the Supreme Court decided Wooley v. Maynard, a case involving a family of Jehovah's Witnesses who had taped over the "Live Free or Die" part of their New Hampshire license plate. The Maynards claimed that New Hampshire violated their free speech rights by forcing them to broadcast a political sentiment with which they disagreed. The high court ruled that states could not force individuals to be "mobile billboards" for messages they loathed. The "Choose Life" cases don't involve this sort of compelled speech, however, since no one in any state is forced to purchase the specialty plates—people buy them voluntarily.
Specialty plates were virtually unheard-of in most states until 1987, when Florida issued a plate commemorating the space shuttle Challenger. That plate alone raised more than $30 million for space-related programs, and today Florida issues more than 50 specialty plates. Forty other states have specialty-plate programs, and for the most part they celebrate non-controversial organizations: sports teams, schools, veterans, NASCAR, or saving the whales, with the additional fees benefiting that cause. The "Choose Life" plates in Florida feature the words "Choose Life" in childlike crayon, along with a beaming boy and girl—presumably of the happily adopted variety—also rendered in the key of crayon. Most of states with "Choose Life" programs provide, as does Florida, that the proceeds of these sales go exclusively to organizations that counsel women with unwanted pregnancies to choose adoption. In fact, the legislation in most states expressly provides that any program offering referrals or even discussing the option of abortion is barred from funding.
When the first "Choose Life" legislation passed in Florida in 1998, then-Gov. Lawton Chiles vetoed it, stating that license plates were not necessarily the best forum for exploring the complex nuances of the abortion debate. But Gov. Jeb Bush signed the bill when he was elected in 1999, and the Louisiana legislature adopted similar legislation shortly thereafter. South Carolina followed in 2001. All have resulted in lawsuits, with the first two states' suits going to the Choose Lifers and the third going to the plaintiffs. So far. "

"It's not at all clear how the "Choose Life" lawsuits will shake out. But it seems obvious that if a "Choose Life" tag is constitutional in Virginia, a "Honk If You Love al-Qaida" plate should be constitutional in New Hampshire, as well. Which would probably give a whole new meaning to "Live Free or Die.""

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Leave it to Florida to start this slippery trend. Just thought it was worth some time on the page. Though this article was written in 2003, we still haven't resolved the issue. Check out the rest of the article here: http://www.slate.com/id/2078247/

My Hero

In other news: Stephen Colbert is awesome. On a recent episode of The Colbert Report, he played a clip of a Fox News anchor discussing the horrors of those "liberal tree-huggers" who "want to tell us what to do with our trash." (quotes are not exact). Colbert went on to agree that our trash is a private matter. "No one can tell me to separate my green glass from my clear glass!" He then made sure we realized our bodies and genitals are the property of big government. These things are public domain. The government needs to tell us exactly what to do with them.

No one else but a Catholic liberal pretending to be an evangelical right-winger (calls O'Reilly "papa bear") could make this point so well. Gotta love it.

Those Crazy Cameroon-ians

I just read an article on Broadsheet, which comments on the horrors of "breast ironing" in Cameroon, West Africa. According to Broadsheet, "wooden tools, heated bananas and coconut shells are often used to iron and beat away at young girls' budding breasts in an attempt to stunt development. All this to deter sexual advances from men and boys."

Although this practice is horrifying and disgusting, it seems a logical extension of the African practice of Female Genital Mutilation (a controversial label). FGM involves clipping or cutting the clitoris to stunt the woman's sexual pleasure. American's have been outraged about this practice for years.

Here is my problem. Are we completely blind? True, any practice that leads to a discussion of "over-ironing" should be discussed and condemned. Of course I believe that. But how could an article talk about how harmful this practice is to the breast tissue without mentioning the American practice of breast enhancement (which can severely damage breast tissue, rendering the nerve endings completely numb). Why didn't the article mention plastic surgery in general? We are complete hypocrites.

True, Tracy Clark-Forey writes that these women are forced to undergo "breast ironing" against their will. Most women choose plastic surgery. But here we come to the big question, which many people have asked before me. Do women really "choose" plastic surgery? Doesn't society tell them what to look like? How to feel about their natural bodies? Is plastic surgery really a matter of free will?

Above all, I was just surprised plastic surgery went unmentioned. Although the practices are done for different reasons, they are both extremely dangerous, demeaning, and unnecessary procedures. Clark-Forey ends the article with: "But how insurmountable must cultural taboos surrounding women, family honor, and sex seem to Cameroonians for this to be practiced on 26 percent of young girls in the country?" How insurmountable must cultural, familial, and sexual expectations surrounding women seem to Americans for plastic surgery to be practiced on 10.2 million patients (82% women) in the country?

See American Society of Plastic Surgeons for more statistics

A Prarie Home Companion

I don't want this blog to be a complete bitch/moan fest. I saw A Prarie Home Companion a couple weeks ago and thought I'd share my sheer joy.

Though it's not my favorite NPR program, I do listen to the show on occasion. It's a little too simple for me, which I know is the point. I love Garrison Keillor's The Writer's Almanac, though, and I think he is a brilliant, talented man.

Prarie Home Companion just reaffirmed this belief. It was really nice to just sit back and enjoy these actors loving life. They clearly reveled in these characters (especially Meryl Streep and Lily Tomlin) and their joy came across the screen.

The music was fun and exciting. I'm pretty sure a smile was plastered to my face the entire time.

That said, I don't know why there was an angel in the movie. I understand what they were going for and it did add another layer to the story. I just didn't like or buy that layer. And Lindsey Lohan. Yikes. She's really disappointing. I loved her in Mean Girls. I still don't understand that choice. Her voice is horrible and her acting was not enjoyable.

Oops! Bitching again. Sorry. The movie was wonderful.

When did it become okay?

When did it become alright to kill someone we don't like? I will gladly stand up and agree that I think Al-Zarqawi was a maniac and a killer. Does that make it right to drop two 500 pound bombs on top of his "un-safe" house (as Fox so cleverly called it)? I can't believe I haven't heard more of an outcry against this. Am I missing something?

I do not believe that life is sacred. But I also don't believe that we have the right to rub out anyone who does something we don't agree with. Yes, I understand that this man has done horrible and unspeakable things. He was the leader of a terrorist organization. But why isn't it alright to kill Kim Jong-il? Hell, serial killers get a (ostensibly) fair trial before we put them to death. I disagree completely with the death penalty, but at least there is a process, an attempt to make the killing "humane." We dropped two 500 pound BOMBS on a house, killing insurgents and 19 people. Wounding 40 more. What gives us the right to KILL this man? These people?

Another part of my astonishment is that Americans are willing to stand by and look at exactly the extent of the damage we did in this one case. Do we really need CLOSE-UPS of a dead man (in what looks like a gilded frame)? Descriptions of his autopsy? Does anyone care that we're reveling in the death of a man? A person? Nevermind that he was a horrible person.

All anyone can talk about (other than pure rejoicing) is the "mystery." How did he stay alive so long? Why isn't he more pulverized? What the hell is wrong with everyone?

If anyone can shed any light, make any argument for our joyous celebration of this death and/or a justification for the bombs, I'd love to hear it. Maybe I'm just not informed enough. I just can't believe I haven't heard anyone else speaking up about this. Where do we draw the line? I hate the slippery slope argument, but when the shoe fits... When is it okay to kill someone? To target someone? When do we become the terrorists?

Just some quick thoughts. I have no computer right now, which explains the lack of updates. Well, that and the addition of a full-time job to my life. Keep your eye out, though. When I have something to I need to say, I'll find the time to kick my partner off of his computer.

"Taking Lives" (SPOILER ALERT)

You know you're watching an...let's say...ODD movie when the twist at the end involves a silicone pregnant belly. The put-in-her-place ex-FBI agent, barefoot and pregnant (literally) from a night of "bad judgement" (code for the fact that she slept with the serial killer who was pretending to be a sensitive artiste. You know women, always falling for the sensitive guy even when he's completely obviously a killer!) The twist? It was ALL A STING!!! The FBI agent was never fired for having sex with a murderer who they thought was a witness at the time! She's pretending to be pregnant and alone in a creepy house in the middle of Pennsylvania! She KNEW he was watching her!

The twist on the stereotype is interesting, but I think it's misguided. The stereotype I'm referring to is: the tough, unfeminine woman, good at her job, must be put in her place by the men in the story. This sterotype plays itself out in many ways (the HBO description even referred to her "annoying" the police men with whom she is working). The end is just the logical conclusion to this constant disregard for a PERSON who is good at her job.

Another side of it: she's only good at her job when her feelings don't get in the way. Blinded by love for a (shock!) sensitive man, she can't see what is completely obvious to the audience (that he's an insane serial killer). She is then so bottled up with revenge that she devotes 2 years of her life and career to catching this guy. How does she do this? She becomes the sterotype she's been dancing around the entire movie. "Taking Lives" ends with the now un-pregnant Angelina Jolie calling the detective she worked with on the case two years ago (the man that SLAPPED her when he confronted her about the serial killer sex). She tells him "It's done. It's finished." What does he say? "Good. I was worried."

(I'll take this moment to acknowledge the perpetual equation of sex and violence that is extremely highlighted in this movie. No time to explore it, but it's there with a flashing red arrow pointing to it.)

And that's how the pregnant woman stereotype became the unpregnant woman stereotype. The men in the movie still control her lives. They still show her what's right and wrong (even though she works for the FBI and is a "top" special agent).

I know there's nothing really new here. Feminists have been bemoaning this crap for years. But I found it interesting and, yes, maddening, that they acknowledged the stereotype that they were promoting. I feel like they are saying, "Look, we're not going THIS far with the sterotype! Be happy! She's not pregnant, she's just consumed by revenge!"

Addition: I just saw the poster for the movie. I think it says almost everything I did. OF COURSE, it doesn't show any of her strength. All you need to sell a movie is an image of Jolie in the throes of passion/the grip of violence.

Little Georgie and the Great Big Perch

I've had an epiphany. I will no longer call George Bush an idiot. He is simply a 7 year old. He is a little boy in a big ugly body. Watch out Tom Hanks.

A story related to the self-proclaimed greatest moment in Bush's presidency: catching a 7.5 pound perch gave me this idea. According to "Wait! Wait! Don't Tell Me..." the world record catch is a 4 pound perch. Bush's response? The Germans translated it wrong. Peter Segel says, however, that the white house transcript originally said "perch." Now? It says bass.

Let's compare that with a fictional account based on years of teaching children.
Me: Georgy, do you know how to spell animal?
Georgy: Yeah.
Me: Okay, so how do you spell it?
G: A-n-n-i-m-o-u-l.
Me: No, that's not right.
G: Wait, what did you say?
Me: Animal.
G: No, you said An-nim-oul. You just changed it. Animal, geez, I know how to spell that. You said it wrong, dummy.
Me: Now that's not polite. Why don't we write it out and see what we get? Do you know the word I'm saying now?
G: Yeah, no thanks to you, stupid head German.
Me: Okay, please spell animal.
G: Karl! Can you come here? Donny? Sorry, I have to talk to my friends.
Me: Sigh. Kids these days. They can't even CHEAT well.

AND SCENE...

An idiot president? I feel sorry for an idiot president, but we can probably wade through eight years of idiot. Eight years of a seven year old that didn't come out of you? That's too much to ask of anyone.

We better watch out. I think Iran just gave Georgie a wedgie. We better bomb them before they put his head in the toilet and flush.

A Villanelle

Definitely a work in progress:


"Collision"

I’m wiping my ass, reading poetry.
I think Billy Collins would like it that way.
Each hand grips a piece of history.

I grasp the remnants of two trees.
Would the great oak gasp if I say
I’m wiping my ass, reading poetry?

They grew the oak to clean debris.
The swishing pine became wordplay.
Each hand grips a piece of history.

The trees both came from Tennessee
to find me here today,
where I’m wiping my ass, reading poetry.

My hands are unsteady
The verse dips and sways.
Each hand grips a piece of history.

I want the oak to guarantee
the frail pine won’t slip away.
I’m wiping my ass, reading poetry.
Each hand grips a piece of history.

Journalism at its Finest

I caught a glimpse of CNN this morning. I have written off the 24-hour news networks, but my partner Jason likes to watch CNN in the morning. The display I saw this morning only reminded me why I'd stopped watching.

A female anchor followed a group of cops as they set up and arrested a "sex offender." A male cop had posed as a fourteen year old girl in a chat room and had set up a meeting with a man. The blonde anchor narrated the piece, quoting the man as saying, "When no one is looking, you can give your daddy a wet kiss." It was ridiculously funny as read by an annoying blonde anchor.

The anchor and her camera crew were in the police car when the "offender" tried to get away. The cops arrested the man who fell face-down onto the street, and as the cop handcuffed him, the blonde stuck her microphone in the man's face. When the cop asked the man's name, the man responded and the mic caught it. The cop then asked where the man was from and, realizing the camera crew was there, the man refused to respond. This could have had serious repurcussions for the man.

The anchor didn't stop there. Before he was read his rights (as far as we could hear) the female anchor asked, "So you came here to have sex with a fourteen year old girl?" To which the man replied that no, he hadn't. The blonde scoffed and continued the line of questioning.

I know this kind of entrapment is a "hot button issue." But the fact remains that the man did not commit a crime. I know some states have gotten around this, adding crimes like seducing a minor and intent to commit, but I think that is a dangerous way to think. I want sex offenders arrested if they commit a crime, of course I do. But I think we need to draw a clear line and remember that these men and women have rights too.

But this isn't my main issue with this report. Fine, the state has found a way to get around the fact that this man didn't actually commit a crime. But what the hell was the camera crew doing in the backseat of the cop car? The cops actually invited CNN to come along and ruin this man's life before he's had a trial? Innocent till proven guilty. Sure, on paper. But the anchor painted this man's face with a big red S. Anyone who saw that report knows that man's name and face. They know enough information to agree with the anchor. I can smell the fairness and the balance. Mmmmm. Smells like eggs.

I can't believe how quickly people can move from logical human beings to a riot mob. The way we treat accused sex offenders is disgusting. I'm not saying they should roam free, but I also don't think we should victimize them. A man who had sex with his girlfriend when he was 18 and she was 16 is on that database of sex offenders for the rest of his life. Even if he's married to her now. At least that's true in Florida. If someone was released from jail, then theoretically they should be harmless. If they aren't, then they should still be in jail. I know this is a bit of an idyllic way to look at the world. But if the system doesn't work, then we need a new system. What we don't need is worried mothers and vigilante citizens prowling for sex offenders in their neighborhood and kicking them out. We've been down that road before. It is the road best left behind.

A quick sampling of two short stories

Excerpt from "Pieces"

Ellen stood inside The Guggenheim and looked at a sculpture of herself. She couldn’t look away. She had only a peripheral interest in art, preferring the effect a painting had on a room to the piece itself, but she was stuck in the city with five hours left before her brother Jordan got home from work. She had been walking up this never-ending spiral for what had seemed twice that long when this sculpture of a woman’s face had stopped her. Her feet hurt and her backpack had become heavier with each new leg of her uphill climb. She shifted her weight and folded her arms. Was this actually her? She tilted her head to the right, mocking her plaster counterpart. Their eyes looked deadly at each other. Their chins snuck away from their thin, frowning lips.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Excerpt from "Echo" They weren’t hungry, so they went to Krispy Kreme for milk and doughnuts. They sat in comfortable silence, relishing their ‘Hot Now’ doughnuts.
“Nothing should be this good.”
Robyn nodded, agreeing. Her mouth was full of melting doughnut. She had never known that doughnuts could melt. She couldn’t stop thinking about it: lonely. Fran was lonely. She saw it now, in Fran’s eyes. Alone.
“I can’t believe you’ve never had these before.”
Robyn put the doughnut down. “I know. I don’t know what’s wrong with me. ‘Hot Now.’ Two little words with so much more meaning now. I throw my hat off to you, Krispy Kreme. You are a goddess. I bow down to you.” She got up and bowed repeatedly. Fran laughed. Robyn swam around in its echo. There was a sweet tinge of loneliness in that laugh.
“You’re a crazy lady. Better finish your doughnut before it’s ‘Cold Now.’”
Robyn stopped mid-bow, laughing. “You’re right. Is that a song request I hear? You say ‘Hot Now,’ and I say ‘Cold Now.’ You like hot sweet juicy doughnuts, and I like ‘em cold and soggy and hard.” She stopped. “No, I guess that doesn’t work. I’ll have to think some more.”
She looked out the window. A red Vibe was idling at the light. A dark blue Commander honked its horn. She winked at the cars and smiled. Lonely.
“So . . . you’re lonely?” Robyn broached the subject cautiously.
“What? Oh. No, not really, darlin’. I’ve got the job to keep me on my toes. The puppy was a bad idea. My life is way too hectic for a self-centered, completely dependent puppy. I mean, yeah. I get lonely sometimes. Who doesn’t? But I don’t think a puppy’s the solution. These doughnuts will probably do the trick, though!”
Robyn looked outside, as a silver Mirage pulled in to the parking lot. She burst into tears. She was the only one who felt this way. She was so alone. She heard her tears hit the floor with a loud bang. She looked up. Someone had dropped a tray. Not her tears. A tray.
“Woah. Are you okay? What did I say? I’m so sorry.”
Fran came over and knelt beside her. She felt Fran’s hand on her back -– it warmed her entire body. She smelled the Head and Shoulders. She wiped her eyes and forced the tears to stop.
“Yeah. Sorry. I gotta get to work. Sorry.”
She smiled and stood up. She stuck her tongue out at Fran, smiled again, and walked out the door and headed to her apartment.