Holy Mary, Mother of God!

This morning's Salon alerted me to some interesting news going on over in Pittsburgh, where twelve women are being ordained as Catholic priests today. "But the Catholics don't ordain women!" you say. "Did the baby Jesus come to Ratzinger in a dream and tell him to quit insulting his mama?"

Dear god, no--are you kidding? The church is being its usual holier-than-thou self. We may not yet have reached the end of the world, no matter what's going on in the Middle East.

Still, I had no idea that this organization even existed. Could my finding out about them be a sign from god that I should hang onto the last thread connecting me to the Catholic church?

Maybe not. But I'ma seek out Mothers (?) Nicolosi, Reynolds, Strack, and Via's parishes when I get to Cali. Because it would be nice to attend a mass again.

(Extra bonus Bitchy post on a totally different topic over at the Rude Pundit today.)

Software bleg?

I was talking to a friend of mine who recently moved and hasn't gotten internet set up in his new place about work, writing, and self-discipline. We agreed, of course, on what a fucking time-suck online access is, and he said that since he's found that there are plenty of places for him to get online near his new apartment, he's thinking of just not getting internet at home and spending the money on a gym membership instead.

Now, I can't imagine completely giving up home internet service--not least because Mr. B. would never even consider it--but I do have the occasional fantasies about how much more writing, reading, knitting, whatever, I would get done if only I weren't online so damn much. We all know how easy it is to say "I won't open a browser window until blah blah o'clock," or "I won't turn on the chat program" or whatever, but for those of us who've developed The Online Lifestyle, that just isn't realistic in any way. What I wish is that I could tell myself I'd be online for X hour(s) of the day, but that's just so not going to happen.

So my friend said "there must be some software that will block online access." And I thought, yes, that's it! Wouldn't it be fabulous to be able to, say, decide that "work time" is from 8-3, when the kid is in school, and set up something on your computer so that you cannot access the internet during that time? That's what I want!

Does such a thing exist?

Animal house

First of all, how are these goddamn bats getting in the house? We've had, I think, four in the last couple of weeks. Neither of us has a clue how they're getting in, and waking up in the middle of the night to shoo them out again is getting just a wee bit old. Currently the one we were unable to guide out an open window (no, it wasn't open until after we discovered the bat) is, we believe, hiding behind the cupboards in the kitchen. Perhaps it will come out this evening and rid us of the mosquitoes and moths that came in, natch, while the window was open.

The bats' cousins, the mice, on the other hand, are staying in their home. Their swanky, mouse-heaven home, which I am obsessed with redecorating every time I clean the cage (about once a week). Today's project was to rearrange the high-rise tubing that runs just beneath the cage top of their aquarium so that there is an air access hole in the center, as well as on both ends. This is because the mice have taken to sleeping in the tube rather than their nest, and I am worried that they are building up too much carbon dioxide, and also I believe that getting fresh air from right up near the top of the cage will keep the tube even cooler, which is why I assume that they are sleeping in it. However, because their ten-gallon aquarium is filled with so many mouse anti-boredom devices (two wooden climbing apparati, the cage bottom nest basket, the sleeping plastic habitrail nest, the ladder, the upside-down umbrella hideaway space, the hammock, the climbing rope, the balsa wood shelf, the high-rise tube, and the exercise wheel), minor re-jiggers like this take a long, long time to figure out. It doesn't help that the high-rise tube is held to the wire cage top with bent hairpins, which tend to come off if the thing is handled too much, nor that I don't wish to actually just pull some of this shit out because, after all, cleaning and slightly rearranging their cage is stressful! for them, and I would hate to add to their little stress by removing major furniture pieces! That would be awful. In the end, after an hour and a half? of putzing, I finally had to get rid of the upside-down umbrella, which used to attach to the high-rise tubing, because the new central fresh air space just made the tube too long to fit in the space. As Mr. B. said, "it's really important to rearrange the mice's home right now, because we're about to put it on the market!"

Finally, there is Daisy the cat. As you all know, despite middle age (14), Daisy is 8 1/2 lbs of feist. (She finds the bats quite exciting, speaking of, but luckily has yet to catch one. Unless she's the one bringing them in. I might have to have a talk with her about that.) She's still quite playful and active; the primary signs of her age are the slight kitty belly she finally developed a couple of years ago, her fur being slightly less immaculate than it used to be, and her needing her teeth cleaned. So last week I took her in to the vet's for an annual checkup, vaccines, and to schedule the tooth appointment. Now, the vetrinary practice we use is truly fabulous: conscientioius and up-to-date with current vet care. So in addition to the shots, they do a thorough physical exam, FIV/FeLV test, and pre-anesthesia blood workup. Well, it turns out that beloved Daisy has a little tumory thing in the pit of her right foreleg; it doesn't feel like it's attached to the skin, but to the underlying tissue. Oh, and her blood results show quite a low white blood cell count, but the FIV/FeLV test was negative, and she may be slightly hyperthyroid. And her intestines feel a little thick--has she had diarrhea? Oh, she goes outside and doesn't have a box? Well, lock her in and put out a box and bring in a stool sample--we need to test for parasites as part of the physical, and it'll also give us an indicate of whether or not her allergy to chicken* might be developing into a little bit of irritable bowel syndrome.

So Monday Daisy goes in for a tooth cleaning, a needle aspiration of the tumor and possible biopsy, while we're at it, if the immediate results look wonky (otherwise the aspirated material goes to the pathologist's for further testing), and a reexamination of her bowels, accompanied by a piece of her very own poo for a parasite/diarrhea check. Over the weekend, of course, we are giving her pre-surgery antibiotics because we don't want her to develop an infection from the surgery, based on the low wbc. In a month or two, we do a second blood workup to see if anything else is going on, and we hope that the tumorish thingy is something benign. Meanwhile, Daisy seems totally healthy to me, so I am hoping that my belief that she is destined to live until she's 20 will turn out to be the correct one.

As to the human residents, both PK and Mr. B. have diarrhea! Mr. B., as is his wont, also has chills and general weakness and ickiness; PK, who has more of his mother's constitution, feels basically fine except for the runny poo. I feel slightly queasy, but I am (of course) the healthiest of the three of us, which means that I get to spend the rest of the afternoon washing and hopefully starting to paint the bedroom. Needless to say, I'm sure that--now that the bat problems have finally convinced me that it really would be wise for all of us to go into the doc's next week and get pre-exposure rabies vaccinations--we're all actually showing early signs of the disease that will soon kill us horribly. In the event of our deaths from rabies, I hope someone takes care of Daisy and the mice.

*Do you know how hard it is to find cat food that doesn't contain chicken? Well, be glad you don't. When I was in grad school, before PK, I used to make her food from scratch; nowadays we buy anti-allergenic food but I admit that for the last couple of years, given how hard it is to find non-chicken containing catfood here, we've been feeding her things that have "poultry" in the ingredients, albeit not as one of the top ingredients. Luckily, the excellent vet has started carrying a cat food that is made entirely from duck, so we've switched her to that.

Read this

It's Friday, and the WaPo has a front-page article about Bush administration [fears] that officials and troops involved in handling detainee matters might be accused of committing war crimes, and prosecuted . . . in U.S. courts.

Senior officials have responded by drafting legislation that would grant U.S. personnel involved in the terrorism fight new protections against prosecution for past violations of the War Crimes Act of 1996. That law criminalizes violations of the Geneva Conventions governing conduct in war and threatens the death penalty if U.S.-held detainees die in custody from abusive treatment.
....
Since the U.S. invasions of Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003, hundreds of service members deployed to Iraq have been accused by the Army of mistreating detainees, and at least 35 detainees have died in military or CIA custody, according to a tally kept by Human Rights First. The military has asserted these were all aberrant acts by troops ignoring their orders.

Defense attorneys for many of those accused of involvement have alleged that their clients were pursuing policies of rough treatment set by officials in Washington. That claim is amplified in a 53-page Human Rights Watch report this week that quoted interrogators at three bases in Iraq as saying that abuse was part of regular, authorized procedures. But this argument has yet to gain traction in a military court, where U.S. policy requires that active-duty service members be tried for any maltreatment. The War Crimes Act, in contrast, affords access to civilian courts for abuse perpetrated by former service members and by civilians. The government has not filed any charges under the law.

The law's legislative sponsor is one of the House's most conservative members, Rep. Walter B. Jones Jr. (R-N.C.). He proposed it after a chance meeting with a retired Navy pilot who had spent six years in the notorious "Hanoi Hilton," a Vietnamese prison camp. The conversation left Jones angry about Washington's inability to prosecute the pilot's abusers.

Jones's legislation for the first time imposed criminal penalties in the United States for breaches of the Geneva Conventions, which protect detainees anywhere. The Defense Department's deputy general counsel at the time declared at the sole hearing on it in 1996 -- attended by just two lawmakers -- that "we fully support the purposes of the bill," and urged its expansion to cover a wider range of war crimes. The Republican-controlled House passed the bill by voice vote, and the Senate approved it by unanimous consent.

The law initially criminalized grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions but was amended without a hearing the following year to include violations of Common Article 3, the minimum standard requiring that all detainees be treated "humanely." The article bars murder, mutilation, cruel treatment, torture and "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment." It applies to any abuse involving U.S. military personnel or "nationals."

Jones and other advocates intended the law for use against future abusers of captured U.S. troops in countries such as Bosnia, El Salvador and Somalia, but the Pentagon supported making its provisions applicable to U.S. personnel because doing so set a high standard for others to follow.
....
Since September 2001, however, Bush administration officials have considered the law a potential threat to U.S. personnel involved in interrogations. While serving as White House legal counsel in 2002, Gonzales helped prepare a Jan. 25 draft memo to Bush -- written in large part by David Addington, then Vice President Cheney's legal counsel and now Cheney's chief of staff -- in which he cited the threat of prosecution under the act as a reason to declare that detainees captured in Afghanistan were not eligible for Geneva Conventions protections.

"It is difficult," Gonzales said in the memo, "to predict the motives of prosecutors and independent counsels who may in the future decide to bring unwarranted charges." He also argued for the flexibility to pursue various interrogation methods and said that only a presidential order exempting detainees from Geneva protections "would provide a solid defense to any future prosecution." That month, Bush approved an order exempting those captured in Afghanistan from these protections.
....
prosecutions are improbable because the Justice Department -- which has consistently asserted such rough interrogations are legal -- is unlikely to bring them.
....
Alberto J. Mora, the Navy's general counsel from 2001 until the end of last year, warned the Pentagon's general counsel twice that some approved interrogation methods violated "domestic and international legal norms" and that a federal court might eventually find responsibility "along the entire length of the chain of command," according to a 2004 memo by Mora that recounted the warnings. The memo was first obtained by the New Yorker magazine.

At a July 13 hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee, the Air Force's top military lawyer, Maj. Gen. Jack L. Rives, affirmed that "some of the techniques that have been authorized and used in the past have violated Common Article 3" of the Geneva Conventions. The top military lawyers for the Army, Navy and Marine Corps, who were seated next to Rives, said they agreed.

The "Justice" Department is putting together legislation that guts the War Crimes Act. If by some miracle it doesn't pass--and the administration is as weak as it has ever been on this stuff--these military lawyers, not the U.S. Justice Department, are the ones who will bring these lawsuits. And given how much the military cares about the Geneva protections, they might just do it.

If the administration doesn't get Congress to gut the law to cover its own ass.

Keep an eye on this story.

Free car?

Hey, Chicagoans. Who wants a 1989 Subaru wagon, 4wd, with a cracked cylinder head? It still runs for now. If someone wants a car for a few months, it's good; if someone knows how to replace an engine, it's better. 'sFar as I know, everything else is good: we've replaced the tranny, remounted the engine, done the clutch and exhaust, all the rest of the major shit. It's not pretty, and one of the seatbelts in back doesn't work, but if you're up for a free hoopty, it's all yours.

So if you need a car, or know someone who does, let me know. If you know a charity that takes 'em, that's cool too. I reserve the right to pass you over to give it to someone I know better, or who has a better sob story. Email or leave a comment.

I so needed a laugh today

If you haven't seen the Little Professor's multiple-choice guide to writing for the CoHE, go check it out now. I've started filling mine out....

1. I am
_XX_ writing under a clever pseudonym [Shut up. It is too.]
___ writing under an uninspired pseudonym
___ using my own name

2. At present, I am
___ tenured, unfortunately, at a wonderful college
___ tenured, unfortunately, at the campus from hell
___ tenured, unfortunately, at an institution that fails to appreciate my scintillating qualities
___ untenured, unfortunately, at a wonderful college
___ untenured, unfortunately, at the campus from hell
_XX__ untenured, unfortunately, at an institution that fails to appreciate my scintillating qualities
___ a much put-upon administrator
___ a recently-fired (without cause!) administrator

3. I'm terribly, terribly unhappy, because
___ I thought life after tenure would be bliss, and it's just the same-old, same-old
_XX__ my colleagues fail to appreciate my scintillating qualities
___ there's a poststructuralist/Marxist/cultural materialist/New Historicist/Lacanian/ deconstructionist/other in my department
___ there isn't a poststructuralist/Marxist/cultural materialist/New Historicist/Lacanian/ deconstructionist/other in my department
___ there are politics! in academia!
___ if I had been born fifty years ago, there would have been no politics! in academia!
___ if I had been born fifty years ago, there would have been my kind of politics! in academia!
___ academic work isn't all about Twoo Wuv for your subject
___ people are so mean to me
___ students don't appreciate all the effort I put into teaching them

4. I can prove that what I say is true, because
_XX__ I have personal anecdotes
___ I'm going to reveal confidential data from job searches and personnel decisions
___ the CoHE published this essay, and therefore it must be true

Try it yourself! It's fun!

Link link linkity link link

1. I'm going to have to come up with some original content by Monday, when I'll be guest blogging--how fun!--for The Rude Pundit. God, it'll be fun to be able to bitch up a storm again. I haven't done that in a while.

2. Apparently the latest abortion-related news from Pine Ridge is that the Oglala Sioux tribe there (having ousted Cecilia Fire Thunder) has now made it illegal to have an abortion, to seek one, or to help someone get one--all punishable by banishment. (FWIW, rape isn't.) Jacqueline Keeler's been following the story.

3. Conservative jerks including the Catholic Church (god, I just am less and less feeling any loyalty to those assholes) are apparently pressuring Amnesty International not to include women's rights to reproductive autonomy in its platform.

4. Jerk-off emergency room doctor in Pennsylvania refuses to give emergency contraception to a rape victim. The hospital's former medical director says, "a doctor has rights, too."

5. Did anyone see the WaPo op-ed about being a grad student and single mom? I dunno about you, but my husband paid for my graduate education, basically. How did you guys fund it?

Some linky links

1. Barbara Ehrenreich has a blog.

2. Twisty sums it all up for us:

Check it out: women—particularly educated women, the most potentially influential members of our oppressed class—do not have the luxury of ‘choice.’ Every move an oppressed class makes is a political act. And even when invoked with a saucy Paul Mitchell hair-toss, our ‘choice’ is not real, because our oppressed sex class has only limited agency. . . .

I assert that we’re choosing the path of least resistance. It’s much easier to acquiesce to a set of established conventions—social, aesthetic, political, sexual, sartorial—for which the rewards (dudely approval, other women’s satisfying jealousy) dangle brightly ahead, than it is to blaze forth in a fury of white-hot anti-feminine iconoclasm and risk ridicule, ostracism, and male reproach. Life’s rich pageant is much more accessible when you go with the flow. Patriarchy, as the Spice Girls and Paris Hilton can attest, rewards conformity. Which is why the new feminism must be sex-ay, and why the only freedom it promises is the freedom to enjoy the degradation. [ed.: Or, if you're a little older, which is why the new feminism argues for the choice to stay at home with the kids and enjoy it.]

3. Really cool blog: The Shape of a Mother. I feel compelled to support the project by pushing my comfort zone a little, strictly in the name of feminist solidarity. (I'm actually serious about it, even though I sound jokey, but can't go into a discussion right now b/c I have to go clean out the fucking basement. Have I said how much I hate moving?)

Wow

Pseudonymous Kid: Mama, honey is made from bees.
Me: Mmm-hmm.
Pseudonymous Kid: It is not! I said from, not by.

Protect children: force them to have children of their own

Crap, I missed posting this yesterday.

Today is the Senate vote on the "Child Custody Protection Act." The one that would make it illegal for an auntie, a boyfriend, or a big sister to give a girl a ride to the nearest out-of-state abortion clinic if her state has one of those "parental notification" laws. So, like, if daddy is the daddy, or hell, if you're just a scared high school girl who is too ashamed to admit to your parents that you're pregnant, your grandma can go to jail for being the understanding sort.

It may be too late to call your senator on this one, but if you get up early enough, it surely wouldn't hurt.

We interrupt our usual subject matter

To link to a really nifty NYT summary of a decades-long experiment breeding domestic and ferocious animals. Apparently

he neural crest, is the source of cells that constitute much of the face, skull and pigment cells, and many parts of the peripheral nervous system and endocrine system. If the genes in the neural crest cells were delayed just a little in coming into action, a whole range of tissues could be affected, including the maturation of the adrenal glands that underlies the first fear response of young animals

. In other words, this experiment suggest that simply by breeding for tameness, all sorts of other associated traits come up, like floppy ears, white patches, and smaller heads.

I can't wait to see what PZ has to say about this.

Things I hate

Home Depot;

vinyl flooring;

home renovations;

moving (not the fact of it, just the reality);

the way my dad messages me every time he logs on;

not getting enough sleep;

not taking my meds*;

not being able to remember for sure if I forgot my meds.

*I will actually say that the last upping of the dosage seems to have Done the Trick and I am finally feeling, not "better," but actually happy and motivated and with energy most of the time. I even did yard work this weekend! But periodically I forget to take the damn things, because I ran out of my bcp and the doc won't renew it until I have my full-on physical (in two weeks, don't fret), and so I don't have any dated pack of pills to keep track with. I obviously need to just accept old age and buy one of those 7-day pill packs that grandmas used to have.

Also PK is very much enjoying writing "FORM ____ TO CALIFORNIA" on all the book-size boxes he's putting together. He is also writing "IKEA" on them all, though I don't quite know why. We did buy them there. Anyway, it turns out that buying cardboard shipping boxes and asking a kid to put them together is an excellent parental strategy for keeping them busy and letting them help without getting in the way.

Grab another cup of coffee

And read these posts.

1. Katherine's's latest in her ongoing series documenting our torturing of prisoners in Iraq. No, it's no fun. But as she puts it, "It hammers about 19 nails into the coffin of the "few bad apples" theory," and since it's being done by your government, you should know what's going on.

2. CIA blogger dooced because of her top-secret blog (literally; only those with top-secret clearances could read it). Where she said "Waterboarding is Torture and Torture is Wrong." Via Andrew Sullivan.

3. Two feminist books about Afghanistan that I want to read, reviewed in the NYRB.

4. One of those books is by the founder of the Central Asia Institute, which "promote[s] and provide[s] community-based education and literacy programs, especially for girls, in remote mountain regions of Central Asia."

More links as the day goes on--I've got a backup of "links to post to blog." But now I have to go do some other stuf for a while.

Pseudonymous Kid says. . .

Stop! No more of your disgusting kisses on my smooth parts!

Poetry Friday

Like poetry? Well, fuck you, clown.

Where Angels Fear to Tread

Ouch. New stuff up over at GYWO (and Rees's other comics, too). The cartoon above this one links to a really good editorial by Tony Judd in Haaretz which, I think, nicely summarizes one reason why so many of us well-read, reasonably-informed, politically-minded American lefties find it difficult to form, or articulate, arguments about the Israel/Palestine conflict and its myriad offshoots in the Middle East. Even though the centrality of that ongoing struggle colors so much of our (Europe and America's, but especially the U.S.'s) interactions in the area (it isn't always only about the oil),* I think we tend to downplay or ignore that aspect sometimes because so many of the assholes that play it up are clearly bigots. As Judd puts it,

The habit of tarring any foreign criticism with the brush of anti-Semitism is deeply engrained in Israeli political instincts: Ariel Sharon used it with characteristic excess but he was only the latest in a long line of Israeli leaders to exploit the claim. David Ben-Gurion and Golda Meir did no different. But Jews outside of Israel pay a high price for this tactic. Not only does it inhibit their own criticisms of Israel for fear of appearing to associate with bad company, but it encourages others to look upon Jews everywhere as de facto collaborators in Israel's misbehavior. When Israel breaks international law in the occupied territories, when Israel publicly humiliates the subject populations whose land it has seized - but then responds to its critics with loud cries of "anti-Semitism" - it is in effect saying that these acts are not Israeli acts, they are Jewish acts: The occupation is not an Israeli occupation, it is a Jewish occupation, and if you don't like these things it is because you don't like Jews.

One knows that this is not the case--that Jews as a class are not responsible for nor representative of the actions of the Israeli government--but in criticizing the latter, one not only fears being mistaken for saying the former, but also, and worse, being misappropriated by those whose hatred (or praise) of Israel is motivated primarily by a simple and yes, anti-Semitic view of the relationship between Jews and Israel.

If, like me, this is a subject you tend to avoid in part because you don't feel well-educated about the big strategic/political picture, you'll probably, like me, find the links in this post interesting reading.

*I don't know that I'm in agreement with the argument in Mearsheimer and Walt's The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy that Israel is at the center of U.S. policy in the area, but I think it's pretty clear that it's one of our top interests there. I'll leave it to other people to discuss the merits of their argument as argument, since it's well outside my area of expertise.

Cheeky Monkey!

If I hadn't already done a hero of the week, I'd be tempted to nominate this monkey ape.

Apparently people aren't the only ones who like to play with kitties.

?

You'll notice that the two posts below have swapped places. The post about New Orleans went up last night, while the one on the boy gap went up early this afternoon; unfortunately, I dated the former for 2:42 p.m., not a.m., so the order was funky. Since I abhor funk* and crave strict order in all things, I swapped 'em back.

*Not really. Forgive me my little jest, Bootsy.

The boy achievement gap

Over the last six months or so that this argument that boys are falling behind in schools has been trotted out, people have sent me a lot of links, but I've never posted on the thing. Partly this was because I wasn't sure what to think: it wasn't clear to me how much of the argument was just anti-feminist backlash, how much of it was sexist presuppositions about what boys are or are not capable of, and how much of it was valid. Obviously, since PK is a boy, I care about the school performance of boys, and the role of gender in school experience is something I've addressed anecdotally. But the "falling behind" argument I ignored on this blog.

Then, more recently, better data seems to be demonstrating that, in fact, the "falling behind" argument is nonsense: largely anti-feminist backlash. Crooked Timber had a good piece up about it yesterday (thanks to No Nym for the heads up), and there was a fabulous op-ed by Judith Warner in the NYT a while back (sadly, behind the Times Select paywall) referring to the same study, authored by Sara Mead (.pdf), that's being discussed at CT.

What's sad though is that the ensuing discussion of this newer stuff overlooks the most important part in order to continue to beat on the boys v. girls drum. The real revelation isn't the relative achievement of middle-class anglo kids--most of whom, let's face it, are going to do pretty well. It's interesting to note that the panic over the "boy crisis" is largely a question of perception--as Mead puts it, "It’s partly an issue of simple novelty"--that is, when women stop being as far behind men as we're used to their being, it looks like they're 'unfairly' gaining. But the important part of the study is this:

There are groups of boys for whom “crisis” is not too strong a term. When racial and economic gaps combine with gender achievement gaps in reading, the result is disturbingly low achievement for poor, black, and Hispanic boys.

But the gaps between students of different races and classes are much larger than those for students of different genders—anywhere from two to five times as big, depending on the grade.
.....
In addition to disadvantaged and minority boys, there are also reasons to be concerned about the substantial percentage of boys who have been diagnosed with disabilities. Boys make up two-thirds of students in special education. . . .

Aside from a token nod, I really haven't seen anyone addressing this statement at much length. The interesting thing here is that we've come farther with feminist educational goals for white, middle class girls than we have with anti-racist educational goals for boys of color. (A fact that's surely reflected by the anti-affirmative action movement, which is largely about race rather than gender) I suspect that a lot of this goes back to the reaction of middle-class white parents to school integration in the 70s: between property tax revolts and white flight, the white middle class pulled out of supporting public schools after they were integrated. The popular meme that public schools nowadays are academically unrigorous, even dangerous, reflects the prejudices behind and effects of that history. I'd love to see the conservatives who have been fussing about the boy crisis continue to fuss, now that it's revealed that what we really have is a boys-of-color crisis; and I'd love to see the liberals who have been defending girls' achievement start defending the right of boys of color to the same gains (not to mention girls of color, who are doing significantly worse than whites of both genders, though better than boys of their own race).

It does, however, reconfirm my intent to keep PK in public schools when we move to Los Angeles. Even though at the same time it makes me sad and angry to think that for me, unlike most of the people in L.A., this is a question of intent and 'choice,' rather than necessity. It makes me glad, though, that the current mayor of that city--whose policies and politics I don't yet know that much about--seems to have public schooling at the top of his agenda.

It's probably not a coincidence that he's Latino.

Blessed are the Merciful

For they shall be charged with murder.

The announcement of the arrests and the investigation recall the difficulties confronted by hospitals and nursing homes in the city after the hurricane struck and medical personnel struggled to care for their patients. At Memorial, evacuation efforts faltered, emergency generators could not support air conditioning and temperatures inside the building exceeded 100 degrees.

Mr. Foti said that the patients were injected with what he described as a “lethal cocktail” of morphine and midazolam hydrochloride that “guarantees they are going to die.”

“It is not my job or duty to say what the motive was,” Mr. Foti said.

No? Is it your job or duty to take into account that conditions were life-threatening, that these medical providers were isolated and in a position of responsibility for probably dozens, if not hundreds of people without any of the things they needed to care for them, that the local, state, and federal governments had completely fallen down on the job, that the apparatus that supports the running of hospitals and long-term care centers had been destroyed, and that these patients were (one assumes) unable to survive without that apparatus (else they would not have been in an acute care center)? And that thus it is almost certainly the case that whatever medical care these nurses and this doctor gave was, as the doctor herself says,

“the best treatment that we could [give] to the patients in the hospital to make them comfortable”

--that is, to not let the die, in pain, of heatstroke?

No, apparently not. But apparently it is Mr. Foti's job to moralize and second-guess the decisions of people who were in a position that the rest of us can only pray we never have to cope with.

“We’re talking about people that pretended they were God and they made that decision,” Charles Foti, the AttorneyGeneral for Louisiana, said yesterday. “This is a homicide. This is not euthanasia. . . . If someone goes to a nursing home you want to think that they are safe."

Even if their lack of safety--not to mention their medical conditions--was, in fact, an act of god.

I wonder what the families of the dead people think of this. And I want to know when the people who were really responsible for those deaths will be charged.

Hero of the week

Ben A. Barres

Women who are really highly successful, they are just as bad as the men. They think if they can do it, anyone can do it. They don’t see that for every woman who makes it to the top there are 10 more who are passed over. And I am not making this up, that’s what the data show.
....
But when women are made to feel less confident, they are less likely to enter the competition. I think a lot of this is just the way men and women are treated from the time they are very young.

Take my experience with M.I.T. If I had been a guy who had been the only one in the class to solve that problem, I am sure I would have been pointed out and given a pat on the back. I was not only not given positive feedback, I was given negative feedback. This is the kind of thing that undermines women’s self-confidence.

Barres' new article, "Does Gender Matter?" is out in the current issue of Nature.

I'm looking forward to reading it. It sounds like a pretty fabulous blend of sound research and personal experience--the science, and why the science matters.

You've come a long way, baby

But even being Chancellor of Germany doesn't mean that you're immune from some sleazeball patronizing you and trying to put the mack on.

Isn't it nice to know that no matter how powerful you are, there's always gonna be some guy who sees you as just a chick? And who doesn't get that whole on-the-job-sexual harassment thing?

(I can't wait for the "but, but, Clinton!" arguments from people who still don't get the difference between "consensual relationship" and "unwanted touching."

Pictures lifted from TPM. Bigger pictures (you can see by her expression that she thinks Bush is being a dick) at Steve Gilliard's. Definitive must-watch video showing she is startled and pissed off here. Heads up and all links via Unfogged.

more bitching about the heat

Selections from this afternoon's chat transcript:

mrb: is it air conditioned where you are?
bitchphd: YES!!!
bitchphd: HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
bitchphd: how are you guys doing?
mrb: sweaty
bitchphd: i bet.
bitchphd: it's hot here even though it's air conditioned
mrb: we kicked the soccer ball around for over an hour in the blazing sun, he is really good with it. we should get him in a youth soccer thing soon
bitchphd: sounds cool to me. did he get all red in the face?
mrb: yep
bitchphd: poor guy.
mrb: well, it was me that called it quits, he wanted to keep going
mrb: we played with the hose to cool off
bitchphd: hose good
....
bitchphd: i continue to feel just utterly exhausted. how are you guys doing?
mrb: Officially i'm still napping
bitchphd: what's the dinner plan?
mrb: dunno.
mrb: maybe spaghetti?
bitchphd: ew. spaghetti is so hot.
mrb: we have watermelon in the fridge
bitchphd: i was thinking maybe we could go somewhere w/ a/c for dinner
mrb: YES
bitchphd: i don't even care if it's fast food, as long as it has a/c
mrb: ok. i am fixing him an ice cream, we'll come pick up up in a bit
me: awesome

Notice

One thing I will not miss about this place is the 70% humidity. Which, along with 80 degree weather at 2 a. m. and no a/c makes me an unhappy pup. Plus the house is full of fucking flies.

Tomorrow I'm going in to work to file paperwork, but also just because it's air-conditioned.

Am I raising him all right, or all wrong?

Scene: Pseudonymous Kid and I are climbing down the bank of the river to go look and see if there are any frogs.

Pseudonymous Kid: Mama, would you like a hand?
Me: Why thank you!

We spend fifteen minutes or so putzing on the bank.

Me: I think it's time to go back
Pseudonymous Kid: Okay. Wait, Mama, let me go first so I can give you a hand.
Me: Thank you, PK. That's really nice.
Pseudonymous Kid: You're not really much the climbing around type of person.

I can't decide whether I should be proud of him, or ashamed of my sense that this is utterly charming.

Zidane y va marquer

A really evocative piece on the famous headbutt over at Tony Karon's place. I suspect there's a lot to what Karon is thinking--if not in terms of Zidane's motivations (who knows), certainly in terms of how the headbutt is being interpreted by some.

I had an argument the other day with a friend whose opinion (unduly influenced, I think, by the ABC commentators) is that the headbutt was just unacceptable, unprofessional, a shameful way to end a career, and a black mark on Zidane's reputation forever. Bottom line, his job on the field is to play soccer, and not doing his job for any reason irreperably harms the very thing (playing soccer) that his reputation is based on.

But I don't think that's entirely true. Yes, he is a great player; but part of why he's a beloved one as well is because of his ethnicity, his particular role as an Algerian in France specifically and an Arab (technically Berber) immigrant in Europe more generally--things that aren't necessarily well-understood by Americans, but think about our own attitudes towards, say, Mexican immigrants and you start to get an idea. And as Karon is pointing out, Zidane matters (like Joe Louis mattered, like Jackie Robinson mattered, like Muhammed Ali, César Chávez, mattered--like Jesse Owens, who achieved greatness in the Berlin Olympic Stadium where Zidane headbutted Materazzi [see here for the general understanding of why] mattered)--Zidane matters because his achievement in sports is a synecdoche for the achievement of people like him on a national level.

So, understood from that point of view, I think that the headbutt becomes, not a mark of flouting the rules and a professional failing, but instead an act of individual pride and a statement that one's humanity and pride are more important than one's job. It's not shameful; on the contrary, swallowing whatever it was Materazzi said in order to score for the French team--given that his dedicaton to the game, and to France, at this point in his career, is beyond the shadow of a doubt--would have been disgraceful.

Anyway. Interesting things to think about. I hope they will make Psycho Kitty feel better, and whether or not I would agree with the headbutt if I knew exactly what Materazzi said--which I don't think any of us ever will--it's a very interesting issue to think about.

Credit (and criticism) where due

Y'all surely remember the anti-abortion blog post(s) that took the Onion as straight reporting. Well, Salon picked up the story and called the anti-abortion blogger himself, to ask him how he felt about being this week's internet laughingstock.

Perhaps surprisingly, he comes across in the Salon piece as a genuinely nice guy with, thank god, a sense of humor and proportion. There are some biographical details, too, that (to my mind) offer possible understandings of his anti-abortion politics. Based on the new pic he's put up at the top of the first Onion post, of a late-term aborted fetus, and his comments about contraception being a form of abortion, I think he's operating with a fair bit of ignorance about things like the realities of why late-term abortions happen or how contraception works--but within that framework, his beliefs seem comprehensible and empathetic to me. Of course, the framework he's using is wrong, but, hey. We have all had wrong opinions based on bad information. I hope that some day he, and people like him, will learn more about the "facts" they think they know and reach a deeper understanding of the issue.

So, credit to Pete for being a surprisingly good sport. At the same time, however, serious Angry Mama/Angry Professor scoldings to the folks who called the man at home or posted his personal information on their sites so that people could do so. That is just shitty, folks, and the rationalization that the information was out there anyway doesn't cut it. All of our personal information is out there somewhere: but there's a big damn difference between being in the book or having your contact info in a story about your professional interests or volunteer activities and having someone post that shit with an implicit invitation to harassment. Having been on the receiving end of such harassment myself (although, thank god, not w/r/t my private life, since I'm anonymous--but I'm sure it's only a matter of time before some asshole manages to find out who I am and decides that because they dislike what I say, I deserve to hear about it at home), it can be scary and it's certainly unethical.

I considered taking the original post here down when I heard he'd been getting calls, because I did not want to contribute to that kind of thing. But I didn't, because I also have a very strongly held belief in the importance of standing behind one's words, including one's mistakes, and in not disappearing things that people have written. It pains me, even, to delete comments (though I do it, b/c I've learned that not doing it can destroy a blog's comment section). I'm glad, then, that the Salon piece gives me the opportunity to say that I think that kind of behavior sucks, I hope my site hasn't indirectly contributed to it (I'm sure none of my readers are such assholes), and I'm pretty impressed, honestly, that Pete has a sense of proportion and the presence of mind not to lash back and try to spiral the shit any further.

Immature thoughts

Bodies
Spirits in the Material World
I am a Material Girl
Materiel
Materiel: (n) Military materials and equipment. Often contrasted with personnel.
Personnel
the Middle East
the Holy/Land

Can two bodies occupy the same space? Is terrorism primarily a feeling (terror), an ideology (hatred of freedom), a method, or a physical act? Two author-functions who I know only in my head are home and recovering from surgery, and I am thinking about what the hell I am supposed to think about Israel and Palestine and Hamas and Hezbollah and Lebanon and Iran, and thank god that I don't have to think about these things because they aren't part of my physical reality. But I feel compelled to think about them and I think that feeling is the right one. And what is there to say? I am not an expert, I don't know anything. All there is is that it's fucking sad and tragic and I keep coming back to the fact that the only thing I do know is that the physical reality is terrible. And maybe it will become part of our physical reality. And that my difficulty feeling physically connected to it all isn't just about my location, it's about my spiritual (dis)-connection from that part of the world: I am neither Jewish nor Muslim, and for Christians "the holy land" is conceptually located in the past and only the past. Unless, of course, we're talking about the kind of evangelicals for whom the holy land is very much part of the present and future, and for whom the prospect of armageddon is real, not metaphorical, and who apparently have the ear of and include the current president of my physical reality (but not really: after all, the state is a concept, albeit a concept made physical).

Elsewhere, people are talking about surgery not as mutilation (though if it's excising cancer, it's mutilation in the hopes of healing), but as learning. What does it mean to have one kind of body? What does it mean to have another kind of body? Science is empiricist, and yet we want the bodies of scientists not to matter, because they inevitably introduce biases and distortions into the pursuit of truth.

In the last week I have explained the scientific method to PK. I have given him a thumbnail overview of the history of the two world wars and explained why the Germans were the bad guys in very specific and material terms, which confused him a little, because his father is German and so was the grandfather he never met and they are good people. And Mama, if war is bad, why was Papa a soldier? On Monday he was complaining about summer school; today it is "terrific" because his assignment yesterday was to find a bug and take it to school today. So yesterday we walked to a toy store to buy a bug house and we ran into some friends in this town-we-are-about-to-leave, friends I have only recently met. And maybe if I'd known them a year ago, or two, I would feel differently about the place I am in. It's nice to run into familiar people when you go out. We went outside and dug in the dirt and found some bugs and kept them in the house, and then today when he came home from school I encouraged him to let the bugs go now so that they won't die.

When we were at the toystore, he talked me into buying him a pirate dress-up box (which contained a gun, but I bought it even though I had refused to buy him another toy gun because "it's just pirates" and they're distant from us, conceptually/historically, and so it's less "real" than other kinds of toy guns, somehow. So he can pretend to be a bad guy, and shoot at people. The pirate gun shoots soft rubber suction cups, but the box says "do not aim at animals or people." PK aims the (empty) gun at me and I tell him never to aim guns at people. He says, "but it's empty" and I say that with real guns, even if they are empty, you don't point them at people, ever, because what if you make a mistake and it's not empty? Mr. B. steps in to tell PK that even toy guns shouldn't be aimed at people because once there was a very terrible thing that happened, where a little kid aimed a toy gun at a police officer, and the police officer couldn't tell it was a toy, and he shot the little kid. "But it wasn't real," PK says. "But the police officer didn't know that," we explain.

Even kids like PK, who is very good at understanding things conceptually, enjoy physical learning. He is happier about school because he had to bring in a bug. He and his father are now looking up bugs on the internet to learn about them. I think PK should get outside and play more, so I sent him outside a while ago and he played with the hose and got all wet and now he is inside and naked and cute, but I told him not to climb in my lap because I am writing.

I have to go to the bank to cosign a loan so that we can borrow in advance of selling the house and collecting Mr. B.'s signing bonus in order to put a new physical roof on the place. It needs this for material reasons, but it needs this now for conceptual ones, because people are more willing to buy a house that doesn't immediately call attention to the material reality that old houses need maintenance.

Life goes on. For some of us. For now. I would like more time to think and learn and write about the others, for whom it doesn't--or if it does, for whom it is intolerable, and for whom the prospect of death and suffering, which comes to us all, is immediate rather than theoretical--but my own material reality commands my attention. We are all selfish. We all want to live. We all want the concepts, the nations, the people to whom we feel a connection, to stay safe and whole. Sometimes that means we do terrible things. Sometimes it means terrible things are done to us, but mostly it means terrible things are done to others. Do we look at them? Do we look away? Which is worse?

Does the difference matter, or is it immaterial?

He is risen!

Technically this is safe for work, unless guffawing at work is a bad idea.

Found (where else?) at the Mineshaft.

Jedi Master

Taking a break in the street from paint fumes with the neighbor who helped me jump my hoopty as PK and B walk up. She's laughing. She recounts this conversation.

"Mama? Will you be my Jedi Master?"

"Well, I think you know more about that stuff than I do."

"Mama, just *pretend* to be smarter than I am."

Oh, I'm sorry, were you waiting for me?

It's still Wednesday! I apologize to folks who've been checking and re-checking, but I had a busy day. I had to talk to my department chair about something, and then I had to come home and supervise PK and cook dinner and supervise PK some more because Mr. B. has been very busy painting the house so that it can go on the market next month.

Because, yeah, we're moving. I'm pretty sure.

Mr. B. has been in negotiations since spring for a rather, um, well-paid job in a city where the money is going to come in useful, what with the cost of living and all. More importantly, he is really, really, really, really excited about the job. It uses skills and knowledge that not too many people have, and that he misses using, and that he'll feel productive about and rewarded for. And these are good things, because despite the fact that this stay-home-dad thing was entirely, 100% his idea (meaning, no, I did not "make" him leave his career to support mine, thankyouvermuch, and yes, he has thoroughly enjoyed spending the time with PK), he kinda feels like in some ways he's lost his sense of self.

Which has not really helped with our marriage. Nor has my stress/anxiety/depression in the first years of a t-t job in a totally new place far from friends, family, and the places I consider home.

But inasmuch as I am a selfish, careerist bitch, that isn't the real announcement. The real announcement is that, pending approval from the Dean, my chair sees no problem with giving me a year of unpaid leave to write. Being as my university doesn't have pre-tenure sabbaticals (yeah, I know), this is a Very Good Thing. I had a meeting with the chair a few months ago, at the end of the semester, and she said, "your teaching is first-rate, up there at the top for this department. And god knows you're covered in the service area. How's the publishing going?" And while tenure expectations here aren't that high, not only does it Not Hurt to publish more rather than less, but--as everyone knows--the way to move is to publish, publish, publish.

Because although I like my colleagues very much, I don't think I want to spend the rest of my career here. And I do want to have time, not only to write my way into another offer (maybe more than one?), but also to write for pay for a more general audience. I'm interested in seeing how much I might enjoy that, and if I can make a go of it.

And, the best parts of all? This job is not only in a fabulous city--it's in a fabulous city where more than one university is strong in my field, and there's a major Center for Bitch Ph.D. Area Studies, as well as a couple-three top-notch library collections. In addition, there are--plural--public and private universities and colleges, state schools and museums and community colleges. So, if Mr. B.'s job works out and we decide to try to stay local, I might not only be able to do so--I might be able to actually decide for myself what kind of institution I want to be at, rather than just hoping to find a job, any job. There are several intriguing possibilites, actually, which I'll doubtless be writing more about over the next few months. And if it doesn't work out for some reason I'll come back here with a lot more research and hopefully several more pubs on the ol' C.V., and with the satisfaction of having had a nice, long, sunny sabbatical in the city of angels.

Run, do not walk

To read this post about a "pro-abortion" article in The Onion online magazine. The first linked post can't possibly stay up much longer the second one is from 1999. So read the first one first.

Dear god, on further exploration, apparently the pro-life cartoon is going to leave it up: check out his follow up.

As a matter of fact, call me a dolt, because in the beginning I really did think it was real. Why? because I meet women like her in the field all the time.

Mmm, yes. I'm sure that there are just tons of women who blather on gleefully at the prospect of "going to an awesome abortion clinic" for "the best non-anesthetized invasive uterine surgery ever!"

Linked everywhere, I gather, but especially at Unfogged and Pharyngula.

I think I might have another beer

You all will have to wait until Wednesday to find out what my exciting (to me) announcement is! Sorry.

In other news, PK is having a motherfucking fit at one a.m. over:

1. being hungry;
2. having a torn toenail;
3. he has something important to say to Mama!
4. he has something important to say to Papa!
5. his feelings are hurt!
6. "this has been the worst day for me in the world."
7. "I hate this so much! I am through with being ignored by Mama and Papa! I am through with it! I am so, so, through with it!!!
8. "Mama. Mama!"

I am about to charge over there, beat him, and then pitch him out the fucking bedroom window.

Obscure and incomprehensible

Notes toward what I hope will be an entirely personal announcement later today. In related news, though whether or not the relationship is one I can or will articulate, I am spending my insomniac hours considering the possibility that my religious views are essentially panthiestic, and wishing that at some point in my education I had read Spinoza.

in an essentialist conception of happiness (one which presupposes that there is such a thing as an essential human nature), "happiness" is largely a function of how well one fulfils one's essential nature. Pantheism's wide conception of human nature allows for a broad range of ways for people to achieve happiness. There are fewer ways for the Aristotelian or theist to achieve happiness than there are for the pantheist. To the extent that a human being is able to achieve "happiness" by actualising the properties that "define the good of man as such" — they will be leading an intrinsically good life. "Happiness" is then the standard by which to judge the non-derivative (intrinsic) value of a person's life.

Pantheism has a nonanthropocentric conception of human well-being. The human good is characterised partly in terms of relational properties. One must have a certain kind of relation to the Unity in order to live "properly." The set of properties common and unique to humans, which also define the good for humans as such, include relational properties. When a person exemplifies their essential human nature in this way — and it can only be exemplified in this relational way — they are living the "Good" life and can thereby achieve well-being and happiness. This nonanthropocentric conception of human well-being constitutes pantheism's standard of human perfection and virtue. It is a standard of intrinsic value.

Silly and serious

So like yesterday we took PK to see the new Pirates of the Caribbean movie. It was fun! Spoilers below, probably, so you've been warned.

I'm sure that there were more than a few people who saw PK jumping up and down and running in small circles of excitement in the theater lobby and wanted us dead. And a few more who saw us going into the PotC theater with him and thought, "what awful parents, that movie is far too violent for a little girl that age" (keeping in mind his long, Jack Sparrowesque hair, which makes everyone think he's a girl). Well, FUCK THOSE PEOPLE. I had PK sit on my lap throughout the movie so that if/when he got scared, he'd have mama comfort, and once or twice he whispered, "mama, let's go," and I said, "are you sure? It will be okay, I promise. Jack Sparrow always wins!" and encouraged him to cover his eyes and press one ear against my chest while I covered the other with my hands, and of course he peeked and everything was fine. And at the end I said, "was that too scary for you?" and he said, "No!" and I said, "did you like it?" and he said "YESYESYESYES!" and bounced up and down. And there were no bad dreams, even. So there.

That said, I admit that if we'd screened the movie before taking PK, which was our original intent, I would have thought it a wee bit too violent/scary. Mr. B. says he thinks he would have thought it was okay. It was a lot faster-paced than the first movie, and a lot longer, and there was some actual killing of minor characters/extras, which there wasn't in the first film (although PK points out that Captain Barbosa was killed in the first movie, which is true). I have to say that the controversial bit with the Carib Indians as cannibals was completely unnecessary to the main plot. And of course, while PK was having the "oh no!" reactions in my lap, I was whispering in his ear that these are supposed to be Carib Indians, who I don't think were cannibals, and that in fact my understanding of cannibalism [correct me, those of you who know about these things] is that people who practiced it did not just randomly eat people but that it fulfilled some religious purpose, and that when people first started exploring the world they were often afraid of cannibalism so there were a lot of legends (including legends that the Europeans were cannibals) like this one we're seeing now in the movie. So really, PK, it is all just make-believe. Yes, I do things like that. But they could have just left that part out and saved me the trouble.

However, and this is me-the-critic, not me-the-parent speaking, one of the things I find interesting about both movies is the way that the filmmakers' knowledge of history gets coded in weird ways. Like, Kiera Knightley's dad is the governor of, if memory serves, Jamaica--and yet he has no slaves, you see no evidence of slavery, and he and Kiera and Orlando are, of course, all purely sympathetic characters. But at the beginning of the movie, there's a really kind of sick and upsetting bit about pirates being imprisoned that completely reminded me of the lyrics to "Strange Fruit," and which is way more graphic than anything in the cannibalism part. You've got the voodoo priestess (?) who is initially scary (this is one of the parts where PK buried his head in my chest) but who turns out to be a really sympathetic character (albeit in the long tradition of "wise and spiritual black folk"). Given that voodoo is almost always portrayed as spooky and bad, I found her really kind of cool.

Also--and most intriguing--the East India Company is clearly the villain here. Which, interestingly, reminds me of the narrative point of view in Oroonoko: that the Royalist governor's recognition of the title character's innate (African) nobility is supplanted by a more capitalist, less noble attitude, which results in Oroonoko's violent death. In the novel, the new governor is the Royalist (being as it's written after Charles II's restoration); in the film, its the old governor: but the connection is there, albeit inverted (which makes sense, given that the events of the film are set much later in time). At one point Elizabeth actually says "Honor is the currency of the realm" (read Oroonoko--the importance of "honor" is made much of"--and the East India Company guy says, "no, currency is the currency of the realm." It's also worth noting that everyone wants the papers that give Jack, Will, Elizabeth, and ex-Commander Norris their pardons (freedom)--which are already signed by the king, and must also be signed by the EIC. Throughout, there's nothing actually said about what, specifically, the East India Company trades in, but if you know anything about the period, you know that they were closely associated with the Royal African Company, and that eventually the EIC becamse the biggest trading monopoly in the world.

Of course, Disney doesn't actually get into any of this. They wouldn't be Disney if they did, and after all, it's supposed to be a fun movie for kids! Who clearly can't and shouldn't be expected to understand any of this stuff. I'm kidding, of course; having started with the Carib Indians and the whole cannibalism thing, I think that PK's enjoyment of the film should provide me with many opportunities to talk to him about this stuff. He already knows a bit about slavery and the Underground Railroad, because his godmother lives and teaches in Oberlin. (Here's a link to an old quilt exhibit at the college that I can't resist including, because it looks neat.) But it's very easy to recognize, post-Said, that what isn't mentioned is as important as what is.

So far, however, we have spent part of the morning learning about the Kraken and Cthulhu.

(Also, I totally want a compass like that which will help me figure out what the hell I really want.)

Nifty!

Dunno where Twisty found this, but I got it from her.

Shame on us

If you haven't yet heard about the Jewish family that was driven out of town in Delaware by Christian anti-Semites, click that link. You can also find folks blogging about it at Jesus' General (do see his correspondence with the website that published the family's address--the site owner is "pleased that we had an effect in this case"), Bartholowme's Notes on Religion, Talk2Action, Dispatches from the Culture Wars (where some commenter seems to think it appropriate to imply a comparison between this story and a high school ensemble that wasn't allowed to play "Ave Maria" at graduation?), and at Bérubé's place, where Lindsay Beyerstein's guest-blogging.

Now, I saw Linday's post first and started clicking around to find those other links. And my first thought was, "blog this." And then I thought, "what for? The only possible reaction is "those people suck," and it's one of those atypical weird cases that, if anything, surely demonstrates that the country as a whole doesn't think that way." And, god help me, I thought, "it'll just fuel the stupid idea that liberals hate Christians, blah blah blah."

And then I realized, boy, that is some fucked-up thinking going on there. I don't think I should draw attention to a 21st-century American pogrom for fear of offending Christians? I'm hesitant to stand up and object to anti-Semitism--and by "stand up," let's note, I mean only "talk about it on my pseudonymous blog"--for political reasons?

Which led me to realize that holy shit, this isn't so atypical after all. If political discourse is so fucked up that I'm hesitant to call Christian anti-Semitism what it is (I considered putting "Christian" in scare quotes, I considered qualifying it with some phrase like "and right-wing whackos," and then I thought, no: it's Christian anti-Semitism), then we're in a pretty bad way.

If you agree, it wouldn't hurt to drop a check in the mail to the ACLU, which is handling the suit (and appealing an early ruling in favor of the school board).

I'm confused

Wouldn't you expect France to have a bigger lead given that Portugal seems to have mistakenly sent its diving team to Germany?

Your source for rumors and urban legends since, like, now

They want us to believe that the good lord has struck Ken Lay down, but I heard he bought a body on the black market and is hiding out in Dick Cheney's garage.


(Credit where due: the boyfriend is the one who came up with the second half of the story.)

Well, okay then!

If you're missing family this holiday, Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) wants to help you feel at home by doing a remarkably good imitation of your crazy uncle's half-baked rants. Topic? Teh internets!

Some highlights, about the importance of knowing what we're talking about:

Until you can define it, I'm opposed to concepts that reply . . . by your recommendation.

The internet is not something you just dump something on. It's not a big truck. It's a series of tubes!

Brief transcript. Increasingly bizarre and hilarious (but incomplete) audio.

This made me laugh

Probably you all already read Mimi Smartypants, but just in case you missed the latest post (because what, she doesn't have an RSS feed? I hate that!), you are missing the wisdom of the ages.

"I have to go potty," she whispers dramatically. She has to go potty. She got out of bed and walked past two toilets in order to tell me this.

Me: Uhhhh great, then go. That's why you are a big girl with a big-girl bed.
Nora: Do you want to keep me company?
Me: Not really!
Nora: Okay. I will come back and tell you how it went.
Me [some noise that roughly translates to oh my fucking god]

. . . and JESUS. It is not even 7 am. We have already had sex-ed and adoption talk and can I get a shot of Jameson for my Earl Grey? Thanks.

Seriously. That is pretty much everything you need to know about parenting, right there.

Open letter to the neighborhood

I'm really deeply sorry that Mr. B. and I had a rather emphatic discussion last night at 2 am with all the windows open. I hope you didn't have to go to work this morning.

Pseudonymous Kid is an ingrate

Me: You know what, PK? Papa's been painting all day, so I should make dinner, don't you think?
Pseudonymous Kid: I want apples in it! Can I help?
Me: Um, okay, lessee... apples. What else have we got?

Rummaging through the fridge I come up with cold roast beef, some leftover corn and peas, lettuce, and a leftover container of nước chấm. An idea beginning to form, I search through the pantry: yes, there is a package of dried rice noodles. Back to the fridge: no, there is no fish sauce. Okay, so I have to work with what I have.

Me: Okay, PK. Do you want to cut this apple?
Pseudonymous Kid: Yes!
Me: Okay. Here is a knife, here is the apple, here is a bowl of water with lime juice in it. As you cut the apple, put the slices in here. (I move to slicing the cold beef, which I then put in a bowl with the nước chấm.)
Pseudonymous Kid: Mama, do you know how to cook?
Me: What? Of course I know how to cook.
Pseudonymous Kid: Are you sure? Do you know what you're doing?
Me: Yes, dear.
Pseudonymous Kid: Will I like this? Is it going to be gross?
Me: You'll like it.

Result: An improvised beef salad, fairly mild but not unflavorful: rice noodles, apples, peas, corn, beef, and chopped romaine with nước chấm "dressing." Later I made brownies (half the sugar turned out fine, btw) with vanilla ice cream for dessert.

Can Mama cook, indeed. Hmph.

Teaching PK about soccer

Me: Oh, please!*
Mr. B.: I know. It's amazing what drama queens the Portuguese players are.
Pseudonymous Kid: What are you talking about?
Mr. B.: The Portuguese players are really good at trying to draw fouls.
PK: Draw fouls? What does that mean?
Me: It means they're trying to get the referee to call a foul on the other player by pretending to be hurt.
PK: I don't understand.
Me: It's like when you try to get Papa in trouble by saying "Ow, ow! Papa, you're hurting me!" but he really isn't, and you're just trying to get me to be mad at Papa.
Mr. B.: (Smiles.)
PK: What? I don't do that.
Me: Oh, please. You do too.
PK: (Giggles.)


*This was not in reference to Rooney's getting pulled off, but to the earlier Portuguese player pretending he'd been slapped in the face.