So it goes

FOX goes too far---again and again

2009-11-11T07:46:00.003-06:00

With all of the changes FOX makes to their website, like eliminating the box where readers can inform them of errors in stories, they need to consider one more change. Take out "News" from the logo and every other part of the site. This revision might, maybe, alleviate the irony and dishonesty of their line: "Fair and balanced."

To get a balanced view of news, or what agencies are saying about issues and events, I read FOX, the Huffington Post, NYT, local papers, and various sites on the web. This morning while trolling for news, I read the FOX "News" story about the murder of news anchor Anne Pressly (FOX calls her anchorwoman, which is also problematic but is the subject for another blog).

The point of the article, I think, was to inform readers about how she was injured--she did not die until five days later. The title reads: "Arkansas Anchorwoman's Face Shattered 'Like an Egg' During Attack." Apparently, the title is part of how the coroner's description of her injuries, which proved fatal. The title and the content made me physically ill and completely disgusted in the opportunistic disregard FOX has for the victim, her family, readers, and even the accused, who is still on trial. He is, by US rights, innocent until proven guilty.

Is there a way to inform the public about a murder, even to give details, without coming across as a gruesome, "news"-before-ethics agency? Yes, and plenty of news agencies have figured out how to do this. They are not always perfect. Writing about the news need not supersede respect for human life.

FOX, this is not news. This is another of your gimmicks, and it makes me sick, sick, sick. Get real or get out of news.

Culture or not culture?

2009-07-28T10:55:00.002-05:00

My significant other and I were talking about an Public Radio story about infanticide in Pakistan, and though we got off topic with "discussing" how we discuss, we raised an interesting question. Is infanticide part of a culture? My partner says yes. He says we cannot pick and choose between what is or is not culture because it is "right" or "wrong" in our (meaning my) eyes. I said that I was not willing to say that infanticide is part of culture.

Perhaps a better way than looking for a simple yes or no to this question is to keep questioning. If we can agree that culture is a group's beliefs and values, traditions, language, and then, also the more topical or behavioral aspects of clothing and music, then we can ask how the idea of infanticide fits in. Is it a belief? Is it a practice that stems from belief? From circumstances (which can, I argue, leave the realm of culture)? Is it a mixture of circumstances and belief? Is it also something we can ascribe to individuals? Is it maybe a change in cultural belief and practice? These are, of course, not easily answered, and there are issues of insider and outsider interpretations.

My opinion thus far is that ascribing actions to a culture is risky business because it gives a meaning to the action that may or may not have been intended. Is the action related to culture? Sure, because culture affects people's behaviors. But, is a choice always based on set cultural traditions? Are these ever really set.

Ugh. This does get into a mental masturbation. But, I still hold that ascribing actions solely to culture is dangerous, no matter who does it. I think that many times when we say something is cultural we also ascribe acceptance and a value, and that is not always the case upon further investigation.

Dr. Mr. Obama soldier

2008-10-31T08:48:00.005-05:00

Dear Soldier,

You make some good points. People in Iraq, citizens there, and soldiers from numerous other countries have made sacrifices, have lost lives and limbs. Life under Saddam Hussein's rule was
not one of "freedom."

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/30/youtubes-election-video-iraq-vets-mccain-endorsement/

I do not agree with your ideas about McCain being a good choice, based on his service or his status as a POW. Had we caught him, Hitler could have been a POW. I use this reference to Hitler NOT as a comparison to McCain but to make the point that anyone can serve and anyone can be taken prisoner. It does not follow that POW status makes one a hero or one who is capable of being president.

As for Iraq being a mistake. Your reasons are not good enough. We've had people from all sides of politics and military who have said that Iraq was not a threat, that there is more terrorism in the region since the war than before it. Yes, Hussein's dictatorship, and his sons and cronies, did not uphold human rights. However, that does not justify a unilateral declaration of war from the US. There are steps to take to correct genocide and human rights violations. And, though Bush, et al, claimed that they went in for said human rights and for "democracy," their actions later refuted these claims. They let people down, and they have no right to put their "democracy" on other nations.

Our country is not a democracy, first of all, and our form of government works (for the most part but not without flaws) for our large and diverse nation. Our representative republic and our constitution are individualized for our nation's needs. Iraq and Afghanistan are unique, compared to each other and to the US, and we cannot just go over and put the American "tablecloth" of "democracy" over these countries traditions, faiths, and needs. That is a human rights violation. If we (and I mean a delegation of nations following certain prescribed criteria) find that Iraq is violating human rights or is conducting genocide, then we should all follow the set rules of taking care of the issue to save people. We do have that obligation according to the treaties and laws we have signed. We do not have the right to take action first, without consent or plan, and then to apply our US form of government where it is not wanted or needed.

Thank you for your service. I have no way to repay you for your loss and for your experience. I cannot repay you with silence or with taking your word for what is "going on in Iraq." I cannot repay you by voting as you vote. As a citizen, it is my right and duty to judicate the information about candidates as best I can, to educate myself to make logical decisions, and, if I simply follow my emotions, then I do not do my duty. We are past the point of emotions. We are all tired, desensitized, confused, angry, and hopeful, and none of these are good enough reasons to vote for a president or other representative.

Yours,
Circe Berman

Flags, God, and Nationalism

2008-09-12T10:11:00.004-05:00

The memorials for Sept. 11 that are small US flags, stuck into playgrounds, tied to fences, and waved around worry me. This kind of nationalism seems blind. There are so many emotions--anger, hurt, love--and people express them with the flag. They use the flag instead of logic and instead of going to representatives and saying, "I am sad, and I think we need to do such and such." Children learn to display patriotism and emotion with flags, but do they learn how to take action to make things "right"?

There is a faith that goes behind the flag waving, that we are America and problems and corruption will work out BECAUSE we are a country that stands for freedom or stands for justice. But, the country does not work by itself and without people making decisions that things are no longer working as they used to work. The laws and actions of the US government do not support freedom or justice all of the time. The government is very inconsistent and dependent on a system that does not always have the "good" of the people (pork and lobbyists) in mind when it enacts laws and measures that restrict civil rights. Blind faith in religion is someone's choice, a choice they have under the US Constitution. Blind faith in the government and in the country as a whole is not a choice. Citizens must not "let things be up to God" in our government. God wasn't elected, nor are the elected officials answerable to God. They are answerable to the laws of the land and to the people who elect them.

We need to act, not wait and trust in the Lord. We need to vote. We need to protest, and we need to be careful of how we use the flag and nationalism. The adage of learning from history is one we need to keep in mind and in action.

Lipstick and Sambo--the issue is about the low standards of politics

2008-09-10T11:40:00.003-05:00

There is a call for an apology from Obama for the "lipstick" comment. He refused after explaining why he need not apologize. We can see (if we bother) the whole context of Obama's comments. Now, one might bring up the "sambo" and "bitch" comments Palin made about Obama and Clinton. Oh, they aren't true? Where are the sources? We find that these cases turn, literally into "he said she said." Well, then maybe we shouldn't use either episode so indiscriminately as media fodder to pull down a candidate.

If we can't provide the entire context, use multiple, reliable, and credible sources, and we cannot get Q&A with both candidates on the issue, then the media and both campaigns need to forcefully and overtly say that they do not CONDONE any media coverage or disparaging remarks about their fellow candidates. And, they need to prove that they MEAN this.

I think the issue is that the candidates rely so heavily on no having to face the music or be accountable for their campaigns and supporters. They just want the support and to get the votes. This is dirty from all sides, people. Let's call for credibility and standards in the media and in the campaigns. I do not approve of my tax money paying for any of this, and I demand reform--from all sides, as well as better citizenship.

Saving the Children?

2008-05-27T07:39:00.002-05:00

Who is saving th children? Again, we get a glimpse of hell, when we read about kids in war-torn countries, or where there is famine or political unrest, and the humanitarian aid workers who trade food for sex. These kids are growing up associating the word "humanitarian" with one who abuses, someone to fear.

Save the Children is calling for a global watch dog, for some group to overlook these aid associations. This is a positive step, but it should not be like buying an umbrella and not worrying about the rain. There also needs to be some backstepping to assist those children and families who have been abused and exploited for years, but I hate to think of yet another group going in with the intent to aid and then further abusing. I'm pessimistic, yes. But, in the case of child abuse, I think that dewy eyes and idealism are out of place because we (meaning all of those people who are living without war in our backyards, famine, and political unrest) need to see the hell, the dirt, and inhumanity of what it must be like to be hurt by people who are supposed to help.

Sam Adams (beer) is gay?

2008-05-22T08:13:00.003-05:00

Last night, while enjoying pizza, and, ironically a Sam Adams Lager, with my partner, I overheard the following comment.

"Oh, nothing says gay like Sam Adams"

I asked A if he heard this comment, and he did. So, it wasn't my imagination.

So, in spite of living in a state with a mandated anti-bullying law that includes sexual orientation (since September 2007), this kind of language is something this man finds to be acceptable to shout out.

Across the patio, I sent dirty looks, but the guy didn't notice, and even if he did, it means nothing because he doesn't even realize what he's done. Similar to reprimanding a dog for eating a shoe an hour later. They just don't get it.

I told A that if we were sitting there with a gay child, I would have no problem with walking over and explaining that his comment is not only rude but hurtful and unacceptable. My statement makes me sad and disappointed in myself.

If we want to make change, we can't tell our selves, well, if a person from "that" group is around, then I will take action. That's not enough. Heterosexism needs to be addressed whether or not I perceive gay individuals to be part of the group or not. This is similar to the argument that a classroom teacher need not address race if there are not children of color in her class. We all have sexual orientations (and they are not as polarized as our society portrays) and we all have race.

Upon further research, I found that, indeed, Sam Adams IS gay. He's the new mayor of Portland Oregon, and he's openly gay. Maybe this guy was trying to discuss current politics, but I really don't think so.

Oh, congrats Sam Adams (the mayor).

Prosecutor Accountability--No Crook Left Behind

2008-05-16T12:11:00.002-05:00

Good cop and bad cop. Sure, we've seen this. Though we count on peace officers to be about peace and serving our communities, sometimes there are bad ones. They beat people up, profile according to race, plant evidence. We've also heard of bad priest and bad teachers, maybe we had one or five. These people who have roles in our lives of the utmost importance. When they screw up, we have to count on the state or some entity for accountability, for protection, and for justice. I'm not talking about Salem Witch Trials here. Bad cops, bad priests, and bad teachers should get a fair trial, evidence must be presented, and there should be a ruling body or bodies to make judgments. Checks and balances, even the president is not above these.

Now, prosecutors are no less fallible than cops or teachers, even priests. Yet, we have a fear of prosecuting prosecutors? People may not sign up for the job because they fear prison if they make a blunder? Well, no kidding. How about being an ordinary citizen and going to prison for "blundering"--happening to date someone who was raped and killed, happening to be balck in Texas, happening to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. James Woodard went to prison for 27 years for the crime, which he did not commit. He didn't even really blunder (though his alibi was that he was cheating on said girlfriend, so that is a sort of blunder).

Yes, prosecutors should face prison if they purposefully hide or doctor evidence. That is wrong and it breaks the law, and they are not above the law. Of course, this strikes prosecutors with a bit of fear, and it should if they have broken the law, screwed up the system, and allowed innocent people to go to jail.

Immigration Busts in Iowa

2008-05-13T18:22:00.004-05:00

For weeks in the Waterloo/Cedar Falls area, there has been speculation about what is going on at the Cattle Congress, a sort of fairgrounds that hosted the World Famous Lipizzaner Stallions a couple weeks ago. The locals have been noting the covered windows, the trailors, the feds, and rumors had it that there would be a bust. Well, they were right.

There was a bust, perhaps the biggest in US history. For several years, Iowa has progressed, nay regressed, into anti-immigration policies. We have the English-only law, where politicians and the like have been sued or reprimanded for providing voter registration forms and other documents online in languages other than English. There have been rumblings in the state house about getting "tough" on the businesses that hire illegal immigrants. And, more and more, in the editorial columns, there are rants about how the illegals are hurting Iowa. Now, we have the bust.

I see this bust as just that but on the part of the Iowan citizenry, as a huge step toward xenophobia and intolerance, and a general lack of humanity and reality. Just like the "War on Drugs" and the like have failed, the war on immigration, legal or not, is an act of trying to fight the symptoms rather than the sickness. The state and the country are dependent on labor, and a lot of labor they depend upon comes from people from Central and South America. The sickness comes in when we forget to see laborers as people, people with families, with needs, and with few choices. The sickness comes when we see "them" causing troubles and as "taking from Iowa" when we have built an economy based on "their" exploitation. That's sick, to blame people when they are basically invited in (and have been, on and off for the last 150 years).

Dear Iowa Representatives: first, get educated about the history of these groups of people. Second, how many languages do you speak and how many hours do you work with no insurance and no community respect? Right, and then think about how hard it is to learn a language well enough to read tax forms or legal documents. Third, start at the source. If we truly are going to bust the businesses, let's take those fat cats to the cattle congress holding cells, away from their families, and let's figure out humane and logical answers for people who are working hard and in need of help. Sure, they have some "blame" but let's get the whole picture here and look at the power structures involved.

The Tangle of Tango

2008-05-07T08:42:00.002-05:00

We don't want to upset kids. We don't want them to lose their innocence by reading about sex or murder or how bad slavery must have felt to those enslaved. But why not? Banning or challenging books like Tango Makes Three or I know Why the Caged Bird Sings are actions that waste time and inhibit productive learning.

Getting upset is part of life. So are slavery, homophobia, and humans making bad choices part of life. When children read books about these issues in schools and with parents, this is a good place for them to get informed. A teacher or a parent can explain things, simple definitions and the idea that people are different. It may be upsetting for a child to learn that the US supported slavery and racism, it upsets me. However, if the book is part of a curriculum, then teachers can provide a context and critical thinking tools to apply to lesson. Kids can become educated and get past being upset to being informed and capable of thinking about issues and taking actions--like reading more, voting, telling a school friend not to say "that's so gay."

Telling lies to children or keeping information from them does not protect them. It keeps them ignorant. Ignorance leads to not knowing or understanding people, which leads to stereotyping and saying and doing hurtful things. It perpetuates the uglies of racism, heterosexism, and sexism.

There are many excuses that people use to ban and challenge books and curriculums. People don't trust schools, they don't trust teachers, and they don't trust their children to be thinking and critical beings. Tango is real folks, and Angelou was raped as a child. These things happened in the world. Kids can find out about them on their own, from the internet or TV, or they can be in a school setting that has extreme oversight and a mission to uphold the First Amendment rights of students--to educate all students. Instead of calling for a banning of books, I think parents need to reassess these excuses and understand more perspectives than their own fears. Parents can learn to build trust for schools, teachers, and their own children. They can also be learners in this process.

If we ban, we don't learn. Learning about something does not mean that we throw away our beliefs and values. It means we better understand our beliefs and values, and they become more meaningful to us.

Cronyism--but still no apple for the teacher

2008-05-02T09:59:00.004-05:00

I love the word cronyism because it is fun to say and write. As an "ism" it is one that, under another name, is perfectly innocuous. When we "network" and cash in our social capital by knowing the right people and getting our feet into doors that would otherwise remain closed, this is seen as smart and common sense. When we call it cronyism, it takes on a more illicit and morally corrupt connotation.

Is the "Reading First" program cronyism? Is it the way the system works?

As someone who has been in the college teaching profession (granted on the low end of adjunct, lecturer, or TA), I have seen that textbooks are a racket, albeit a racket in a free market. They are out to make money, while teachers and administrators are not supposed to care about money, at least not for themselves. So, is it cronyism when schools take on curriculum guides and texts that their administrators push, when those administrators have ties to publishing houses? Sure, it is, especially when those administrators get kick backs. What about the cronyism of not coming through with funding for schools? There are those in office who vote to cut funding, and many of those votes are based on the officials' obligations to lobbyists. How can we criticize programs like "Reading First" or Affirmative Action when the funding and support has been so fleeting and inconsistent? How can people promote materials with any validity if they are in bed with the publishers?

To the point, finally. We have fault on several ends here, people. We can't make good decisions when we do not account for these conflicts of interest. We can't make good decisions when we do not have reliable evidence and when we don't give things more than a year to work out. We can't make up a program to close the achievement gap between black and white students that will work within a year because the underlying causes run much deeper than how we teach reading in the first grade. Let's stop the double handed blaming education for societal failures and relying on it to solve the social issues we face when it is one of the many cogs in the giant machine of the United States.

I think the question of cronyism is a good one and one that we need to address when we get proposals for funding, for cuts, and for "the answer to the problem." We also need to get real about the purpose and scope of schools. And, let's hear from more than publishing companies with their hands in the cookie jars, politicians, school board fat cats, and President Bush about what works in schools. Um, when was the last time they were in schools for other than product placement and election photo shots?

Leno and his "dumb thing to say"

2008-04-11T13:01:00.004-05:00

Jay Leno admits that his comment to Ryan Phillipe was "wrong" and a "dumb thing to say." I'm not sure what else he said because the press is happy enough with those snippets. I'm not happy with them. Neither was Ryan Phillipe, who let it be known, on the spot, that he did not think the comment from Leno was funny.

He's a funny guy, right? His job is to tell jokes. His friend and announcer John Melendez swears by Leno's goodness and that the fault is with the people who can't just laugh with Jay--because he's a funny guy. Melendez, who writes and acts for the show One, Two, Many (a man trying to get the girl of his dreams), thinks that "in this day and age, everyone is so PC." Apparently, Melendez and Leno are saving us from the horrors of being politically correct with their use of heterosexist and sexist jokes.

PC. It's a funny little acronym that people throw around, usually when they or people they relate to say something really stupid and mean and they don't want to be criticized for it. "I'm practicing my freedom of speech, and you're just being PC."

Here's my problem. PC is not the point. I bet Phillipe did not have his reaction and response because he was worried about being PC. In schools, educators don't reprimand students for saying, "that's so gay" because we want them to be politically correct.

PC is not the liberal mantra, Melendez (and whoever else). In fact, the whole idea of PC is for people who want to blab without thinking and think without thinking. It's for people to excuse themselves for being undeservedly superior and taking and using that superiority to keep other people down. To claim something is PC is to legitimize language and actions that have been quantitatively and qualitatively proven to hurt all people involved and even those down the road.

Maybe I'm more furious with Melendez and his attempt to clasp to his "right" to bash people than I am mad at Leno. I'm disappointed with Leno for not going a bit deeper with his apology and taking some further action with himself and with his environment. If things like that fall out of his mouth on accident and he truly thinks it was a wrong thing to say, then he needs to do some serious inventory of his thinking and his beliefs. Then, he needs to take some action, like telling Melendez to shut his trap and that he was wrong because such language puts down a whole group of people and further legitimizes homophobia in our country. He needs to do this for his own karma and for the people out there who think he's funny and who listen to him without questioning, "Wow... That is so something I don't want to do."

OKLAHOMA-phobia?

2008-03-16T10:13:00.004-05:00

Another public official, Sally Kern (R-Oklahoma), opens her mouth and inserts not just one foot but two feet.

Foot number one--She, like King (R-Iowa), ignorantly equates Islam with terrorism. Representative Kern, there have been a number of Christians, even Baptists, who have committed crimes, like murder, rape, terrorism. Yet, most look at these people who commit the crimes as aberrations, OK? They do not ascribe the crimes to the person's faith, even if that person were to swear that they committed the crimes in the name of their faith. OK? No, it's not "OK."

It is offensive, upsetting, and frustrating for a group of people to be continually maligned in this way, and by people who should be thoughtful and educated. To be Muslim, especially post-9-11, is something you do not understand, nor do you even attempt to understand. Your fear of what you do not understand is very clear in your comments. Get your foot out of your mouth and get educated, Rep. Kern.

Foot number two--scare tactics and the blatant misuse and scurvy misinterpretation of the Bible to condemn and incite hatred for a group of people. According to Kern, homosexuals will lead to the downfall of our society, as they have in other societies. OK? No, it's not "OK."

We live in a society where the Bible is not the law of the land. Claiming Christian faith is fine, but it does not mean that you now have some kind of built in moral thermometer with which you are allowed, by your faith, to judge others. Look to US history and see that our country has a history of subjugating people while still claiming that it upholds Christianity and the individual rights of all. Except, it seems, Native Americans, African Americans, Asian groups, Mexicans, and women.

My comment to feet in her mouth Rep. Sally Kern is this--Do not speak for all Oklahomans, nor all Baptists, nor all Christians. You do not speak the truth for everyone in these groups and pretending that you do is more than troublesome. By trying to use these groups to back up your comments and your beliefs, you take liberties that you do not have.

If you are against gay marriage, then claim it as a stance you take based on YOUR interpretation of the Bible and not the beliefs of Christians, Baptists, or even Republicans. You do not have that authority and your arguments fail. If you want to argue your stance own it and see where it takes you.

King (R-Iowa) needs to get in touch

2008-03-15T16:53:00.003-05:00

I have a personal problem with people speaking for me. While reading the editorials in the Des Moines Register or else where, I've seen people write "We Iowans" and "people in Iowa" and I'm bothered. Though Iowa seems to be a not so diverse state in terms of most people being old and white, there are diverse ideas here. I do NOT agree with King and his predictions about "the terrorists" celebrating Obama's election as president (if that happens). I live in Iowa, and I do not think this way and I know others who are just as appalled to find that we live in a state where a public official can be so dumb.

King (R-Iowa), you have a problem. You go out in public, without thought or evidence, and make a proclamation meant to incite misconceptions about Obama. Come on, King. Can you get past the stupid scare tactics of accusing Obama of being something he's not? He does not identify as a Muslim, and I think HE, more than you or anyone else, is the most valid source for that info. Secondly, if he did identify as Muslim, that is fine. We are in a country where people can be Muslim. Freedom to worship? Ring a bell?

More importantly, can you get educated about the Muslim faith and stop equating it with terrorism. You should be striped of your position as a state representative if you think you can speak for Iowa or even your district in such an uneducated and divisive way. You are not a credit to your party, your state, or your public position.

Ignorance, uneducated blathering to get your way, feeding on people's fears and prejudices--though you may think I'm writing about terrorists, I am really referring to your comments and your inability to admit you're wrong and that you said some really stupid things.

Don't speak for me when you speak lies and fear mongering.

Stuff White People Like

2008-02-25T17:05:00.001-06:00

A friend sent me a link. Thank you, friend.

Stuff White People Like is a blog, and it has initiated heated debate on within its own comments and discussion on other sites, like Feministe and the LA Times. I love this.

A huge lesson I attempt to teach my students (who will someday be teachers) is that everywhere around us, there are these messages and ideas. And, though we may want to brush them off as "oh, just Disney cartoons" or "it's too uncomfortable for me to broach in a classroom," we really need to educate ourselves and become critical participants in our society in order to be good teachers. So, how does a blog like this fit into multicultural teacher education with a focus on social justice and transformation? Good question. And, a good answer is that this blog and all of the comments, debate, anger, hilarity--all of it--speak to our macro-culture. We get insights into what people think it means to be white, to be racist, to be middle class.

Then, we need to be critical, to wade through the emotions, the "evidence," our personal biases, and our own ignorance of experience and come to some conclusions. How does this fit into how we think and how we teach?

As a teacher of college students, it gives me a view into the possibilities of how people think and what they say when they are anonymous online. It provides a insight into people's language, how they define and use words like "racist". And, all of this informs my teaching and my own learning.

Marriage in Iowa

2007-09-13T09:09:00.000-05:00

In a place that can reek of stereotypes (the smell of hogs) and assumptions about people being set in their ways, we see a stream of light emerging from the clouds. Iowa (not Idaho), yes, that caucus state where the candidates hang out before the primaries, riding tractors and kissing babies. It seems it is on the map now for more than political aggrandizing, or is it? Can we really count on this ruling or is it one more political trick to draw eyes on Iowa?

We recently had a judge rule that ruled that Iowa’s ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. We got the reactions that we thought we’d get. Romney jumped in and rode the wagon of defending marriage, of course specifying that it is between one man and ONE woman (in a bid to override the taint of recent polygamy/child-bride trials have on his own faith). Clinton (I refuse to call her Hillary for obvious reasons. If they are not obvious, then think about the any of the times another candidate or president has been referred to by their given names. Not a sign of respect) and Obama (again, I will not refer to him by his first name) had similar, expected reactions. The states should mire through this issue and the federal government should keep its nose out of it. Hmmm. But what do they really think?

When one thinks of traditional republican beliefs, isn’t one of them less government interference? This turn around is important to note because it is time to call into question blind following of either party. My aunt votes republican (because her husband does and because they listen to AM talk radio at all hours). Never once have I heard her argue about an issue without first qualifying that it is what someone else believes in (namely a republican). My personal political decisions are (as much as possible) based on issues. I know for a fact that even though I am registered as a democrat, I do not always agree with the party line. In fact, there have been a few times when I have agreed with President Bush (note, I did not refer to him by his given name or his middle initial).

From what I’ve read about the ruling, the judge made a decision based on an interpretation of the Constitution and one that has precedent. I don’t believe he mentioned, as he ruled, his political affiliation or his religious affiliation, and that is right in a country that is based on a constitution that speaks for "freedom" and choice. The reasons for banning gay marriage—family values, namely—are based on faith, and that has no place in a court.

Oh, and is Robert Hanson running for president? I might consider giving him my vote.

Grandma’s Cookie Advice

2007-05-18T09:19:00.000-05:00

A year ago, I lost my grandmother, and she is one who touched my soul and taught me. Her love for education guided me toward teaching and moving along with my degrees.

She always proclaimed to be a plain-spoken woman, with simple needs and wants. One of her customs was to cut out those cliche advice columns and Reader's Digest pieces to tape to her office wall or carry in her wallet. After she died, we found so many of these timeworn, yellow clippings. I read them all, trying to see what she got out of them, why she kept them when they were just common sense. And, I think that's the point.

We all make our own meanings from what we observe and read, and the common sense appealed to her sense of keeping things simple and living in the now. My grandmother's goal, according to these clippings, was to seek personal happiness through her own devices and to be conscious of this quest every day and with every action and word directed toward others. My grandmother was a country school (one-room) teacher, a farm wife (farm work partner), a mother, a 4H leader, and a newspaper columnist.

I want to share one of my grandmother's clippings, which happens to be one written about her. I hope the simple logic shines through and that her experience and knowledge continue to help people. I also include my great-grandmother's sugar cookie recipe, passed down to me from my grandmother.

Another piece of advice comes from E. H. who says she has been cooking and baking about 60 years now. She’s 72.

“One thing I have found with my cookies is that the eggs were larger than usual, which adds extra liquid to the batter and causes the cookies to go flat. The only thing to do is add a little flour, two tablespoons at a time, until when you touch the dough with your fingers, it doesn’t stick.”

She has another excellent suggestion.

“I also bake a trial cookie, if I have any doubt. Much better than having a whole pan of spread, run-together cookies.”

Grandma Grell's Sugar Cookies
1 cup sugar
1 cup butter
1 egg
1/2 tsp soda
1/2 tsp baking powder
1/2 tsp vanilla
about 3 cups flour (adjusted for the larger egg)

Oven Temp 350 degrees
Combine all ingredients. Shape into rolls, slice, and bake.
Or, form into balls and use a glass creamer (or other cut glass
item) to press a shape into the balls. Dip the creamer bottom
into sugar and press gently.

Vonnegut passes, No Timequake.

2007-05-18T08:55:00.000-05:00

F.Y.I.--The Ph.D. is going well, for any who care to know. I'm teaching a fabulous class to assist pre-service teachers in overcoming stereotypes, assumptions, and bias in their classrooms. I get to teach them about social justice and open their eyes to see that there IS racism, discrimination and separate is STILL not equal. So, I've been busy, and I've missed opportunities to write about Gonzales, Wolfie, Imus, and some of the other people who tip my boat.

There is one guy I need to write a bit about, however, and that is Mr. Kurt Vonnegut. He tipped my book (in a positive way) back when I was an undergraduate. He is the inspiration for this blog and much of my English major thinking in the past decade. I'm not an English major anymore--moved to Education--but Vonnegut holds a place in my heart. His ability to be brash and honest, while still using a sense of logic, is what I admire.

He was, above all, a human. A Humanist. He drank (a lot), he hated his former son-in-law, and he lusted after women. He also wrote like a fiend and wrote to make a statement rather than to please an audience, yet he did care about people and what they do to themselves and to others. Unlike certain people who use language carelessly (i.e. Imus), Vonnegut carried a mastery of saying or writing his point with flare and innuendo, but not with malice or ignorance.

For the summer, amidst my other reading toward Ph.D. stuff, I intend to revisit my favorite Vonnegut books.

April 11, 2007, Vonnegut died. This is also my twin brothers' birthday. So it goes.

Love, Circe

Dennis Miller--How his "rhetoric" degrades free speech

2006-12-03T22:27:00.000-06:00

It's been a while since I've written. This fall, I started my Ph.D. program, and so I've been busy. It's too bad that what moves me to blog is Dennis Miller's insensitive, uneducated, and unruly "free speech."

Fox news gets such a bad rap, and it really deserves it. I understand commentary and editorials, but the point is to have someone intelligent who can speak up with views from all sides for the sake of "readers" who might not get the whole story. THe purpose of editorial writing is not to encourage mindless relativism or political correctness. Good editorial writing digs deep with reason, ethics, and EVIDENCE to better inform people and make them THINK before they make up their minds.

But, Fox allows Miller to sound off and blast people, bash a religion, make unintelligible analogies, and present a picture of racist "rhetoric" in the name of "free speech."

Dennis Miller, you have free speech, as do all people who live in the US (including Muslim imams). We also have freedom of religion. Please do not speak for me. You are wrong to act in such a way, and I denounce your words.

'Real Free Speech'

Dennis Miller sounds off on ‘Imams on a plane’

Breaking the "Code"

2006-05-19T08:45:00.001-05:00

Though I have not read the book (when it first came out, I thought it was like those creepy Left Behind books, so I stayed far, far away), I plan on seeing The Da Vinci Code. This is the rebel in me. I have been waiting for the movie the minute the go-Jesus people started making a fuss and when I learned that Marry M is NOT portrayed as a biblical hooker (why do the fundies like thinking she was a prostitute?).

Yes, I will read the book, eventually (I was an English major, so I can read anything). But, I can't wait to go to the theatre and see if there are people protesting. It would be so cool if one of them got so incited that he stabbed me in the side or cut up my forehead with thorns from throwing roses at me. How symbolic and ironic. It won't happen. I've never once been to a "racy" or "evil" movie where people protest.

You know, as much as people bash Harry Potter flicks or The Da Vinci Code, it still makes no sense to me. Where are they when those bad teenage horror movies come out? There's more evil and senselessness in those movies than in a kid movie that teaches moral lessons or a thriller that has never claimed to be true (too bad). I heard someone (on the radio as I woke up, so there's no chance of me remembering a name, sorry) make the point that "If their faith is so weak that this movie will turn their faith, then they had crappy faith to begin with" (or something similar to those words:)

That's right. If people are dumb enough to believe what they watch in a movie or on TV, then it is the fault of Bush and crew. (Well, probably Chenney and the "W" crew.) We worry about spying on the phone? Well, this is much more insidious. They tell us what to believe everyday (note--FOX News). So, of course, that technology could be in the hands of these Hollywood-type people, too. No, it's probably the gays again or the immigrants who want us to change how we see Jesus. You know, as a nice regular guy.

Bush loves Blair.

2006-04-07T17:03:00.000-05:00

So, so funny. Bush/Blair love affair.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8845429906560840314&pl=true

"Now, George, say you're sorry"--Words Never Uttered by Barb Bush

2006-04-07T07:26:00.000-05:00

You know, for someone with such alleged humility, Mr. Bush sure doesn't know how to accept the idea that he could be wrong (that or he thinks we're all dumb enough to believe him if he tells the same lie over and over). Mr. Bush, you went over heads to institute this wire tapping, you broke rules and custom, and you were wrong to do this. We ALL know this, even you.

You're avoiding the issue, Mr. President. Yes, you can refuse to apologize because you think you can justify your wire tapping, especially by using the terms "terrrorist" or "al-Qaida." You can refuse. But you need to understand that this refusal to admit your wrong doing and to apologize to the people for overstepping your bounds and then fibbing sends some pretty wicked messages.

So, basically, when you stand there and give this kind of speech, this is what we REALLY hear.

1. "Men in power can lie as needed. I'm a man in power. I can lie whenever I must to save my own ass."
2. "If I figure out a way to scare people, I can use that fear to justify what I do, even when I know (or later find out) that I am wrong."
3. "I'm never wrong."
4. "Presidents rule the world, especially me. I can make choices without planning ahead or getting permission."
5. " I protect my own people (his cronies, not the American people), until they get caught, and then I simply explain that I had no idea they were so bad" (Hmm. Sounds a bit like daddy Bush about Iran Contra).
6. And, I'm out of here in a couple years, so who cares if the world blows up. As long as Texas is on the map, everything goes."

Predator Alert--Sex fiend in Homeland Security Office

2006-04-06T09:08:00.000-05:00

Well, back in July, 2003, Homeland Security created "Operation Predator" to help combat sexual predators, removing them, and working on the tourism trade in exploited children around the world. I think I can say without too much more evidence that Operation Predator needs some work, and so does Homeland Security (HS).

Yesterday's story about Brian Doyle is the evidence. Here is a guy, pretty high up in the Homeland Security megasaurus; Google him, and he is always making statements for HS. Granted, I don't think (after a bit of research) that Doyle had much to do with Operation Predator (OP), but the OP sure didn't have much to do with this guy. Isn't it kind of ironic (and criminal) that a sheriff found this guy out and not the HS? Do they do background checks at all? For all of their spying, they sure missed the boat on this guy. He's the wolf in sheep's clothing, and this shows one of the many holes in HS.

Are they so busy poking into the lives of innocent Arab Americans, tourists from Hollland, and border issues? Set the threat advisory up a notch, HS, and let everyone know that this is internal.

Look no further than your own buidling, people. Do us all a favor and "remove" the predators from within first, and why not get a third party to do this work, like, say, the sheriff from Polk county, just because, well, we don't really trust your work.

What? Keep the Christians off of TV?

2006-03-28T17:50:00.000-06:00

This is what I mean (see blog about gay slippers). “TV networks reject ad from church: Say spot welcoming gays is controversial” It's okay to have gay people in television shows, especially if they are really straight actors and especially on cable, for the purpose of entertaining. But, when it comes to having rights for gays or places for them to be safe, then we can't show this on television.

The reason given for not airing the United Church of Christ ad was that these networks can't advocate social or religious issues. I don't buy it. What they don't want to do is let it be known that gays (and all the other groups portrayed) are Christians, too. Kind of hard to hate someone or condemn them to fiery hell when they go to church and have "You know Who" in their hearts, isn't it. Even more difficult to hate people who use "You Know Who's" ideas of loving everyone, not judging, and gathering in the name of God. Hmm. Yep, hard to hate that kind of person.

The networks don't air issues "of public controversy" or religious issues? Well, then get rid of the crappy McDonald's ads that advocate getting fat. That is totally controversial. Be gone! What about Barbie commercials. They advocate wacky body image and stereotypes. Take them off the air. What about all of those Christmas Hallmark make-people-cry about gathering around the tree commercials. Duh, religion. What about commercials for booze. Hello, do we need to advocate drinking? And, finally, if we can’t have this church commercial, get that L. Ron Hubbard stuff off the air, no more of the touchy-feely LDS ads, and definitely the ads that idolatrize Jessica Simpson need to go. No more worshipping on TV, sure, but that goes for all of the controversial issues.

Humph. And, people get all upset over that guy in Afghanistan. He might be executed for his change of faith, and people care, now that he is a Christian. Well, Jesus-lovers, there are fellow Christians trying to Do What Jesus Would Do, and you can’t even let them buy air time?

Mississippi--This Dildo is for You

2006-03-22T08:29:00.000-06:00

Dan Abrams makes some excellent points, and really, the most important is the simple informative nature of his latest blog, "Mississippi outlaws sex toys".

With all of the issues out there that are so important, especially in the state of Mississippi, it is easy to see why people have their minds on sex. They are recovering from the hurricanes, sinking in sub-standard education, state debt, and they have a pesky state reputation for being poor and backward (it is illegal to have sex with or live with a non-spouse). They can't be too far behind on this latest race to make abortions illegal.

Mississippi, don't you see that sex toys are the least of your problems. In fact, why don't you pass them out to tax payers.

Mississippi, sex toys provide the comfort of a an STI FREE (it is no longer STD, people) "friend" who CAN'T get you pregnant. And, if people are having this REALLY safe sex with themselves, then they AREN'T getting sick, making babies they can't afford, or seeking abortions to end unwanted pregancies. When you take away this safe sex, then what the heck are people to do? Oh, yes, get married. Silly me.

Come on. Get out of people's bedrooms and mind your own business. You are not the marriage police. Nor do you have the right to moralize people in this manner. People stimulate themselves: in the womb, in childhood, and in adulthood. It's normal and okay, and it's a heck of a lot safer. Find something else to work on. Spend time and money where it can help people. Leave sex toys alone (unless you use it for good).

Besides, we all know that the people who decry the toys with the loudest voices are the people with the really kinky collections, hidden in the basement.

Gay Slippers on the HBO Slope

2006-03-19T11:14:00.002-06:00

You know, I love how being gay is okay on HBO. People were even, mostly, okay with the cowboy-on-cowboy sex in Brokeback Mountain. What happens on the mountain stays on the mountain, right? Same with all of the other trendy sexy stuff. It’s okay, on TV.

This double standard really sucks. On one side we get this message that gay sex and one night stands (all available on HBO and even on TBS with reruns of Sex and the City) are okay for entertainment. We get this sneak peek into the exciting, titillating (had to use this word) sex lives of these people (who aren’t really gay). It might even make some people feel better about their political correctness, kind of like when people say, “Yeah, there’s this black guy at work that I talk to when we’re in the elevator.”

Then, we have the real world where people who ARE really gay want to commit to marriage vows can’t because some people think that a gay marriage will destroy the whole concept of man-woman marriage. If people aren’t gay, then they don’t have to be bothered by gay marriage. Hey , they could even respect it for what it is, two people in love who want to be together with benefits. People get married for such different reasons, like money, for the sake of children, pressure from family (like a shot gun in the back, you know), for prestige, and for health insurance. Okay, and these reasons make marriage between a man and a woman sacred? More sacred than the true love and commitment between two woman? Hmmm. Does not compute.

Well, the whole deal of calling homosexuality a sin is a slippery slope, and the whole problem lies in trying to moralize according to fundie faith in a country with religious freedom. There’s your slope, people. And, we will never be able to climb the slope (with all people reaching the idea that either side is right). There will always be tricky spots according to someone else’s faith. One way to make this slope disappear is to take away religious freedom and make everything else punishable. No gays. No multiple partners. No Muslims. No more good TV. No more privacy. And, nobody to question authority.

Wait a minute. I saw that movie!!!!

The other way to make the slope disappear is to see everyone as people and to leave acting like God to God.

Tennessee and "Choose Life"--Step up to the plates

2006-03-17T12:31:00.000-06:00

Another dose of certain people in certain state governments pushing their personal, faith-based agenda. Tennessee allows pro-life plates only and puts church before state.

You can make the laws, state governments, and we abide by them. Overall, you represent us--ALL of us, and not just one faction of society. And, you, state governments, are obligated to follow constitutional law, first and foremost. Allowing state license plates with the message “Choose Life” and not allowing any other views is not legal, and it sends the message that the state is willing to override the separation of church and state. Sorry, I had to use that phrase, but we have it for a reason.

Oops, Tennessee, you messed up. Well, you can fix it. And, until it is legal for states to support only one side of faith-based issues, then you better step up and right your wrong. Take back the plates or allow every other view to be represented.

Grand Old Party--It's Party Time!

2006-03-17T07:57:00.001-06:00

The latest news over the GOP (and, really, why do they get such a title?) is that they are mad at Bush.

According to Jim VandeHei, of the Washington Post, "For years, the Bush White House and its allies on Capitol Hill seemed like one of the most unified teams Washington had ever seen, passing most of Bush's agenda with little dissent. Privately, however, many lawmakers felt underappreciated, ignored and sometimes bullied [the red is mine to point out this really good part] by what they regarded as a White House intent on running government with little input from them. Often it was to pass items -- an expanded federal role in education under the No Child Left Behind law and an expensive prescription drug benefit under Medicare -- that left conservatives deeply uneasy."

Welcome to the REAL club, you grand boys and girls. Bush is a meany, a bully. Just like that bully you remember from the play ground, he has an innate ability to find and exploit people's weaknesses (he knows that Republicans want to stick together and make a front). He also knows how to befriend people and then stab them in the back and make it seem like their own fault. Finally, he has his "pack," the loyalists who follow him anywhere and do his bidding. Now, how many people has he abandoned and turned on in his need to save his own skin? Many, many.

Bush is NOT a good republican, no matter what he and his buddies try to tell you. He does not care about small government--look at how many fingers he has in how many pies (No Child Left Behind, Dubai ports, etc). He is not at all fiscally conservative--how much are we in debt? He is a business man who is looking out for himself and for his buddies (DeLay, Cheney, etc) with tax cuts for the wealthy. And, he treats EVERYONE like they are too stupid to see what he's doing. This is NOT a rant, and the part about him treating people like idiots is very true. Listen to his tone, his repetition, his lack of background knowledge when he begins his latest campaign.

Jim VandeHei quotes a republican recently awakened to Bush's bully ways, " 'Members felt they were willing to take a lot of tough votes and did not get much in return,' said Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.), an early critic of the port deal."

That's right. And, here is lesson number two, GOP (lesson one was that Bush is a bully and a bad republican), when you are an elected official, it is not a game of tradeoffs you are playing. When you run the government according to favors, you are wrong and of course it isn't fair; it's not fair to the US American people who have to live with it. So, lesson number two. Go to your constituents and find out how to vote. Talk to them and ask questions, let them know you ACTAULLY represent the people who voted you into office. THAT is who you vote for; you should not be voting in exchange for political favor or favors.

Lesson three. Get back to those wonderful republican ideals. Uphold them, especially the fiscal conservatism. We ALL need you to come back and help balance the government. Just as you count on the democrats to shake things up and bring in new ideas, they count on you to bring in the wise counsel about the costs and the change to tradition. (I'm NOT being sarcastic here, people. I love republicans, the real ones). Just like we need the Supreme Court to balance out issues and let us know we are, indeed, following the constitution, we need the bicameral system to balance out each other and double check the evidence before something is made into a law. Yes, there is debate, and that is how it should be. But, the thing is that we are missing one third of the debate lately. The president is doing HIS business, and he's avoiding the checks and balances of the Supreme Court, the Congress, and most importantly, from his party. He has let all of us down, and we need to be reminded that republicans are not selfish people.

Almost finished. Lesson Four. Being registered "republican" does not mean you have to vote like other republicans. Here's an analogy to show my point. Lemmings, cliffs, crashing surf, certain death, following the others--bad idea.

We need to see some republicans who DON'T need to be hand-held by Bush. We need to see that they can stand alone on issues according to what they think is RIGHT, according to the people they represent and their values (in that order). We need to see that republicans are honest and that their party membership is a benefit, not an albatross or a pair of cement shoes. We need to see that republicans care about people--all people--and that they will not force their faith or their personal beliefs on the people. Take back your party and make it stronger. Find a candidate who can stand up for those classic republican ideals, and I might even vote for her or for him.

Another Pat on the back for Muslims (and anyone else he doesn't like)

2006-03-14T10:46:00.000-06:00

Pat Robertson strikes again. Yet again, a man who prclaims to be a minister of Christ twists news and commentary into hatred. According to Robertson, radical Muslims are evil, satanists. This is in regard to the cartoon dissent and violence, and the idea that Muslims want to take over and/or destroy the world. In his position, Robertson COULD have criticized the violence and could have promoted more peaceful resolutions, but instead, he throws out just as much hatred, thoughtless gasoline on the fire by judging an entire group of people by the actions of a few (compare the number of violent protestors to the number of Muslims world-wide).

Though I am a bit distant from my Sunday school days and beleifs, I have a warm feeling about something the pastor said during one of those children's sermons.

He said, "God is love. He loves us, and he wants us to love everyone, including people we don't get along with. It's okay to love people who aren't Lutheran or even Christian. We are all God's children in his eyes, made in his image." Then, the congregation sang the song, "They will know we are Christians by our love."

This sounds really cheesy, I know, but this message has really stuck with me. Though I no longer attend church and tend to have my own version of spirituality (other than organized religion), I have respected many, many Christians (like many people in the Christian Peacemakers Teams who go to Iraq, etc) for their ACTIONS. This kind of Christian need not proselytize or threaten people with hell and damnation if they don't convert. Some of these Christians are even OKAY with not converting those they work with or help. This is because they get the idea that we are all people here, we are all loved by God, AND we need to work together and love each other. They do NOT betray Christianity or even organized religion; in fact, they step above the political finger pointing and damnation agenda manuvers, and they get to the heart of the idea that God IS LOVE. They ACT like it.

Pat, do some more thinking, critical thinking, before you blab this kind of hate. Hire someone to clamp a hand over your mouth so we don't have to hear this kind of talk or see your actions for what they are. Get past the old testament fire and brimstone, tough God stuff. Move into the new, "love one another" testament. If you really want to call yourself a Christian, ACT LIKE IT and show the world some love.

Smiley Picture Iraqi Civil War?

2006-03-10T15:08:00.000-06:00

Here we go again. Can you see another inquiry, another commission, another giant report, more inadequate apologies to the world, and more dislike for the US? When we've already seen the backlash for no WMD in Iraq, for the 9/11 commission and report, for the federal government "forgetting" to budget the promised money for Afghanistan, for Paul Bremer screwing it up in Iraq, for Hurricane Katrina response, for the general state of New Orleans and surrounding areas--the poverty and the racial inequalities, for the VP shooting a guy and not fessing up, for the electronic spying, etc, etc. Hey, even going back an administration, people, duh, you can't even get away with getting a BJ. What makes them think they can lie about this not being a civil war, at the least the beginnings of a civil war?

"It is not a great smiley picture nor is it a disaster," Pace[Peter Pace, Marine General, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff] said. "What is [sic] it is a very tough environment that still has a lot of work to be done but one in which we're making very, very good progress."("Top general touts progress in Iraq, disputes assessments on civil war" Kuhnhenn and Youssef).

Yikes, these people are even sounding alike. How many times have we heard this line from Bush in regard to Iraq "It's tough. Really tough." The kindergarten-speak and the reliance on simple-minded acceptance of whatever they tell us is showing here, and it needs to show us how very disrespectful and manipulative some of these elected officials and cronies can be. In political school, do they teach these people that people in the US are dumb? That we watch so much TV and believe in cartoons that we will believe anything if we hear it enough? This is how I feel, and more than anything, I feel shamed that I get treated this way. How many people have been killed, and this man has the gall to say "it's not a great smiley picture?" Lay off the emoticons and get real, General Pace.

Right now, you (and anyone else who tries to sweep this under the carpet with head-patting and platitudes: "It's okay, go back to watching "Desperate Housewives") are under scrutiny, and you deserve every minute of it. Iraq is on the verge of civil war or already there. Say it and start taking action. Let's, FOR ONCE, speak the truth, because, unfortunately, you speak for us, and make some realistic plans. We went to war (both Afghanistan AND Iraq) without a cogent plan (reasons aside for now) or even a few back up plans, and that showed a lack of concern, maturity, and responsibility. It also proved a point that many have leveled on the US--they are out for their own benefit, and they will take down anyone who gets in the way. Okay, it's passed, and let's not do the same kind of mistake. Call it a civil war and call in the experts, the people who know how to budget, to make plans, to consider the people at risk, to consider the options, and to make back up plans. A hint, they probably didn't go to political school.

Sex Allowance, the new kind of Utah Jazz

2006-03-10T09:07:00.000-06:00

Remember growing up and hitting your brother on the back of the head, practicing your cursing by calling him every bad word, and dipping his toothbrush in the loo? Then again, remember wanting to beat up anyone who bad mouthed your brother? Sticking up for this kid you normally thought was a jerk? This strange kind of pull in two directions is how I feel about "Americans [US Americans] are puritanical about sex."

Sure, I know this is true, and I can say it and do. I abhor abstinence-only sex education, and especially the type I got, which was limited to horrid videos about painful births. That's right. We watched a video with about three different women pushing, grunting, and ripping themselves open. Let's just say that most people felt like puking. Sex was villified. I resent that. I resent not being talked to as a young adult, one who COULD make informed decisions and who COULD be trusted to learn without the information being dumbed down, left out, or biased by paranoid school board members (we actually had a school board member say that there were no gay or homeless people in our city or nearly 100,000 in So. CA. Does this get across the idea of the ignorance?). Back to my point. I KNOW that people in the US have weird perceptions of sex, the angel or whore complex, rape fanatasies, fear of saying the words penis and vagina, to the point of using baby names to describe their "privates." I know this, and I hate it.

Now, I REALLY hate it when people from outside the US say this kind of thing. My defenses go up, and I can overlook my own criticisms. I know this is silly, but that's just it. "Those Americans with sticks up their asses." "People in the US can't appreciate the fact that people are sexual beings, that bodies don't need to be covered up." "Prudes." "Puritans." These comments make me see red. These are generalizations. Not ALL US Americans [and us the term correctly, people] are prudish, backwater dumbies. I'm sure that the Brits (with the famous "Close your eyes and think of England) suffer from similar anger over the generalization that they all have bad teeth and have sex with their flannel nighties buttoned up to the neck.

Now, this latest buzz about the Utah Jazz player who got the "okay, go get 'um, Tiger" from his wife is a prime example. Right away, we start to hear about how open and non-puritanical these people are because they come from Russia, where people are more open about sexuality.
Whatever. I just don't see this permission to have an affair as being very enlightened (or very unique), for a number of logical reasons.

So, he can have sex with the groupies, just once a season and with his wife's okay (does she get to pick out the groupie from a line up?). How safe is this? Where is the stipulation about STI screening, protection against pregnancy, and what about the emotional aspects?
This sends a message that there are women out there who can be used for sex, just so that this woman can feel like maybe her husband won't stray if he gets a quickie with another woman once a season. So, what about this other woman? What does she get out of this? What about her as an individual?
Didn't these people see the movie "An Indecent Proposal"? Okay, a reference to pop culture may not seem logical, but just about every woman I talked to, after seeing this movie, said that she didn't think her marriage would survive that kind of affair, from either person, and that even with the other person knowing, it would put up these emotional barriers, jealousies, and hurts. There would be comparisons, from both parties, and the fear that maybe the person would continue with the affair, without permission.
Open marriages. This is not something new, and the Russians did not invent it. Neither did the Europeans or the US Americans.
We got very little information about the "talks" this couple had about this offer. They have discussed things, but we have only little snippets, out of context and much edited. I DON'T WANT TO HAVE THE DETAILS. Thanks, no, but I am just making the point that people are going off on how understanding and open this woman is, how realistic and how giving. Well, I can imagine that we don't have the whole story.
Um, does SHE get to step out once a year? Is that part of the deal? Because, if not, I don't see how this is having parity. This seems more like something someone would do out of desperation to keep ahold of a wanderer. "
Sex is NOT like pizza, and the comparison just does not work, especially in reference to denying pizza to children. Okay, maybe a ten year-old cannot stop the craving for pizza and might bust into a parlor in desperation for the cheesy temptation. But, I'm sorry, a healthy, grown man has the ability to reason that giving in to temptation will have consequences. This kind of man can control his lust. And, her comparison shows her husband in a not so positive light. Can't he control himself?
Okay, since some people are calling it an "allowance," maybe there is a weird mother-child relationship between them. When he's good and does his chores, he gets to have a girl? EEeeewwww.
Finally, WHY DO WE EVEN KNOW ABOUT THIS? TMI. This is between them, right? So, unless he has take out an ad in the Salt Lake City Tribune, who blabbed about this little "deal"? Was this locker room boasting? Was it leaked to the press for publicity? Did they have one of their "sex talks" in a local restaurant (because they are so cool and open about sex)?

Howdy, Partner. What do you call your lover?

2006-03-09T14:16:00.000-06:00

Last week, when introducing A---- to a group of academic colleagues, I floundered over what to call him. With this crowd, saying partner would have been perfectly acceptable, as would have been S.O. or even boyfriend, though some may have cringed at that (including me). So, I said to the group, “This is A----.” And, I left it at that, thinking they would figure it out.

Ten minutes later, the woman next to me asked, “So, who is this man?” and I told her that he is my partner, and she understood and laughed at me (not in a mean spirited way).

Introducing a “Boyfriend” has been a dilemma for me forever, well, since I’ve had “grown up” relationships with people. In this case, A---- is very tall and looks nothing like a “Boy,” which is one of the reasons why I find him attractive and love him. Even as a teen, I never went for the boys who couldn’t grow facial hair. I like men. And, since I am particularly close to this particular man, I CANNOT call him my “Boyfriend.” We are friendly, sure, but we are much more than that. And, despite the fact that I am slightly older, we are both over thirty, for goodness sake. Likewise, I abhor being labeled as a “Girlfriend.”

Back to my social gaffe, I’ve had difficulty because of the MANY connotations of all of the acceptable and even unacceptable names we give our “Special Friends.” One time I heard my aunt introduce him to someone as my “Special Friend,” and that person immediately turned to stare at poor A----. I’m assuming she thought he must have a disability, and she was checking him out to see what it could be as it wasn’t very obvious. My second cousin, who happens to be gay, also has a “Special Friend,” so there are several connotations to this moniker. When I hear relatives say this, I always insert the question, “What is her name? She’s such a nice person,” just to get across the idea that she has an identity beyond her gayness, but I think that is another story.

Once, when a student asked me where I went on vacation, I said, “My partner and I went to Chicago.” And, I could almost hear her mind working over whether or not I am gay. I’m not. And, I know that some people LIKE to use the ambiguous term “Partner” to cause confusion (people get their kicks in different ways) and to subvert sexist language and homophobia. I get it, but I don’t really want to do this. I’m not gay, and I feel no need to hint that I might be.

Another problem I have with the appellation “Partner” is that I sometimes feel like a cowboy when I say it. Once, on accident, I even used a twang when I said it, and so people probably thought I am a gay person into cowboy role-playing, since I am certainly not from Texas. I have been know to joke with greet A---- with “Howdy, partner,” just because it IS funny. But, in seriousness, this is another titleI have trouble saying.

“Significant Other” seems like a Spockism (the Vulcan from Star Trek). It is just too logical to convey the meaning I need. And, the term “Other” is such a buzz word in feminist, etc, theory. The attempt to make the title less cold and Vulcan-like, with the abbreviation S.O., is equally uninformative. WHY is this person significant? HOW significant? When a person says “husband” or “buddy,” we can get an idea about the relationship, but significant? It seems like the person is just trying, again, to subvert the language (this can be a worthy cause, but sometimes, I just want to say something that people will understand).

Now, I’ve toyed with the sobriquet “Lover,” but that is TMI for my taste. People have such dirty minds (and, really, we are lovers), but they don’t get the romance of this word. They just think—sex—which it is about sex but much more, too. I just want to tell people something with reference to A----, and I don't need to picture us doing it.

For the heck of it, I looked up “boyfriend,” “man,” and “lover” and here are some other choices: admirer, angel, armpiece, baby, beau, beefcake, beloved, blade, bloke, buster, chap, companion, courter, crush, daddy, darling, date, dear, dearest, dear one, doll, dude, escort, fellow, fiancé, flame, follower, gent, gentleman caller, gentleman friend, guy, heartbeat, heartthrob, honey, honeybunch, hunk, idol, idolizer, inamorato, love, loved one, lover, lord, main man, man, master, mister, number one, numero uno, old man, paramour, passion, pet, prize, rave, Romeo, spark, squeeze, squire, steady, stud, sugar, sugar daddy, suitor, suppliant, swain, sweet, sweetheart, sweetie, sweetie pie, tootsie, treasure, truelove, turtledove, valentine, wooer, young man

I must say that some of these would be fun to throw around and see reactions, including A----'s.

“How do you do? I’d like to introduce you to my idolizer and supplicant” or “Here is A----, my armpiece sugar daddy, beefcake, stud. He’s a nice chap of a fellow, a real Romeo and a prize bloke.” If we go out for Italian food, and I need to order for A----, I can say, “My numero uno inamorato will have the lasagna.” If I’m feeling especially loving in February, I could call him, “My valentine, heartthrob, passion pet.”

The “Lord” and “Master” thing just couldn’t work for me, and I know A---- would puke if I called him a “Tootsie” or “Turtledove."

Sushi--Does not equal Russian Roulette

2006-03-07T07:52:00.000-06:00

Sushi lovers, don't despair. The latest scare tactic is just that--you can still eat your sushi.

While drinking my morning coffee, I read on msn "Skip the Sushi--It might be bad for you" and my heart plummeted. As I kept reading, though, I realized that this is yet another scare--like eggs are bad for us, food coloring is bad, no, wait, eggs ARE good for us, but the special eggs that come in what look like cream containers are even better (and more expensive) for us. Some scientist does some kind of small test, usually on a poor defenseless mouse and then has this revelation about how this type of food or material will cause cancer, deformity in unborn children, or whatever else they can think.

Now, some of these findings have been legit--like aluminum coated pots and pans can lead to Alzheimer’s. But, then, we have that other scare--the wax from milk cartons, you know, the ones we all drank out of every day for 12 years. It causes cancer, but usually only if the person ingests SOOOO much of the waxy material and for so many years. Maybe some people were more into their milk than I was; I usually stopped and tossed the container when the milk was gone. Never, not once, did I scrape the wax off and eat it. Anyway, my thought was thanks for the warning, but really, do this kind of test BEFORE we have already ingested this stuff, and then, put a nice little label on the side of the carton showing the dead lab mouse and the explanation that this poor mouse was shot up with the equivalent of 80 cartons worth of wax.

Okay, a warning about the possible dangers of high mercury in the TUNA would be appropriate for sushi lovers or even those who are giving sushi a try. A warning would let people know that they should have better variety in their sushi selections--not all tuna. That is pretty easy to do (if you are uninitiated to the world of sushi and still think it is all raw fish and gross). The variety of sushi is great, and one need not gorge on tuna. There is salmon, shrimp (cooked even), mackerel (which is fish that got the idea of sushi going in Japan), red snapper, halibut, eel, octopus, crab (usually cooked as well or that fake stuff made out of white fish), lobster, abalone, fish roe, scallops (just to name a few). And, this is if you want some kind of fish.

If one wants to stay away from fish altogether, that is an option. One can have an omelet, cucumber, avocado, carrots, diakon (radish), asparagus, and I've even seen broccoli. Oh, and, correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that sushi can even be vegan--nori (seaweed), rice, vinegar mixture, and veggies. Um, sounds like a salad to me and not really a danger.

The msn article quotes a representative from gotmercury.org, a part of California-based Sea Turtle Restoration Project, Eli Saddler: “Eating sushi has become the new Russian roulette.” Excuse me, I don't see any bullets in a veggie maki roll or even one loaded up with shrimp and eel. This statement is much too vague and broad to carry merit. I'm unsure if it is Reuters (from whom msn acquired the article) taking Saddler's warning out of context or if it is Saddler himself who needs to qualify this statement, but whatever the case, sushi, in and of itself, is NOT dangerous. One might want to watch tuna (or other large, salt water fish) intake to avoid too much mercury, and even the tuna is okay in moderation. People can continue to enjoy their spider rolls without fearing that the crab is leveling a revolver at them as they bring the delectable morsel to their mouths.

Abortion is a Necessary Choice in Our Society

2006-03-02T18:53:00.000-06:00

This subject is fraught with emotion and a complete disregard for rhetorical practices, and it is always full of logical fallacies. There's no way to win the argument of “I’m right.”

Abortion is bad. The whole process is hurtful in a multitude of ways.

When people defend it and fight for the right to have it as a choice, it seems like they are blood thirsty and on the side of the “devil,” whatever anyone’s devil may be. Some of these supporters of abortion as a choice are pretty religious and accept the idea of abortion as something necessary, as a choice. These people are called pro-choice, but that term doesn’t really belong to them; here in the US, we all make choices and have the right to make choices about our health and bodies.

Those who oppose it can claim to be on the side of God or what they call morality. They base their opposition of abortion on their personal, societal moral systems (which often do not match up), and religious foundations. They take the title of pro-life, but that term does not belong to them exclusively, just as not all pro-lifers are Christian or Republican.

Here is the quagmire. The fact is that both sides are right and both sides are wrong, depending on each individual. Both sides can make valid arguments, and both sides can use emotions to distort and hurt the other side. Some rhetoricians claim that we cannot argue faith, that it belongs to each person, and I wonder if that is true. But, then we have this issue of the legality of abortion in our country, and we HAVE to argue it.

In the US, we have freedom to think, feel, speak, worship, and abort. How can we have all of these rights without stepping on toes or disregarding someone else’s beliefs? If people believe that abortion is murder, then we can't tell them not to believe it. It is their right to believe this. And, if others think that abortion is the best choice for them and it is legal, then how can we tell them THEY are wrong?

We have been given the freedom, by our government, and many would say by God, to make choices. Are they "right" choices? Not all of them. People choose to rob banks. They shoot people in fits of passion. People choose to go to college and learn how to be doctors. People choose to have sex. Are there consequences to these choices? Yes, good AND bad. Do we hurt people or even end their lives with these choices? Yes. Can we not make these choices? Sure, but we HAVE to make choices in this world, and we have to base these choices on what we feel is right. It's up to us.

The idea of abortion does not make me feel good, and I don’t know many women (or men, and I must say that there are plenty of men who support abortion) who feel good about the idea of abortions. Moreover, I cannot accept the idea of not having the choice if I am raped (by stranger or relative). And, no matter how much I take care of myself, by not walking down dark alleys or by going out in groups, I could be a victim. The are HUNDREDS and THOUSANDS of these victims. Rape happens.

When someone can promise me (and a lot of other concerned men and women) that there will be no more rape, no more incest, no more sex trafficking, no more drugs that make people so addicted that they sell sex for drugs, no more guilt about having sex or being a sexual being, no more sexual objectification of women, men, or children (porn or car commercials that show a woman’s body), and no more abstinence only sex education that keeps people stupid and in the dark about how to prevent pregnancies (and more), then I need the choice. There needs to be a choice so people can protect themselves. Such a promise of protection would be a lie. No one can make this promise, and changes in sentencing, rehabilitation, or even better education will that kind of hate go away.

Disregard of Women's Legal Rights

2006-03-01T20:43:00.000-06:00

I have amended my title (from "Women Haters") because I want people to better understand my point, rather than get angry about it and not understand. Also, I would like to add a note here. I've read much of the other sides of this issue, and even people on "my side" have different views. In fact, I want to make the point that pro-life and pro-choice are really vague constructs, and I do not want to stand behind either because I am both. My point in this blog was to argue the ideas of putting faith in front of legality and that our culture really pushes horrible images of women and yet expects us all to achieve this ideal of womanhood that is not realistic nor healthy nor in line with our beliefs. Do we want our children to show their naked bodies on TV or to think that sex is bad?

I just want people to read another view. The only way we can come to an understanding of each other--which is important--is to really listen, read, and respond to each other. We can learn from each other.

Here are my points, though I may be preaching to the choir; however, maybe some pro-lifers will read this, too.

Point one--we have freedom of religion. Keep yours to yourself. Yes, it is part of who you are, agreed. No matter who you are, you CANNOT force it on me or make laws that force it on me. Leave religious "rules" out of the secular field. That is the way the country is set up.

My second point is that democracy means making laws according to the people. So, if we all vote to make the USA a country based on a particular faith and the tenants of that faith, THEN religious rules are applicable. And, for those who argue that the Constitution is based on Christianity and the "faith" of the founding fathers, then you need to go back and hit the books. Some of these "fathers" might have been Christians, but they were of many different belief systems. They also agreed on freedom of religion and put that into the document. Yes, they used phrases like "under God," and those are common phrases to use. Basing an argument on the phrase "under God" or what is written on currency is NOT realistically studying constitutional law, and constitutional law is how our system, a democracy, works.

My third point is about this hatred of women that is oh so strong in our culture and is splattered about the news and our televisions. People are taking away women's rights to abortion, but they are not making equal laws to prohibit men from impregnating women. They do not enforce mandatory child support or parenting classes of either parent, and they do not make any laws about the "father" sticking it out with the child. So, the woman is vilified if she seeks to abort, while the male involved is, well, whatever he wants to be. He could be the one who wants the abortion, he could be clueless, he could be an abusive father or other relative/family friend, he could be a rapist, or he could be a complete stranger. The thing he is not is held accountable like the woman. The woman is hated. She is bad if she keeps the child and begins a process of poverty and abuse. She is hated if she sticks it out and raises a child on her own. She is hated if she gives up the child to someone else. She is hated if she has to have a "shotgun wedding" because she and the boyfriend go pregnant. She is hated if she aborts. She is hated for having sex in the first place. Geez, why don't we just all wear burkas so people don't have to see us since even existing is hateful?

Disturbing Issues of Woman Hatred in Our Democracy

First, we have lawmakers in South Dakota who hate women; a man makes a decision to ban abortions (thanks Gov Rounds and cronies). Oh, but if the woman is in danger of dying from a tubal pregnancy or wicked diabetes, they will "let" her have an abortion. Thanks.

Is it just me, or are we in the dark ages again? Back when people didn't wash their hands and threw their waste into the streets and passed around venereal diseases? Are people really, seriously this uneducated and this unforgiving?

We have Roe v. Wade. It is there for a reason. People have sex. Yes, they do. They even enjoy it (a different argument). And, people have had sex and enjoyed it forEVER. There have also been rapes and incest forEVER. And, forEVER, people have made personal choices about their bodies--women and men. When people have sex, they can get pregnant. And, that is their business. It IS. It is a choice (in many cases, but think back to the rape and incest (probably also rape). Why is this a choice? Well, number one, we live in the United States of America, home of the free and brave. We live where we proclaim and boast (to the world, I might add) of our many freedoms. We even try to get other countries to practice democracy (Iraq? Afghanistan?) when we see that repressive regimes take away people's rights.

Are we back to the old idea of "men being created equal"? Is that the problem? Can we not see that women are equal anymore? I thought we did, and I thought that was some of the justification for helping Iraq and Afghanistan with democracy--to help the women who have been objectified and enslaved by religious fanatics, forced to live and breathe according to sadistic laws created by people misusing scripture to keep people down and weak. HELLO! This is what they are doing in South Dakota and in Mississippi.

Second, we have lawmakers in Mississippi who are joining the fight to hate women, especially poor women and their children. And, again, there is no mention of an equal law for the men who impregnate these women. Great work, Steve Holland—a democrat btw. When your state is suffering from the wounds of Katrina, from low quality education and even lower teacher pay, from poverty, and from a backlash of segregation practices, you think you are making strides by legislating hatred of women? Way to help your state. Way to come across as being backward and way to waste taxpayer money with the lawsuits you are inciting because your state can really afford any of this.

My final point about woman hating, though there are so many more to mention. Imette St. Guillen is dead. She was brutalized in every horrible manner because someone hated her. Someone hated her enough to hurt her, make her fight for her life, rape her, mutilate her genitals, chop off her hair, tape her face, and kill her. Someone hated her enough to leave her on a roadside. This person hated her for being a woman. And, the frightening thing is that the minute “certain people” read the article and see that she was out at bars (yes, more than one) until early in the morning, that person will think, “Oh, well, she had it coming to her because women who frequent bars are loose.” That person is also a woman hater. No one has the right to kill, we all know this. Or cut, or rape, or even to hate to the point of violence. No one has that right, but people feel like they have that right. Why? Because there are people who pass laws and who pass judgments on women for having sex, for going to bars, for having children, and for deciding not to have children. When woman hating is all over the media (in all its mediums), it is easy to believe that most people think it is okay.

It is not okay. Imette is dead. Women in South Dakota and Mississippi are having their rights taken away. Women are being hated and hurt and un-equalized.

Oh, yes, and the latest research says that people know more about the Simpsons than the constitution. Yes, it shows.

Censorship

2006-02-19T10:06:00.000-06:00

Censorship is a serious issue, and the term should not be bandied about without just cause and without thinking of the other side.

The former managing editor at France Soir misuses the term censorship, and he does so in an irresponsible way. He claimed to be fighting censorship when he re-printed the infamous cartoons. However, his support is not valid for such a claim, and his support shows that he is not, indeed, fighting censorship but is rather contributing to sensationalism and doing a bit of censorship of his own.

According to the MSNBC article “Editor fired after publication of Islam cartoons,” this editor (not named) wrote: “The best way to fight censorship is not to let it happen…. In these circumstances, that meant publishing these drawings.”

“These circumstances” are not very clear. The Danish paper DID publish the infamous caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad. In point of fact, they WERE published, not censored. I, and I’m sure many others, looked these up online. So, they weren’t censored there. In fact, I found at least five sites the posted these pictures within seconds. I would call these pictures EASILY ACCESSIBLE, not censored.

Did the editor really fight censorship when the information was readily available to anyone with access to the WWW? Did the French, who have been recently blasted about discrimination issues, really need to offend citizens by re-printing these pictures? If the pictures had been suppressed and unavailable, then perhaps his action could be appropriate. However, the pictures were not suppressed. Furthermore, these pictures, which ARE offensive to many people, are not something that we need to see, like perhaps pictures of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq or pictures of the coffins of troops being sent home from Iraq (which HAVE been suppressed).

For those who have protested the pictures, Muslims and anyone else, they are NOT calling for censorship. The pictures HAVE ALREADY BEEN PUBLISHED. Rather, they have tried to explain, to many deaf ears who only hear “CENSORSHIP”, that to make any form of drawing of the Prophet is a form of idolatry and is against their religious convictions. So, not only is it rude to draw these pictures, it shows disrespect for someone’s beliefs. And, certain people in the media continue to show this disrespect, like poking a stick, by re-publishing the pictures so that they won’t be censored. Ironic, since they have been published ALL OVER.

The editor is further quoted in the MSNBC article: “Imagine a society that added up all the prohibitions of different religions. What would remain of the freedom to think, to speak and even to come and go?"

This editor fails to see a major flaw in his reasoning for publishing the cartoons in the name of fighting censorship. Yes, we have a right to the freedom of press and freedom of speech. We have these rights in a democracy so we may take actions to keep our democracy safe and just, as well as to make changes according to our needs. However, we also have freedom of religion. This is NOT freedom to disrespect another’s religion. It means we have a right to worship as we believe and to practice the tenants of that faith without interference from the government or other citizens. No, we should not limit our freedom of speech, but that freedom of speech goes both ways and should not forsake the freedom of religion. So, if “the media” publishes pictures (which were hardly respectful or flattering) that go against someone else’s religious beliefs, then the media should expect this group to raise voices in protest. It’s their right. And, the media has no right to censor their protest and make into something it is not—it is not fundamentalist or in support of terrorism to protest these cartoons.

These protests against the caricaturization of the Prophet could, if the media lets them, be informative. The reasons for protest could be an insight into a faith and a culture. But, when the media or others see this protest as censorship, ironically, they do not realize that they disregarding the protesters’ rights and/or are misinterpreting their meanings. When the media does this, they are the ones doing the censoring. Why shouldn’t devote Muslims protest the caricature of the Prophet? If they think it is morally wrong, then why shouldn’t they speak up?

I typed this several weeks ago, and I am sticking with this argument. There are people who are, on both sides, using this issue to fuel several fires, but the initial argument remains. There was not censorship, and people do have to right to protest. I do not, however, condone violence on either side.