7 Quick Things... or Takes... or the Tuesday Seven, whatev.

I'm taking this idea from These Little Moments who, in turn, took it from Not That You Asked (which I think is one of the best blog titles I've ever heard - it's so simple yet SO perfect for nearly any blog - because, really, who's asking?).

7 Quick Things (it's more things than takes today) is perfect for me today because my head is utterly swimming with issues and concerns and preoccupations.  (And now I'm really interested in unpacking the word "preoccupation" - it's a job before a job or something that prevents a job... and my preoccupations prevent my work for sure.  Hm.  But I digress.)

One

My sister's dog died yesterday.  He was a stray that my brother-in-law rescued.  When he found the dog abandoned in a warehouse, he was all dusty so they named him Dusty.  The vet told them he was pretty sure Dusty had been significantly abused as a puppy and his jaw had definitely been broken, so for years they cooked soft foods for him like scrambled eggs and boiled chicken.  With time, he grew stronger and grew to love his daily cookies, even asking for them by saying, "I want one."  I swear, the dog talked.  "I want one" sounded like, "Ah wahn wun."  Honest.  He was sweet and loving, letting all the family kids flop all over him and play with his toys. TJ won't remember him but definitely missed him this morning.  He walked around the house with Dusty's regular morning cooking with his hand on his head, which is his sign for, "Where is it (he)?" We'll miss you Dusty.

Two

I feel unqualified to understand what is going on in Iran.  Yes, there was an election.  Yes, the results seem questionable.  Yes, people are rioting and protesting and lives are being lost.  But I feel like the lies told to the American people over the past decade have made us incapable of addressing this intelligently.  Lumping someone into an Axis of Evil doesn't really lead one to understanding.  All I know is that what is going on there both worries and frightens me and I can only hope that the Obama administration is being seemingly quiet on the issue for a good reason.

Three

Candidate Obama stated he was a "fierce advocate" of gay rights.  Soooo... whattup with that?  Yesterday his administration defended the Defense of Marriage Act.  I do not understand what's going on here and really hope they step up on this very soon, like... oh, well, like immediately.  This action and their general inaction is unacceptable.

Four

I nearly devoured a book last night: Rockabye by Rebecca Woolf of Girls Gone Child.  After one evening of reading, I am on page 177 of 283. (I will be done tonight; I'd be done now if I wouldn't get in trouble for reading at work.)  There will be a longer post about her forthcoming, but long story short: she is my current girl-crush.  Like, if she was in BOP magazine, I'd have her picture all over my wall.  I think she is smart, gutsy, beautiful, stylish, funny, and truly inspirational - but really, more on her to follow.  (I am obsessed!) Have I mentioned that her kids' names are Archer and Fable?  Couldn't you just fall over?  I want to name my daughter Fable.

(BTW - check out her current blog post about gun control and the ensuing comments.  Good for her for standing up for gun control and the idea of keeping violent entertainment out of one's children's lives.  It's a shame that she had to close comments.  She even had to take down her Google ads because the posts caused them to switch to ads about guns and gun lessons.)

Five

I wish the ASPCA and State Farm weren't so adept at creating commercials that make me cry.  The woman who lost her home to a storm?  Crying.  The disheveled shih-tzu?  Crying.  They get me every time.

Six

Stuff about my job is going to change and I'm looking forward to it.  That's all I can say about that, though.  I'm not changing jobs, really - just the focus will be shifting and it's a positive move.  That's always a good thing.

Seven

I have a pear and a banana to eat as snacks today.  This makes me happy. Over and out.

Did someone reprogram Dick Cheney?

First, he states that he support gay marriage, but that it's a state-by-state issue, not a federal issue.  (Well, okay, you can't have everything.  I still think relationships should be federally recognized, but I'll take this for now.) Next, he admits that Iraq was not linked to the September 11 attacks. Things happen in threes; that's two.  What's next?  (And, seriously, what happened to him in the last 24-48 hours?  Did someone set his pacemaker to "reasonable human being"?)

I can't believe I approve of something Sarah Palin said.

In response to the murder of abortion provider Dr. George Tiller, Sarah Palin has issued a statement: "I feel sorrow for the Tiller family. I respect the sanctity of life and the tragedy that took place today in Kansas clearly violates respect for life. This murder also damages the positive message of life, for the unborn, and for those living. Ask yourself, 'What will those who have not yet decided personally where they stand on this issue take away from today's event in Kansas?' Regardless of my strong objection to Dr. Tiller's abortion practices, violence is never an answer in advancing the pro-life message."

Considering I read other responses this morning that stated that this action was fine by the "Law of God", I'm really relieved that Governor Palin has the good sense to denounce this horrific act. As far as I've read so far, Bill O'Reilly has not yet responded.  He has been on a personal crusade against Dr. Tiller for years, calling him a murderer and "Tiller the baby killer" as well as many other horrible things. 

When are people going to realize that this crazy, raising hell sort of faux-journalism only leads to trouble and is really out of hand.  I'm interested to see what O'Reilly's response to this will be.  Will he be reasonable and say directly to his listeners that violence is NEVER the answer and that in no way should his entertainment news show be taken as instructions to commit violence?  Or will he say that his free speech rights are being threatened because he called out the doctor as he saw him to be?  Let's hope it's the former, but I'm not really hopeful.

I'm getting to a point where I really don't want to live in the country that is producing and spewing all this hatred and hate-speech.  I really need to see a turnaround.  I need to see the reasonable, intelligent people stand up and be counted.  We can agree to disagree - that's fine.  I don't need everyone to be pro-choice.  What I do need is for everyone to stop trying to impose their personal and religious beliefs on others and remember that this is a country where we support each other and applaud hard work and value a diversity of experiences and beliefs.

Flame... Flames... on the sides of my face...

Any Clue fans?  Full disclosure: I can quote the whole movie... in Cantonese.  Okay, kidding... about the Cantonese, that is.  If we watch the movie together, I will try not to quote the whole thing as it plays, I promise.

As I sit here watching and reading lots of news clips, I can only wonder why it is that EVERY SINGLE PERSON I see criticizing Sonia Sotomayor is a white man? I can't even bring myself to calm down enough to adequately address the language being used in reference to her.  It is so extremely gender and race biased that it makes me sick. 

G. Gordon Liddy saying that he hopes she doesn't have to make decisions when she's menstruating and referring to the language of Spanish as speaking "illegal alien"???  What about Glen Beck calling her "Hispanic chick lady"?  Several intimating that she only got in to Princeton because of affirmative action.  (Oh, yes, and George W. Bush got into Yale based on his stellar academics.  She won the top prize when she graduated.  What did Bushie win?  Nada - we all lost.) 

And so what that all of the judges on Obama's short list were women?  Guess what - the bench needs one.  I'm sorry old white men, but your time is up.  Time to learn how to share. In reference to the recent Prop 8 decision, my brother said that decades from now scholars are going to look back on this time period - our time period - and view it the same way that we view segregation and the ban on interracial marriages.  I'm hopeful that his guess of "decades from now" is correct because I really fear that it's going to take longer than that.  Better yet, though, I hope it happens even sooner than that.  I'm not sure how long I can bear to live in a state of constant frustration at the intolerance of my fellow citizens.

5 thoughts (plus) on Jesus Camp

Last night I went home with the full intention of sitting on the sofa and reading some of The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time, but then I remembered that I Tivo'd the film Jesus Camp a couple of days ago.  The hubby wasn't going to be home until after 9pm, so this was a perfect time to settle in and watch it.  So I do not prattle on and on about this film, I am forcing myself to make five (5) succinct(ish) points.  (And then will probably prattle on following my main points.)

First, a brief synopsis of the documentary if you are not already familiar with it (source: IMDB):  Jesus Camp follows several young children as they prepare to attend a summer camp where the kids will get their daily dose of evangelical Christianity. Through interviews with camp staff, the children, and others, Jesus Camp illustrates the unswerving belief of the faithful.

1) The film runs less than an hour and a half but it felt like it was four hours along.  I was amazed that it was still light outside when I was done watching it.  This is due to the very honest and neutral way that the filmmakers present their subjects.  If you do not subscribe to this belief system, it is quite awkward to watch for an extended period of time and I can understand why several reviewers said they had to try hard not to walk out of the theater while watching it.

2) I made the conscious decision to not automatically judge the film's subjects.  I do believe "to each their own" even though I have seriously strong objections to a lot of what is said and occurs during the film.  I am related to some people who consider themselves born-again Christians and my grandmother is a Jehovah's Witness, so I am used to hearing views that do not match my own.  However, I am grateful that no one in my life is as involved in this sort of church life as the documentary participants.

3) My forced patience with the film did lead me to some increased understanding.  As someone who is strongly, vehemently pro-choice, I have a very difficult time understanding part of the pro-life argument.  I understand the part about thinking abortion is wrong (see: to each their own).  However, the part I have never understood is why some people think it's their business to stop anyone else's abortion.  In this film, the participants talk about how God has a plan for each person from the moment of conception.  That, for me, was like a big "Oh, duh!" moment.  If you think about God as having a plan for each and every life from the moment of conception, well then clearly you are going to be even more vehemently pro-life than I am pro-choice.  In no way do I agree with the "there's a plan for everyone from the moment of conception" idea, but it has really helped me understand where the pro-life folks are coming from.

4) That said, that was the only useful piece of understanding I gained from the film.  Beyond that, I still just do not comprehend much of this lifestyle and belief system.  I don't understand why they see themselves as warriers in a worldwide holy war.  I believe that religion and faith is personal and that if you wish to congregate with others who share your beliefs, that's wonderful.  However, I do NOT agree that you should take it upon yourself as a god-given mission to convert those that do not believe as you do, especially if they have been exposed to Christianity their whole lives, as most Americans have.  I recognize that wanting people to agree with me on this could be construed as trying to convert their thinking to mine, but is wanting everyone's faith to be respected really a radical point of view?  (See: to each their own.) Note: I do not believe that just because I don't understand the lifestyle and beliefs that they shouldn't exist; I'm just stating that I do not comprehend it all.  (Again, see: to each their own.)

5) To end, the film left me really troubled, almost in a way that is still too complicated for me to parse, even the next day.  While the scenes about abortion did lead to some new understanding, I find it quite troubling that they are discussing this with children.  I do not believe children need to know what abortion is and that there's even a battle over it.  That is not a part of childhood.  Then to have them whipped up into a frenzy, screaming "Righteous judges!  Righteous judges!" in the prayer that God will lead then-president George W. Bush to appointing judges that will overturn Roe v. Wade - I find that incredibly inappropriate.  I don't even want adults praying for that, much less children.  The utter denial of the separation of church and state among the subjects was, at best, disheartening and, at worst, terrifying. I believe that conservative politicians saw this group as a potential voting bloc if they hooked them correctly and have worked to do so without fully considering the long-term ramifications. The level to which church and state now mix, or a group of people want it to mix, is extremely troubling.  We should no longer even be discussing the idea of creationism in a public school and yet it comes up over and over again. If you want your children to learn creationism, send them to Sunday School and/or parochial school.

I do not believe there should be prayer in school.  If you want to pray in school, you can easily find the time.  (Who didn't mutter a few, "Oh please, God, please" right before some tests in high school?) I do not believe your Bible belongs in my bedroom or my doctor's office. I believe marriage is a religious institution for you and you only if you so desire. This is the house of to each their own.

A question of marriages - gay, televised, and otherwise.

Recently I wrote about both gay marriage and Jon & Kate Plus 8.  Today I find myself thinking about both topics again as the Jon & Kate season premiere aired last night and then, today, the California Supreme Court announced it will uphold Proposition 8, banning gay marriage, but - but - upholding the gay marriages that took place before Prop 8.

Where to begin, right?

How about we start with John Tomicki of the New Jersey Coalition to Preserve and Protect Marriage, who stated that since NJ gay couples already have civil unions with all of the benefits, protections, and responsibilities of marriage, there's no need to change the terminology from civil union to marriage "other than to change the 'traditional' meaning of the term" (Fuchs, NJ.com).  If it's all the same, then why does the title matter to you?  And why is your organization's goal to "preserve and protect" marriage?  Would you like an arranged marriage?  Or perhaps you would like your wife to stay home, you know, as women should.  I hope she's not a high earner who is providing a significant portion of your household income.  And how about that dowry you paid to her father when you asked him for her hand in marriage?  How did that go?  Oh, oops, you didn't pay one?  If you're on board to preserve and protect marriage, you better be ready to have someone else define marriage for you.  Why do you get to define which stage of marriage gets protected and preserved?  I hope no one against gay marriage is in a biracial or multicultural marriage; you might just find yourself in the same place as the upheld gay marriages in CA today.

How do we get to Jon & Kate from here?  Well, it's clear to me that this is a specific marriage that needs protection and preservation.  Yes, when you sign up for a reality show, you invite a bit of speculation into your life.  But what I do not understand is how it remains legal for adult photographers (i.e. the dreaded paparazzi) to pursue, follow, and film children.  Wouldn't that get them questioned about child porn in some places?  And, to me, I do not understand how this "profession" is allowed to exist.  It clearly seems like harassment and I do not understand why there are no laws in the pipeline aiming to curb this (if there are and you are aware of this, please feel free to comment and correct my assumption).

The Jon & Kate Plus 8 season premiere made me remarkably sad.  As I stated previously, the hubby believed that the whole situation was probably made to look worse than it was and the episode would show that it's not as bad as the commercials were "dramatizing" it to be.  However, his silence and focused concentration during last night's premiere makes me think that he agrees that he was proven incorrect.  Jon and Kate seem to be barely speaking to each other and seem to not spend a lot of time together at home (or even in the same house together). 

Significantly, they both seem to be struggling with the care that eight children require.  Jon resents being left home with them while Kate goes on her book tour.  However, Kate took care of the kids by herself (well, with some help) for years while he worked (and he did state that he has help).  Kate then goes on to bemoan over and over (and over) how she has to plan the sextuplets' birthday party by herself.  Do you want an award for this?  Plenty of parents, both single and married, plan children's birthday parties by themselves.  You are not writing The Great American Novel or planning a Presidential Inaugural dinner.  This is a party, in a park, with cake and pinatas, for a group of five year olds.  Get a friggin' grip.

I believe they are both steeped in a lot of anger, but also a lot of fear.  I do not believe that either one of them has checked out of the marriage, as some people have intimated (specifically of Jon).  I believe they are both scared of feeling that possibility, especially in each other.  It seemed to me like neither one wanted to step up and admit that they might possibly want to work on their marriage.  Kate said this a bit, but more in the "I've done all I can and I'm now spent" kind of way - not in the "I'll go down fighting" kind of way.  They saved all of that for their kids, which is somewhat fair, but I really hope they take a step back and work on the marriage.

The fact that the downfall of their marriage is being pitched as entertainment disgusts me, as does the CA Supreme Court's decision today.  I don't believe that marriage is for everyone or every relationship, but I have found a lot of comfort in the support and security mine offers me.  I only wish that everyone else has the same opportunity if they want it and that, if they do so sign up, that they can endure marriage's ups and downs without a slew of photographers or hate speech following them.

Gay marriage and beyond?

I work a later shift today, so I had some time this morning to read emails and watch a little TV before heading to work.  I watched a little of the Today show, but then they were heading into the dreaded fourth hour with Hoda and Kathie Lee, so I very quickly switched over to Tyra. She was doing a show about LGBT issues.  Since I only got to watch about five minutes of it, I don't know what issues she went in to, but what I did get to see was that she divided up her audience by sexual orientation.  Each audience member was wearing a shirt that said "straight" "gay" or "?". 

Question mark?  Seriously?  For a show that's supposed to be enlightened, that's just wrong. Then Tyra launched into a montage that compared the gay rights movement to the civil rights movement, which I feel is an accurate comparison (although I've seen plenty of angry arguments stating that it's not).  You don't choose to be gay just as much as you don't choose to be black.  Both groups have a history of high imprisonment, prejudice, and persecution.  And, of course, there is the joint issue of marriage. I know that in some parts of the country or in some circles, biracial marriage still receives looks and comments and even hate mail (ask Taye Diggs and Idina Menzel, sadly). 

However, in my experience, it is not much of an issue but I have run into prejudice in my own family.  I once had a boyfriend who was Indian and dark-skinned and I was thinking about bringing him to a family wedding.  When I mentioned this to a family member, they said, "Okay, but everyone is going to think he's black"  as if that statement alone explains everything.  So what if they think he's black?  Oh no, wait, so what if he IS black?  It was aggravating and saddening, but it was a number of years ago now and I do believe that there has been progression within my own family.

I am in favor of gay marriage and I believe that most, if not all, of my immediate family is, as well.  My parents are religious and spiritual (there is a difference between the two, but they are both); however, they are also very accepting of "the gay lifestyle", for lack of a better phrase. 

I don't believe marriage is a religious institution and the people who frame it as one are being incredibly historically myopic.  Marriage, if you truly look at it historically, is a financial institution.  Women were property and came with property as well.  Period.  The idea of marrying for love is relatively new in the expanse of human experience (however, with US tax laws and benefits rights, it's also still strongly a financial arrangement).

So, if we are still relatively new in the process of defining marriage as an institution of love, then why are we defining it in terms of who we love?  I did not grow up and choose to be straight.  There was no day where I went, "Yes, I have decided - I shall be attracted to males."  I don't believe being gay is any different.  As my mother says, it's hard to imagine that someone would choose something so societally difficult on purpose. What I am left to wonder, though, is what the next step will be.  No, I do not equate gay marriage with marrying your pets or whatever other cockamamie idea the anti-gay marriage people have come up with.  However, I am personally aware of some three-person relationships.  Often, two of the people are married and the third lives with them as a boyfriend or girlfriend to either one or both of the married persons.  This is not a situation I can picture for myself (I've got my hands full with just a husband, lol) but I've seen enough people truly happy in this situation that I feel that I cannot judge it as wrong for any moral or personal reasons.  As long as all involved adults are happy and satisfied, who am I to butt in?  And, more so, why would I want to?

But what happens when a polyamorous couple, err, group (? we need words for this) wants to get married?  This thought crossed my mind a few days ago and has been dancing around in my head.  I haven't come to any conclusion on it yet.  I do lean towards inclusiveness in life in general but I haven't been able to figure out how this would work legally or socially.  Once gay marriage is more of a norm and allowed through most of the states (which I believe is coming), I think this might be one of our next social issues, although I don't know how much traction it will have since the numbers for this are probably significantly smaller than the ones for those with a stake in gay marriage (not that numbers should matter, but it will regarding press coverage). Sometimes I fear for the open dialogue in this country.  It feels like people just want to shut down ideas and topics they don't like instead of actually discussing them and hoping to learn something or educate someone else.  I hope this feeling passes and that everyone relaxes and has more conversations (instead of shouting matches) going forward.

Being blonde is not the same as being fat

So there's this recent dust-up between Meghan McCain, Ann Coulter, and Laura Ingraham.  Meghan doesn't like Ann so Laura came to Ann's defense and called Meghan "plus sized" (among other things) which is as PC as you can get right now for calling someone fat, still a viable insult in the U.S.  Meghan McCain, by the way, is a size eight and admits that she went up to a size ten during the campaign.  Most women I know would be remarkably happy to be a size eight and I'm glad that Meghan McCain has said she is fine with how she looks.

Ingraham continued:

The left's indignation in this instance is manufactured and totally phony. If any off-the-cuff remark about a woman's size was condemnable, then where was the outrage when President Obama made a passing reference to Jessica Simpson's "weight battle" during his Super Bowl interview with Matt Lauer? And of course they look the other way when obvious personal attacks are levied against conservatives. Remember when Al Franken was the toast of all media for his book "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot"? Last month The View's Joy Behar called him a "fat guy"; and when I was a guest on The View a few years back she ridiculed Ann Coulter and me as "peroxide" blondes on Fox.

1. When Obama made that remark, he was commenting on the gossip magazines making a big issue out of how Simpson's high-waisted jeans looked on her, NOT on her alleged weight gain itself.  It's called metacommentary, sweetie; you might want to know that.

2. Rush Limbaugh IS FAT.  He IS.  Whether or not he's an idiot, each of you can believe what you wish, but you can't deny he's fat.  You also can't deny that it's entirely different for a woman to be fat in this country than it is for a man to be fat.  Did you see any women of Limbaugh's size speaking at CPAC recently?  No.  Is it a coincidence that both Coulter and Ingraham are very thin, blonde women?  I don't think so.  The double standard is alive and well (I won't even get into the comments and coverage of Hilary Clinton; it's too early to boil my blood).

3. Calling you a peroxide blonde is barely an insult.  If anything, I'm insulted that Behar couldn't come up with something cleverer.  Women dye their hair blonde because being blonde is still considered enviable and desirable.  At what point in recent history has being fat been considered enviable and desirable in our society?  Oh, that's right, IT HASN'T.  Being fat is still considered one of the worst things a woman could be.  In nearly any women's magazine survey I've read since I was ten years old, at least 60% of readers would rather [fill in the blank with terrible event like losing life savings or a limb] than gain TEN POUNDS.  That's right, TEN POUNDS is usually the standard bearer for horror.  Ten pounds?  I gain that when I PMS, please.

I am, by far, no expert on the fat acceptance movement.  In fact, I struggle with the idea a great deal.  I can't shake the feeling that my life would be significantly better and I would feel significantly better if I could lose 40-50 pounds.  The thing is, the reason I feel this way is because my life DID feel better and I DID feel better when I was that weight.  So maybe the truth of it is that you really do have to do what feels right for you, within reason.  Maybe someone else would be overjoyed to be my current size.  That's great and I would have absolutely no judgement for them.  I know for a fact that many women would be horrified to be the size that I wish I could be - that, even if they gained the weight while pregnant, they would feel like horrible failures of womanhood because they weighed so much, even though it was all in the service of creating and sustaining life.  Okay, for them I have a little bit of judgment.

But I don't want to concern myself with judging others and their weight battles or issues or concerns.  I don't want to, but I do - it's an endless source of fascination and thought for me, which is probably what happens when you are obese most of your life.

I know what it's like to be the grossly overweight person who gets stared at, pointed at, and called names by strangers.  I know what it's like to be the "acceptably" overweight (but still obese) person who is basically invisible to strangers.  I also know what it's like to be the newly "thin" (i.e. acceptable weight) person who suddenly has doors held open for her and strangers smiling at her and saying hello.  The funny thing is that none of these scenarios is comfortable.  Negative attention, lack of attention, or positive attention that has a painfully clear cause - it's all uncomfortable.  What have we done to women in our society so that they can't just rest in their bodies, no matter what size they are?

I wince and squint when I like

Maybe this is all a part of being a post-Watergate American, but I can't help but think it's uniquely 21st century American: when there's a politician I really, really like, I find myself squinting and wincing when I read things about them, like I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop - like there aren't any clean politicians left.  How many Obama appointees dropped out due to issues over paying their taxes?  Seriously?  Everyone I know pays their taxes (well, okay, I know one woman who didn't file for seven or eight years, but she's an anomaly to me).  In fact, most of us pay our taxes UP FRONT, i.e. in our paychecks, and then get a smidgen of money back the following year.  Meanwhile, the people running the system we pay our taxes to can't get it right?  Either they're dumb (which worries me) or they're liars (equally worrisome).

I have high hopes for Obama, but I just wish people would give him a little breathing room.  The problems in our country are so huge right now; just let the man do his job.  How would you like to start a new job and have everyone on the news commenting on how you hadn't gotten anything done yet, even though you'd only been there for a month and a half?  Most of us would have stress-induced illnesses at that point.

But back to liking politicians.  One person I think is an up-and-coming star is Cory Booker, the mayor of Newark.  He's smart; he's well-spoken; he seems to be very level-headed and bipartisan.  The more I read about him, the more I like him: he went to Stanford and to Yale Law.  He was a Rhodes Scholar, where he became friends with Rachel Maddow (yay!) and Rabbi Schmuley (crazy, but seemingly true).  He's lived in the projects in Newark, so he knows of what he speaks.  When he ran for mayor of Newark in 2002, he was defeated - but he ran again in 2006.  He's a senior fellow at Rutgers (rah rah) and on the Board of Trustees for Teachers College (dream school).  He's a vegetarian (interesting) and totally straight-edge (also interesting).

He's exciting to me the way Obama was when he made his keynote address at the 2004 Democratic convention - when I turned to my dad and said, "I think we just saw the first black president speak."  (I would have never guessed it would be soo soon, though.)  I think Cory Booker has that same level of promise and he certainly seems determined.

Yet... I find myself wincing, waiting for something to go wrong - waiting to hear something terrible about him that will ruin his political career, like he hides thirsty puppies in his closet or has an addiction to scratch-off cards... or any other meaningless (or, worse, meaningful) error or indiscretion on his part that makes him less of a superstar.  I hope I'm not wrong about him.  Very few people are as great as they might initially seem, but I hope he is.